case-study-marcopper-disaster in the philippines.pdf
The Important Role of Nuclear in a Low-Carbon World - The view of the ENS High Scientific Council
1. The important role of nuclear
in a low-carbon world:
the view of the European Nuclear Society’s
High Scientific Council
International Conference on Climate Change and the Role of Nuclear Power
7–11 October 2019, IAEA Headquarters Vienna, Austria
E. Proust, L. G. Williams, C. Ahnert, S. Bechta, H. Böck, L. Cizelj, F. Deconinck, A. Di Buono,
E. Gilad, J. Klepáč, M. E. Ricotti, T. J. Schröder, T. Schulenberg, G. Steinhauser, A. Traichel,
T. Troev, I. Turcu, J. Uhlir
eric.proust@euronuclear.eu
3. 174 countries and the EU agree to reduce their GHG emissions so as to
keep a global temperature rise this century well below 2°C above pre-
industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase
even further to 1.5°C
Climate change:
the most significant threat to our planet
3
4. Goverments are still much too slow in
implementing the needed measures
The commitments taken by the countries through the Paris agreement
(INDCs) will lead to a 3°C warming
Source: UNFCCC synthesis report on the aggregate effect of intended nationally determined contributions
4
5. Goverments are still much too slow in
implementing the needed measures
IPCC SR15 report: a global warming of 1.5°C may be reached by 2030-2050
with dire consequences
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/graphics/#cid_455
5
6. Goverments are still much too slow in
implementing the needed measures
IPCC SR15 report: 1.5°C scenarios require halving GHG emissions by ~2030
and reaching net zero by ~2050!
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
6
7. Goverments are still much too slow in
implementing the needed measures
Carbon Emission intensity is steadily declining
but not sufficiently to offset economic growth
In 2018, even CO2 emissions from advanced economies increased (by 0.5%),
for the first time in 5 years, reversing a previously declining trend
7
8. Decarbonisation of the world economy
must be a top priory
Gigantic investments urgently required to reach Paris Agreement goals
• IPCC: the share of low-carbon energy investments should be increased
from 2% to 2,8 of GDP and maintained at this level until 2050
• In addition: 2,5% of world savings should redirected towards low carbon
infrastructures until 2035
Delaying these investments entails dire long-term consequences that will be
far more expensive to deal with
Channelling such huge investments to deliver the decarbonisation goals may have
short term negative impacts on other important societal goals
Choose an economically sustainable, cost-efficient route towards decarbonisation
8
9. Decarbonisation of the world economy
must be a top priory
Choose an economically sustainable, cost-efficient route towards decarbonisation
Prioritize investments with highest GHG reduction to cost ratios
Consider all available low-carbon technologies on the basis of their merits
for reaching the goals
Implement financial mechanisms to reduce the risk-premium of large-scale
low-carbon investments which are currently all highly capital-intensive
Start NOW the large-scale implementation of proven technology solutions
• No time to wait for and bet on unproven technology or hypothetical future
technological breakthrough! 9
10. The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
• The easiest step, with the highest initial GHG reduction to cost ratio
• Accessible with existing technologies: nuclear, hydro, variable renewables
• Will ease the decarbonisation of other sectors
World electricity generation mix, 2018 Sources of world CO2 emissions, 2017
10
OECD/IEA, 2019 OECD/IEA, 2019
11. The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
Where natural resources limit new hydro schemes,
nuclear power, solar PV and wind power are the only proven
technologies available to decarbonise electricity generation
11
Share of carbon-free electricity sources in several major economies and world
OECD/IEA, 2017
12. The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
Where natural resources limit new hydro schemes,
nuclear power, solar PV and wind power are the only proven
technologies available to decarbonise electricity generation
• Nuclear power: second largest source of low carbon electricity
- 12 g CO2/kWh (~like wind power), 400 GWe, 54 reactors under construction,
- 60 Gt eq CO2 avoided since 1970
- EU countries having achieved significant CO2 reduction from their electricity
generation are the ones with a large component of hydro and/or nuclear
(France, Sweden, Switzerland, UK)
- If the world adds nuclear capacity at the rate achieved by France and Sweden
in the 70’s-80’s, the global share of fossil fuelled electricity could be replaced
in 25-35 years
- Nuclear: dispachable generation with capability to ramp up and down briskly
to meet daily changes in power demand and accommodate the intermittent
nature of solar PV and wind power generation
12
13. -100
0
100
200
300
400
500
Renewables Nuclear Coal Oil Gas
TWh
The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
Significant steady increase in variable renewables
(solar PV and wind power) installed capacity and
impressive reduction in manufacturing costs,
owing to strong government support
Solar
PV
Hydro
Wind
Source: Lazard, 2019
13
OECD/IEA, 2019
World electricity generation changes, 2017-2018 (IEA)
14. The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
(Where natural resources limit new hydro schemes)
The ambitious reduction targets in the carbon footprint of electricity
production cannot be achieved in the required timeframe by the further
deployment of these non-hydro renewable technologies alone
The only way to achieve these targets is through combining variable
renewables with nuclear technologies
with nuclear providing dispachable power to accommodate the variability of
solar PV and wind power and security of energy supply
Matching generation and demand with a system with a high proportion of intermittent
renewable energy generation requires complementary dispatchable power sources to
provide reliable power during the hours and days when wind does not blow or the sun
does not shine.
