Title: Nuclear Power, Energy Security and Climate Change
1Nuclear Power, Energy Security and Climate Change
- Peter A. Bradford
- CEES, University of Colo. Law School
- February 1, 2008
2The Easy Part
- Nuclear power has very little to do with U.S.
energy security because we burn almost no
imported oil to generate electricity. - At best, nuclear power displaces some natural gas
which displaces some imported oil used for
heating in the Northeast. - For France or Japan, which import coal and gas to
make electricity, this situation is quite
different.
3Delusions
- It could save the earth National Geographic,
April, 2006 - Clean, green atomic energy can stop global
warming Wired Magazine, February, 2005 - Nuclear energy just may be the energy source
that can save our planet from catastrophic
climate change Patrick Moore, Washington Post,
April 16, 2006
4How Much Difference Can Nuclear Power Actually
Make?
- To make a 10-15 difference as to climate change
between now and 2054 would require building
triple the worlds current nuclear capacity. - Or about 1000 gigawatts (historically 1 gw 1
plant in future, perhaps 3gw 2 plants)
5And What Else? (NRDC 10/06, updated)
- /- Fifteen uranium enrichment plants
- /- Fourteen Yucca Mountains or
- /- Fifty reprocessing plants
- /- Four - five trillion dollars
6Current status of nuclear power
Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency,
http//www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html.
7The Nuclear Renaissance Rhetoric v. Reality
8(No Transcript)
9With Few New Units (Paul Joskow, MIT)
10U.S. Nuclear Output and Nuclear Capacity,
1973-2006 Productivity Improvement in the Face
of Competition
Gigawatts
Gigawatt-hours
11The 15 Wedges (Scientific American, 9/06)
12A Wedge
- Prevent 1 billion tons carbon per year by 2054
- Scaling up only of technologies already deployed
on an industrial scale - Seven needed to stabilize CO2 at 500ppm
- More may be needed
13Wedges 1-5
- 1)Doubling fuel efficiency of 2 billion cars from
30 to 60 mpg - 2)Decreasing the number of car miles traveled by
half - 3)Using best efficiency practices in all
residential and commercial buildings - 4)Produce twice todays coal power output at 60
- instead of 40 efficiency (compared with 32
- today)
- 5)Replacing 1400 coal electric plants with
natural gas-powered facilities
14Wedges 6-10
- 6) Capturing and storing emissions from 800 coal
electric plants - 7) Producing hydrogen from coal at six times
today's rate and storing the captured CO2 - 8) Capturing carbon from 180 coal-to-synfuels
plants and storing the CO2 - 9)Adding double (i.e. tripling) the current
global nuclear capacity to replace coal-based
electricity - 10)Increasing wind electricity capacity by 50
times relative to today, for a total of 2 million
large windmills
15Wedges 11-15
- 11) Installing 700 times the current capacity of
solar electricity - 12)Using 40,000 square kilometers of solar panels
(or 4 million windmills) to produce hydrogen for
fuel cell cars - 13)Increasing ethanol production 50 times by
creating biomass plantations with area equal to
1/6th of world cropland - 14)Eliminating tropical deforestation and
creating new plantations on non-forested land to
quintuple current plantation area - 15)Adopting conservation tillage in all
agricultural soils worldwide
16The Nuclear Wedge
- Doubling of nuclear power really requires
tripling the existing capacity (372GW/438plants)
because todays plants must be replaced. - Probably 700-900 new plants needed to get 1100GW
- Assumes nuclear replaces all coal. In fact,
nuclear will replace some gas and large hydro,
requiring more new capacity to make a wedge. - Prodigiously difficult and expensive, but so are
many of the wedges.
17Who Else is in the Nuclear Wedge? NYTimes,
April 15, 2007
- With Eye on Iran, Rivals Also Want Nuclear Power
- Dmitry Astakhov/Presidential Press Service, via
Agence France-Presse Getty Images - King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia with President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who is offering
nuclear aid.
18Who Else is in the Nuclear Wedge?
19Missing Ingredients of a Sustainable Nuclear
Renaissance
- Significant number of new plants per year
financed by private capital - Successful participation in competitive power
supply markets - A waste disposal program decisively underway
- A nonproliferation regime adequate to the nuclear
fuel cycles in prospect
20Relative costs per MIT 2003 Study
21Nuclear Costs per 2007 Keystone Collaborative
Fact Finding
-
- Average Colorado power generation cost now is
under 5/kwh.
22The Cost of Nuclear Power
- Old plant operating cost between 1.2 and 2
cents/kwh - Clearly competitive and moneymaking
- Cost from new plants between 8.3 and 11.1
cents/kwh (Keystone) or 9.5 and 13 cents/kwh
(Moodys extrapolated) - Clearly uncompetitive with energy efficiency,
coal or natural gas
23Relative Risk
- No nuclear plant has been bid since power supply
processes became competitive in 1978. - In most of the large U.S. markets, power plant
costs must now be recovered on the basis of
market performance, not regulatory decisionmaking.
