Just as
night follows day, the nuclear industry
immediately followed the new
report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – launched on 8 October in Seoul, South Korea - advocating a switch to
low carbon power generation technologies to
combat increasing climate change,
by jumping on the bandwagon arguing more
nuclear power was the key to the solution (“UN
report shows increased need for nuclear, World Nuclear Association [WNA] News, 8 October 2018; http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UN-report-shows-increased-need-for-nuclear?feed=feed).
Responding
to the report, Agneta Rising, director general of WNA said: "The IPCC
report makes clear the potential benefits of limiting climate change to 1.5
degrees, the urgency for action to achieve this and the necessity of nuclear energy as an important part of an
effective global response."(emphasis added)
IPPC argued
in its summary report for policymakers (http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf) that: “The report finds that
limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require ‘rapid and far-reaching"
transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global
net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about
45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050. This
means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2
from the air.’”
Chapter two
contains the following paragraph: “Kriegler et al. (2018a) conducted a
sensitivity analysis that explores the four central options for reducing
fossil-fuel emissions: lowering energy demand, electrifying energy services,
decarbonizing the power sector and decarbonizing non-electric fuel use in
energy end-use sectors. By exploring these options to their extremes, they
found a lowest value of 500 GtCO2 (2018–2100) gross fossil-fuel CO2 emissions
for the hypothetical case of aligning the strongest assumptions for all four
mitigation options. The two lines of evidence and the fact that available 1.5°C
pathways cover a wide range of assumptions (Section 2.3.1) give a robust
indication of a lower limit of ca. 500 GtCO2 remaining fossil-fuel and industry
CO2 emissions in the 21st century.” (page: 2-30)
It adds at section
2.4.1 Energy
System Transformation:
“The
energy system links energy supply (Section 2.4.2) with energy demand (Section
2.4.3) through final energy carriers including electricity and liquid, solid or
gaseous fuels that are tailored to their end-uses. To chart energy-system
transformations in mitigation pathways, four macro-level decarbonisation
indicators associated with final energy are useful: limits to the increase of
final energy demand, reductions in the carbon intensity of electricity,
increases in the share of final energy provided by electricity, and reductions
in the carbon intensity of final energy other than electricity (referred to in
this section as the carbon intensity of the residual fuel mix).”
and further
explains:” Several energy supply characteristics are evident in
1.5°C pathways assessed in this section: i) growth in the share of energy
derived from low carbon-emitting sources (including renewables, nuclear, and fossil fuel
with CCS) and a decline in the overall share of fossil fuels without CCS
(Section 2.4.2.1), ii) rapid decline in the carbon intensity of electricity
generation simultaneous with further electrification of energy end-use (Section
2.4.2.2), and iii) the growth in the use of CCS applied to fossil and biomass
carbon in most 1.5°C pathways (Section 2.4.2.3).”
This is the
first mention, in passing, of nuclear at page 52 of 113. It adds: “By mid-century, the
majority of primary energy comes from non-fossil-fuels (i.e., renewables and
nuclear energy) in most 1.5°C pathways.”
The report
then more substantively adds: “Nuclear power increases its share in most 1.5°C pathways
by 2050, but in some pathways both the absolute capacity and share of power
from nuclear generators declines (Table 2.15). There are large differences in
nuclear power between models and across pathways (Kim et al., 2014; Rogelj et
al., 2018). One of the reasons for this
variation is that the future deployment of nuclear can be constrained by
societal preferences assumed in narratives underlying the pathways (O’Neill
et al., 2017; van Vuuren et al., 2017b). Some 1.5°C pathways no longer see a
role for nuclear fission by the end of the century, while others project over
200 EJ yr–1 of nuclear power in 2100 (Figure 2.15).” (emphasis added)
But this
cautiously footnoted section is converted by the World Nuclear Association into
a much less nuanced nuclear support. Its own assessment records the following:
“A large
increase in the use of nuclear power would help keep global warming to below
1.5 degrees, according to a United Nations report published today. …Under all scenarios compatible with
1.5 degrees outlined in the report, the
contribution of nuclear power increases. The shares of nuclear and fossil
fuels with carbon dioxide capture and storage in electricity generation are
modelled to increase in most 1.5-degree pathways "with no or limited
overshoot". (emphasis added)
Somewhat confusingly, it then adds:
"Nuclear power increases its
share in most 1.5-degree pathways by 2050, but in some pathways both the
absolute capacity and share of power from
nuclear generators declines," the Summary for Policymakers of the
report says. (emphasis added)
WNA insists :”An increase in the use
of nuclear power can be realised through existing mature nuclear technologies
or new options, it says, referring to Generation III/IV reactors, breeder
reactors, new uranium and thorium fuel cycles, small reactors or nuclear cogeneration.”