Hydro and nuclear power are the only existing low-carbon options available
to perform these functions 14
15. The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
The only way to achieve these targets is through combining
variable renewables with nuclear technologies
15
-20000
-10000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
2016 2050
IPCC 1.5°C scenario
average
Net change
2016–2050
Global
electricity
generation
(TW·h)
Chart Title
Other
Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Biomass
Gas
Oil
Coal
Nuclear
Compiled H. Turton, IAEA 2019
Net low carbon additions
+34 000 TWh wind + solar
+ 5 300 TWh nuclear
16. The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
To deliver a cost-effective and reliable solution in the required timeframe,
Variable renewable energy should not exceed 40-50% of a country’s
generating capacity
Illustration of system costs
System costs per MWh of Variable Renewable Energy
1) Integration/system costs of VREs
OECD, 2015
OECD/NEA, 2019
16
(all systems are at 50g CO2/Kwh)
17. The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
To deliver a cost-effective and reliable solution in the required timeframe,
Variable renewable energy should not exceed 40-50% of a country’s
generating capacity
Price duration curves of wholesale electricity prices for various VRE penetration levels
2) zero prices, price volatility and commensurate capital cost increases
OECD/NEA, 2019
OECD/NEA, 2019
17
18. The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
To deliver a cost-effective and reliable solution in the required timeframe,
Variable renewable energy should not exceed 40-50% of a country’s
generating capacity
The market remuneration received by wind and solar PV as a function of their share in the electricity mix
3) ‘’self-cannibalisation’’ of wind and solar PV generation capacities
OECD/NEA, 2019
OECD/NEA, 2019
18
19. The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
To deliver a cost-effective and reliable solution in the required timeframe,
Variable renewable energy should not exceed 40-50% of a country’s
generating capacity
‘’We believe it is important for policy makers and the wider public to be aware
of the significant, intrinsic technical and economic difficulties
of achieving ambitious reduction objectives
with variable renewable generation technologies alone’’
19
20. The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
To deliver a cost-effective and reliable solution in the required timeframe,
in view of the massive investments required,
It is of paramount importance to implement long-term frameworks that
provide stability and confidence for investors in all low-carbon power
technologies
Calls for, in particular:
• decarbonisation policies to create a level playing field that allows all low-carbon
generation technologies, including nuclear, to compete on their merits. It should
also be recognized that nuclear power plays a significant role in ensuring role in
contributing security of energy supply
• avoiding the imposition of targets for the progressively increasing share of specific
technologies (which would go against cost-efficiency);
• implementing financial mechanisms to reduce the risk premium of large-scale
low-carbon investments which are all capital-intensive.
20
21. We are concerned!
• To observe some EU Member States are giving priority to reducing the share of
nuclear or phasing it out, rather than to reducing GHG emissions. As a consequence,
carbon emissions stagnate in these Member States
• to observe that in the US, the drive is for the early closure of nuclear plants and
their planned replacement with gas fired plants.
• to observe that investments are still being made in coal fired power plants in Africa,
China and other parts of the world;
to see countries abandoning high CO2 emission technologies at home but promoting
or selling coal fired plants abroad.
