Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Negatep: future prospects Combining climate protection and technological progress.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Negatep: future prospects Combining climate protection and technological progress."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Negatep: future prospects Combining climate protection and technological progress

2 « Negatep » means (much) less fossil Limit temperature increase and reduce the use of fossil fuels without use of CCS 2 We need to move out from fossil fuels for two main reasons - Our energetic independence (geopolitical and economical aspects, including our balance of payments) - Greenhouse effect and reduction of CO 2 emission Thanks to nuclear energy, France has already made a part of the way, by practically eliminating coal from the generation of electricity, and today is an example among industrial countries (for example the German emission per capita is 50 % higher) But we need to go further, with an objective: a factor close to 3 to 4 on CO 2 emissions.

3 Present situation of Primary Energy in Toe: « tonne of oil equivalent » 1 toe= 42 GJ ( Gigajoules) 1toe ~ 1,6 tonne of coal, 1toe ~ 1170 m³ de gas, 1toe ~ 2,2 tonnes of wood. Nuc 112 (440 TWh) [38 Mtoe in final en. ] Ren 20 ( TWh ) Gas 40 Oil 81 Coal 12 Nuc 0.7 (2760 TWh) Ren 1,4 ( TWh ) Gas 2.8 Oil 4,2 Coal 3,6 France Germany World 265 Mtep 340 Mtep 13 Gtep 82 % 50 % 3 Nuc 23 Ren 36 Gas 75 Oil 116 Coal 90 Emission: 6,3 9,7 4,9 t CO2 /year per inhabitant 42 %

4 France, prospects for energy demand and carbon dioxide emission, relative evolutions (100 in 1960)

5 Who is producing CO 2 in France ? 5 The near four fold reduction in CO 2 emission must focus on the stationary and the mobility demands and involves - Energy conservation (sobriety) and energetic efficiency - Alternative sources of energy Renewable production of heat Additional zero carbon electricity (renewable and nuclear) Bio fuels

6 6 The basis of Negatep The priority: limitation of greenhouse gas emissions, among them essentially, concerning energy, CO 2. Control of prices Security of supplies (access to reserves, geopolitics). - The worst is the lack of energy. With these criteria in mind, Negatep compares objectively the technical feasibility, the costs of different technologies and comes to the conclusion: The improvement of efficiency is essential but has economical limits The share of the electricity vector must be increased, with an electricity produced without carbon To this end, nuclear energy is essential CCS is not retained

7 Final energy in Millions toe % per capita/ % per capita/tendency

8 Main actions in residential and tertiary sectors Control of needs The thermal waste in the residential sector is on average : 210 kWh/m².year today Negatep proposes 50 kWh/m².year in final energy for new constructions and 100 for past ones, but considers that this will not give a division by 3 but by 2 of the total energy consumption, as a consequence of the well known and general rebound effect (a 60% gap between theoretical economy - official rules from 1975 to and reality) Renovations - 20 millions apartments and houses (some of them spending more than 350 kWh/m².year) renovations per year - Cost to lower to 100 kWh/m².year: 7, 5 Billions € /year, total cost: 300 Billions € Nota bene: to lower to 50 kWh/m².year: 15 Billions €/year, total cost : 600 Billions € would be necessary, not feasible, too difficult and costly CO 2 emissions Practically eliminate the use of oil and gas in the residential and tertiary sectors. This can be achieved through improved insulation, renewable thermal energies, combined or not with heat pumps, and a “smart” use of direct electrical heating. - Biomass (local heat networks, and basic individual heating combined with electricity) - Solar heating (mainly for sanitary hot water, limited for heating building) - Low temperature geothermal energy (aquifer and local heat networks) - Heat pumps (with electricity and ground water, vertical wells, surface collectors, air collectors) 8

9 Negatep, demand management actions in industry 1 tonne of steel 0.5 toe 1 tonne of aluminium 3.4 toe 1 tonne of cement 0.25 toe Importance of recycling scrap iron 10 Mt (50 %) papers.. 5 Mt (50 %) Primary energy intensity 9 The easiest was done following the petroleum crisis in the seventy years New improvements of roughly the same importance are possible The priority goes to electricity (zero carbon) New needs are likely, such as biofuel

10 Demand and supply management in transports 10 Today’s situation: almost 100 % dependency on oil, Main origin of CO 2 emissions (more than residential and tertiary) Reduce significantly the use of oil in the transport sector (factor 6 to 7) - Management of mobility (mass transportation, freight) - Technology progress (reduce the weight of cars, direct and high pressure injection, variable distribution, downsizing, hybrid cars) - Replacement of gasoline by electricity, either directly with electric motorisations (electric cars and plug in hybrid cars) or indirectly by supplying energy to the bio fuel synthesis process. - Bio fuel of second generation (end of first generation) Ligneous-cellulosic biomass (secondary products of forest, specific cultures such as miscanthus) Thermo chemical way: gasification, syngas (hydrogen, carbon monoxide...), Fischer Tropsch process with catalysts) 22 Mtoe of biomass Mtoe of electricity produce : 15 Mtoe of fuel (50 % efficiency); (external energy from electricity: 87 TWh may act as adjustment variable )

