Recently a collition of anti-nuclear organizations including WECF ( Women in Europe for a Common Future), The International Forum on Globalization, WISE (World Information Service on Energy), Friends of the Earth International, and Nuclear Information & Resource Service published a statement that asserted:
Nuclear power steals “time and money” that would be better invested in energy efficiency and renewable technologiesThis claim is not supported by any detailed analysis of the relative costs and benefits of carbon mitigation with nuclear and renewables. In fact the capital costs associated with renewables are higher per unit of electrical output, and since renewable tend to replace low carbon emission emitting combined cycle gas turbines, while nuclear displaces high carbon emission coal fired power units, nuclear appears to be 3.5 times more cost effective than onshore as a carbon mitigation tool, and even more cost effective than off shore wind and all forms of solar.
The effectiveness of nuclear power as a carbon mitigation tool can be illustrated with a map and two list. First the map showing the states where nuclear power plants are located:
Here is the EIA's list of Nuclear power plants by state:The effectiveness of nuclear power in carbon mitigation can be demonstrated by comparing the map and the above state list with the states listed in Table A-2 found in "The Near-Term Impacts of Carbon Mitigation Policies on Manufacturing Industries", a 2002 study of carbon emission issues for industry:
Carbon emission per million kwh electricity generated by States (metric tons per million kwh)
We consider electricity carbon emissions from three fossil fuels -- coal, petroleum and gas. The physical quantities of coal, petroleum and gas used by states to generate electricity are obtained from Electric Power Monthly (EIA, 1993). The individual fuel quantities are converted to energy using conversion factors from Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey 1991. This energy consumption is multiplied by carbon emission coefficients (from Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States, EIA 1996) to obtain carbon emissions by state by aggregating carbonemissions from coal, petroleum and gas. Carbon emissions per unit of electricity generated (metric tons per million kWh) are calculated by dividing state carbon emissions with state net electricity generation. In Table A-2, we present the electricity carbon emissions for the US and individual states. The average carbon emission from electricity generation is about 180.9 metric tons per million kWh. The range is from 0 (Idaho) to 462 (N. Dakota). A state with a high coefficient means it uses a high share of fossil fuel to generate electricity. A smaller coefficient indicates a higher use of hydro or nuclear power.
Table A-2. Electricity Carbon Emissions by State
State
Total ElectricityCarbon Emissions (1000 metric tons)
Net Electricity Generation (Million Kwh)
Emission coeff. (Metric Tons per Million Kwh)
Alabama
10857.6
68374.0
158.8
Alaska
492.1
2980.0
165.1
Arizona
7629.8
52722.0
144.7
Arkansas
5419.2
27541.0
196.8
California
6233.6
89701.0
69.5
Colorado
6879.0
23983.0
286.8
Connecticut
1206.7
19308.0
62.5
Delaware
1103.4
4941.0
223.3
District of Columbia
29.9
74.0
403.6
Florida
17847.4
103809.0
171.9
Georgia
10379.8
68908.0
150.6
Hawaii
1161.4
5301.0
219.1
Idaho
0.0
4993.0
0.0
Illinois
11308.0
93424.0
121.0
Indiana
19893.9
71633.0
277.7
Iowa
6741.0
22219.0
303.4
Kansas
6223.3
23606.0
263.6
Kentucky
13500.7
57209.0
236.0
Louisiana
8793.1
43072.0
204.1
Maine
239.3
6021.0
39.7
Maryland
4554.5
29109.0
156.5
Massachusetts
4174.0
25254.0
165.3
Michigan
12424.0
62171.0
199.8
Minnesota
6629.7
29038.0
228.3
Mississippi
2348.9
16187.0
145.1
Missouri
10161.1
41586.0
244.3
Montana
4484.3
18521.0
242.1
Nebraska
3482.1
16510.0
210.9
Nevada
3804.0
16153.0
235.5
New Hampshire
727.3
10853.0
67.0
New Jersey
1550.5
22562.0
68.7
New Mexico
6458.8
20369.0
317.1
New York
9873.3
84002.0
117.5
North Carolina
9306.1
63030.0
147.6
North Dakota
9744.3
21060.0
462.7
Ohio
21933.0
102417.0
214.2
Oklahoma
8806.1
35114.0
250.8
Oregon
979.6
31099.0
31.5
Pennsylvania
18139.9
127446.0
142.3
Rhode Island
26.2
101.0
259.3
South Carolina
4102.6
53597.0
76.5
South Dakota
971.5
4879.0
199.1
Tennessee
9151.4
57253.0
159.8
Texas
49010.9
185738.0
263.9
Utah
5902.6
24461.0
241.3
Vermont
10.6
3365.0
3.1
Virginia
4255.3
37051.0
114.8
Washington
2637.2
63174.0
41.7
West Virginia
11867.8
53339.0
222.5
Wisconsin
7700.7
34386.0
223.9
Wyoming
10580.0
30898.0
342.4
U.S.
