The document discusses the role of nuclear power in climate mitigation, emphasizing the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. It evaluates various energy sources, comparing their costs, efficiency, and environmental impact, particularly focusing on the current and future potential of nuclear energy amidst other technologies. The analysis concludes that while nuclear power can contribute to reducing climate mitigation costs, its competitiveness is dependent on advancements in technology and the availability of carbon capture and storage solutions.

1. The role of Nuclear Power in
Climate Mitigation
Yenning Lee 5580798

2.  Mitigation [mit-i-gey-shuh n]
“the act of making a condition or
consequence less severe”
 Greenhouse gases are attributed to
Climate Change
 Carbon Dioxide seen as main culprit of
man-made climate change – especially
from heat and electricity production
 To keep global warming under 2 degrees
Celsius we must reduce greenhouse gas
emission 50% by the mid century and
continue the reduction afterwards.
 Therefore, it is important to reduce
Carbon Dioxide emission if we want to
control the effects of climate change.
 How would this be achieved?
What is climate mitigation?

3. 1. Reducing energy use and
improving energy efficiency of
appliances
2. Switching to energy
production technology that
produces less Carbon Dioxide
3. Capturing and storing
Carbon Dioxide
Climate mitigation methods

4.  Fossil Fuels
 Renewable: Solar Photovaltics, Wind power,
Hydroelectricity
 Biomass
 Nuclear Power
 Modern day shares of Energy Production: Fossil Fuels:
86.4% (2007 values) , Hydroelectric: 6.3%, Nuclear: 8.5%,
Solar, Wind, Biomass and others: 0.9% (2006 values)
Choices in Energy Production

5.  Currently the dominant
source for energy production
in the world
 Fuel created from
decomposition of long dead
organisms
 Includes Petroleum, Coal and
Natural Gas
 Non-renewable, take millions
of years to form
 An estimated 3.2 billion metric
tons of Carbon Dioxide are
added to our atmosphere
every year from burning Fossil
Fuels
Fossil Fuels

6.  Also known as Solar PV system
 Uses solar panels to absorb sunlight and
convert it to usable electricity
 Silent and creates no emitted waste,
completely renewable
 Costs have rapidly declined in recent years
to as low as 0.70 US dollars/watt in 2012
 Concentrated Solar Power: Utilizes mirrors
or lenses to concentrate large amount of
sunlight to one area
 Light converts to heat which is used to drive
heat engine and generate electricity
 Spain is currently the world leader with total
capacity of 2,650 Megawatts
Solar Photovaltic

7.  Extracts air flow from the
environment with wind turbines to
generate electricity.
 Renewable and produces no
greenhouse gases
 Currently provides 41.2% of
Denmark’s electricity
 Generates 534.3 Terawatt-hours of
energy worldwide in 2012
 High initial investment costs and
requires maintenance
Wind Power

8.  Energy generated by force of
falling water to drive a turbine
to generate electricity
 Most widely used form of
renewable energy
 Generates 3663 Terawatt-hours
of electricity per year in 2012
 Interrupts flow of water
downstream and can displace
wildlife and local residents
Hydroelectricity

9.  Biological material that can
be combusted or converted
to fuel to generate
electricity
 Can be grown from plants
or collected from wastes
(solid and biogas)
 Algae is of interest because
it can be grown quickly and
made into biodiesel
 Combustion of biomass
creates greenhouse gases
 About twice as expensive as
natural gas
Biomass

10.  Current reactors uses fission
reactions to generate
electricity
 Emits very little to no
greenhouse gases
 A 7 gram pellet of uranium can
generate energy equal to 3.5
barrels of oil and 800 kg of
coal
 Recent Fukushima incident
created political and social
dissent to nuclear power
Nuclear Power

11. Energy Source Advantage Disadvantage
Fossil Fuel - Matured technology
- Relatively cheap
- Readily available as of now
- Generates greenhouse gases that
can pollute environment
- Unsustainable
Solar PV - Can be installed in homes and
standalone appliances
- Clean and renewable
- Relatively cheap
- Inefficient in electricity
generation
- Efficiency depends on weather
conditions
Wind Power - Clean and renewable
- Cheap electricity after initial start
up cost
- High investment costs
- Inefficient with current
technology
- Efficiency depends on weather
conditions
Hydroelectricity - Matured technology
- Renewable and clean
- Efficient
- Displaces wildlife and local
residents
- Can cause droughts or flooding in
surrounding areas
Biomass - Renewable
- Good way to reuse waste
products
- Creates greenhouse gases
- Expensive
- Competes with food production
Nuclear Power - Efficient in generating electricity
- No greenhouse gas emission
- All produced wastes are
contained
- Potential for radiation disasters,
weapon proliferation
- Poor reputation in politics and
society

12.  Captures Carbon Dioxide waste
and transfers it to a storage site
(generally underground) to
prevent release into atmosphere
 Cost for transport and storage of
captured CO2 is about 10$ per ton
of CO2
 Max capacity worldwide: 2000
gigatons
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Technology in Climate Mitigation

