Systems for Change: Nuclear power vs. Energy Efficiency + Renewables?

[kristopher]

Systems for Change: Nuclear power vs. Energy Efficiency + Renewables?
by antony Froggatt with mycle Schneider

http://boell.org/downloads/HBS-Frogatt_web.pdf

conclusions

...From a systemic point of view the nuclear and energy efficiency+renewable energy approaches clearly mutually exclude each other, not only in investment terms. This is becoming increasingly transparent in countries or regions where renewable energy is taking a large share of electricity generation, i.e., in Germany and Spain. The main reasons are as follows.

- Competition for limited investment funds. A euro, dollar or yuan can only be spent once and it should be spent for the options that provide the largest emission reductions the fastest. Nuclear power is not only one of the most expensive but also the slowest option.

- Overcapacity kills efficiency incentives. Centralized, large, power-generation units tend to lead to structural overcapacities. Overcapacities leave no room for efficiency.

- Flexible complementary capacity needed. Increasing levels of renewable electricity sources will need flexible, medium-load complementary facilities and not inflexible, large, baseload power plants.

- Future grids go both ways. Smart metering, smart appliances and smart grids are on their way. The logic is an entirely redesigned system where the user gets also a generation and storage function. This is radically different from the top- down centralized approach.

For future planning purposes...

Download at:
http://boell.org/downloads/HBS-Frogatt_web.pdf


#1 reason:
Overcapacity kills efficiency incentives. Centralized, large, power-generation units tend to lead to structural overcapacities. Overcapacities leave no room for efficiency.

This shapes a fundamentally different approach to an energy system than what is found with distributed renewables.

[kristopher]

1. Kick for visibility.

[kristopher]

4. Case in point

Nuclear plans threaten UK's part in renewables revolution, expert warns
Prof John Schellnhuber says UK is not fit to take part in 'third industrial revolution' of switch to clean energy
Damian Carrington and Hanna Gersmann guardian.co.uk

The UK's "eccentric" determination to build new nuclear power means it is not fit to take part in the "third industrial revolution" of switching to clean renewable energy, according to one of the world's most influential climate scientists.

Prof John Schellnhuber, the current adviser to the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and previous adviser the president of the European commission and other governments, said the UK was missing out owing to its failure to replicate the successful use of feed-in-tariffs (Fits) to kickstart its renewables industry.

Schellnhuber also said that the world's energy system could be transformed to a cleaner and cheaper renewable model for the same expenditure already paid out in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

In 2010, $409bn was given to the oil, gas and coal industry as subsidy, with just $66bn going to green energy.

In an interview with the Guardian, Schellnhuber, who heads the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/15/nuclear-renewables-schellnhuber

The UK seems determined to join the ranks of the "boulder nations" standing in the way of a rapid transition to a sustainable renewable future...

[diane in sf]

2. kick some more--good article

[bananas]

3. Mycle Schneider provides some of the best analysis

From the preface:

Whatever way you look at it, nuclear energy has
neither the potential to make a decisive contribution
to climate change nor is it necessary in order to
guarantee energy supply. The exact opposite is true.
Those who want to promote the development of
renewable energy with the aim of producing 100%
of the power demand should oppose the building
of new nuclear plants as well as the life span extension
of older ones. Despite the claims about nuclear
energy it is not a suitable interim strategy leading
towards the age of solar energy.

[wtmusic]

5. Heh - we certainly don't need to worry about overcapacity with solar/wind, do we?

In fact, if we just disconnect them from the grid we'll REALLY be starving the beast! :D

[kristopher]

6. Citigroups analysis of the effect of energy efficiency and renewables on nuclear investment in UK.

...Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca.220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

That would be 56% for the entire nuclear fleet. What is going to happen if they build them with that little of a market for their electricity when it is priced to reflect the actual cost of investment and production?


You can also read more on the nature of the conflict in this paper:

POLICY CHALLENGES OF NUCLEAR REACTOR CONSTRUCTION, COST ESCALATION AND CROWDING OUT ALTERNATIVES
LESSONS FROM THE U.S. AND FRANCE FOR THE EFFORT TO REVIVE THE U.S. INDUSTRY WITH LOAN GUARANTEES AND TAX SUBSIDIES
SEPTEMBER 2010

FINDINGS: COST ESCALATION
The report finds that the claim that standardization, learning, or large increases in the number of reactors under construction will lower costs is not supported in the data...

FINDINGS: CROWDING OUT ALTERNATIVES
The commitment to nuclear reactors in France and the U.S appears to have crowded out alternatives. The French track record on efficiency and renewables is extremely poor compared to similar European nations, as is that of the U.S.

States where utilities have not expressed an interest in getting licenses for new nuclear reactors have a better track record on efficiency and renewable and more aggressive plans for future development of efficiency and renewables, as shown in Exhibit ES-3. These states:
- had three times as much renewable energy and ten times as much non-hydro renewable energy in their 1990 generation mix and set RPS goals for the next decade that are 50 percent higher;
- spent three times as much on efficiency in 2006;
- saved over three times as much energy in the 1992-2006 period, and
- have much stronger utility efficiency programs in place.

The cost and availability of alternatives play equally important roles. In both nations, nuclear reactors are substantially more costly than the alternatives. The U.S. appears to have a much greater opportunity to develop alternatives not only because the cost disadvantage of nuclear in the U.S. is greater, but also because the portfolio of potential resources is much greater in the U.S. The U.S. consumes about 50 percent more electricity per dollar of gross domestic product per capita than France, which have the highest electricity consumption among comparable Western European nations...

Download the entire report here:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/IEE/20100909_cooperStudy.pdf