Australian researchers: nuclear is the least-cost, low-carbon, baseload power source

[wtmusic]

"A new paper by three Australian researchers, published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy, looks at 16 electricity generating technologies as candidates for meeting future greenhouse emission reduction targets.

The technologies are assessed in terms of their potential to produce reliable, continuous, baseload power. The assessment covers performance, cost and carbon emissions.

<>

Nuclear stands out as the cheapest solution to provide low-emission baseload electricity over almost the whole carbon price range shown. The next cheapest is CCGT (natural gas) with CCS, which needs a carbon price of just over $30. To justify building either of the two coal technologies (PF or IGCC) with CCS requires a carbon price over $40."

http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/47728/nuclear-least-cost-low-carbon-baseload-power-source?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

Abstract

"There is wide public debate about which electricity generating technologies will best be suited to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Sometimes this debate ignores real-world practicalities and leads to over-optimistic conclusions. Here we define and apply a set of fit-for-service criteria to identify technologies capable of supplying baseload electricity and reducing GHGs by amounts and within the timescale set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Only five current technologies meet these criteria: coal (both pulverised fuel and integrated gasification combined cycle) with carbon capture and storage (CCS); combined cycle gas turbine with CCS; Generation III nuclear fission; and solar thermal backed by heat storage and gas turbines. To compare costs and performance, we undertook a meta-review of authoritative peer-reviewed studies of levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) and life-cycle GHG emissions for these technologies. Future baseload electricity technology selection will be influenced by the total cost of technology substitution, including carbon pricing, which is synergistically related to both LCOE and emissions. Nuclear energy is the cheapest option and best able to meet the IPCC timetable for GHG abatement. Solar thermal is the most expensive, while CCS will require rapid major advances in technology to meet that timetable."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2S-51H0085-6&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F18%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ec74c4fcd16d25452e32deb5943e4506&searchtype=a

[GliderGuider]

1. Interesting. I'm going to download the entire paper and see what it says.

I can hear the screams from the "Baseload is bollocks" contingent already...

I'll be interested to see why they considered solar/storage but not wind/storage.

The fact that they have to assume CCS takes all the fossil fuel sources out of the running. That pretty much leaves only nuclear power.

So it goes.

[wtmusic]

2. FYI if you email author Barry Brook he'll send you a PDF

[e-mail]

[kristopher]

14. Brooks is a diehard pro-nuclear fanatic

He is a constant blogger on the subject and his posts reveal a person who is very willing to do exactly what he did in the OP paper - present cherry picked arguments as "science". While the paper is valid as far as it goes, he chose "baseload" as the primary attribute specifically because nuclear is an inferior technology in every respect that DOES matter. It is precisely this type of sleazy argumentation that has caused me to turn against nuclear power since coming to DU.

In spite of the attempt in reply #1 to inoculate the readers against the fact that baseload is a bogus standard by which to judge what power source we use going forward, it is a fact - baseload is an irrelevant standard since it is not a necessary part of getting electricity to the end user in a distributed, sustainable, renewable grid.

In fact, nuclear also promises to actually slow down the response to climate change since it is more costly in time and money than the renewable options - therefore it produces less results over the long term. A far more comprehensive study that focuses on the variables that actually are relevant was accomplished by Jacobson in 2009.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to
global warming,
air pollution mortality, and
energy security

while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on
water supply,
land use,
wildlife,
resource availability,
thermal pollution,
water chemical pollution,
nuclear proliferation, and
undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[GliderGuider]

15. Well, that judgment from you constitutes a recommendation to me.

Anyone you don't want us to read that badly must have something interesting to say.

[bananas]

22. I've read Brooks blog - it's extremely biased science fiction

[joshcryer]

38. Brook is a better environmentalist than anti-nuclear energy people on this forum.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/31/so-just-who-does-climate-science/

So to end this piece, what is my qualification to comment on this amorphous endeavour known as climate science? (I raise this because this issue has been used by some to argue that I shouldn’t be speaking on these matters, or that I shouldn’t hold the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change).

Well, my undergraduate degree focused on biology, geology and computer science. I also did multiple units in chemistry, physics and statistics. My honours research degree was in palaeoenvironmental reconstruction (using palynology and micropalaeontology to infer changes in environmental conditions over the 10,000 year period of the Holocene). My Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) was on the validation of stochastic numerical models using real-world environmental data.

