CONSULTING

Recommendations

Info

Nuclear Power vs. Renewable Energy Deployment Introduction The December 2015 United National Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris is rightly seen as an important milestone in the global fight to avoid dangerous climate change. The foundation of the conference’s outcome was the national pledges for mitigation actions through until 2030; while voluntary, they have a formal reporting and review mechanism. The Paris agreement noted that these pledges, when aggregated, did not meet the objective “with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels”. For the Paris Agreement 162 national pledges called Intended National Determined Contributions (INDCs) were submitted to the UNFCCC covering around 95 percent of global emissions in 2010 and 98 percent of the global population. The extent to which nuclear power is included within these plans is limited as just 31 countries currently operating nuclear power, therefore, only around one in five Paris pledges. Furthermore, expansion of the sector, through construction of new reactors, is only taking place in 12 of these countries with an additional two countries, Belarus and United Arab Emirates, building for the first time. Within the actual INDCs only eleven countries mentioned that they were operating or considering to operate nuclear power as part of their mitigation strategy and even fewer (six) actually state that they were proposing to expand its use (Belarus, India, Japan, Turkey and UAE). This compares with 144 that mention the use of renewable energy and 111, which explicitly mention targets or plans for expanding its use as shown in Figure 32. This highlights the extent to which nuclear power is a niche carbon abatement strategy, compared to the use of renewables which is universal. The limited use of nuclear power to address climate change concerns, especially compared to renewable energies is further demonstrated in the ongoing review of the Paris Agreement. This mandates meetings every five years, starting in 2018, to review progress, and assess how to increase the emissions reduction plans in order to meet the international agreed targets for 2030. However, it is highly unlikely that many, if any, countries will be able to increase their use of nuclear power over and above the level already included in their existing pledges, given the length of time that nuclear power takes to plan, license and build. Therefore, despite the need for greater action to reduce emissions through until 2030, nuclear power is unable to accelerate its deployment—in fact, as other parts of the report illustrate, more units might close than start up— and further decarbonization will heavily rely on energy efficiency and renewable energy. In the longer term, while most global models assume that a decarbonized energy sector will include a combination of nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage and renewables, there are a significant number of well-respected studies that assume a nuclear- and fossil-free energy future. These include: Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt et al. 103 World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016
• The Global Energy Assessment 2012, published by the Cambridge University press, states, “that it is also feasible to phase-out nuclear and still meet the sustainability targets”. 335 • The Special report of the International Panel and Climate Change (IPCC) on renewable energy from 2011, reviews at a number of scenarios, which limit the use of different supply options, including renewables, nuclear power and Carbon Capture and Storage. Some of these scenarios, show no additional cost associated with the nuclear-free option, while meeting global mitigation targets. 336 • Global Energy (R)evolution, published and regularly updated by Greenpeace, is a comprehensive 100-percent renewable energy scenario. 337 Figure 32 : Paris Agreement, National Pledges and Nuclear Power 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Review of INDCs for Nuclear Power and Renewable Energy © Mycle Schneider Consulting 0 Total number Mention renewables Mention nuclear power Propose expanding renewables Propose Expanding use of nuclear Source: INDCs UNFCCC 338 Therefore, it is not so much a question of having to deploy nuclear in order to decarbonize, but whether or not Governments choose to actively support nuclear power as a means of climate mitigation. While no energy source is without its economic costs and environmental impacts, what has been seen clearly over the past decade, and particularly in the past few years, is that choosing to decarbonize with nuclear turns out as an expensive, slow, risky and potentially hazardous 335 GEA and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, “Global Energy Assessment Towards a Sustainable Future”, Cambridge University Press, 2012. 336 IPCC, “Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, International Panel on Climate Change, figure 10.11. 337 Greenpeace International, Global Wind Energy Council, and SolarPowerEurope,“Energy [r]evolution— A sustainable World Energy Outlook 2015”, September 2015, see http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Climate-Reports/Energy- Revolution-2015/, accessed 30 June 2016 338 UNFCCC, “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions”, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2015, see http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php, accessed 3 June 2016. Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt et al. 104 World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016
Page 1 and 2:
A MYCLE SCHNEIDER CONSULTING PROJEC
Page 3 and 4:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The project coordin
Page 5 and 6:
EBRD Chernobyl Decommissioning/Spen
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Nuclear
Page 9 and 10:
Foreword by Tomas Kåberger 1 The W
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary and Conclusions K
Page 13 and 14:
WNISR classifies 36 Japanese reacto
Page 15 and 16:
