Wednesday, February 17, 2010

We need a carbon-mitigation cost index

We need a carbon-mitigation cost index. The index should measure the cost of eliminating the emissions of a ton of CO2, or of eliminating a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Without a carbon emission cost index, there is no measure of the potential effectiveness of policy options designed to prevent carbon emissions, or to decrease atmospheric carbon content.

The existence of a carbon mitigation index can serve as an effective counter to propaganda campaigns in favor of in opposition to various energy forms.

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 technologies
This 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:
U.S. Nuclear Power Plants by StatePlants
AlabamaBrowns Ferry
Farley (Joseph M. Farley)
ArizonaPalo Verde
ArkansasArkansas Nuclear One
CaliforniaDiablo Canyon
San Onofre
ConnecticutMillstone
FloridaCrystal River 3
St Lucie
Turkey Point
GeorgiaHatch (Edwin I. Hatch)
Vogtle
IllinoisBraidwood
Byron
Clinton
Dresden
LaSalle County
Quad Cities
IowaDuane Arnold
KansasWolf Creek
LouisianaRiver Bend
Waterford
MarylandCalvertCliff
MassachusettsPilgrim
MichiganDonald C. Cook
Enrico Fermi (Fermi)
Palisades
MinnesotaMonticello
Prairie Island
MississippiGrand Gulf
MissouriCallaway
NebraskaCooper
Fort Calhoun
New HampshireSeabrook
New JerseyHope Creek
Oyster Creek
Salem Creek
New YorkFitzpatrick (James A. Fitzpatrick)
Indian Point
Nile Mile Point
R.E. Ginna (Ginna, or Robert E. Ginna)
North CarolinaBrunswick
McGuire
Shearon-Harris(Harris)
OhioDavis-Besse
Perry
PennsylvaniaBeaver Valley
Limerick
Peach Bottom
Susquehanna
Three Mile Island
South CarolinaCatawba
H.B. Robinson
Oconee
Virgil C. Summer (Summer)
TennesseeSequoyah
Watts Bar
TexasComanche Peak
South Texas
VermontVermont Yankee
VirginiaNorth Anna
Surry
WashingtonColumbia Generating Station
WisconsinKewaunee
Point Beach

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.

2 comments:

Frank Jablonski said...

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.

Charles Barton said...

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.

Followers

Blog Archive

Some neat videos

Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
Dr. Joe Bonometti speaking on thorium/LFTR technology at Georgia Tech David LeBlanc on LFTR/MSR technology Robert Hargraves on AIM High