Energy Costs Will Rise ‘Viciously’ Without Atomic Power, IEA Outlook Says

[GliderGuider]

The headline is a tad misleading, which is to be expected from Bloomberg. However,

Energy Costs Will Rise ‘Viciously’ Without Atomic Power, IEA Outlook Says

Energy will become “viciously more expensive” and polluting if governments don’t promote renewable and nuclear power in the next two decades instead of burning coal, the International Energy Agency said.

Global demand for energy is set to increase 40 percent by 2035, the Paris-based agency said today in its annual World Energy Outlook report. Consumption will rise 1.3 percent a year to 16.96 billion metric tons of oil equivalent in 2035, spurred by China and other emerging economies, the IEA said.

The worst atomic accident in 25 years at the Fukushima plant in Japan on March 11 led Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, to close eight of its 17 reactors permanently. Nuclear plants generate power continuously while emitting virtually no greenhouse gases. Without nuclear, keeping world temperature gains at 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) will cost an extra $1.5 trillion through 2035, the IEA said.

“If we do not have an international legally binding agreement soon, and if it doesn’t give a boost to a major investment wave of clean energy technologies by 2017, the door to 2 degrees will be closed forever,” Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist in Paris, said in an interview yesterday. A shift away from nuclear power “would definitely be bad news for energy security, for climate change and also for the economics of the electricity price.”

Fatih Bitrol has always been one of the straight shooters in the global energy establishment, so I'm inclined to believe his economic speculations. On the other hand, I'd much rather he took nuclear power off the table. On the third hand, it's a moot point anyway: what I hear him saying in careful bureaucratese is, "Hey look everybody - we're fucked!"

[kristopher]

1. The IEA is so dedicated to energy business as usual that the UN had to create a new agency: IRENA

The International Renewable Energy Agency is meant to counterbalance the IEA's unalterable focus on fossil fuels and nuclear. It was just launched in the past year.

[FBaggins]

3. Riiight. Clever deception on their part.

Tricky sons of guns to promote fossil and nuclear by saying that we need to boost renewables and nuclear and cut back on fossil.

Crafty b@st@rds! :sarcasm:

[GliderGuider]

5. The mandates of the two organizations are quite different.

EIA:

Today, the IEA’s four main areas of focus are:

• Energy security: Promoting diversity, efficiency and flexibility within all energy sectors
  
• Economic development: Ensuring the stable supply of energy to IEA member countries and promoting free markets to foster economic growth and eliminate energy poverty
  
• Environmental awareness: Enhancing international knowledge of options for tackling climate change
  
• Engagement worldwide: Working closely with non-member countries, especially major producers and consumers, to find solutions to shared energy and environmental concerns

IRENA:

Mandated by governments worldwide, IRENA’s mission is to promote the widespread and increased adoption and sustainable use of all forms of renewable energy. IRENA’s Member States pledge to advance renewables in their own national policies and programs, and to promote, both domestically and through international cooperation, the transition to a sustainable and secure energy supply.

IRENA is focused solely on renewables, they are in no position, and have no mandate, to provide comprehensive, cross-source assessments of energy security.

You can disagree with IEA's inclusion of nuclear power in their outlook, but their position on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change, and their awareness of supply limits in oil production is unimpeachable. Birol has spoken out loudly, frequently and officially on both topics.

I don't see their missions as being in conflict at all. The better IRENA fulfills its mandate, the more it will mitigate the IEA's warning.

[Zoeisright]

2. Absolute bull shit.

Nuclear energy is extremely expensive. Plus we can't handle the poisonous shit it produces.

Can't get much more delusional than that.

[RC]

6. It is the extremely tight regulation at every step of the way for nuclear power generation

that is the real culprit for the high cost of nuclear power. This is fostered by the paranoid Luddites.
Not all nuclear reactors are the same.
There will never be another Chernobyl, which was a very primitive reactor.
Fukushima was 50 plus year old technology, due to be decommissioned and replaced after operation safely for over 40 years. The same type of power plant here in the US is not going to be swamped out by a title wave.
Old nuclear power plants are not being replaced at the end of their useful life because of the fear mongering of the paranoid Luddites. So we see the deteriorating effects of operating these nuclear reactors well past their useful design lives.

Newer design nuclear reactors are much safer by virtue of being self regulating. They cannot overheat. In fact they now have totally self-contained nuclear reactors than can even be buried for their entire operating life. Very little to no maintenance required. Everything is inside the containment chamber.
The fuel can be recycled and reused indefinitely. Only about 4% of nuclear fuel is true waste. We do not currently recycle our nuclear waste because of, again the paranoid Luddites holding things back. So we store and bury it, instead of recycling it.

[msongs]

4. let "private" nuke power companies make it cheaper then w/out taxpayer welfare nt