AREVA Debacle (new episode). The Fr
Page 17 and 18:
Fukushima Prefecture, 70 percent of
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction A major accident, like
Page 21 and 22:
the past two decades, nuclear power
Page 23 and 24:
There were three exceptions in 2015
Page 25 and 26:
In the first half of 2016, three re
Page 27 and 28:
The current world fleet has a total
Page 29 and 30:
However, many of those projects (48
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2: Reactor Construction Times
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 11: Construction Starts in t
Page 35 and 36:
large-scale new-build. Having asses
Page 37 and 38:
Figure 15: Age Distribution of 164
Page 39 and 40:
timeframe are highly unlikely given
Page 41 and 42:
The IAEA says that, “seven countr
Page 43 and 44:
for four units equaled approximatel
Page 45 and 46:
Over the past year, the design sele
Page 47 and 48:
In Turkey, up to three projects are
Page 49 and 50:
electricity generating company (EÜ
Page 51 and 52:
However, Rosatom highlighted the
Page 53 and 54: eportedly considering “suspending
Page 55 and 56: start in 2020 and commercial operat
Page 57 and 58: floating reactors. 160 There is als
Page 59 and 60: nonetheless suggested that the proj
Page 61 and 62: Nuclear Finances: Corporate Meltdow
Page 63 and 64: in the U.S. in 2013 from US$5/MBTU
Page 65 and 66: decides not to proceed with Hinkley
Page 67 and 68: market capital for renewable energy
Page 69 and 70: apply across the whole European mar
Page 71 and 72: Supervision and Administration Comm
Page 73 and 74: export market to countries such as
Page 75 and 76: Conclusion on Corporate Finances Th
Page 77 and 78: Sequence and Origin of the Accident
Page 79 and 80: a source of carbon dioxide to smoth
Page 81 and 82: Figure 29: Cumulative I-131 Concent
Page 83 and 84: In total, TORCH-2016 (The Other Rep
Page 85 and 86: in Lithuania, Kozloduy units 1 to 4
Page 87 and 88: The ISF-2 has been completed, pre-c
Page 89 and 90: emove the fuel-containing masses (c
Page 91 and 92: around 4.4 m 3 /hour. 270 Therefore
Page 93 and 94: Current status of workers The gover
Page 95 and 96: The government is aggressively seek
Page 97 and 98: (Full-scale Thyroid Screening Progr
Page 99 and 100: Costs 315 TEPCO continues to pay co
Page 101 and 102: contamination. In all parameters li
Page 103: However, the average thyroid dose i
Page 107 and 108: decisions for the construction of n
Page 109 and 110: consecutive year, making up about 7
Page 111 and 112: US$43 billion and wind power was US
Page 113 and 114: Figure 39: Changes in EU Nuclear, S
Page 115 and 116: hydro renewables power generation a
Page 117 and 118: Annexes Annex 1: Overview by Region
Page 119 and 120: The November 2013 edition of the In
Page 121 and 122: its rated power 374 and until 26 Ma
Page 123 and 124: ebuilding its Gentilly-2 nuclear at
Page 125 and 126: LTEP, released in December 2013, co
Page 127 and 128: The U.S. reactor fleet provided 798
Page 129 and 130: units had received a license extens
Page 131 and 132: the capacity market auctions, the p
Page 133 and 134: subsidies already. First, Illinois
Page 135 and 136: Conservation (DEC) to deny the plan
Page 137 and 138: & 2 in Illinois, Pilgrim in Massach
Page 139 and 140: Pending Combined Operating License
Page 141 and 142: traditionally been sited, but also
Page 143 and 144: projects only after Sanmen-1 ‘suc
Page 145 and 146: geographically the nuclear plant th
Page 147 and 148: (US$6.6 billion), 546 to as low as
Page 149 and 150: work on site in India for six AP100
Page 151 and 152: in regulatory safety inspections re
Page 153 and 154: 2010 Strategic Energy Plan, which h
Page 155 and 156:
The options for how such targets wo
Page 157 and 158:
seismic fault line at the site. The
Page 159 and 160:
The IRRS team concluded that the NR
Page 161 and 162:
meeting the new regulatory guidelin
Page 163 and 164:
declared for the reactor and while
Page 165 and 166:
However, observers saw a “dramati
Page 167 and 168:
Despite the government’s commitme
Page 169 and 170:
end of March 2014, unit 1 of Lungme
Page 171 and 172:
after its license had expired, but
Page 173 and 174:
The following section provides a sh
Page 175 and 176:
espectively over one month and two
Page 177 and 178:
On 22 December 2015, FANC authorize
Page 179 and 180:
In parallel, Fortum Power has been
Page 181 and 182:
levels. It now looks plausible that
Page 183 and 184:
The Hinkley Point C Saga - A French
Page 185 and 186:
esulting in a loss of market share,
Page 187 and 188:
for lifetime extensions, before 3/1
Page 189 and 190:
and coal-fired generation fell back
Page 191 and 192:
announced in April 2004 that his go
Page 193 and 194:
nuclear energy, in the form of dire
Page 195 and 196:
for the £16 billion (US$30 billion
Page 197 and 198:
to begin operating in 2024. 829 How
Page 199 and 200:
2019. 839 In December 2015, BKW off
Page 201 and 202:
assist in financing. 851 Westinghou
Page 203 and 204:
Hungary has only one nuclear power
Page 205 and 206:
concluded that when making assumpti
Page 207 and 208:
in 2012 and 2013. 893 However, the
Page 209 and 210:
of the MNPP [Medzamor Nuclear Power
Page 211 and 212:
eactors at the site has been put ba
Page 213 and 214:
Ukraine has 15 operating reactors,
Page 215 and 216:
Annex 2: Japanese Nuclear Reactor S
Page 217 and 218:
Comments WNISR considers that the 1
Page 219 and 220:
Notes: Top: Air dose at 1 m height
Page 221 and 222:
Annex 5: Status of Lifetime Extensi
Page 223 and 224:
Plant Grid Connection Extension App
Page 225 and 226:
Tomas Kåberger has a MSc in Engine
Page 227 and 228:
Annex 7: Abbreviations ABWR AEA AEC
Page 229 and 230:
GPSC GUE/NGL GWEC IAEA IANS IAS ICC
Page 231 and 232:
PLEC PLEX PPA PRIS PV PWR PXE RAPS-
Page 233 and 234:
Annex 8: Status of Nuclear Power in
Page 235 and 236:
Annex 9: Nuclear Reactors in the Wo
Page 237 and 238:
Country/Reactors Units MWe (net) Co
Page 239 and 240:
15 Delayed again. A further delay o
Page 241:
38 Delayed several times. This esti
show all

CONSULTING

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?