Navi Mumbai Call Girls 🥰 8617370543 Service Offer VIP Hot Model
nuclear power
1. Nuclear Power and Climate change
The mitigation potential of nuclear energy
H-Holger Rogner
Planning & Economic Studies Section (PESS)
Department of Nuclear Energy
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
2. Today’s popular climate change
mitigation ladder
Efficiency improvements
Renewables
New and advanced technologies
Clean fossil (coal technology)
Carbon capture & storage (CCS)
Next generation of nuclear power
3. 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!
4. 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
5. 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%
6. 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%
CH4
Total 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)
8. Full Chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions, g C / kWh
SOLAR PV
1990's (high) 76.4
1990's (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
9. 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
1 400 140
gCO2-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
10. 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
11. Mitigation potential of selected electricity
generation technologies in different cost ranges
Source:
IPCC, 2007
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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 electricity
Source: EU-EUR 20198, 2003
15. Nuclear power is not a quick-fix
mitigation option
Start up phase is
Planning, Infrastructure
significant in length
and effort, some 5
-20 years before the
shovel hits the
ground
16. Nuclear energy is more than just
electricity 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
19. 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!
20. Material requirements (life cycle)
Iron Copper Bauxite
kg/GWhe kg/GWhe kg/GWhe
Hard coal 2,700 8 30
Lignite 2,314 8 19
Gas combined cycle 1,239 1 2
Nuclear (PWR) 457 6 27
Wood CHP 934 4 18
PV 5 kW poly 4,969 281 2,189
Wind 1.5 MW at 5.5 m/s 2,066 52 35
Wind 1.5 MW at 4.5 m/s 4,471 75 51
Hydro 3 MW 2,057 5 7
Source: Voss, 2007
21. 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
22. 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.
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.
