It’s cheaper than you think and produces better results when you use nuclear energy in the mix
Guest Blog Post by:
Dr. James Conca, Senior Scientist
Institute for Energy and the Environment
College of Engineering
New Mexico State University
Email: jconca@cemrc.org
As in all steady-state systems, humanity must attain a sustainable energy mix sometime in the future. Unless nuclear and renewable energy are a considerable part of that mix, humanity will go through a period of environmental and economic upheaval.
If energy growth estimates are even marginally correct, the world will achieve a consumption of over 30 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (30 tkWhrs/yr) by mid-century.
While large unconventional fossil fuel resources are still available to be developed, the economic and environmental costs are large. How the rise of renewables and nuclear will alter our dependence on fossil fuels depends upon economic and political forces.
This work presents an ethical annual energy requirement for the world, 30 tkWhrs/yr, that can be achieved by 2040, and also proposes a sustainable mix to achieve that level, i.e., a third fossil fuels, a third renewables and a third nuclear. (see large graphic below)
Cost of energy by type
The costs of energy produced for each primary energy source, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar and hydro, and the total energy produced between 2010 and 2060 using this mix, are calculated.
The total cost to produce 1,260 tkWhrs over that time period is $62.3 trillion in 2009 dollars, or about 2% of global GDP annually, and the CO2 emissions are cut in half relative to the baseline mix.
The cost of this alternative mix is about 20% lower than the $75.4 trillion to produce the same amount of energy from the more anticipated expectations of energy growth and distribution that still have fossil fuels producing about 60% of world power. Adoption of this alternative energy mix, therefore, provides substantial benefits, both economic and environmental.
Costs include construction (figure above), operation and maintenance (O&M), fuel, decommissioning and a possible carbon tax. Costs not discussed include electrical grid upgrade and connectivity of renewables, transportation issues, and non-carbon-tax externalities such as pollution and health care costs associated with energy sources such as coal and solar.
Nuclear energy is cost effective
Comparing apples to apples, hydro, nuclear and wind turn out to be the most cost-effective sources over the next 50 years, almost identical per kWhr produced.
The high installation costs of nuclear compared to other non-fossil fuel sources that are often cited are incorrect and stem from a misunderstanding of capacity factor and lifespan.
All decommissioning costs are relatively small, even for nuclear, and costs for a carbon tax @$15/ton of CO2 emitted are significant for the fossil fuels over this entire time period ($4.4 trillion combined) but relatively small for all alternatives (less than $0.5 trillion combined). Higher C-taxes, or Cap&Trade, equivalents are needed to force any substantial change in fossil fuel use.
Want to know more?
Conca in DC this week
Jim Conca will be in Washington, D.C. Nov 3 giving a new version of his new sustainable energy talk at the University of California's Washington Center (location, parking, & contact info) the evening of Wednesday, Nov 3 at 6:30 PM.The address is 1608 Rhode Island Avenue N.W. (map) It is open to all.
He will also giving a shorter presentation on a proposed National Energy Portfolio at the National Press Club, in their Fourth Estate Restaurant located at 529 14th St NW (map) Wednesday Nov 4 at 9:30 AM.
Book on Sustainable Energy
Jim Conca has co-authored The Geopolitics of Energy: Achieving a Just and Sustainable Energy Distribution by 2040 (Amazon) with Judith Wright. The book, is designed like a magazine, and is easily read in two to three hours. It asks the question "What future do you want, environmental degradation or environmental stewardship? (Brief video introduction to the book at Amazon)
Conca’s Cost Calculations for Sustainable Energy
# # #
3 comments:
I have a couple of issues with the "Construction Costs" bar chart:
1. after noting that lifespan is often not taken into account in evaluating nuclear power, is the chart normalized for the expected lifetime of the power source? (Ex: GE's 1.6MW wind turbines have a 20 yr lifespan, from their own documentation)
2. The cf's for wind and solar appear to be about 20% too high.
Why does the graphic compare the cost to make 469 Billion KWhr? It's a strange number.
I googled the author's presentation, and it is the calculation of the energy a typical nuclear plant would produce over its life (although the math is still a bit fuzzy).
980 MW x 1000 kW/MW x 0.92 x 8766 hrs/yr x 60 yrs = 469 billion kWhrs
I agree that the world energy consumption number is really weird. The units come out to
3.4 TW average
You can also say 3.4 TW-year per year. Why should we expect an audience to do a 8600 hours/year conversion? It's just not helpful.
But even worse, world energy consumption in 2008 was:
15 TW average
I hope that some other people at least remember the 15 TW number. I wish there was a better set of universal knowledge about energy.
Wind capacity factor is a realistic number, but is more common of off-shore farms. Solar is too high. Arizona PV farms will get 20%. Tracking PV could be higher but isn't very worthy of consideration.
Post a Comment