Nuclear Energy in the Global Energy Assessment - Faap

faap.br

Nuclear Energy in the Global Energy Assessment - Faap

Nuclear Energy in the

Global Energy Assessment

Nebojša Nakićenović

Technische Universität Wien xx

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis xx

naki@eeg.tuwien.ac.at

Nuclear Energy International Conference, Engineering College

Armando Alvares Penteado Foundation, São Paulo — 23-26 May 2011


The Global Energy Assessment

Towards a More Sustainable Future

IIASA

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

and its international partners present the

www.GlobalEnergyAssessment.org

#2


3

www.GlobalEnergyAssessment.org

Towards a more Sustainable Future

● Initiated in 2006 and involves >300 CLAs, LAs

and ERs and >200 Anonymous Reviewers

● Peer-review coordinated by Review Editors is

complete - ongoing responses and revisions.

● Final report (Cambridge Univ. Press); pre-launch

on 21-23 June 2011 at Vienna Energy Forum

followed by vigorous dissemination

#3


www.GlobalEnergyAssessment.org

Towards a more Sustainable Future

Energy is a crucial development goal for

responding to challenges in the 21st century

� Universal access is a pre-condition for

overcoming poverty and feasible if all stakeholders

work together.

Energy transformation will bring multiple cobenefits

for health, security, climate change

� Financing requirements are huge but

achievable with right and sustained policies

#4


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Education

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150

Nakicenovic Source: Lutz, 2007

#5 2011


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Democratization

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150

Nakicenovic Source: Modelski, 2002

#6 2011


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Urbanization

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150

Nakicenovic Source: Grübler, 2007

#7 2011


9000

6000

3000

0

Urban and Rural Population Projections

(in Millions: GEA-H, GEA-M, GEA-L and UN WUP, 2010)

1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110

World GEA-H urb World GEA-H rur World GEA-M urb World GEA_M rur

World GEA-L urb World GEA_L rur World UN urb World UN rur

World HIST urb World HIST rur

#8


Global Energy Transformations

� Access to energy and ecosystem services

(a prerequisite for MDGs & wellbeing)

� Resources and potentials not a constraint;

but transformation and decarbonization

Energy transformations require R&D and

rapid technology diffusion & deployment

� Sustained energy investments are needed

and would result in multiple co-benefits

#9


Food for a Week, Germany

© 2005 PETER MENZEL PHOTOGRAPHY

Nakicenovic Source: Menzel, 2005

#10 2011


Food for a Week, Darfur Refugees, Chad

© 2005 PETER MENZEL PHOTOGRAPHY

Nakicenovic Source: Menzel, 2005

#11 2011


Mapping Energy Access

Final energy access (non-commercial share) in relation to population density

Source: Gruebler et al, 2009

Billions of people:

Abject poverty: 1.3

Poor: 0.6

Less poor: 1.4

Middle class: 1.6

Rich: 1.2

3.3

2.8

#12


Earth is Warming

Data: NASA 1880-2010

Global warming predicted

(Sawyer, Nature 1972,

Broecker, Science 1975)

#13


Global Energy Transformations

� Access to energy and ecosystem services

(a prerequisite for MDGs & wellbeing)

� Resources and potentials not a constraint;

but transformation and decarbonization

Energy transformations require R&D and

rapid technology diffusion & deployment

� Sustained energy investments are needed

and would result in multiple co-benefits

#14


Global Hydrocarbon Resource Base a

Historical

production

through to 2005

in EJ (10 18 J)

Production

2005 Reserves Resources

Conventional oil 6069 147.9 4900–7610 4170–6150

Unconventional oil 513 20.2 3750–5600 11,280–14,800

Conventional gas 3087 89.8 5000–7100 7200–8900

Unconventional gas 113 9.6 20,100–67100 40,200–121,900

Coal 6712 123.8 17,300–21,000 291,000–435,000

Conventional uraniumb 1218 24.7 2339 7420

Unconventional uranium n.a. n.a. n.a. 4100

n.a. Not available

a. The data reflect the ranges found in the literature; the distinction between reserves and resources is based on

current (exploration and production) technology and market conditions.

b. Reserves, and resources of uranium are based on a once-through fuel cycle operation. Closed fuel cycles

and breeding technology would increase the uranium resource dimension 50-60 fold. Thorium-basd fuel cycles

would enlarge the fissile-resource base further.

