1 WISE-Paris
Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Risks, limitations and inconsistancies
of the nuclear power option in the fight against climate change !
Yves Marignac
Director of WISE-Paris
Greens/EFA Conference
Dismantling the nuclear argument - Why nuclear is no climate-friendly solution!
European Parliament, Brussels 2nd September 2015
Foreword
2 WISE-Paris
Based on the study:
L’option nucléaire contre le changement climatique
Commissionned to WISE-Paris* in advance of COP21 (Paris, December 2015) by the following set of organisations:
To be published in the coming weeks
*WISE-Paris (World Information Service on Energy) is an independent information, study and consulting agency with a non-profit status, created in 1983 and established in Paris, with no link to any other organisation called WISE.
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
! ! !!
Amsterdam!
!
Contents
3 WISE-Paris
Three connected areas of debate
Risk Evidence of specific risks
• Nuclear proliferation • Safety and security
• Radioactive waste issues
Effect Maths of the “substitution” logic • Life cycle carbon content • “Avoided” carbon emissions • Global impact on emissions
Policy Articulation with other options • Projected potential • Cost / effectiveness • Consistency with energy transition
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
Is the risk acceptable and
can it be managed?
How much GHG
emissions can it save?
How does it fit
with other options?
Is the nuclear option a right, effective and consistent mean
to tackle climate change?
4
Risk Proliferation
WISE-Paris
Military use: back door of civil programmes !
Uranium enrichment, Natanz, Iran
Hiroshima, 6 Aug. 1945
• Same materials (uranium, plutonium…) and same technologies (enrichment, reprocessing…)
• Continuous increase of available stocks of nuclear materials
• Intractable links between nuclear power and nuclear weapon programmes
• Historical and ongoing failure of proliferation safeguards
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
5
Risk Proliferation
WISE-Paris
Nuclear weapons: ongoing threat!
• Rising risk of a global conflict in 1950s-1970s: first threat of humanity against itself and its environment
• Regional nuclear conflicts would be major catastrophies
• The spread of nuclear reactors intrinsically increases the risks
Sou
rce
: US
Dire
ctor
of C
entra
l Int
ellig
ence
, 198
4
Sou
rce
: S. C
arr,
2005
Nuclear winter scenario (Northern hemisphere)
• Up to 40°C down on Earth surface
• Up to 95% less light (1st week)
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
6
Risk Safety and security
WISE-Paris
Major accident: revised and pressing risk !
!!• From �impossible��to “highly unlikely” to real
• Occurrence: theory 1 for 1 million reactor.years, experience 4 for 15.000
• Fundamentals of nuclear safety prove insufficient against the danger potential
Tchernobyl, 26 April 1986
Fukushima 11 March 2011
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
7
Risk Safety and security
WISE-Paris
Major accident: increasing risk of a disaster !
• Large contaminated areas
• Huge impact on populations (long term death toll, disrupted lives)
• Unbearable economic cost (up to the 1000 billion euros range)
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant (USA), June 2011
• Ageing nuclear facilities
• Profitability pressure
• Increasing exposure and fragility to terrorist attacks
• Bigger and more frequent external aggressions with climate change (flooding, heat / cold wave, storm, forest fire…)
8
Risk Nuclear waste
WISE-Paris
Nuclear waste and sites: a piling-up legacy !Spent fuel pool, La Hague
Bure laboratory (geological disposal)
• Ongoing accumulation of radwaste (up to 300.000 tons of spent fuel), mostly stored in unsafe conditions
• No operational solution for the disposal of long-lived high level waste
• A strong challenge forthcoming with large-scale decommissioning
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
9
Risk Conclusions
WISE-Paris
Nuclear option: specific risks to mitigate !• Nuclear production immediately comes with high intrinsic risks:
- global risk of proliferation
- technological risk of a major accident
- intergenerational risk of radioactive waste
• These risks have not decreased but increased through the experience of existing nuclear programmes
• These risks would dramatically increase should nuclear programmes be developed and the number of nuclear countries increase
• Weighing the nuclear option against climate change ! Nuclear risks could lead to refuse this option in any case !"If not, their mitigation must be a condition when comparing
nuclear power with safer options
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
10
Effect Nuclear emissions
WISE-Paris
Nuclear GHG emissions: uncertainties!!