Since my PhD I have published regularly in top peer-reviewed journals and publishing houses, with first author papers in Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Quaternary Science Reviews, PLoS, Global Change Biology, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, and books by Cambridge University Press and Wiley-Blackwell Science.

Brook is the pro-nuclear sides' Jacobson.

Only with far more credentials.

[joshcryer]

39. BTW, polywell and "space based solar power" are science fiction.

Barry Brook talks about IFR, a technology which was almost completely developed.

20 years ago.

So spare me the "science fiction" bullshit.

[joshcryer]

16. Brooks is a climatologist who has done the numbers. His support for nuclear is breeders tech.

Kinda like James Hansen.

[joshcryer]

18. I assume you have issues with Martin Nicholson and Tom Biegler, too?

Let's hear them.

[txlibdem]

27. Kris Koal-Man can always be counted on to bash usable alternatives to coal

Never lets us down. That kind of reliability is getting rare these days with all the gray areas and the proliferation of options and add-ons associated with each. But not KK, he can always be counted on to bash wind power, bash solar power (while telling us he's FOR it), bash nuclear power -- any technology that actually has the capability to seriously reduce our dependence on coal and other fossil fuels. So, ya got that goin' for ya... which is nice.

The facts speak for themselves. Put the same emissions standards on all the competitors and nuclear comes out clearly as a viable option (for those who are rational and not fanatics against nuclear anything).

We need nuclear power but not the same kind of reactors that we have now. Those were designed 40 to 50 years ago so why even think about them. Yet 100% of the new reactors recently approved for construction are light water/PWR designs much like the existing reactors with a serious makeover on the safety side.

That's all well and good but what we need is a rethinking of the whole industry: mass production of components to bring costs down, several "pre-approved" designs that get streamlined express approvals and pre-approved status to environmental sign-offs, only advanced passively save designs should be considered for approval, Thorium cycle reactors should be the primary focus of our nuclear industry --we have only 100 years of Uranium left but over 1000 years of Thorium supply worldwide, Generation IV and modular designs should get the lions share of subsidies. But here we are, running after the pressurized water reactor designs like the dog getting wagged by the tail all over again.

NASA is stuck in the 1960s in terms of its focus on rockets, they still have yet to recreate the Apollo boosters of the '60s and have no plans to so they keep chasing a third place medal with their rockets anyway. Similarly, the nuclear construction industry seem to want to redo the 1970s focus on light water reactors/PWRs. When did America lose its ability to move forward? When did we stop looking ahead and began only looking behind! Only Generation IV, only mass produced, and no idiotic contracts that make it profitable for the construction contractor to drag their feet or screw things up so they will get an extension to redo their own mess ups. Who is the idiot who is approving these companies?

Moving on to the renewable energy sources, they should have to be compared against nuclear on a 24/7 energy output standpoint. Who would be so simple minded as to think otherwise? And the only way to get to that is energy storage coupled with the renewable energy generation and therefore an increase in their size. If wind power farms are 33% available then we do not need 1GW of them... we need 3 GW of wind. But if energy storage is included in the design that figure should increase.

Wind, in many ways, complements solar power as well. Overall wind is higher in winter and overall solar output is higher in summer so the renewable energy generation needs to be looked at as a whole and not piece by piece. Surely our government has someone with the brain capacity for this task??? Solar power plants should be required to include energy storage and increased capacity in order to output a stable amount of power 24/7 and THAT should be the accepted rating for their output. The High Voltage DC energy transmission lines that will bring the massive amounts of solar and wind from the southwest and midwest to the population areas where it will be used is quite possibly the most critical aspect of a rational renewable energy strategy.

[NickB79]

31. So, how do massive wind turbine farms and desert-spanning solar thermal plants fit

Into the "distributed, sustainable, renewable grid" you envision that doesn't require baseload production?

[joshcryer]

17. He sent it to me pretty quick, really nice guy.

Reading it after the news.

[wtmusic]

19. Standout quotes:

"Of the FFS (fit-for-service) technologies, nuclear has the lowest EI (emission intensity) by a factor of about six."

"An objective review of the existing authoritative literature demonstrably supports the conclusion that today current generation nuclear power is the only proven baseload technology that can deliver the EI target needed for effective climate change mitigation."

"Non-climate impacts do have an influence on public perception of technology acceptance. This is particularly the case for nuclear power, where safety and security issues and long-term waste storage are perceived as significant environmental risks...a level playing field is required where equal financial assistance is provided to all technologies to allow them to compete on their merits and not be handicapped by community biases that are not supported by objective analysis."