381737.6
2110542.0
180.9
Amory Lovins has repeatedly stated:
I do think we need to allocate capital judiciously and take opportunity costs seriously.This statement is of course true. Lovins also states,
I do not think you can make an empirically based business case that the existing nuclear power plant fleet has been economically worthwhile (counting all externalities at zero), nor that there is any business case for building more. This is of course an empirical question.I have provided just sort of case in my numerous analyses of the relative costs of renewables and nuclear power. But I believe that far more work needs to be done, and this work, rather than renewables advocacy should be the proper role of a Nationals Renewable Energy Laboratory. Lovins argues that nuclear power is not a cost effective carbon mitigation tool, without assessing the true cost of carbon mitigation with renewables, and without exploring the potentials for lowering nuclear costs. There is real potential for lowering cost by altering nuclear manufacturing techniques, changing siting criteria, and in other innovative approach to nuclear cost issues. In addition there is probable cause to believe that adopting alternative nuclear technologies could lower nuclear costs in a dramatic fashion, while increasing nuclear safety, resolving the issue of nuclear waste and not encouraging nuclear proliferation.
It is clear then that the claim that nuclear power does not mttigate carbon emissions can be shown to be false, and the claim that nuclear power. The question posed by Amory Lovins thus becomes, "is it cost effective to build more nuclear plants as a cost mitigation tool?" My arguments to date tend to demonstrate that it is, but we need more research, and more research tools. We need a carbon-mitigation cost index.
Posts
2 comments:
Charles -
This is a great idea. A comparative cost comparison, graphed out, well-sourced to academic and government research.
The problem comes with predictions of future costs, which are difficult to accurately hit, especially when they involve the future. (apologies to Yogi Berra).
An NREL contractor made predictions in 2003 for concentrating solar that were supposedly conservative and that had its costs falling fast:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/34440.pdf
See: p. 15 of the .pdf document. Obviously, this did not happen.
We all have heard the "too cheap to meter" meme taken out-of-context repeatedly.
We have to have advanced energy technology research on a number of fronts, but policy makers can be forgiven for being leery of any particular one, as technology advocates, even including nuclear advocates who are strongly oriented toward math, can get stars-in-their-eyes syndrome, and end up over-promising or over-expecting.
That said, the potential for massive displacement of carbon sourced electricity should argue for massive investment in innovative nuclear technologies. The combination of lower overall cost and high near-term potential should make a powerful argument. We just have to keep making it.
The cost effectiveness argument should be made repeatedly, and this kind of index would be a great way to make it.
Frank the evidence standard for such an index, should be a probable cause standard. Ideally there should be a range of estimates, which should be stated. If the index reports a single number, than it must be clearly understood that that number is regarded as having the greatest probability of being accurate.
Business cover contingent judgements with forward looking statements. A future carbon mitigation cost index would most assuredly need a forward looking statement.
Post a Comment