13.  Nuclear power generates no Carbon
Dioxide
 Potential to reduce climate mitigation
costs from the baseline
 Nuclear power vs CCS technology?
 Must estimate effects of nuclear
power expansion in the future and
effect on mitigation cost
 Understand costs of climate mitigation
from Nuclear Power vs other methods
Nuclear Power in Climate Mitigation

14.  GET model = Global Energy Transition Model
 Used simulation to predict results over a 100 year
period (2000 – 2100)
 Objectives: Meet energy production quota while
limiting carbon emission
 Evaluates costs, efficiency, and carbon emission from
all above mentioned energy technologies
Research Procedure: GET Model

15.  Safety standards are being raised continuously, makes
nuclear power more expensive.
 Mature investment costs in nuclear technology is
estimated from 2050 dollars to 8850 US dollars per kW.
 Investment cost of nuclear power greatly effects its
efficiency
 Higher investment = more research = lower cost of energy
production
Limitations of Nuclear Power

16.  Can only be used at large industrial plants, no more than
50% of industrial heat and no more than 70% of residential
heat production can be used with CCS.
 Research shows CCS cannot capture 100% of released CO2
 Maximum capture of 95%
 Some CO2 will still get into the atmosphere
 Requires physical landmass to store Carbon Dioxide
 Cannot store CO2 in certain areas such as natural reserves
 Storage sites may devalue price of land. General public may
oppose this method
 Unsustainable, eventually we will run out of storage sites.
Limitations of CCS

17. Fig. 1 Mature levelized cost of electricity for different sources at 2070 (excluding CO 2 tax and scarcity rents of non-renewable
sources and carbon storage) based on standard model runs.
Mariliis Lehtveer , Fredrik Hedenus
How much can nuclear power reduce climate mitigation cost? – Critical parameters and sensitivity
Energy Strategy Reviews, Volume 6, 2015, 12 - 19
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2014.11.003

18.  Coal with CCS is the cheapest at the point of equal maturity
for all technologies (2070)
 Still many deposits of fossil fuel and CCS storage space left at
this point
 Because of its investment costs, Nuclear technologies are still
not as competitive
 In the coming decades, price of Coal with CCS will grow as
easy to access fossil fuel deposits are depleted and available
storage land becomes scarce
Data Analysis

19. 1. No Nuclear
 No new reactors built after 2020, all existing reactors
phased out by 2040.
2. Conventional Nuclear
 Only technologies commercially available today will be
used in the future.
3. Advanced Nuclear
 Assumes technology will develop in the future. Fast
Breeding Reactors (better fuel economy than
conventional reactors) and alternative source Uranium
extraction (such as extracting uranium from sea water)
available.
3 Nuclear Scenarios

20. Fig. 3 Electricity supply in standard scenarios with 3 °C climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO 2 .
Mariliis Lehtveer , Fredrik Hedenus
How much can nuclear power reduce climate mitigation cost? – Critical parameters and sensitivity
Energy Strategy Reviews, Volume 6, 2015, 12 - 19
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2014.11.003

21.  For comparison, in baseline scenario where there is no
carbon restriction fossil fuels continue to be used and no
alternative energy methods are significant.
 Depletion of fossil fuels estimated at after year 2050.
 In no nuclear scenario, renewable energy becomes
dominant after depletion of fossil fuels.
 In both nuclear allowed scenarios, nuclear power does not
become competitive until after 2040.
Data Analysis

22. Fig. 7 Relative savings compared to the no nuclear scenario in case of 3 °C climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO 2 .
Mariliis Lehtveer , Fredrik Hedenus
How much can nuclear power reduce climate mitigation cost? – Critical parameters and sensitivity
Energy Strategy Reviews, Volume 6, 2015, 12 - 19
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2014.11.003

23.  According to simulation, probability that over 50% savings
from mitigation costs in the no nuclear scenario can be
achieved by 9% of advanced nuclear scenario.
 Highest probability of savings between conventional and
advanced scenario is in the 10-20% cost reduction range.
 In both nuclear technology allowed cases, significant cost
reduction for Climate Mitigation can be achieved.
Data Analysis

24. Fig. 8 Abatement cost for different carbon storage capacities and scenarios.
Mariliis Lehtveer , Fredrik Hedenus
How much can nuclear power reduce climate mitigation cost? – Critical parameters and sensitivity
Energy Strategy Reviews, Volume 6, 2015, 12 - 19
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2014.11.003

25.  Max CCS capacity set at 4000 gigatons of Carbon
Dioxide.
 Advanced nuclear technology can cut abatement
costs by almost 50%.
 Even in Advanced nuclear scenario, CCS gives larger
savings.
 CCS is still the best option for reducing carbon
abatement costs, nuclear technology is irrelevant if
large amounts of storage space is still available.
Data Analysis

26.  Current conventional nuclear technology can save 10% in climate
mitigation cost, 20% if nuclear technology is allowed to develop.
 Savings from nuclear technology relies heavily on availability of
CCS technology. Can only exhibit significant savings if CCS is not
available.
 Before 2040, nuclear power is not a viable option for energy
production because other options are cheaper.
 Although renewable energy seems like a good solution for
climate mitigation, it is impossible to generate enough cheap
energy
Conclusion