| LOW CARBON GENERATION However, the IPCC had a list of practical barriers to
expansion that together place nuclear at a disadvantage when compared with other options. Top of its list was nuclear’s economic profile. While it
agreed that nuclear power plants have low operating costs, “investments in nuclear power are characterized by very large up-front investment costs, and significant technical, market, and regulatory risks”. Without support from governments, investments in new nuclear power plants are currently generally not economically attractive, although it considered that carbon pricing could improve nuclear’s competitiveness. Waste management costs also rated high on the list –
although the IPCC acknowledged that a closed fuel cycle with fast breeder reactors would reduce the amount of high-level waste to be disposed of. Proliferation fears, and the need to secure access to fissile materials, was a related barrier.
Other barriers relate to nuclear’s contribution to overall
supply and grid management. Nuclear’s very large potential also can present a practical
issue. Investment may also be needed in expanding transmission to serve future nuclear plants if they are located at some distance from load centres. This can also be a slow process. In a UK meeting earlier this year network owner National Grid said it had been working on the connection for Hinkley Point C, currently under construction, for 17 years. IPCC agreed that nuclear was a reliable – and large
scale – supplier, with a ‘capacity credit’ higher than 90 per cent of its nameplate capacity. That was similar to that of thermal plants with CCS, geothermal, and large hydro and considerably higher renewable energy generators. However, in the future grid flexibility may be as important as capacity, and that was not a nuclear strength. IPCC said part-load operation of nuclear plants is possible as in France, but true variable load following “is more challenging and must be considered at the design stage”. A high proportion of renewable generation. power, for example, “may not beideally complemented by nuclear” – although the necessary flexibility could be supplied by third party providers. Finally IPCC noted the long life of assets in energy
supply systems, of which nuclear’s potential lifetime of up to a century is an extreme. Although the IPCC did not explicitly raise this as a barrier for nuclear, its implication was that there was a fear of making large investments in plant that may not meet future needs – the need for flexibility being an example. Fears of heavy investment in an asset that was later ‘stranded’ likely adds to the cost of nuclear investment and makes the Final Investment Decision more problematic. Small modular reactors (SMRs) can help address some of these barriers, and indeed the IEA recognises the importance of nuclear innovation with small modular reactors and other advanced reactor designs “moving towards full-scale demonstration, with scalable designs, lower upfront costs and the potential to improve the flexibility of nuclear power in terms of both operations and outputs, e.g. electricity, heat or hydrogen.”
What is the right ambition? Given the array of issues laid out by IPCC it is easy to see why the IEA is cautious in its ambition. Given the current
imperative towards a larger Net Zero electricity system, is that caution justified? WNA says it is not, and that “By failing to consider with
adequate ambition the contribution that nuclear energy could make, the ability to deliver on the IEA’s Net Zero scenario has a much higher risk of failure.”
200 150 100 50
Above: Selected indicators of recent global growth in renewable energy deployment
1500 8% 8% 1200 3% 3% 900 600 300 0 RE Electric Power Capacity
Hydropower Capacity
Wind Power Capacity
Solar PV Capacity
Solar Hot Water Capacity (GWth)
20% 19% 14% 78% 41% 14%
2010 2011 2012
Coal Oil
Natural gas
Renewables
CO2 intensity of TES (right axis)
Traditional use of biomass Nuclear
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
60 45 30 15
2050
Note: EJ = exajoule; MJ = megajoule; TES = total energy supply Coal use declines, oil plateaus and renewables and natural gas grow substantially to 2050
Source: IEA. All rights reserved.
The IPCC, in contrasts, suggests that the current
nuclear target is already ambitious and raising it would be unachievable. IPCC cites studies that says “depending on the assumptions about the technology portfolio, a quadrupling of the low-carbon share over 20 years (2030 – 2050) would lead on average to the construction of 29 to 107 new nuclear plants per year. While the lower-bound estimate corresponds to about the observed rate of nuclear power installations in the 1980s, the high estimate is historically unprecedented.” If the nuclear industry aims to convince policymakers
and investors that a large step-up in nuclear capacity is not just desirable but achievable, it should not delay. That places a responsibility on companies owning, managing and building plants to show that they can overcome the IPCC’s barriers and allow policymakers to invest in new nuclear. Now is the time to show the industry can deliver.
www.neimagazine.com | WNE Special Edition | 7
Above: Total energy supply and CO2 emissions intensity in the IEA’s STEPS scenario
EJ
Total Installed Capacity [GW]
gCO2/MJ
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
