LOW CARBON GENERATION |
Time to show nuclear can deliver
The world needs low-carbon generation and policymakers need evidence that the nuclear ambition can grow
IN MAY, THE INTERNATIONAL Energy Agency (IEA) launched its ‘Net Zero by 2050’ report. Nearly 30 years from now it forsees a future where electricity accounts for almost 50 per cent of total energy consumption. In that future electricity plays a key role in transport, buildings and industry, and it is also essential to produce low emissions fuels such as hydrogen. That means, according to the IEA, that total electricity
generation will increase by two-and-a-half-times between today and 2050. And of course, that electricity has to be generated at zero carbon emissions. The IEA is clear on many sources of electricity. There should be no new investment decisions for unabated coal plants from now on, for example. What is nuclear’s role? That is not so clear. The IEA says that nuclear energy will make a “significant contribution” to its Net Zero Emissions scenario, and will provide an “essential foundation” in the transition to a net-zero energy system. But IEA language treats nuclear as an ‘also-ran’. It says: “By 2050, almost 90 per cent of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70 per cent. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear.” The World Nuclear Association (WNA) objects to this
portrayal. Responding to the report, WNA said that IEA’s projection underplays nuclear’s potential contribution, compared to other power sources. WNA said the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions scenario “puts too much faith in technologies that are uncertain, untested, or unreliable and fails to reflect both the size and scope of the contribution nuclear technologies could make.” It described the IEA’s lack of ambition in its assessment of the role of nuclear as “highly impractical”, given the necessary timeline for reaching Net Zero. The IEA did, however, say that failure to take timely decisions on nuclear power would “raise the costs of a net- zero emissions pathway and add to the risk of not meeting the goal.” For Sama Bilbao y León, director general of the WNA, that was a call to action. She said “Governments must now take action to ensure that nuclear energy can play a major role in the clean energy transition, to which so many of them have now committed.”
Who estimates what? One thing that all organisations agree on is that global electricity use will grow substantially. That means without ambitious expansion plans nuclear will become less important in the electricity mix. The IEA’s figures, which do anticipate some expansion of nuclear, illustrate this: in its Net-Zero scenario, the amount
6 | WNE Special Edition |
www.neimagazine.com
of energy supplied by nuclear power will increase by 40 per cent by 2030 and double by 2050, which means new nuclear capacity additions will reach 30GW per year in the early 2030s. The IEA also assumes extended operations of existing nuclear reactors, as according to the IEA “they are one of the most cost-effective sources of low-carbon electricity.” Nevertheless, because total electricity use is rising, that would see the share of nuclear energy in the global electricity mix falling from 10.5 per cent to 8 per cent. That low ambition contrasts strongly with the global
nuclear industry’s ‘Harmony’ goal, which would see nuclear energy provide at least 25 per cent of the world’s electricity by 2050. To achieve this goal would require around 1000GW of new nuclear build and maximum contribution from reactors in operation today.
IPCC view The bedrock of the switch to Net Zero generation is the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). How does it see nuclear? It lists nuclear among the “main mitigation options in
the energy supply sector”, along with energy efficiency improvements, switching from (unabated) fossil fuels, renewable energy, and carbon capture and storage (CCS). However, it too sees the nuclear proportion declining in the short term. In the Energy Systems chapter (chapter seven) of its
recent assessment it says that in recent years, the share of nuclear energy in world power generation has declined from 17 per cent of generation in 1993 to 11 per cent in 2012. The trend began well before the incident at the Fukushima in March 2011, it says. The IPCC’s role is not to advocate specific technologies to
address global warming. But it considers some aspects of the nuclear power option. First it considers its emissions credentials. Emissions
are associated with the manufacturing and installation of power plants, and that applies to any technology, but for nuclear power related emissions incurred, for example, during uranium enrichment, may be significant. But overall it says recent analysis confirms that nuclear can retain its ‘low carbon’ stamp, despite the emissions inherent in some parts of the fuel cycle such as enrichment and mining. What about resources needed for the long term? Fuel
supply is not a problem, the IPCC says - uranium resources are sufficient to fuel existing demand for more than 130 years, “and if all conventional uranium occurrences are considered, for more than 250 years”. What is more, “Fast breeder reactor technology can theoretically increase uranium utilization 50-fold or even more”.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