The first priority:
decarbonise electricity generation
21
22. Nothing in life is risk-free and decarbonisation will require countries to make
difficult choices
We believe that the risk to people and society associated with the use of
nuclear power is low and the safe disposal of radioactive waste is
manageable
On the other hand, unrestricted climate change will present a considerable
risk to mankind
An illustration in the IPCC SR15 report (choice between pathways): those
who decide to phase out nuclear should be aware (and should be
informed!) that they will then have to accept, among other risks, the ones
on biodiversity (not to mention safety) that the only alternative to relying
on nuclear for deep decarbonisation implies: the massive deployment of
the couple bioenergy/carbon sequestration
22
Conclusion
23. All credible and affordable scenarios for deep decarbonisation require a major
increase in the global deployment of nuclear power
For society to accept the widespread use of nuclear power, we believe that more needs
to be done to raise public awareness of the potential risks and benefits of the
technology
We believe that technology alone will not solve the problem of climate change
Both political and societal changes are required. The long-term preservation of our
planet and hence mankind will require urgent decisions and changes to our way of life
We believe that the increased deployment of nuclear power (in combination with
renewable power) is the best way to minimize their impact on society
Achieving this will not be easy but it is a noble goal for all of us, especially politicians
and international organizations
Conclusion
23
25. 25
Read the full paper here
https://mailchi.mp/6acf8b7006bc/ens-high-scientific-council-position-paper-on-the-role-of-nuclear-power-for-climate-change
The High scientific Council of the European Nuclear Society is releasing a position paper on the subject “The important role of nuclear in a low-carbon world”.
The purpose of this presentation is to illustrate its key messages
Climate change is the most significant threat to our planet today.
Reports released by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, provide ample scientific information to substantiate this statement / scientific information on the dire consequences of further global warming.
Rather than to refer to these reports, allow me a simpler, less scientific, approach that I feel is even more telling.
Have a look at the evolution of the temperature of our planet since the last ice age about ~20 000 years ago.
Look at the time-scale. It took 12 000 years for the earth surface to warm up by 3.5°C. The peak warming rate was less than 1°C per millenum (around ~-10 000 years). For the following ~9 000 years, the temperature didn’t vary by more than plus or minus half a degree.
Now look at the huge change in the vegetation over the period (not to mention the 120 m see-level rise!). The consequence of a ~4°C increase over 10 to 20 000 years.
Now, look on the very right of the graph, at the period starting with the industrial revolution, the extraordinary steep temperature rise observed until now: a 1°C global warning over just the last century. Now observe the projections, global warming has been accelerating, the next 1°C increment will not take not another century to materialize, it may take 20 to 30 years.
The picture is clear : global warming / climate change is the most significant threat to our planet!
We welcome the outcome of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP21) where 174 countries and the European Union agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions so as to keep a global temperature rise this century well below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C.
We are concerned to see that Governments are still much too slow in implementing important measures that are needed to reach these vital targets.
The commitments taken by countries through the Paris Agreement, the so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions will barely limt the global warming to lead to 3°C.
The IPCC, the Intergovernmental panel on climate change, in its Special Report released at the end of last year, shows that a global 1.5°C warming may be reached very soon, between 2030 and 2050, and will have dire consequences.
The report emphasizes that GHG emissions need to be reduced with far more urgency than previously anticipated: 1.5°C scenarios require halving emissions by ~2030, and reaching net-zero by ~2050
We see no real evidence of the required transformations.
The global economy continues to grow faster than the reduction of carbon emissions intensity;
CO2 emissions from advanced economies even increased by 0.5% in 2018, for the first time in 5 years, reversing a previously declining trend
In view of the stakes, decarbonisation of the world economy must be a top priority.
Gigantic investments are urgently required to reach the COP21 goals. According to the IPCC report, the share of low-carbon energy investments should be increased from 2.0% to 2.8% of GDP now and maintained at this level until 2050.
Delaying the investments will have dire long-term consequences that will be far more expensive to deal with.
We recognize that channeling such huge investments to deliver the decarbonisation goals could have detrimental short-term impacts on other important societal goals.
Choosing an economically sustainable, cost-efficient route towards decarbonation is therefore fundamental to avoid excessive burdens for consumers and taxpayers.
Choosing a cost-efficent route calls for prioritisation of investments with highest emission-reduction-to-cost ratio, it calls for considering all available low-carbon technologies on the basis of their merits for reaching the goals. This also calls for financial mechanisms to reduce the risk premium of large-scale low-carbon investments which are currently all highly capital-intensive.
