Expansion Of Nuclear Energy Is A Key Contributor To Combating Climate Change (IEA)

[Dogmudgeon]

The EPA also released the details of their analysis of the American Power Act of 2010 -- The most economical energy mix includes nearly 45% nuclear-produced electricity; non-hydro renewables are also expected to show strong growth. In contrast, the IEA is predicting a more conservative 24% share for nuclear energy, but is aiming for a 50% cut in carbon gas emissions.

http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=393">Expansion Of Nuclear Energy Is A Key Contributor To Combating Climate Change
16 June 2010
(Mods, please note! This is a press release, intended for reproduction in full. Thanks, --d)

Almost one quarter of global electricity could be generated from nuclear power by 2050, making a major contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This is the central finding of the Nuclear Energy Technology Roadmap, published today by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). Such an expansion will require nuclear generating capacity to more than triple over the next 40 years, a target the roadmap describes as ambitious but achievable.

Speaking from the East Asia Climate Forum in Seoul, IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said: “Nuclear energy is one of the key low-carbon energy technologies that can contribute, alongside energy efficiency, renewable energies and carbon capture and storage, to the decarbonisation of electricity supply by 2050.” NEA Director General Luis Echávarri stated: “Nuclear is already one of the main sources of low-carbon energy today. If we can address the challenges to its further expansion, nuclear has the potential to play a larger role in cutting CO2 emissions.”

The roadmap finds that nuclear power is a mature, low-carbon technology that is ready to expand rapidly over the coming decades. The latest reactor designs, now under construction around the world, build on over 50 years of technology development. The roadmap notes that these designs will need to be fully established as reliable and competitive electricity generators over the next few years if they are to become the mainstays of nuclear expansion after 2020.

No major technological breakthroughs will be needed to achieve the level of nuclear expansion envisaged, the roadmap finds. However, important policy-related, industrial, financial and public acceptance barriers to the rapid growth of nuclear power remain. The roadmap sets out an action plan with steps that will need to be taken by governments, industry and others to overcome these. A clear and stable policy commitment to nuclear energy as part of overall energy strategy is a pre requisite, as is gaining greater public acceptance for nuclear programmes. Progress in implementing plans for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste will also be vital. The international system of safeguards to prevent proliferation of nuclear technology and materials must be maintained and strengthened where necessary.

Financing the construction of new nuclear plants is expected to be a major challenge in many countries. In some cases, governments may need to support nuclear investment through measures such as loan guarantees until nuclear power programmes are well-established. The industrial capacities and skilled human resources necessary to build, operate and maintain nuclear plants will also need to be increased over the next few years if nuclear is to expand rapidly.

For the longer term, the continued development of reactor and fuel cycle technologies will be important for maintaining the competitiveness of nuclear energy. Technologies now under development for next-generation nuclear systems potentially offer improved sustainability, economics, safety and reliability. Some could be suitable for a wider range of locations and to new applications beyond electricity production, for example to provide industrial heat. Such systems could start contributing to energy supply before 2050.

The Nuclear Energy Technology Roadmap is the result of joint work by the IEA and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and is one of a series being prepared by the IEA in co operation with other organisations and industry, at the request of the G8 summit at Aomori (Japan) in June 2008. The overall aim is to advance development and uptake of key low-carbon technologies needed to reach the goal of a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.

Nuclear generating capacity worldwide is presently 370 gigawatts electrical (GWe), providing 14% of global electricity. In the IEA scenario for a 50% cut in energy-related CO2 emissions by 2050 (known as the “BLUE Map” scenario), on which the roadmap analysis is based, nuclear capacity grows to 1 200 GWe by 2050, providing 24% of global electricity at that time. Total electricity production in the scenario more than doubles, from just under 20 000 TWh in 2007 to around 41 000 TWh in 2050.

Communication and Information Office: ([phone] ; e-mail [email protected]

http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=393">Link to IEA Press Release page.

I do take some issue with the IEA's reliance on CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) as a key technology in their study. Practical, economical CCS remains an elusive engineering goal, although it is quite simple in theory. CCS, not nuclear energy, is the "Hail Mary pass" of their energy scenario.

The IEA also has, for free download, http://www.iea.org/techno/essentials4.pdf">a concise factsheet on nuclear energy technology. Their http://www.iea.org/publications/free_all.asp">publications page is an excellent resource for information on all energy/technology issues.

