• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
nuclear power
 

nuclear power

on

  • 159 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
159
Views on SlideShare
159
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
31
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Altogether, there are currently…
  • The IAEA results are reinforced by the research of the European Commission on external costs of electricity generation, in its most recent report entitled “External Costs: Research results on socio-environmental damages due to electricity and transport”. This figure, taken from that report, shows nuclear power, wind, and biomass as having comparably low GHG impacts.
  • In the energy business, one size does not fit all. What makes the most sense for you depends partly on what’s sitting on your doorstep – lots of hydropower in Norway or Austria, lots of coal in Germany, lots of wind on the Danish coast, and lots of natural gas off the Dutch coast. What’s best for you also depends on your needs. Europe is affluent with slow population growth compared to South Asia, for example. Europe does not have the same twin pressures of population growth and economic catch-up driving rapid energy demand growth, and it doesn’t have the same needs. What’s right for you also depends partly on your national preferences and priorities as expressed in national politics. We see different preferences on smoking, speed limits, and school curricula. How countries trade off among air pollution, dammed rivers, jobs in the mining industry or in the home insulation industry, the risks of a nuclear accident or gas explosion or oil tanker sinking or coal mining accident, the dependency on foreign fuel supplies, and the benefits of affordable electricity – is at least partly a matter of personal and national preference, and thus an area of legitimate disagreement even if everyone were to agree precisely on all the facts. Finally, energy choices are generally not entirely either-or. All countries use a mix of energy sources, and nearly all countries generate electricity from a mix of technologies. Partly that reflects the march of history, where new technologies replace older ones, but more usually in fits and starts over time, not in one sudden, instantaneous and complete replacement. It reflects the fact that investors disagree about what will prove most profitable, and it reflects the fact that a portfolio of sources reduces risk and vulnerability.
  • In the energy business, one size does not fit all. What makes the most sense for you depends partly on what’s sitting on your doorstep – lots of hydropower in Norway or Austria, lots of coal in Germany, lots of wind on the Danish coast, and lots of natural gas off the Dutch coast. What’s best for you also depends on your needs. Europe is affluent with slow population growth compared to South Asia, for example. Europe does not have the same twin pressures of population growth and economic catch-up driving rapid energy demand growth, and it doesn’t have the same needs. What’s right for you also depends partly on your national preferences and priorities as expressed in national politics. We see different preferences on smoking, speed limits, and school curricula. How countries trade off among air pollution, dammed rivers, jobs in the mining industry or in the home insulation industry, the risks of a nuclear accident or gas explosion or oil tanker sinking or coal mining accident, the dependency on foreign fuel supplies, and the benefits of affordable electricity – is at least partly a matter of personal and national preference, and thus an area of legitimate disagreement even if everyone were to agree precisely on all the facts. Finally, energy choices are generally not entirely either-or. All countries use a mix of energy sources, and nearly all countries generate electricity from a mix of technologies. Partly that reflects the march of history, where new technologies replace older ones, but more usually in fits and starts over time, not in one sudden, instantaneous and complete replacement. It reflects the fact that investors disagree about what will prove most profitable, and it reflects the fact that a portfolio of sources reduces risk and vulnerability.