11 Renewables (replenishable sources) - A social and political priority (should have all the virtues) - A very large potential but with its limits, for the whole world x 4 ? (very important, but not sufficient to meet all needs) - Price: a false idea: « it’s gratis, they are free of charge !» - Put the priority on heat production (biomass, solar heat, geothermal, heat pumps ) - Be prudent with biofuels (competition with other needs for biomass) - Electricity storage is limited, very bad adaptation of the network to intermittent and fluctuating generation 11

12 Renewable « heats» in Mtoe 2008 Negatep Biomass* (firewood, wastes, biogas, biofuel) Solar thermal energy 4 Geothermal combined with heat pump Total renewables * Be prudent with the use of land : « food, heat, mobility » 12

13 Recap biomass 13 Total needs: 33,5 Mtoe of biomass (11 Mtoe in direct heating + 22,5 for biofuel) Few modifications in the use of lands (15/10/15) Less grass lands – 2 Mha More artificial surfaces + 1 Mha Needs for bioproducts + 2 Mha Forests, coppices… present area: 15 Mha In 2010 : 130 Mm³/year growth, only 51 recovered to produce 9 Mtoe In 2050 on the same area, energy production of forest 20 Mtoe Specific areas for biofuels In 2010, 2.2 Mha give 2.8 Mtoe raw data (low energy outputs and CO2 reduction) In 2050, same areas for second generation plants 11 Mtoe for example miscanthus more than 15 tonnes of Dry Mass/ha + miscellaneous wastes, coppices 4 Mtoe, A total of 35 Mtoe (small margin above needs)

14 Future for electrical renewables HYDROPOWER On land + 1 to 2 GW (including PSH) 70 TWh Today average 65 TWh Marine (tides, undercurrents, waves) Very limited Others (OTEC, salinity y osmosis) GEOTHERMAL High temperature electricity (negligible) SOLAR Photovoltaic (18 GW) 20 TWh ? 1 TWh in 2010 Thermodynamic CSP (negligible) WIND On land (22 GW), Off shore (9 GW) 75 TWh ? 11 TWh en 2010 non Hydro x 8 ? (limited by costs and variability) 14

15 Grid energy flow and wind power variability Exemple of daily production Present daily variations of electricity demand and generation ∆ hydropower ~ 10 GW ∆ nuclear ~ 4 GW ∆ fossil ~ 4 GW ∆ exp/imp ~ ± 4 GW Wind power, France november 2010 More wind power, more ∆ fossils, or ∆ nuclear or more electricity storage 15

16 Wind power The false track of Europe’s balancing/compensation 16

17 Energy storage, the key to the development of renewables 17 - PSH (Pumped storage hydro) Global efficiency: 70 %. Example : for 25 GW of wind power, need for 14 Grand Maison (1 600 MW during 18 h) - CAES (Compress air energy storage) Global efficiency: 55 % Example : for 25 GW wind power, need 400 Huntorf (290 MW, 2 heures) - Hydrogen (Electrolysis, compression or liquefaction, storage), Efficiency for electrolysis alone: 70 % Nota: the cost is very sensitive to the load factor of electrolyzers * Fuel cell. Global output 30 to 35 % * Methanation : CH 4 (CO 2 + H 2 ) and electricity generation Global output < 20 % (Methanation including the energy spent to procure CO2 : 40 %) * Injection in gas network - Stationary batteries Global efficiency 60 % - Car batteries : only for loading without feedback to grid Example : 10 millions cars: 10 GW for load (in preference during the night)

18 Global outlook: share of renewables from weak to significant (Mtoe final energy) 2008 Negatep 18/164 60/146 Ren 18 Business as usual Sobriety (energy conservation) and efficiency Nuc 37 Fos Nuc + Fos

19 19 NUCLEAR - 58 nuclear reactors put in service (1977 to 1999 ) 78 % of French electricity generation - Life expectancy: initially 30/40 years, now 50/60 ? from Fessenheim (SCO in 1977), to Civaux 2 (SCO in 2000) - Third generation EPR : 60 years (probably more) - The future Gen IV: breeder reactor (Astrid ?) Acceptance ? Energy independence, continuity of supply Cost of electricity: lowest, under control, stable No CO 2 emisssions, main asset against unacceptable climate change Answer to population anxiety/concern Accidents : the safest energy (for the same production : 5 times fewer severe injuries than with gas, 20 fewer times than with coal…) Wastes management : effective for the main part in volume (95 %) Deep storage scheduled for the high activity, long-lived wastes (5 % in volume) Radiations: Hiroshima has left a lasting fear of radiations, whatever their level (natural radiation a few mSv, low levels (< mSv)…