The world is behind schedule, and the more time it takes to fully engage the decarbonisation of the world economy, the higher the detrimental impacts and their costs to humanity will be.
There is no time to wait for and bet on unproven technology or hypothetical future technological breakthroughs; procrastination must be brought to an end.
We believe the large-scale implementation of proven technology solutions should start now.
Electricity generation is currently dominated by fossil fuels and is responsible for about 40% to the world’s CO2 emissions.
The first priority should be the decarbonisation of electricity generation.
It is the easiest step with the highest initial GHG-reduction-to-cost ratio,
it is accessible with existing technologies, and
it will make the decarbonisation of other sectors easier, transportation in particular.
Low-carbon alternatives for electricity generation are available, namely nuclear power, hydroelectricity, and intermittent variable renewable energy: solar PV and wind power.
Practically, where natural resources limit new hydroelectric power schemes like in most developed countries, nuclear power and variable renewables (solar PV and wind power), are the only proven existing technologies available to decarbonise electricity generation
Today, nuclear power is the second largest source of low carbon electricity in the world after hydroelectricity.
The main features of nuclear power as a low carbon source of electricity are recalled here.
Two points are particularly important:
Nuclear has demonstrated its scalability and speed of scaling, as recalled by the IPCC in its SR15 which highlights the case of France, which successfully decarbonised much of its electricity mix in less than 20 years by establishing a mix predominantly supplied by nuclear power. Recent work concluded that, if the world added nuclear capacity at the same rate per capita that France and Sweden achieved during their national expansion in the 70’s-80’s, the global share of fossil fuel electricity could be replaced in 25-35 years.
Also, nuclear power is a dispatchable low-carbon source that has the capability to ramp up and down briskly to meet daily changes in power demand and thus complement the intermittent variable nature of wind and solar powered electricity generation.
In recent years, solar PV and wind power have seen a steady increase in installed capacity and an impressive reduction in manufacturing costs owing to strong government support.
Thus, last year, capacity additions of solar PV plus wind power generated as much electricity as coal-fired plants additions (it however remains that 46% of additional generation in 2018 came from fossil-fuel fired plants).
Average production costs per MWh are still higher than nuclear energy but this gap no longer seems insurmountable
However, the required ambitious reduction targets in the carbon footprint of electricity production cannot be achieved in the required timeframe by the further deployment of these variable renewable technologies alone.
We believe that the only way to achieve these targets is through combining Wind power and solar PV with nuclear technologies, with the latter providing dispatchable power to accommodate the variability of solar and wind power and security of energy supply.
The power generated by photovoltaic arrays and wind turbines is indeed intermittent. Matching generation and demand with a system with a high proportion of intermittent renewable energy generation requires complementary dispatchable power sources to provide reliable supplies during the hours or days when wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. Hydro and nuclear power are the only existing low‑carbon options available to perform these functions.
Thus, the four model pathways for limiting global warming to 1.5°C provided by the IPCC in its SR15 Report of 2018 all rely on an unprecedented global deployment of low carbon electricity generation, of both renewables and nuclear power generation, with nuclear increasing by a factor between 2 and 6 by 2050.
Based on the average energy system in 2050 described in 85 IPCC SR15 scenarios compatible with 1.5°C, net additional low carbon generation of around 47 500 TWh will be needed by 2050 compared to 2016 (around 1400 TW·h per year!). This compares to just over 8000 TWh of total low carbon generation in 2016.
Out of the total 47 500 TW·h of net additions by 2050, Wind and Solar PV account for around 34 000 TWh, and nuclear power for around 5 300 TWh. These 5 300 TWh net addition implies around 6 800 TWh of gross additional nuclear generation by 2050 since around two thirds of currently installed nuclear generation capacity is projected to be retired by 2050.
The challenge for electricity production is to deliver an affordable cost-effective solution that is capable of achieving the required carbon emission reduction in the required timeframe.
To achieve a cost effective and reliable solution, there needs to be an appropriate balance between low-carbon dispatchable and intermittent renewable capacity.
We believe that to achieve this balance, the intermittent renewable energy should not exceed 40‑50% of a country’s generating capacity. For those countries that do not have sufficient hydro-electric resources, this means that nuclear power will be required to provide a substantial share of the electricity generation capacity.