nuclear power nuclear power Presentation Transcript

  • Nuclear Power and Climate changeThe mitigation potential of nuclear energy H-Holger Rogner Planning & Economic Studies Section (PESS) Department of Nuclear Energy IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
  • Today’s popular climate changemitigation ladderEfficiency improvements Renewables New and advanced technologies Clean fossil (coal technology) Carbon capture & storage (CCS) Next generation of nuclear power
  • Three take-away messages Nuclear power is good for the climate Nuclear power is not a quick-fix mitigation option Nuclear power can make a substantial mitigation contribution in any serious long- term mitigation strategy But there must be a (socio-political) will to do so!
  • Current status of global nuclear power 436 nuclear power plants 48 under construction USA 104 (1) France 59 (1) Japan 53 (2) Russia 31 (8) Canada 22 India 17 (6) China 11 (13) 4
  • Structure of global electricity supply Global electricity Hydro 16.0% generation in 2006: 18,930 TWh Renewables 2.3% Coal 41.0% Nuclear 14.8% Natural gas Oil 20.1% 5.8%
  • Carbon free energy – is there such a thing?  There is no technology without risks and wastes  All greenhouse gases matter – not just carbon N2 O F-gases 7.9% 1.1% CH4Total GHG emissions 14.3%(6 Kyoto gases) in 2004:49.0 Gt CO2-eq CO2 fossil fuel use CO2 56.6% (deforestation, decay of biomass, etc.) 17.3% CO2 (other) 2.8% Source: (IPCC, 2007)
  • Full Chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions, g C / kWh LIGNITE 1990s (high) 359 7 1990s (low) 247 14 2005-20 217 11 COAL 1990s (high) 278 79 1990s (low) 216 48 2005-20 181 25 OIL 1990s (high) 215 31 1990s (low) 195 24 2005-20 121 28 NATURAL GAS 1990s (high) 157 31 Stack emissions 1990s (low) 99 21 Other chain steps 2005-20 90 16 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
  • Full Chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions, g C / kWh SOLAR PV 1990s (high) 76.4 1990s (low) 27.3 2010-20 8.2 HYDROELECTRIC Reservoir (Br) 64.6 Reservoir (De) 6.3 Reservoir (Ca) 4.4 Run-of-river (Ch) 1.1 BIOMASS high 16.6 low 8.4 WIND Coast (Jp) 13.1 Inland (Ch) 9.8 Inland (Be) 7.6 Coast (Be) 2.5 Coast (UK) 2.5 Stack emissions Other chain steps NUCLEAR high 5.7 low 2.5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
  • Nuclear power is good for the climate Fossil electricity generation Non-fossil electricity generation (life cycle emissions) (life cycle emissions) 1 800 [8] 180 [4] 1 600 160 Standard deviation a Mean 1 400 140gCO2-eq/ kWh [12] Min - Max gCO2-eq/kWh [10] 1 200 120 [sample size] [8] 1 000 100 [16] 800 80 [13] 600 60 400 40 [16] [15] [8] [15] 200 20 0 0 lignite coal oil gas CCS hydro nuclear wind solar bio- storage PV mass Nuclear power: Very low lifecycle GHG emissions make the technology a potent climate change mitigation option
  • Global CO2 emissions from electricity generation &emissions avoided by hydro, nuclear & renewables 18 Non-hydro renewables – avoided emissions 16 Nuclear – avoided emissions 14 Hydro – avoided emissions 12 Electricity generation (actual) Gt CO2 10 8 6 4 2 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Source: IAEA calculations based on IEA data
  • Mitigation potential of selected electricitygeneration technologies in different cost ranges Source: IPCC, 2007
  • Decarbonising the Economy CLIMATE CHANGE G l o b a l R i s k s, C h a l l e n g e s & D e c i s i o n s COPENHAGEN 2009, 10-12 March
  • Source: IAEA, 1997 oal Wyr Ash Flue gas n tonnes desulphurization Oil Ash Flue gas desulphurization gas Natural Gas sweetening waste Wood Ash Radioactive Nuclear waste (HLW) Operation PV Solar Toxic waste Wastes in Fuel Preparation and Plant
  • Existing coal Biomass technologies technologies no gas cleaning generating options Nuclear Natural gas New coal power technologies technologies Wind LOW HIGH Greenhouse gas impacts Externalities of different electricitySource: EU-EUR 20198, 2003
  • Nuclear power is not a quick-fix mitigation option  Start up phase isPlanning, Infrastructure significant in length and effort, some 5 -20 years before the shovel hits the ground
  • Nuclear energy is more than justelectricity generation Reactor type Use / Application 1,100 1 District heating, seawater – brackish water 1,000 desalination 5 900 2 Petroleum refining 800 3 Oil shale and oil sand processing 4 Refinement of hard coal and lignite 4 700 5 Hydrogen and water splitting 3 600 HTGR 500 2 AGR 400 300 LMFR 200 1 5 LWR 100 HWR 0
  • IAEA: Evolution of low projection 800 700 600 history 2001 500 2002 2003GW(e) 400 2004 2005 300 2006 2007 2008 200 100 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
  • IAEA: Evolution of high projection 800 700 600 history 2001 500 2002 2003GW(e) 400 2004 2005 300 2006 2007 2008 200 100 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
  • One size does not fit all Countries differ with respect to  energy demand growth  alternatives  financing options  weighing/preferences  accident risks (nuclear, mining, oil spills, LNG…), cheap electricity, air pollution, jobs, import dependence, climate change All countries use a mix. All are different. Nuclear power per se is not “the solution” to the world’s energy problems, climate change and energy security It surely can be an integral part of the solution!
  • Material requirements (life cycle) Iron Copper Bauxite kg/GWhe kg/GWhe kg/GWheHard coal 2,700 8 30Lignite 2,314 8 19Gas combined cycle 1,239 1 2Nuclear (PWR) 457 6 27Wood CHP 934 4 18PV 5 kW poly 4,969 281 2,189Wind 1.5 MW at 5.5 m/s 2,066 52 35Wind 1.5 MW at 4.5 m/s 4,471 75 51Hydro 3 MW 2,057 5 7 Source: Voss, 2007
  • Nuclear Power and Climate Change Clearly, there are issues surrounding the technology that need continued attention  Finance  Maintaining and improving safety performance standards  Waste disposal / spent fuel management  Non-proliferation and physical security BUT: If you are serious about protecting the climate – you cannot ignore nuclear energy Nuclear energy needs public tolerance and political support
  • And remember “… when nature goes bankrupt, there won’t be a bailout”. WWF: Cracking the Climate Nut at COP 14, Global Climate Policy Position Paper, December 2008.
  • IAEA …atoms for peace.