20 20 NUCLEAR Social acceptance RADIATIONS THE LOW DOSES - France: average background radiation : 2.4 mSv/year, nuclear industry adds 1 %, - The low radiation doses, from the linear extrapolation to hormesis, limit 50 to 100 mSv ? WASTES: No present and no future health risk: leave to future generations a controlled situation Quantities very limited: per inhabitant in France 1 kg/year, among them 10 g/year of very high radioactivity (in comparison each year: all wastes: 4000 kg, of which 100 kg highly dangerous) The law of June 2006 relative to « High-level radioactive waste management … deep geological formations », the Bures Research Laboratory located 500 meters underground : license a repository by 2015, beginning of operation expected in ACCIDENTS According to WHO: The less “murderous” energy The PWR reference took the Three Mile Island accident into account The importance of the feedback of experience (Chernobyl, Fukushima) Safety authority’s independence Strength of EDF, Areva and specialized companies THE BEST CHOICE FOR ENERGY AND HEALTH (French Medicine Academy)

21 21 Nuclear fuel reserves, not renewable, but sustainable ? Today U 235 (0.7 % in natural uranium) is burnt (fission), together with partial recycling of Pu from reprocessing (Mox fuel)) - For the present use: conventional U reserves: 270 years unconventional U: x 2 to 4 (excluding sea water) - If world’s nuclear x 3 between today and 2060, with conventional U, avalability until If world’s nuclear x 5 from today to 2080, with unconventional U, avalability until 2120 Beyond that: breeder U 238 (fertile) Pu ( fissile); reserves x 100 Sustainable (without limit with U in sea water) Other possibility: Th 232 fertile U233 ( fissile) Th n Th 233 Pa 233 U 233 (ex. MSFR ) Nota : In France, the tonnes of uranium depleted to 0.25 %, could be depletd with the new enrichment method (GB 2) to 0.1 %, and produce 7000 tonnes of fuel, which means 7 operating years, and with breeders (fast reactors ): 3000 years

22 The evolution of installed nuclear power according to Négatep Figure presented during 2012 France’s debate on the energetic transition in opposition with the official current to promote less nuclear 22 Nota: Not validated beyond 2050

23 Recap Negatep Final energy in Mtoe and Mtoe + TWh Mtoe 23 Mtoe 29.4 Mtoe 27.5 Mtoe 49 Mtoe 22 Mtoe TWh TWh TWh TWh + 12 TWh + 93 TWh Residential and tertiary Industry and food Transports Renowable heating Fossil fuels Electricity 23

24 Negatep: residential and tertiary limiting demand and CO 2 emissions 24 Demand management - 33 % / business as usual - 16 % / 2008 (-24 %/inh.) CO 2 emissions From 112 Mt to 25 Mt/an Ren Ther Fossil fuel (out élec) Electricity

25 Negatep: industry and food limiting demand and CO 2 emissions 25 Demand management - 30 % / business as usual - 4 % / 2008 (- 15 %/inh.) CO 2 emissions From 80 Mt to 46 Mt/an Ren Therm Fossil fuel Electricity

26 Negatep: transports Limiting demand and CO 2 emissions 26 Demand management - 43 % / business as usual - 10 % / 2008 (-20 %/inh.) CO 2 emissions From 155 Mt to 24 Mt/an Ren. Ther Fossil fuel Electricity + 15

27 27 Recap Negatep Primary energy in Mtoe, and electricity vector in TWh Mtoe 279 Mtoe 575 TWh 990 TWh Nuc 182 Ren 60 : 45 the + 15 elec. Gas 24 Oil 8 Coal 5 Nuc 114 Ren 21 Gas 42 Oil 75 Coal 12 Wind 75 Hyd. 70 Ph V 20 Biom 10 Nuc 745 Ren 175 Fos f 70 Nuc 440 Ren 75 Fos f 60 Nuclear power inst. : 93 GW So half of total elect. power inst 188 GW

28 Negatep, the cost of the energy transition Estimations of total costs (investments, maintenance and operation) over a period of 40 years, according to different scenarios : a) status quo (no global change in spite of + 13 % inhabitants b) business as usual (no crisis) c) Negatep (sobriety and efficiency) 28 - Negatep, average additional costs 28 G€/year compared with the status quo - Negatep, practically same costs as business as usual

29 Negatep, the cost of the energy transition With present costs of fossil fuels Compared to the status quo* the energy transition proposed by Negatep would cost an average of 28 Billions €/year This extra cost would be zero - If the cost of fossil increased of 117 % - Or with a combination of a 100 €/t CO 2 carbon tax, and a 70% increase in the cost of fossil energies - * same global energy supply and demand, but as the population increases 13 %, 13 % less of final energy per inhabitant. 29

30 Recap Negatep 2011 editi on (Revision forecast in 2014) 30 - Global reduction of demand with regard to today, when the business as usual leads to a 38 % increase. - Division by about 4 of fossil fuels. - Multiplication by about 3 of renewable energies - About twice more electricity*, but same as now, practically free of carbon *Electricty is the main factor of adjustment for the robustness of the scenario)

31 Thank you for your attention Questions ? 31


Download ppt "1 Negatep: future prospects Combining climate protection and technological progress."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google