Source: B. Sovacool, 2008 Source: B. Sovacool, 2008
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
gCO
2eq/
kWh
Amont, 25.09gCO2e/kWh C o n s t r u c t i o n , 8 . 2 0 g C O 2 e / k W h Exp lo i t a t i on , 11 .58gCO2e /kWh Aval, 9.2gCO2e/kWh Démantèlement, 12.01gCO2e/kWh
Total : 66,08gCO2eq/
kWh
Median value
Median value
• No direct emissions from carbon combustion Indirect emissions from life cycle – large scale of possible assumptions
• Bibliographical review: from 1,4 to 288 gCO2éq/kWh, median 66 gCO2eq/kWh
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
11
Effect Nuclear emissions
WISE-Paris
Nuclear GHG emissions: IPCC figures!!
• Life cycle emissions uncertain but not zero, still significantly lower than those from fossil fuels
675
510
290
18 - 180
9 - 63
4 - 110
8 - 81
6 - 79
2 - 23
10 - 30
1689
1170
930
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Charbon
Pétrole
Gaz
PV
CSP
Nucléaire
Eolien
Géothermie
Energie marine
Marémotrice, hydroliennes, houlomotrice
hypothèse basse hypothèse haute
gCO2eq/kWh
Source: IPCC, 2014
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
12
Effect Avoided emissions
WISE-Paris
Avoided emissions: nuclear industry figures !
Source: SFEN, 2014
SFEN calculation: Mean fossil fuel based electric generation = 800 gCO2/kWh 2650 TWh of nuclear generation (year 2005) # 2,12 GtCO2 of “avoided emissions” per year
The industry claims to save nearly 10% of world GHG emissions (26 GtCO2)
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
13
Effect Avoided emissions
WISE-Paris
Avoided emissions: mean emissions of generation !
Source: WISE-Paris, based on The Shift Project, IEA, IPCC, 2015
• Increased efficiency of thermal plants, development of renewables
• Nuclear “avoided emissions” go down with the average CO2 emissions of non nuclear electricity generation
0,600
0,610
0,620
0,630
0,640
0,650
0,660
0,670
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Mt/T
Wh
Evolution of mean CO2 emissions by TWh of the world electric “mix”
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
14
Effect World perspective
WISE-Paris
Global impact: a marginal influence !
• Nuclear power accounts for avoiding ~ 4 % of energy related CO2 emissions
• Since the introduction of nuclear power, added emissions are 20 times higher than these avoided ones
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Mt CO2
Emissions CO2 évitées par le nucléaire Emissions de CO2
Avoided: ~ 1500 MteCO2/year
Added: ~ 30000 MteCO2/year
Source: WISE-Paris, 2015, based on CAIT2, EDGAR, The Shift Project
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
15
Effect World perspective
WISE-Paris
Global impact: a declining role !
Three main factors:
• Declining trend of nuclear power generation
• Improvement of CO2 emissions of non nuclear electric generation
• Global increase of energy related CO2 emissions
Source: WISE-Paris, 2015, based on CAIT2, EDGAR, The Shift Project
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014*
% Share of energy related CO2 emissions “avoided” by nuclear power
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
16
Effect World perspective
WISE-Paris
Nuclear power and emissions: a limited range of action !
Source: Ministère de l’écologie (CGDD-SOeS), 2014, from IPCC, 2007
• Nuclear energy only produces electricity • Electricity is less than 1/4th of total final energy consumption
• Energy related emissions are the largest part but not all GHG emissions
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
17
Effect Conclusion
WISE-Paris
Nuclear: limited and insufficient impact on emissions !
• Life cycle emissions of nuclear power are significantly lower than those of fossil fuels but not zero
• Nuclear avoided emissions per kWh go down as non nuclear generation evolves towards a low carbon mix
• Nuclear power only plays a limited, marginal and declining role in reducing world GHG emissions
• Nuclear power has never reversed the dynamics of growth of world GHG emissions
• Therefore nuclear power could only play a minor role and has to fit with a set of effective options ! Cost/benefit of new nuclear power needs to compare to other options !"Where nuclear exists, its consistency with the implementation
of other policy options needs to be assessed
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
18
Policy World prospective
WISE-Paris
World projection: a voluntaristic view !
• Doubling world nuclear capacity in 15 years would only deliver 8% of the minimal level of emissions reduction that is needed
IEA scenarios
Source : AIE – World Energy Outlook, 2010
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
19
Policy World prospective
WISE-Paris
Nuclear fleet: unrealistic projections !
Source : WISE-Paris, d’après World Nuclear Industry Status Report, 2015
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034
GW Comparaison of historical start-up (orange) with those needed
to meet the IEA target (brown)
• IEA scenario: 500 GW to be connected in 20 years (in addition to life extensions)
• Highly superior to past experience and current capacity
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
20
Policy Cost / effectiveness
WISE-Paris
Nuclear / renewables: opposite cost curves!!