#15


Soils

~5500 GtCO 2

Global Carbon Reservoirs

Unconventional

Natural Gas

~2450 – 4550

GtCO 2

Gas Hydrates

~6600 – 57,180

GtCO2

Atmospher

~3085

GtCO 2

N. Gas

~340–500

GtCO 2

Oil

~665–1000

GtCO 2

Unconv. Oil

~1100–1495

GtCO 2

Coal

~ 29,170 – 43,140 GtCO 2

Biomass

~1580–1646

GtCO 2

#16

14


Renewable Energy Resource Base a

in EJ (10 18 J) per year

Utilization Technical Theoretical

Resource

(2005) Potential Potential

Biomass 42.4 160-270 1330

Geothermal 2.3 810-1400 1500

Hydro 11.7 50 - 60 160

Solar 0.5 62,000 - 280,000 3,900,000

Wind 1.3 1250 - 2250 110,000

Ocean n.e. 3240 - 10,500 1,000,000

n.e. Not estimated

a. The data are energy-input data, not output. Considering technology-specific conversion factors greatly

reduces the output potentials. For example, the technical 3150 EJ/yr of ocean energy in ocean thermal energy

conversion (OTEC) would result in an electricity output of about 100 EJ/yr.

#17


Europe Population vs. Energy Demand Density

WEU: 21% of demand below

renewable density threshold

18

EEU: 34% of demand below

renewable density threshold

#18


Source: Hasni, 2011


Source: Hasni, 2011



Source: Hasni, 2011


Global Uranium Resource Base a

Historical

production

through to 2005

in EJ (10 18 J)

Production

2005 Reserves Resources

Conventional oil 6069 147.9 4900–7610 4170–6150

Unconventional oil 513 20.2 3750–5600 11,280–14,800

Conventional gas 3087 89.8 5000–7100 7200–8900

Unconventional gas 113 9.6 20,100–67100 40,200–121,900

Coal 6712 123.8 17,300–21,000 291,000–435,000

Conventional uraniumb 1218 24.7 2339 7420

Unconventional uranium n.a. n.a. n.a. 4100

n.a. Not available

a. The data reflect the ranges found in the literature; the distinction between reserves and resources is based on

current (exploration and production) technology and market conditions.

b. Reserves, and resources of uranium are based on a once-through fuel cycle operation. Closed fuel cycles

and breeding technology would increase the uranium resource dimension 50-60 fold. Thorium-basd fuel cycles

would enlarge the fissile-resource base further.

#22


Global Energy Transformations

� Access to energy and ecosystem services

(a prerequisite for MDGs & wellbeing)

� Resources and potentials not a constraint;

but transformation and decarbonization

Energy transformations require R&D and

rapid technology diffusion & deployment

� Sustained energy investments are needed

and would result in multiple co-benefits

#23


Nuclear Energy Challenges

� nuclear power must be economically

competitive with other alternatives

� waste products from the nuclear fuel cycle

must be manageable

the public must have confidence in the

safety of nuclear power plants and

associated supporting facilities.

� weapon-usable materials must be properly

managed and safeguarded to ensure no

diverion to nuclear weapons

Nakicenovic Source: After Sackett, 2001

#24 2011


Nuclear Energy Challenges

� nuclear power must be economically

competitive with other alternatives

� waste products from the nuclear fuel cycle

must be manageable

the public must have confidence in the

safety of nuclear power plants and

associated supporting facilities.

� weapon-usable materials must be properly

managed and safeguarded to ensure no

diverion to nuclear weapons

Nakicenovic Source: After Sackett, 2001

#25 2011


Specific investment costs ($/kW)

Learning

costs

Technology Learning

Costs and Benefits (a)

Time

Level of present competitiveness

Future learning benefits

Learning benefits

Nakicenovic #26 2011


Specific investment costs ($/kW)

Learning

costs

Technology Learning

Costs and Benefits (b)

Cumulative investments $ or capacity

Level of present competitiveness

Future learning benefits

Learning benefits

As proxies for cumulative experience and learning

Nakicenovic #27 2011


Technology Learning

expected, but uncertain, returns from investments

Specific investment costs ($/kW)

Learning

costs

Cumulative investments $ or capacity

Future learning benefits

Learning benefits

Learning benefits?

As proxies for cumulative experience and learning

Nakicenovic #28 2011


Brazil - Ethanol vs. Oil/Gasoline

ethanol (producers Brazil, green) and crude oil (Brent) and

gasoline (spot CIF Rotterdam, red) prices (2004$/GJ)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Prices

Brazil Ethanol vs. Gasoline and Crude Oil Prices 1975-2008 (January 2009)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

cumulative ethanol production (EJ)

Jan.2009 oil price

learning rat e:

~10 % red uct io n

p er d o ub ling o f cum.

p ro d uct io n

Nakicenovic Source: GEA KM24 (forthcoming)

#29 2011


Learning 1: Supply Side

Brazilian Ethanol Cost Reductions

Source: Van den Wall Bake et al., 2008

Nakicenovic #30 2011


Learning 2: Demand Side

Vehicle Registrations in Brazil by Fuel Capability

Source: GEA KM24 (forthcoming)