The main reasons for limiting the share of intermittent renewable energy capacities is to avoid an excessive increase in electric system costs. Solar PV and wind power plant generation costs have dramatically decreased, but this is just one component of the electricity system cost.
A major additional component is the so-called profile costs: the system cost increase induced by the need for the system to accommodate the variability of VRE output. Here are figures taken from a recent study of the Nuclear Energy Agency on costs of decarbonisation, which compares low carbon electricity systems costs as a function of the share of variable renewables. You can see how the profile cost of VRE per MWh, while moderate below a 30% penetration rate, increases quite significantly beyond this value
Another way to look at these system costs is through the evolution of the price duration curves as a function of VRE penetration.
It illustrates the appearance of zero prices periods when the penetration exceeds 30%, periods whose duration increase dramatically with the penetration level.
Price volatility also increases quite significantly.
These two phenomena impact the system cost, in particular through a less efficient use of both dispachable plants and VRE plants
You can also see it from the angle of the so-called self-canibalisation effect of VREs.
Because all units tend to produce more or less at the same time when meteorological conditions are favorable, the average value of solar PV energy declines significantly as its penetration level increases. This is true also for wind power, although to a lesser extent.
This decreasing value corresponds to an equivalent increase in profile costs as penetration increases.
We believe that it is important for policy makers and the wider public to be aware of the significant, intrinsic technical and economic difficulties of achieving ambitious carbon emission reduction objectives with variable renewable generation technologies alone.
Given the massive investments that will be required to realise this radical transformation, we believe that it is of paramount importance to implement long-term frameworks that provide stability and confidence for investors in all low-carbon power technologies.
For countries relying on deregulated wholesale markets, this calls in particular:
for decarbonisation policies to create a level playing field that allows all low-carbon generation technologies, including nuclear to compete on their merits. It should also be recognised that nuclear power plays a significant role in ensuring role in contributing security of energy supply;
this calls for avoiding the imposition of targets for the progressive increasing share of specific technologies (which would go against cost-efficiency); and
This also calls for implementing financial mechanisms to reduce the risk premium of large-scale low‑carbon investments which are all capital-intensive.
The contribution of nuclear power is important to achieve deep decarbonisation in time and at affordable costs. And the time is becoming quite short. Net-zero carbon electricity systems by 2050, by the next 30 years, given the industrial time constants of the sector, time is extremely short!
So that we are concerned to observe that while the EU claims to be a world champion in the fight for climate change, some Member States are giving priority to reducing the share of nuclear or phasing it out, rather than reducing GHG emissions. These policies have led to stagnation of carbon emissions in these Member States, and will make future decarbonisation much more costly.
We are concerned to observe that in the US, the drive is for the early closure of nuclear plants and their planned replacement with gas fired plants.
We are also concerned to observe that investments are still being made in coal fired power plants in Africa, China and other parts of the world. It is disheartening to see countries abandoning high CO2 emission technologies at home only to see them promoting or selling coal fired plants abroad.
We recognize that nothing in life is risk-free and decarbonisation will require countries to make difficult choices.
We believe that the risk to people and society associated with the use of nuclear power is low and the safe disposal of radioactive waste is manageable.
On the other hand, unrestricted climate change will present a considerable risk to mankind.
As shown in the IPCC SR15 report, those who decide to phase out nuclear should be aware (and should be informed!) that they will then have to accept, among other risks, the ones on biodiversity that the only alternative -the massive deployment of the couple bioenergy/carbon sequestration- implies.
All credible and affordable scenarios for deep decarbonisation require a considerable increase in the global deployment of nuclear power.
For society to accept the widespread use of nuclear power, we believe that more needs to be done to raise public awareness of the potential risks and benefits of the technology.
We believe that technology alone will not solve the problem of climate change.
The decarbonisation that is necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change will require both political and societal change. All countries will need to recognize that the long-term preservation of our planet and hence mankind, requires urgent decisions and changes to our way of life.
We believe that the increased deployment of nuclear power is the best way to minimize the impact on society.
Achieving this will not be easy but it is a noble goal for all of us, especially politicians and international organizations.
These are the main messages of the position paper on ‘’The important role of Nuclear Power in a low-carbon world’’ that the ENS High Scientific Council released on the occasion of the IAEA International Conference on Climate Change and The Role of Nuclear Power.
Until the new ENS web site is up and running, you can access our position paper through this link
