Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Nuclear Power and Climate Change Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu 416-273-8247 Climate Change Conference 2010 2010 August 14.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Nuclear Power and Climate Change Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu 416-273-8247 Climate Change Conference 2010 2010 August 14."— Presentation transcript:

1 Nuclear Power and Climate Change Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu adriana@danforthgreens.ca 416-273-8247 Climate Change Conference 2010 2010 August 14

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Problems Joshua highlighted with nuclear power: 1.Long construction times 2.Declining ore grades

10

11 Lifecycle CO 2 e of Electricity Sources Low EstimateHigh Estimate Reproduced with permission. http://stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html

12 Time Between Planning & Operation Nuclear: 10 - 19 y (life 40 y) Site permit: 3.5 - 6 y Construction permit approval and issue 2.5 - 4 y Construction time 4 - 9 years (Average today in China = 7.1 years) Hydroelectric:8 - 16 y (life 80 y) Coal-CCS: 6 - 11 y (life 35 y) Geothermal:3 - 6 y (life 35 y) Ethanol: 2 - 5 y (life 40 y) CSP: 2 - 5 y (life 30 y) Solar-PV: 2 - 5 y (life 30 y) Wave:2 - 5 y (life 15 y) Tidal:2 - 5 y (life 15 y) Wind: 2 - 5 y (life 30 y) Reproduced with permission. http://stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html

13 CO 2 e From Current Power Mix due to Planning-to-Operation Delays, Relative to Wind Low EstimateHigh Estimate Reproduced with permission. http://stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html

14

15 Nuclear limitations for load shifting no reactor on the planet can drop output more than 50% below the nominal ability to vary output decreases over the fuel cycle varying output by limiting the reaction increases risk...... and decreases reactor lifespan reducing output below the nominal for significant amounts of time increases the cost of nuclear per kilowatt hour

16 A coal plant must be running at capacity when it is replaced by a nuclear plant

17

18

19 Nuclear reactors reduce emissions if they replace existing reactors at the end of their lives or they can be a small part of a suite of tactics to reduce many coal plants

20 Total CO 2 e of Electricity Sources Low EstimateHigh Estimate Reproduced with permission. http://stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html

21

22

23 Reproduced with permission. R. Kenny, C. Law, J.M. Pearce, Towards real energy economics: Energy policy driven by life-cycle carbon emission, Energy Policy, Volume 38, Issue 4, April 2010, Pages 1969-1978, ISSN 0301-4215, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.078. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-4Y0K9WG-7/2/20bfb54fda02e08876ec8f8fcb7e48bc)

24 Reproduced with permission. R. Kenny, C. Law, J.M. Pearce, Towards real energy economics: Energy policy driven by life-cycle carbon emission, Energy Policy, Volume 38, Issue 4, April 2010, Pages 1969-1978, ISSN 0301-4215, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.078. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-4Y0K9WG-7/2/20bfb54fda02e08876ec8f8fcb7e48bc)

25 Reproduced with permission. R. Kenny, C. Law, J.M. Pearce, Towards real energy economics: Energy policy driven by life-cycle carbon emission, Energy Policy, Volume 38, Issue 4, April 2010, Pages 1969-1978, ISSN 0301-4215, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.078. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-4Y0K9WG-7/2/20bfb54fda02e08876ec8f8fcb7e48bc)

26 But what about… Footprint Transition Reliability Cost

27 But what about… Footprint Transition Reliability Cost

28 "The amounts of fuel and waste that must be dealt with at a nuclear reactor can be up to one million times smaller than the amounts of fuel and waste at an equivalent fossil-fuel power station."

29 Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles Cellulosic E85 4.7-35.4% of US Solar PV- BEV 0.077-0.18% Corn E85 9.8-17.6% of US Wind-BEV Footprint 1-2.8 km 2 Turbine spacing 0.35-0.7% of US Geoth BEV 0.006-0.008% Nuclear-BEV 0.05-0.062% Footprint 33% of total; the rest is buffer Reproduced with permission. http://stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html

30 But what about… Footprint Transition Reliability Cost

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38 But what about… Footprint Transition Reliability Cost

39

40 1.The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine when you need them to 2.Nuclear output is steady

41 Meeting peak demand Solar power Storage Biofuels Carbon capture Hydro power Load shifting

42 But what about… Footprint Transition Reliability Cost

43 Reproduced with permission. R. Kenny, C. Law, J.M. Pearce, Towards real energy economics: Energy policy driven by life-cycle carbon emission, Energy Policy, Volume 38, Issue 4, April 2010, Pages 1969-1978, ISSN 0301-4215, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.078. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-4Y0K9WG-7/2/20bfb54fda02e08876ec8f8fcb7e48bc)

44

45

46 Matching Hourly Summer 2020 Electricity Demand with 100% Renewables (No Change in Hydro) Total Demand Geothermal Wind Solar Hydro


Download ppt "Nuclear Power and Climate Change Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu 416-273-8247 Climate Change Conference 2010 2010 August 14."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google