NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/14052

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 7.2 KB

Xref: sparky sci.environment:14052 sci.energy:6503
Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!gatech!destroyer!ncar!vexcel!dean
From: [e-mail] (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:16:07 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Lines: 145


It seems to be a common conception that nuclear power is a good response
to any possible climate change problem.  I have challenged this assumption
before but I will address in more detail here.

The December 1988 issue
of _Energy Policy_ contains an article called "Greenhouse warming -
Comparative analysis of nuclear and efficiency abatement strategies"
by Bill Keepin and Gregory Kats.  They make a cost comparison of
replacing fossil fuel production with nuclear compared to lowering
energy consumption using a strategy of efficiency retrofits.

They first make calculations for nuclear power with the goal of
replacing all coal electricity generation over the next 40 years.
This includes growth in energy demand.  Two scenarios are used for
these calculations.  The first is a high growth scenario taken from
a study carried out by the National Academy of Science.  The medium
growth scenario was calculated by the Dept of Energy.  They modify
these scenarios by replacing the expected coal component of energy
production with nuclear power progressively over the next 40 years.
Nuclear power will also be assumed
for 1/2 of the non-fossil fuel energy generation.  The following
are cost assumptions for nuclear power:

    Capital cost:            $1000/installed kW
    Generation cost:        $.05/kWh
    Plant construction period:    6 years
    Capacity factor:        65%
    Lifetime:            30 years

    No costs for decommissioning, waste, health impacts or political
    problems are included

These costs are clearly favorable to nuclear power.  They compare to best
cases for experience with nuclear power generation.  The conclusions for
the first two scenarios for the overall cost and effect on CO2 emissions are:

            High scenario        Medium Scenario

Commissioning rate    1.6 days/GW        2.5 days/GW    (until 2025)
Avg annual cost (1987 $)
    capital        $227 billion/yr        $144 billion/yr
    total        $787 billion/yr        $525 billion/yr
CO2 emissions in 2025
    total        8.3Gt/year        5.3 Gt/year
    relative to 1988 60% increase        1% increase

As can be seen, these scenarios require huge investments and an extremely
intensive building program for nuclear plants.  And CO2 emissions will
not even drop due to the increase in use of other fossil fuel energy
sources!

In addition, calculations are made for a proposal by nuclear power advocate
Alvin Weinberg to increase nuclear power production six-fold from 1988
levels.  If this is applied to the two scenarios above, it leads to
a 6% or a 10% drop in CO2 emissions from the 2025 levels predicted in
the original plans, which would still be a significant increase from the
current levels.

Note that these scenarios assume that the correlation between economic
growth and energy consumption will continue, a common argument from
proponents of nuclear power.

Next, this is compared to the cost and emissions prediction for a focus
on energy efficiency.  They use a low energy scenario proposed by
Goldemburg et al.  They also discuss other low energy/efficiency
studies by Lovins et al and an NSF/MIT study, all of which point to
large savings from energy saving measures.  The NSF study states that:

    ... the effectiveness of energy use on a global scale can
    be increased by about 1% per year for decades without any
    social strain.  This seemingly small figure leads to a
    halving of energy use by the year 2050 and a 50% reduction
    in (annual) CO2 emissions.  This result is quite independent
    of any shifts to non-fossil sources for primary energy supplies.

Note that such a development requires capital expenditures that would
not likely be possible if there was a focus on expanding nuclear
power generation.

The comparison uses a opportunity cost method in which CO2 emission
reductions are calculated by using the same capital predicted to be
necessary for the nuclear power for efficiency strategies.  They show
that the Weinberg proposal leads to 17.27 Gt more CO2 emissions
annually than if the same money was spent for efficiency improvements.

For another comparison, they show that efficiency improvements cost
about $.02/kWh.  When this is compared with nuclear strategies, at any
of the cost scenarios, an efficiency strategy provides more CO2
reduction per dollar invested than nuclear strategies.  Those who
saw my posts a while back about the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) study saw how the cost for efficiency varies for different types
of retrofits.  The costs for retrofits will increase over time as the
easier improvements are completed, but the cost is still cheaper.

The article also discusses the components of nuclear production for the
above scenarios in developing countries and examines the difficulties
they would have in financing such a program.

The article is 15 pages of primary analysis with an appendix that
details the mathematics of many of the calculations.  There are
certainly many details that I have not included here.

----------

In examining this article, I want to point out that the authors work
for the Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank that promotes efficiency
strategies.  The charge of "lawyer science" is an obvious one that must
be dealt with since the authors performed the study with an obvious
bias.

First of all, the calculations for nuclear power cost were highly
favorable to nuclear power and certainly did not bias the study.
Second, the cost estimates for efficiency are clearly hypothetical
and open to challenge.  However, since other studies by the National
Science Foundation and EPRI have produced similar results, these
cost assumptions have been supported by other researchers who do not
have the same bias that the authors do.  The author's background
may be cause for caution, but the results cannot be discounted
without an effective rebuttal.

Since I did not want to be accused of lawyers science in presenting
this study, I looked for opposing points of view.  There were two such
responses to this study in following issues of _Energy Policy_.
One was based not on the cost estimates, but on the economics-based
claim that increased efficiency would not lead to a lower energy use
since lower costs lead to higher consumption.  However, this assumption
is only true if the cost of the electricity is the limiting factor
in its consumption.  For most uses this is not true.  Also, there was
a response from Jan Murray, Secretary-General of the Uranium Institute.
Although she defended nuclear power in general, and the long-term
possibilities for a significant contribution from nuclear power,
her summary included this point:

    Expansion of the nuclear contribution in the short term
    can only be relatively modest.  Energy efficiency measures,
    particularly in the industrialized countries, may well
    offer more immediate potential to contain greenhouse gas
    emissions.

--
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
    - Benjamin Franklin            [e-mail]