24Uncertainty of Construction Costs
- History of optimistic forecasts and schedules.
- No one has ever overestimated the cost of a
nuclear power plant at the time it was ordered - Industry estimates of 1500/kw in 2002-3 are now
3000-4000 and rising - Finland plant well behind schedule and at least
50 over budget.
25Energy Policy Act of 2005
- Loan guarantees available to all carbon free
technologies - Production tax credit (1.8/kWh for first 6 GW)
- Accident liability limit renewal
- Delay insurance (.7-.8/kWh for 1st tier)
- All this plus licensing cost sharing and the
evisceration of public involvement
26The Ongoing Loan Guarantee Debacle
- In 2005, 4 billion for a few first mover
plants and other low carbon sources. No plants
ordered - In 2007 Congress upped this to 20 billion for
nuclear power in 2008-9 alone, though the
industry asserted more than 50 billion was
needed or the Renaissance would be derailed The
Hill, May 24, 2007 - From 4 billion to 20 billion for loan
guarantees in two years, before construction even
begins, makes the nuclear renaissance the
greatest cost overrun of all.
27Such guarantees distort power markets
- To investors nuclear power will be less risky and
will promise higher returns (because the equity
owners will need to put up less capital). - All other alternatives will seem riskier and less
attractive - To regulators and to market operators, nuclear
power will seem less expensive because risks have
been shifted to taxpayers - Thus both public and private investment will be
disproportionately shifted toward nuclear power
28Are the Default Risks Real?
- In the 1990s, nuclear power was the largest
beneficiary of a rescue that Moodys estimated at
between 50 billion and 300 billion and
necessary to avoid bankruptcy for several major
utilities. - These were the stranded cost surcharges that
accompanied electric restructuring and charged
the unrecoverable costs of nuclear power to the
customers, including those in Illinois - The pending legislation would charge the next
rescue to the taxpayers instead of the customers,
and would do so before the fact.
29Are the Default Risks Real?
- Fifty-one nuclear plants have shut down for a
year or longer - As many plants have been canceled as completed,
some after billions spent - Much maligned old NRC licensing process
licensed more plants (200) than next four
countries combined. No rejections. - Some cost overruns bankrupted N-plant builders in
the 1970s/1980s several others nearly did so.
30Are the Safety Risks Real?
- Nuclear safety risks increase when we behave as
though the plants will be safe because they are
needed. - All of the reviews of the Three Mile Island
accident cautioned that the NRC was putting too
much emphasis on licensing rather than overseeing
the existing plants - Nuclear power develops best when it grows apart
from politically driven mandates and expectations
31Lessons of the 1970s, Now Being Studiously
Unlearned
- Who bears risks of runaway costs?
32An Unfortunate Reality
- The nuclear power programs that actually unfold
are never the idealized programs that nuclear
enthusiasts suggest are possible. - Just look at the loan guarantee overrun or the
evisceration of public involvement in nuclear
licensing
33Nuclear Waste
- Repository date has slipped slightly more than
one year per year since 1977 (when it was 1985) - Is now 2020 for Yucca Mtn, but maybe never
- Fuel seems destined to stay where it is for
another decade. - Centralized dry cask storage is possible in
theory but perhaps not in fact.
34Sensible Energy Policy that Might (or Might Not)
Improve Nuclear Power Prospects
- Implement climate change policy that creates (or
recognizes) value of all carbon reducing
technologies, including carbon sequestration,
energy efficiency and renewable energy - Carbon caps and markets
- Carbon taxes
- Carbon reducing set asides (portfolio standards)
and/or production tax credits - Remove liability limitations for future projects
- Use neutral market mechanisms to choose least
costly approaches among these - Avoid pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey energy policy
making and repressive licensing practices - Take the time to deal sensibly with waste,
proliferation and safeguards - Rigorous prioritization of options for research
purposes effective, efficient, expeditious
35Dont Call It a Renaissance Until Theyve Shown
You a Masterpiece
36Conclusion
- A nuclear renaissance is not essential to
combating climate change. - At reasonable cost and in wiser hands, it might
help. - At excessive cost under present policies, it will
divert limited resources in potentially ruinous
ways.
37(No Transcript)
38NRC as an regulator under pressure to license
- Davis Besse incident review
- Ongoing efforts to exclude public from hearing
process - No effort to take advantage of advances in
hearing approaches - Exclusion of energy efficiency contentions
- Domenici threat of budget cuts
- Chairman promising approval of Westinghouse
design during visit to China - 2002 NRC Survey showing that almost half of the
staff thought that raising safety concerns would
hurt their career - Current chair was before taking the post paid
to do ads on behalf of Yucca Mtn.
39(No Transcript)
40(No Transcript)
41Customers or Investors Left Hanging This Time?
42Nuclear cant be taken away from the table
43Ford Nucleon 1958 Concept Car, Never Produced
- Reactor in rear, designed for recharging every
5000 miles at recharging stations that would
replace gas stations.