--d!

[bananas]

1. No it isn't

None of the major environmental organizations support it.
Most are against it.
For good reason.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-resurgence.html

http://www.nirs.org/

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/nuc-power.aspx

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/

http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/nuc_08042301A.pdf

[bananas]

2. International Energy Agency 'blocking global switch to renewables'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/08/windpower-energy

International Energy Agency 'blocking global switch to renewables'

International Energy Agency accused of consistently underestimating potential of wind, solar and sea power while promoting oil, coal and nuclear as 'irreplaceable' technologies

* David Adam, environment correspondent
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 January 2009 10.02 GMT

The international body that advises most major governments across the world on energy policy is obstructing a global switch to renewable power because of its ties to the oil, gas and nuclear sectors, a group of politicians and scientists claims today.

The experts, from the Energy Watch group, say the International Energy Agency (IEA) publishes misleading data on renewables, and that it has consistently underestimated the amount of electricity generated by wind power in its advice to governments. They say the IEA shows "ignorance and contempt" towards wind energy, while promoting oil, coal and nuclear as "irreplaceable" technologies.

In a report to be published today, the Energy Watch experts say wind-power capacity has rocketed since the early 90s and that if current trends continue, wind and solar power-generation combined are on track to match conventional generation by 2025.

<snip>

Rudolf Rechsteiner, a member of the Swiss parliament who sits on its energy and environment committee, and wrote today's report, said the IEA suffered from "institutional blindness" on renewable energy. He said: "They are delaying the change to a renewable world. They continue touting nuclear and carbon-capture-and-storage, classical central solutions, instead of a more neutral approach, which would favour new solutions."

Today's report compares past predictions about the growth of wind power, made by the IEA and others, with the capacity of wind turbines actually installed.

It says: "By comparing historic forecasts on wind power with reality, we find that all official forecasts were much too low."

In 1998, the IEA predicted that global wind electricity generation would total 47.4GW by 2020. This figure was reached in December 2004, the report says. In 2002, the IEA revised its estimate to 104GW wind by 2020 – a capacity that had been exceeded by last summer.

In 2007, net additions of wind power across the world were more than four-fold the average IEA estimate from its 1995-2004 predictions, the report says. "The IEA numbers were neither empirically nor theoretically based," it says.

The IEA's most recent forecast, in its 2008 World Energy Outlook, predicts a fivefold increase in wind energy from 2006-2015, but then assumes a rapid slowdown in deployment over the following decade. The Energy Watch report calls this a "virtual stagnation" and says "no arguments are given why the wind sector should suffer such a crisis by 2015 and after".

<snip>

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Anti-nuke activists accuse IEA of not being anti-nuke. Film at 11.

Well, at least they stayed awake during that Baudrillard seminar in philosophy class.

--d!

[JDPriestly]

3. Talk about unresolved safety issues!

So are all the safety plans for all the nuclear sites nearly identical?

Nuclear energy is not the answer in California, what with our earthquake faults. No way do we want nuclear. The earth shakes regularly out here. Please no nuclear. We want solar energy in our part of the country.

It rarely rains here. We have huge areas of desert. Solar and wind energy are the answer here. We need an electricity grid that is flexible enough to carry electricity whatever the source. I believe Obama promised to redo the grid. That would be a start.

The second step is to make putting solar panels on your house a downright profitable business. Of course, you are not going to make a lot of profit from your solar panels, but the panels should pay for themselves over time.

[madokie]

5. We damn sure don't want any nuke power plants around here

We put a stop to PSO's plan to build a nuke plant a few miles upwind from me here years ago and we'll do it again if need be.

heres the wiki page on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Fox_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[JDPriestly]

7. ++++++++ madokie, Thumbs up.

[kristopher]

6. A new Yucca Mountain every 2 years

I'm guessing they have no answers beyond magic hand-waves for the related issues of proliferation, cost, waste disposal and operational safety.

From presentation by John Holdren (Obama's science and technology adviser and one of the authors of 2003 MIT report, "The Future of Nuclear Power".

The nuclear option: size of the challenges
• If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...

–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;

– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.


Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

________________________________________________________


The renewable option: Is it real?
SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land. Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.

WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW. Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.

BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW. Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture). Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.
Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren