global warming and the nuclear wedge
TRANSCRIPT
Climate Change and the Nuclear Wedge
Climate change frames the issue Scales of problem: Energy - Time Pacala-Socolow plan for sustainable Carbon Nuclear wedge Renewable wedge Summary
Jim McNeilCSM Physics
Source material from N. Lewis, DOE (EIA,NREL), Calif. En. Com., and Carbon Mit. Initiative
Symposium: “Nuclear Power: Hype or Hope”Center for Energy and Environmental Security, CU Law
November 5, 2009
Nathan Lewis, Cal Tech, http://nsl.caltech.edu
Framing the issue:
$$ = Energy = Carbon
Marty Hoffert, NYU
Framing the Issue
Carbon
Climate impact
Time scale to act is short ~50 years
~ 1 power plant lifetime
Population control
90% fossil
40% electricity
21% U.S.(5% population)
Energy Scale = Peta (10^15) Watt-hrs
U.S.
Energy Information Agency - http://EIA.doe.gov
U. S. has an obligation to lead
Economics of Electric Power
Market force drives greater use of fossil fuels
Only government can put climate costs on the utilities’ balance sheets
Energy Information Agency - http://EIA.doe.gov
Pacala & Socolow, Princeton
Stabilizes at 550 ppm
Pacala-Socolow Roadmap
Carbon
~$GWP
Energy Efficiency & Conservation (4)
CO2 Capture & Storage (3)
Stabilization Triangle
Renewable Fuels& Electricity (4)
Forest and Soil Storage (2)
Fuel Switching(1)
4 Categories of viable or “near viable” Wedges
Nuclear Fission (1)
2007 2057
8 GtC/y
16 GtC/y
TriangleStabilization
?
?
?
Nuclear Electricity
Triple the world’s nuclear electricity capacity by 2055
The rate of installation required for a wedge from nuclear power is equal to the global rate of nuclear expansion from 1975-1990.
Issues with Nuclear Power
ProliferationWaste disposal
Operational SafetyCost
Proliferation
Not an issue with major nuclear powers:
U.S., Europe, Russia, China, India, (Japan)
Generate 70% of World’s Electric Power
Continued strong non-proliferation controls
Energy Information Agency - http://EIA.doe.gov
Operational Safety
Chernyobl: criticality event caused by positive feedback design flaw
Three Mile Island: core melt induced by operator error
All modern reactors have negative feedback design
Very highly unlikely with new passively-safe reactor designs
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Issues with Nuclear Power: Waste
Natural reactors 2 billion years ago near Oklo, Gabon, West Africa. Plutonium has migrated 10 feet
Nuclear waste disposal is a NIMBY, not technical, issue.
Nuclear waste is a carcinogen requiring containment
Better solution – Don’t bury it – “burn” it!
Gen IV - Smart Nuclear Power:Integral Fast Reactor
Burns usual “waste” - vastly reduces true waste volume Burned waste is safer
Vastly increase fuel supply Minimal proliferation risk – blocks both paths to bomb
Hansen: .“Fourth generation nuclear power has the potential to provide safe base-load electric power with negligible CO2 emissions.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081121_Obama.pdf
Issues with Nuclear Power: Cost
Size matters - If it doesn’t have a “giga” in front, it won’t really impact Carbon
Size (MW)
1350 50
100
80
50
California Energy Commission – June 2007
Renewable Wedge
ReliabilityDistributionVariability
NREL Report“20% Wind by 2030”
Issues with Wind
Just do it!
Issues with Renewables: Distribution
Wind resource not located near consumers
NREL
Transmission Lines 12,650 new miles ~ $20 billion
Upgrades to ~100,000 miles of existing lines
NREL: “20% by 2030”, p, 96
Issues with Wind: Variability Wind/solar resource inherently intermittent (mitigated by large coupled electric grid)
Storage: large scale energy storage not yet availableBackup build more Carbon-generating gas plants
Hansen: “… it would be dangerous to proceed under the presumption that we will soon have all-renewable electric power.” op. cit.
Summary Carbon is the transcendent challenge
Pacala-Socolow - roadmap to Carbon sustainability
Renewables have a role
Issues/risks with nuclear power are manageable
Energy scale is HUGE – Time scale is shortIn crisis now
Nuclear power has a role – the nuclear wedge
“Questions” ?