#31


Demand pull

policies

(tax credits)

Supply push

policies

(R&D, consortia)

History of the US Solar Thermal

Electricity Program 1982-1992

Operation &

Maintenance Cost

Capital Cost

Levelized costs

per kWh

Nakicenovic Source: GEA, KM 24, 2011

#32 2011


Technological Uncertainties:

Learning rates (push) and market growth (pull)

Cost index ($/kW)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Nuclear Reactors France 1977-2000

PVs Japan

1976-1995

0.1%

50% interval

90% interval

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Number of doublings (installed capacity)

Nakicenovic #33 2011

0.1%

mean learning rate

(115 case studies):

-20% per doubling

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0


French Nuclear Reactors

● 58 reactors with 63 GWnet (66 GWgross)

● ~50 GW within 10 years (1980-1990)

● High degree of standardization

- 925 MW PWR Westinghouse license

- 1350 MW PWR upscaled with maximized

French equipment

- 1550 MW PWR N4,

precursor to 1650 EPWR

(lack of standardization)

#34


France - Reactor Grid Connections

Data Source: IAEA PRIS, 2009

#35


Anatomy of a Scale-up “Success”

● 80% nuclear electricity

● Load management and modulation

● No major accidents

● Little public opposition

● Stable regulatory environment

(technocratic “grandes ecoles” elite)

● Continued development (scale-up) of

technology

● Full-scale industry developed (incl. fuel

cycle)

#36


French PWRs: Total Costs

1970-2000 = 1.5 10 12 FF(1998) = ~250 10 9 $

Source: Grubler, 2009

#37


1995 2000

Construction Time

(construction start to grid connection)

500 MW GCR

950 MW PWR

1350 MW PWR

1550 MW PWR

Super-Phenix

Projection for Flamanville-3

1650 EPWR: 54 months

Data Source: IAEA PRIS, 2009

#38


Average and Min/Max Investment Costs US$2004/kW

2004$/kW

2004$/kW

Nuclear Reactors US & France

Negative Learning by Doing

10000

10000

10000

5000

2000

1000

1000

1000

500

100

France average

US average

1977

1972

1980

1999 1999

1985

1 5 10 20 50 100

cum GW installed

1975

1980

1985

1990

1990

100000

100000

1996

25000

20000

10000

10000 15000

10000

1000

1000

100

7500

5000

1998FF/kW

1998FF/kW

FF98/kW

#39


US$2005/kW

US$2005/kW

100,000

10,000

1,000

Nuclear, Solar PV and Offshore Wind

Investment Costs

100

“granular”, small unit-scale technologies

enable multiple learning and debugging cycles

1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02

Cumulative GW installed

US Nuclear: Average and Minimum/Maximum

US Nuclear: Single Reactor (No Range)

France Nuclear: Average and Min/Max

Solar PV: worldwide average US$2005/kW

Offshore wind: all projects worldwide US$2005/kW

1,000,000

100,000

10,000

1,000

#40

Source: GEA KM24 (in preparation)

FF1998/kW


Nuclear in IPCC, IEA, NEA, and the IAEA

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

GWe 2000

1500

1000

500

0

IPCC range

IPCC median

NEA/IEA high (2008)

IEA/NEA Blue (2010)

IEA/NEA Blue H (2010)

NEA/IEA low (2008)

IAEA (2010)

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

#41


GEA Scenarios & Energy Challenges

Environment

L

Energy Access

Sustainable

Development

H

“Technology Drive”