"An objective analysis of these data shows nuclear power to be the standout solution for low-emissions baseload electricity, in terms of cost and ability to meet the timetable for GHG abatement."

[joshcryer]

20. Shame it doesn't mention Gen IV (IFR/LFTR).

But they had nothing to really go by with Gen IV.

[Fledermaus]

3. The sting is in the tailings

Millions of litres of radioactive water from the Ranger uranium mine have flowed into internationally acclaimed and World Heritage-listed wetlands in Kakadu National Park.

David Whitley discovers hole truths at Kakadu's yellowcake central.

IF THERE'S one stretch of water in which I really don't want to swim, it's the billabong in front of me. Except it's not a billabong. It's a "retention pond" that belongs to one of the most controversial mines in the world.

About 10 per cent of the uranium that powers the world's nuclear power stations comes from the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Northern Territory. Fears about contamination mean all water that falls on the 700-hectare site has to stay within its boundaries and Ranger's retention ponds have become a wetland haven of sorts for birds and a couple of saltwater crocs - so far they have managed to evade the traps set at the water's edge.

Advertisement: Story continues below A trip to a mine isn't what most people consider when they come to Kakadu National Park. With so many beautiful spots, rock-art sites and rugged escarpments, it seems absurd to spend a morning looking at man's desecration of the landscape. Yet Ranger and Kakadu are inextricably linked.

Ranger isn't inside the park boundary but the two sites exist like warring brothers. Both were created at roughly the same time; the park was declared almost as a sop to the environmentalists who wanted to stop the mine from opening.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/the-sting-is-in-the-tailings-20101118-17yul.html

[wtmusic]

4. "you're probably exposed to more radiation standing on the steps of the Sydney Opera House"

Where is the part about "millions of litres of radioactive water"? :shrug:

[Fledermaus]

5. The Nuclear Train Wreck: North Korea is Just the Beginning

Given the speed with which the North Koreans have achieved nuclear untouchability, it isn't far-fetched to imagine the Iranians or Algerians springing their own nuclear trump card in a year or two. And if that scenario comes to pass, the ensuing Armageddon in the Middle East will make the war games in the Korean peninsula look like a pub brawl.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Nuclear-Train-Wreck-N-by-Rakesh-Krishnan-Si-101127-56.html

[GliderGuider]

6. And 12 degrees F of global warming will make a nuclear war look like a girl's tea party.

Do we want to cut CO2 or don't we? If we do, then it looks like nuclear power is our only realistic option at the moment. If we're more afraid of brown-skinned people being able to rebuff imperial threats, then we deserve whatever Mother Nature decides to throw at us.

[bananas]

7. Bullshit. nt

[GliderGuider]

8. Tired of the argument? I understand.

Do you feel that nuclear war is a greater threat than global warming?

[bananas]

26. Yes, nuclear war is a greater threat than global warming.

It is 6 Minutes to Midnight
"First and foremost ... nuclear weapons"

http://thebulletin.org/content/doomsday-clock/overview

It is 6 Minutes to Midnight



The Doomsday Clock conveys how close humanity is to catastrophic destruction--the figurative midnight--and monitors the means humankind could use to obliterate itself. First and foremost, these include nuclear weapons, but they also encompass climate-changing technologies and new developments in the life sciences that could inflict irrevocable harm.

[GliderGuider]

30. At least now I know where you're coming from.

I disagree, of course. I think that the forces that are unleashed by GW may be slower and more insidious than nuclear war, but they are far more destructive to the planet. So it goes.

[NickB79]

32. I have trouble believing a nuclear war could be more harmful than the Permian mass extinction

Which was what runaway global warming looks like on a planetary scale.

Even with a global nuclear war, a 95% extinction rate of all life on the planet is pretty hard to beat.

[PavePusher]

33. The "Doomsday Clock" is Fear-Fiction.

Isn't that the Republican's job?

[NickB79]

10. Don't worry. Nuclear winter will cancel out global warming

Problem solved!

[GliderGuider]

11. All right! Let the hard rain fall!

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[TheWraith]

9. Once again, OpEdNews proves itself to be factose-intolerant. nt

[bananas]

12. Just looking at that chart I can tell this is a bogus analysis. nt

[GliderGuider]

13. Don't even need to know how it was derived, eh?

I don't envy your certainty.

[bananas]

23. His cost estimate for nuclear is bogus

and that's a fact.

