Role of nuclear power in carbon dioxide mitigation

The role of Nuclear Power in Climate Mitigation

Yenning Lee 5580798

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?

1. Reducing energy use and improving energy efficiency of appliances2. Switching to energy production technology that produces less Carbon Dioxide3. Capturing and storing Carbon Dioxide

Climate mitigation methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fig. 3 Electricity supply in standard scenarios with 3 °C climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO 2 .





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

Fig. 7 Relative savings compared to the no nuclear scenario in case of 3 °C climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO 2 .





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

Fig. 8 Abatement cost for different carbon storage capacities and scenarios.





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

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

Role of nuclear power in carbon dioxide mitigation

Science

Transcript of Role of nuclear power in carbon dioxide mitigation