Source : IIASA, 2010 Source : IBloomberg New Energy Finance, 2012
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
• Nuclear power has a negative learning curve, contrary to rapidly decreasing renewable costs
• Generating costs have started to cross and the gap will increase
21
Policy Cost / effectiveness
WISE-Paris
Cost / avoided emissions: nuclear vs. other options!!
Source : RMI, 2011
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
22
Policy German case
WISE-Paris
Germany: nuclear phase-out and climate commitment!!
Source: Eurostat, AG Energiebilanzen, Umweltbundesamt
Energy and climate path • 2000 and 2011 decisions of nuclear
phase-out (by 2022 at most) Reduction by 43.7 TWh
• 2010-2014 reduction by 27.8 TWh of
fossil fuel based generation • Renewables output:
52.6 TWh growth • Domestic demand:
reduction by 39.1 TWh • Global reduction of GHG emissions
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
GHG EMISSIONS
27,7$%$NUCLEAR
% OF TOTAL ELECTRIC
PRODUCTION
RENEWABLES
23
Policy French case
WISE-Paris
France : a double dependence nuclear–fossil fuels !
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
French energy balance • Electricity up to 80% dependent on nuclear power, with an ageing reactor fleet (average >30 years)
• Around 70% dependency
on imported fossil fuels National energy bill close to €60-70bn/a • GHG emissions per capita roughly
4 times the world sustainable level => objective of 4-fold cut by 2050
French final energy consumption by energy source (2011)
Renewables and waste
Oil products
Electricity
Coal Gas
Nuclear 18%
Fossil fuels 2% 2% Renew- ables
24
Policy French case
WISE-Paris Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
GHG emissions cut ÷ 2,4 ÷ 2,3 ÷ 4,1 ÷ 5,3
Needs 2-fold reduction of energy demand to meet 4-fold reduction of GHG emissions
Pathways to 2050
Continuing (dead-end)
Transition, turnaway
Demand: -20%
Demand: -50%
Priority: nuclear
Priority: renewables
Mix nuclear/renew.
Mix renew./nuclear
DEC Décarbonation
DIV Diversification
EFF Efficacité
SOB Sobriété
CNRS, CEA…
4 families of energy transition scenarios
1st Criteria Level of action on energy demand
2nd Criteria Supply side priorities
Possible pathways of French energy
transition assessed by pluralist experts group
25
Policy French case
WISE-Paris Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
GHG emissions cut ÷ 2,4 ÷ 2,3 ÷ 4,1 ÷ 5,3 Net Investments /
Energy imports (2012-2050) -€1,145bn -€1,151bn -€1,389bn -€1,470bn
Pathways to 2050
Continuing (dead-end)
Transition, turnaway
Demand: -20%
Demand: -50%
Priority: nuclear
Priority: renewables
Mix nuclear/renew.
Mix renew./nuclear
DEC Décarbonation
DIV Diversification
EFF Efficacité
SOB Sobriété
CNRS, CEA…
Possible pathways of French energy
transition assessed by pluralist experts group
The energy transition does not represent a cost but an investment into the future
26
Policy French case
WISE-Paris Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
New official study: (by French Energy management agency)
• 100% renewable electricity by 2050 is realistic…
• …and affordable (same cost as 40% nuclear)
100% renewables 95% renewables 80% renewables 40% renewables
Cost of demand flexibility
Cost of storage
Cost of grid (included in model)
Cost of grid (not included in model)
Gain from surplus use
Cost of renewables
Total cost
Energy cost (€/MWh)
Wood Waste PV / roof PV / ground Onshore wind (new) Onshore wind Offshore wind Tidal Sea waves Marine turbine Hydropower (lake) Hydropower (river) Geothermal Offshore wind (floating) Thermal solar Methane production
27
Policy Conclusion
WISE-Paris
Nuclear: an obstacle to the energy transition !
• Nuclear power is realistically limited to only a few percent of the required emissions reduction
• Nuclear power delivers significantly less emission reduction, at highest cost and much slower than efficiency and renewables
• New nuclear projects, in current or new nuclear countries, could therefore not be justified by climate change policies
• Existing nuclear power is more an obstacle than an asset to meet required reduction levels: - Germany shows that nuclear phase-out can be consistant with climate change commitment
- France finds out that a high level of nuclear power is inconsistent with long-term low-carbon objectives
• Compared to nuclear-based strategies, energy transition policies are not only best to tackle climate change, but also bring the best economic results
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015
28 WISE-Paris
Thank you for your attention and happy to answer any question
More information :
WISE-Paris
Yves Marignac Director E-mail : [email protected] Tel : +33 (0)6 07 71 02 41 ©
B. R
untz
!
Greens/EFA Conference – Brussels, 2nd Sept. 2015