[joshcryer]

24. Their cost estimate for nuclear is based on the actual buildout of nuclear that is happening.

Not based on fantasy numbers which have no meaning.

[bananas]

25. Like I haven't heard that before. nt

[GliderGuider]

29. Cost estimates from the paper:

It is therefore in the rapidly developing Asian countries that current real-world costs can be most reliably established. The two leading reactor designs now being built in China are the indigenous CPR-1000 and the Westinghouse AP-1000. Reported capital costs are in the range of $1296-$1790/kW. Korea has focused attention on its APR-1400 design, with domestic overnight costs of $2333/kW. A recent contract for $20.4 billion has been signed with Korean consortium KEPCO to build four APR-1400 reactors in the United Arab Emirates, at a turnkey cost of $3643/kW. This price is notable considering that it is offered under near-FOAK conditions, because these will be the UAE’s first nuclear plants.

I note with some amusement the use of the word "turnkey".

BTW, FOAK stands for "First of a kind".

[joshcryer]

37. Yeah, I always thought it was absurd that the costs were based on failed...

...political environments. Basically, if you want these things built, they use less base materials than renewables. Even Gen III+. However, I don't support the building of Gen III+, but that is beyond the scope of the paper.

[joshcryer]

21. Kick. I see it made it to the greatest page.

Nice.

[GliderGuider]

28. The paper is a model of sobriety, clarity and diligence.

Which of course means "I agree with it". ;-)

I especially appreciated this part:

4.3. Greater than 40% use of variable renewable energy (RE) unlikely

Based on the criteria identified in Section 2.1, variable RE sources will not replace significant baseload generating capacity in most parts of the world. In many developed countries, electricity networks assign variable RE sources such as wind and solar with a capacity credit of less than 10%, so they are not considered as reliable baseload generators.

The development of large-scale electricity storage systems may be able to increase the capacity credits for variable RE sources by storing energy that would otherwise be surplus to requirements. The stored energy can be released at a future time to meet the electricity demand. Only two large-scale storage systems are currently considered commercial grade: pumped hydro storage (PHS) and compressed air energy storage (CAES). Both these systems require particular geological environments which are not available everywhere and not readily scaled to provide sufficient storage to make a significant contribution to baseload supply at a reasonable cost. A recent study of wind-CAES systems found them not to be cost competitive with IGCC/CCS until the carbon price had reached $100/tonne of carbon eq (equivalent to $367/tonne of CO2eq). Such a high carbon price is not expected before 2050 (see Section 3.3).

4.4. Need for sustainable energy

Technologies that rely on energy sources mined from the earth are commonly not considered to be sustainable. This is the case for both coal and gas, as well as the uranium used in current nuclear power plants. Uranium proven reserves are around 5 million tonnes (recoverable at less than $130/kg) and will last 70 years at current use. Current estimates of potentially economic uranium resources exceed 35 million tonnes. Coal proven reserves will last around 120 years and gas proven reserves will last 60 years at today’s level of use.

There is no clear definition of what constitutes sustainable energy, but it seems likely the current use of fossil fuels and uranium would fail any reasonable test of sustainability. The total resources will almost certainly be significantly greater than the proven reserves but they will still not be sustainable indefinitely.

Both coal- and gas-fired electricity are close to maximum conversion efficiency, so technology improvements are unlikely to significantly extend the life of coal and gas reserves. Uranium conversion, on the other hand, is relatively inefficient with less than one percent of the usable uranium energy actually being converted to electricity. Generation IV reactors (both fast spectrum and thorium-fuelled molten salt designs) will substantially increase this efficiency and are expected to be commercially available long before the depletion of uranium resources. It has been estimated that nuclear fission fuel will in effect be ‘inexhaustible’ if used in fast nuclear reactors.

Nice piece of work.

[bananas]

34. It's a model of hype, bullshit, and crap. nt

[GliderGuider]

35. Meaning that you disagree with it. I get it. n/t

[joshcryer]

36. Very good analysis, passed the peer review. Brooks is for a 75% nuclear, 25% renewable...

...infrastructure.

But with nuclear he wants to see Gen IV, IFR/LFTR type technology, none of this bullshit "99% of our fuel gets stored in Yucca Mountain" crap.

Anyone who argues against IFR/LFTR breeder reactors are arguing for hundred thousand year half life storage of nuclear waste.

[joshcryer]

40. Media reactions:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/12/04/media-reactions-energy-paper-p1/

Nice read. Glad Barry is defending his work.