The current deployment pace of nuclear
energy is "constrained by social acceptability in many countries", it
notes, owing to concerns over risks of accidents and radioactive waste
management.
"Though comparative risk
assessment shows health risks are low per unit of electricity production, and
land requirement is lower than that of other power sources, the political
processes triggered by societal concerns depend on the country-specific means
of managing the political debates around technological choices and their
environmental impacts," the report says.
"Such differences in perception
explain why the 2011 Fukushima incident resulted in a confirmation or
acceleration of phasing out nuclear energy in five countries while 30 other
countries have continued using nuclear energy, amongst which 13 are building
new nuclear capacity including China, India and the UK," it adds.
The costs of nuclear power have
increased over time in some developed nations, it says, "principally due
to market conditions where increased investment risks of high-capital
expenditure technologies have become significant".
Unprecedented changes
In a statement to accompany the report, the IPCC said limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees compared to 2 degrees "would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society". It adds: "With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees compared to 2 degrees could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society."
"One of the key messages that
comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the
consequences of 1 degree C of global warming through more extreme weather,
rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,"
said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
The report highlights a number of
climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5
degrees compared to 2 degrees, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level
rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5 degrees compared with 2
degrees. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be
once per century with global warming of 1.5 degrees, compared with at least
once per decade with 2 degrees. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90% with global
warming of 1.5 degrees, whereas more than 99% would be lost with 2 degrees.
The report was prepared under the
scientific leadership of all three IPCC working groups. Working Group I
assesses the physical science basis of climate change; Working Group II
addresses impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and Working Group III deals
with the mitigation of climate change.
Global Warming of 1.5 degrees is the first in a series of Special
Reports to be produced in the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Cycle. Next year the IPCC
will release the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing
Climate, and Climate Change and Land, which looks at how climate change affects
land use.
Industry response
The WNA Association noted nuclear
generation increases, on average by around 2.5 times by 2050 in the 89
mitigation scenarios considered by the IPCC. Achieving a rapid decarbonisation
of the electricity sector will require, at first, deploying proven technology,
the WNA added.
Rising said: "The IPCC report
highlights the proven qualities of nuclear energy as a highly effective method
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as providing secure, reliable and
scalable electricity supplies. To maximise nuclear energy's contribution
electricity markets need to acknowledge these benefits. We also need more
effective harmonised regulatory processes to facilitate significant growth in
nuclear capacity and an effective safety paradigm where the health,
environmental and safety benefits of nuclear are better understood and valued
by society."
Dr Jenifer Baxter, head of engineering
at the UK's Institution of Mechanical Engineers, said the IPCC's target to
generate 70-80% electricity from renewables is ambitious, adding there is a
need to "look at the broader picture" and focus on reducing the
carbon intensity of the whole electricity system,” adding "We have very
limited options for more hydro power in the UK, batteries do not yet provide
the type of storage needed and other options like liquid air and hydrogen
storage are still early in their development stages. Another option to reduce
the carbon intensity of the electricity system is to take a more certain
approach to nuclear power by planning a long-term rolling programme of
development that grows the supply chain and required skills, as well as
reducing the overall costs of building new power stations. Going beyond the electricity
system, we should explore the relationship between nuclear and producing
hydrogen through electrolysis to provide decarbonised fuel for heat, transport
and industry."
The
IPPC report meanwhile argues: “Energy-demand reduction measures are key to reduce CO2 emissions
from end-use sectors for low-carbon pathways. The up-stream energy reductions
can be several times to an order of magnitude larger than the initial end-use
demand reduction. There are interdependencies among the end-use sectors and
also between energy-supply and end-use sectors, which raise the importance of a
wide, systematic approach.”
This
makes a lot more sense than jumping onto yet another nuclear bandwagon which
all too often turns into yet another boondoggle!
No comments:
Post a Comment