M

Energy Security

#42


EJ

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Global Primary Energy

Other renewables

Nuclear

Gas

Oil

Coal

Biomass

Steam

engine

Electric

motor

Gasoline

engine

Vacuum

tube

Commercial

aviation

Television

Nuclear

energy

Microchip

Renewables

Nuclear

0

Biomass

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

Gas

Oil

Coal

#43


EJ

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Global Primary Energy

Other renewables

Nuclear

Gas

Oil

Coal

Biomass

Steam

engine

Electric

motor

Gasoline

engine

Efficiency

Vacuum

tube

Commercial

aviation

Television

Nuclear

energy

Microchip

Renewables

Nuclear

0

Biomass

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

Gas

Oil

Coal

#44


EJ

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Steam

engine

Global Primary Energy

Other renewables

Hydro

Nuclear

Gas

Oil

Coal

Biomass

Electric

motor

Gasoline

engine

Vacuum

tube

Commercial

aviation

Television

Efficiency

Nuclear

energy

Microchip

0

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

MESSAGE GEA Efficiency

MESSAGE GEA Mix

MESSAGE GEA Supply

IMAGE RCP 3 PD

REMIND RECIPE

REMIND Adam

MERGE ETL

MARKAL ETP Blue

POLES Adam

MESSAGE WEC C1

MESAP energy[r]evolution 2008

MESAP energy[r]evolution 2010

MESAP advanced revolution 2010

WGBU

#45


EJ

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Steam

engine

Global Primary Energy

Other renewables

Hydro

Nuclear

Gas

Oil

Coal

Biomass

Electric

motor

Gasoline

engine

Vacuum

tube

Commercial

aviation

Television

Efficiency

Nuclear

energy

Microchip

0

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

Advanced

transportation

Unrestricted Portfolio

No Nuclear

No BioCCS

No Sinks

Limited Bio-energy

Limited Renewables

No CCS

No Nuclear & CCS

Lim. Bio-energy & Renewables

No BioCCS, Sink & lim Bio-energy

Conventional

transportation

Unrestricted Portfolio

No Nuclear

No BioCCS

No Sinks

Limited Bio-energy

Limited Renewables

No CCS

No Nuclear & CCS

Lim. Bio-energy & Renewables

No BioCCS, Sink & lim Bio-energy

#46


EJ

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Steam

engine

Global Primary Energy

Other renewables

Hydro

Nuclear

Gas

Oil

Coal

Biomass

Electric

motor

Gasoline

engine

Vacuum

tube

Commercial

aviation

Television

Nuclear

energy

Microchip

Mix

0

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

Advanced

transportation

X

X

X

Unrestricted Portfolio

No Nuclear

No BioCCS

No Sinks

Limited Bio-energy

Limited Renewables

No CCS

No Nuclear & CCS

Lim. Bio-energy & Renewables

No BioCCS, Sink & lim Bio-energy

Conventional

transportation

X

X

X

X

Unrestricted Portfolio

No Nuclear

No BioCCS

No Sinks

Limited Bio-energy

Limited Renewables

No CCS

No Nuclear & CCS

Lim. Bio-energy & Renewables

No BioCCS, Sink & lim Bio-energy

#47


EJ

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Steam

engine

Global Primary Energy

Other renewables

Hydro

Nuclear

Gas

Oil

Coal

Biomass

Electric

motor

Gasoline

engine

Vacuum

tube

Commercial

aviation

Television

Nuclear

energy

Supply

Microchip

0

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

Advanced

transportation

X

X

X

X

Unrestricted Portfolio

No Nuclear

No BioCCS

No Sinks

Limited Bio-energy

Limited Renewables

No CCS

No Nuclear & CCS

Lim. Bio-energy & Renewables

No BioCCS, Sink & lim Bio-energy

Conventional

transportation

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Unrestricted Portfolio

No Nuclear

No BioCCS

No Sinks

Limited Bio-energy

Limited Renewables

No CCS

No Nuclear & CCS

Lim. Bio-energy & Renewables

No BioCCS, Sink & lim Bio-energy

#48


Global Carbon Emissions

#49


MJ/US$2005

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

Final Energy Intensity and

GEA-Supply

GEA-Mix

GEA-Efficiency

Per Capita Energy Use

Industrialized 2050 2100

GEA-Supply -1.4% -1.1%

GEA-Mix -1.8% -1.4%

GEA-Efficiency -2.5% -2.0%

Developing 2050 2100

GEA-Supply -2.6% -1.9%

GEA-Mix -2.8% -2.1%

GEA-Efficiency -3.1% -2.4%

0

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

GJ/Capita

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Industrialized

GEA-Supply

GEA-Mix

GEA-Efficiency

Developing

0

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

#50


Hybrid hydrogen bus

CITARO H 2 Fuel Cell Bus

#51


Area Occupied by Various Transport Modes

Source: WBCSD, 2005

#52


Energy SuperGrid and MagLev

Source: EPRI

#53


Potential Synergies between New Energy and

Transport Infrastructures: Asian “Supergrid”

Super Cables

Power lines

MAGLEV

Electric Power Research institute ©

Source:

Y. Yamagata, NIES. 2010


Global Energy Transformations

� Access to energy and ecosystem services

(a prerequisite for MDGs & wellbeing)

� Resources and potentials not a constraint;

but transformation and decarbonization

Energy transformations require R&D and

rapid technology diffusion & deployment

� Sustained energy investments are needed

and would result in multiple co-benefits

#55


Energy Innovation and Investments

Worldwide, Billion $

innovation market diffusion

(RD&D) formation

End-use & efficiency >>8 1 5 8 300-3500 15

Fossil fuel supply >12 2 >>2 9 200-550 16

Nuclear >10 3 0 10 3-8 17

Renewables >12 4 ~20 11 >20 18

Electricity (Gen+T&D) >>1 5 ~100 12 450-520 16

Other* and unspecified >>4 6 50 7


Total Energy Investments

Developing

Industrialized

#57


Co-Benefits of Energy Investments

#58


Co-Benefits of Energy Investments

#59

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines