How Will We Meet the Growing Energy Demand?

Tony Hayward

We need to bring the best brains from a range of disciplines to bear on the complex issues of energy and the environment. And we need to do it in a logical, methodical, and realistic way. That's what should happen at the international level. And it's already happening here at MIT. What you're doing provides a great role model.

Let me explain how I see the challenges involved in energy. From my perspective, there are three distinct strands:
First, how to meet the world's growing demand for energy—€”in particular, how to satisfy the aspirations of people in emerging economies to achieve the living standards that we regard as commonplace in the mature economies of the west.
Second, how to meet this demand in a way that is environmentally sustainable.
Third, how to provide energy reliably in a world where there is a mismatch between where energy is produced and where it is consumed, and supplies are increasingly concentrated in a few key regions—€¦.

But advances only come about if the people involved adopt the right approach. Part of that approach is to be completely realistic about the "givens" that you start with—€”-and the tools you can use. If you are realistic about what can and can't be done, then the possibilities start to emerge.

The energy challenge is just like that. We have to accept the harsh realities of the situation in order to identify workable solutions.

The First Harsh Reality—€”
the Facts of Demand and Supply

The starting point for any analysis of energy has to be the scale of demand. For the next several decades we are looking at strong, rising demand, driven by the extraordinary economic transformation of China, India and other developing countries.

Demand for energy is projected to rise by around 45 percent between now and 2030. That is roughly equivalent to adding two more United States to the world's consumption. Meeting that demand growth will require between $25 and $30 trillion of investment—€”or $1 trillion a year.

In terms of oil supply alone, the current production of around 85 million barrels a day will need to increase to around 100 million a day by 2030. Over half of that total will need to come from new sources as existing fields decline and demand grows. That's equivalent to adding four more Saudi Arabias to the world's production capacity.

Some may question whether so much of the growth needs to come from fossil fuels. But here it is vital that we face up to the harsh reality. These projections assume that current policies to promote emissions reduction are not only continued but tightened. And yet we still foresee up to 80 percent of energy coming from fossil fuels in 2030. This is because of the sheer scale of the world's energy industry—€”and the slow turnover in capital stock such as power stations and long lead times required to build assets such as nuclear facilities or renewable power at scale—€¦.

Renewable energy is an essential part of the future energy mix. We support that aim as a company with major investments in wind, solar and biofuels. But the harsh reality is that as of today, all of the world's wind, solar, wave, tide and geothermal energy accounts for only around 1 percent of total consumption. And looking ahead, on the most radical scenario put forward by the International Energy Agency, these forms of energy will only meet 5 percent of the total demand in 2030—€¦.

The Second Harsh Reality—€”
Tools and Technologies

The answer cannot be the wholesale replacement of hydrocarbons with renewables. But neither can it be nuclear alone, carbon capture alone, biofuels alone or electric cars alone. All of these technologies are from time to time promoted in a way that suggests they are "the future." But there is no one miracle solution. The future of energy will not come from a quick fix but a broad mix. It will contain a range of energy types, for fuel, power and heat. At the moment the spotlight tends to lurch from one new technology to another and we risk overlooking some basic, commonsense solutions.

First, in almost any analysis of greenhouse gas mitigation, the greatest source of emissions cuts is energy efficiency. It is the least glamorous answer, but the down-to-earth solutions are frequently the best ones. The McKinsey Global Institute suggests that energy use could be cut by more than a fifth by 2020 and 8 billion tons of greenhouse gases avoided through energy efficiency investments that would more than pay for themselves.

This is borne out by BP's own analysis. In transport, for example, increasing the efficiency of the internal combustion engine can remove some 25 percent of CO2 emissions. Using full hybrid cars can remove a further 25 percent—€¦

Biofuels create tailpipe emissions, but avoid them upstream because their feedstock absorbs carbon. Electric cars avoid tailpipe emissions but create them upstream because they depend on power stations. Electric vehicles have promise but they will only reduce the carbon footprint of transport significantly if the source of power itself is decarbonized.

Biofuels present another instance where public debate is in danger of becoming derailed. There is naturally concern over the sustainability of biofuels. Do they compete with food? Are they produced in ways that damage ecosystems? The answer is "it depends on the biofuel." There is a vast range of biofuels, some good, some bad. In BP we are investing in biofuels that provide high energy and real environmental benefits without damaging nutrition or biodiversity. These are Brazilian ethanol made from sugar cane, the most efficient biofuel available today; biobutanol, which is a more advanced molecule than ethanol; and ligno-cellulosic fuels such as ethanol from energy grasses—€¦

We believe that biofuels will become very significant businesses in the coming years and that they could make up almost 10 percent of global transport fuel by 2030 and potentially as much as 20 percent of the U.S. gasoline pool. But of course transport is only part of the picture. Whereas transport has millions of small, moving units with lives of a decade or two, power involves relatively few large, static assets with lifetimes of 40 or 50 years.

The average coal-fired power station in the U.S. was built in 1964 and coal remains by far the biggest source of American electricity. Yet the harsh reality is that coal is the most carbon-intensive form of energy in widespread use. Coal generates 50 percent of America's power, but 80 percent of the resulting CO2 emissions. If we are to have any chance of transitioning to a lower-carbon world, coal will either have to be cleaned up or phased out.

So what are the alternatives?

Renewables will play an important role. Wind power for example can be cost-competitive in certain locations. In the U.S. it's been the fastest growing of all energy sources over the last couple of years. But the technology, infrastructure and regulatory framework for such alternative energies are expected to take decades to be deployed at scale.

Nuclear power supplies about 5 percent of global energy and it will take at least 10 years for its share to start rising. Even then it is debatable how far it will go, given issues of permitting, cost and security.

Coal plants can be fitted with carbon capture and storage, but the operative word is "can." There is still no commercial scale power plant with CCS in the world and its deployment is mainly limited to upstream energy projects. BP operates one of the world's largest existing CCS projects-fired project in California. But the challenges of CCS are such that I don't believe we'll see it used at commercial scale for at least another decade or more—€” and if and when it is established, it will give rise to very substantial costs.

There is of course another option—€”the cleanest burning fossil fuel and a source of energy that is plentiful in the U.S. And that's natural gas. Combined-cycle turbines powered by natural gas are quick and relatively inexpensive to build and can generate power at 60 percent efficiency. They emit less than half the greenhouse gases of a conventional coal plant per unit of power generated. Gas plants can be quickly switched on and off and therefore act as an ideal flexible back-up for renewables, such as wind and solar power which by their nature are intermittent.

But is there enough gas available? Absolutely yes. America has seen a quiet revolution in its gas fields in the last few years as new technologies have been introduced—€¦. By our estimates, the U.S. is now sitting on between 50 and 100 years of gas resources at current rates of consumption.

Globally the world is estimated to have around 60 years of gas. But new technologies could add many decades to that number. In 2008, gas was the only fossil fuel which saw its consumption increase in both OECD and non-OECD countries. If we could ramp up natural gas use we could retire the oldest and dirtiest coal plants. In fact BP has calculated that for a fraction of the costs of other options as much as 30 percent of the Waxman-Markey reduction target could be rapidly achieved through expanded use of natural gas.

The third harsh reality—€”policies

Let me be clear. The transition to a lower-carbon world will not take place without significant government intervention.

By far the most powerful policy intervention on energy would be establishing a price for carbon. For the market to meet the world's growing demand for energy in a sustainable way, governments need to set a stable and enduring framework—€”starting with a uniform price for carbon. A price that treats all carbon as equal—€” whether it comes out of a smoke stack or a tail pipe. Carbon pricing will make energy conservation more attractive and alternative energy more cost competitive. It will allow informed investment in fossil fuels and will encourage investment in the technology necessary to reduce the carbon they produce. This is already starting to happen in Europe where we have the EU's emissions trading system, and I believe it will happen in the U.S. —€¦

Once we can agree on a clear goal, then we need to face a further reality, which is that a carbon price alone will not be enough to reach the goal. Politically, the carbon price could never be set high enough to change some aspects of consumer behavior. The reality is that to make the kind of difference we're talking about, carbon pricing will need to be supported both by economic incentives and by regulation. Recent experience in the U.S. shows where regulation can help. Here fuel standards have helped improve energy efficiency in vehicles.

Thanks to federal CAFÉ requirements and technological breakthroughs by car manufacturers, America's transport fleet is much more fuel efficient than it used to be. And now the Obama administration is going further by demanding even tougher CAFÉ standards. Similar policies can and are being applied to energy efficiency in buildings. Here too, a combination of government regulation and incentives is in my view the way to go.

You may be wondering why a businessman is standing here advocating greater government intervention. But I don't think there's a contradiction. Adam Smith himself taught that the market works best when it is properly regulated by government.

And the scale and complexity of this particular challenge is different from the usual workings of a market economy. To mitigate climate change and secure reliable energy supplies, we need governments to create a roadmap and set the framework within which markets can deliver.

I would like to make one further point. These are not issues on which we have endless time to deliberate. It matters what we do over the next 25 years. There is real benefit to deciding on the most cost-effective remedies now—€”such as promoting energy efficiency, using gas in power and biofuels in transport. These options make economic sense today and will not cost the world more than it can afford.

As I indicated when I began, the problem is a complex one and the solution will have many elements. An international agreement. National policies. Mechanisms for transfer of technology and funds. A carbon price. New regulations. A mix of technologies. Changes in behaviours. And ongoing research into new possibilities.

[Some conclusions:]

—€ We need to be absolutely honest with ourselves about the harsh realities of energy. We must not put our faith in unrealistic solutions and overlook real possibilities for progress.

—€ The overall problem may be complex but there are some simple things that can be done right now to help solve it. Exploiting natural gas and promoting energy efficiency are two that stand out. We have not yet picked all the low-hanging fruit.

—€ Looking at innovation for the future, the really interesting things happen at the borders where different disciplines meet—€¦In particular there is real scope to apply some of the enabling technologies that have made such dramatic progress over the past decade—€” such as nanotechnology, superconducting and IT to the energy challenge—€¦.

—€ All of this depends on people. I'll wait a long time for an oil rig or a wind turbine to walk into my office with a bright idea. Human capabilities are needed to create the technological, commercial and political solutions to the energy challenge. That is why we need to invest in people and to focus on investing in the most important skills.

Our industry and its people are central to the way that civilization develops. This is not a sunset industry. This is a growth industry, one that has to provide continued access to energy at the same time as sustainable energy and secure energy.

http://www.innovation-america.org/how-will-we-meet-growing-energy-demand

Read more...

BENEFITS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

Read more...

WHITE PAPER ON NUCLEAR ENERGY IN MALAYSIA

Malaysian Nuclear Society 23 August 2008

The Malaysian Nuclear Society (MNS), established 1988, welcomes the decision in the 2009 budget speech that Malaysia will be “exploring nuclear energy… to ensure long term energy security of the nation.”

The MNS also welcomes the positive statement by the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation in support of nuclear energy as reported by Bernama, 19 August 2008:

•          “Nuclear energy is vital following the increase in the world fuel price and our limited oil reserve. Moreover, nuclear energy is clean and cheap”

•         The MNS views these developments as positive steps towards the attainment of secure and stable energy supply to ensure high technology and socio-economic development of Malaysia.

However, due to the long lead-time & narrow window of opportunity for the introduction of a nuclear energy, it is our considered opinion that the nuclear option should be urgently included in the national energy mix.

1. AIMS

This memorandum on nuclear energy option is prepared by the MNS to:

·        present the views of the Malaysian scientific community on the need for Malaysia to urgently adopt nuclear power to secure its present and future energy requirements;

·        present scientific views that renewable energy (solar power and wind power) in its current state of development is not expected to be able to fulfill the growing demand for electricity; and

·        recommend action items for timely introduction of nuclear power plants in Malaysia.

2. BACKGROUND

 

Nuclear energy, the source of 17% of the world electricity need for the past decades, is witnessing tremendous resurgence as country after country decides to go nuclear. This renaissance is driven not just by the continuing development in many parts of the world, especially in our Asian region, but also due to the followings:

·        dwindling resource of fossil fuel,

·        limitation of hydro electric resources,

·        inability of alternatives (solar, wind) to take up the slack in demand

·        environmental concern (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides from fossil, loss biodiversity for hydro)

·        inadequate capability of renewable (biofuel, etc.) to supply bulk/ industrial power need

·        nuclear energy has proven to be a reliable, clean, and safe source or energy

The introduction of nuclear energy however requires a long lead-time due to the sophistication of the technology, the need to set-up adequate supporting systems (human capital, hard and soft infrastructure) for it to be effectively implemented, and the need to timely secure technology transfer and supply in the face of competition from limited suppliers which could be exacerbated by the nuclear renaissance.

Due to the long lead-time and the competition for nuclear power plant worldwide there is a narrow window of opportunity to make decision to introduce NPP in the country.

 Nuclear technology has been the driver of high technology growth in the economy (Korea, Japan, China). This cascade effect will also unleash high technology industrial development for Malaysia. Malaysiaalready has the experience to manage and operate sophisticated technology. In the field of nuclear technology, Malaysian Nuclear Agency has been operating for more than three decades and has accumulated a wealth of technical capabilities and experience.

 Malaysia, therefore, is ready to make that decision. The decision in the 2009 Budget to ‘explore nuclear energy’ is most welcomed by the MNS. It is our considered opinion that Malaysia has a narrow window of opportunity to introduce NPP. It must not be missed.

This memorandum is intended to encourage the relevant parties to adopt the essence of peaceful use of nuclear energy and to consider the following issues and recommendations:

3. THE ISSUES

3.1 Energy supply - Conservation of fossil  fuel for future generation

On a global scale, as demand for oil will drastically increase due to economic and population growth, mainly, in developing countries, it is forecast that the relation between supply and demand of fossil fuels will become tight, followed by consequent price hikes, and therefore the world may face intensified competition for the acquisition of fossil fuel sources. Thus, it is important for Malaysia to ensure stable and reliable energy supply by diversifying import sources, on supply side.

3.2 Human Capital Development

 Since nuclear is an advance technology, this presents an ideal opportunity to upgrade the education system in the secondary schools, universities and postgraduate levels to develop Malaysia independent and capable nuclear manpower.  

 Together with the existing knowledge in Malaysian Nuclear Agency and the local institutions of higher learning, this human capital development will enable the fast track development of a broad range of nuclear technologies.

3.3 Economic and well being

Energy is the lifeblood of development and growth. Its security and stability of supply are essential ingredients for economic development, progress, and improvement of societal well being. Nuclear energy will continue Malaysia’s good development in energy supply well into the future and spark a rapid industrial development thereby improving the overall standard of living. This could be the stepping-stone to move forward into the hydrogen economy to replace oil for transportation.

3.4 Environment

As we continue to develop more energy must be generated. According to an estimate Malaysia will need four times current electricity generation by 2050. Continuing to rely on fossil fuels is environmentally polluting due to the emission of toxic sulphur and nitrogen oxide gases.

Malaysia has the option of supplying electricity by increased hydroelectric. However, this would be at the expense of our vast rainforest biodiversity, which is likely to be the future source of economic progress.

Nuclear power, compared to the burning of coal and gas, is the least environmentally polluting source of energy. In comparison with other sources, it also has the highest power density per square meter of land used.

http://www.nuklearmalaysia.org/index.php?id=32&mnu=32

Read more...

[ARTICLE]New age nuclear

What if we could build a nuclear reactor that offered no possibility of a meltdown, generated its power inexpensively, created no weapons-grade by-products, and burnt up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles? And what if the waste produced by such a reactor was radioactive for a mere few hundred years rather than tens of thousands? It may sound too good to be true, but such a reactor is indeed possible, and a number of teams around the world are now working to make it a reality. What makes this incredible reactor so different is its fuel source: thorium.

Named after Thor, the warlike Norse god of thunder, thorium could ironically prove a potent instrument of peace as well as a tool to soothe the world's changing climate. With the demand for energy on the increase around the world, and the implications of climate change beginning to strike home, governments are increasingly considering nuclear power as a possible alternative to burning fossil fuels.

But nuclear power comes with its own challenges. Public concerns over the risk of meltdown, disposal of long-lived and highly toxic radioactive waste, the generation of weapons grade by-products, and their corresponding proliferation risks, all can make nuclear power a big vote-loser.

A thorium reactor is different. And, on paper at least, this radical new technology could be the key to unlocking a new generation of clean and safe nuclear power. It could prove the circuit-breaker to the two most intractable problems of the 21st century: our insatiable thirst for energy, and the warming of the world's climate.

BY THE END OF this century, the average surface temperature across the globe will have risen by at least 1.4˚C, and perhaps as much as 5.8˚C, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

That may not sound like much, but small changes in the global average can mask more dramatic localised disruptions in climate.

Some changes will be global: we can expect sea levels to rise by as much as 0.9 metres, effectively rendering a huge proportion of what is now fertile coastal land uninhabitable, flooding low-lying cities and wiping out a swathe of shallow islands worldwide.

The principal culprit is carbon dioxide, a gas that even in quite small quantities can have a dramatic impact on climate, and has historically been present in the Earth's atmosphere at relatively low concentrations.

That was until human activity, including burning fossil fuels, began raising background levels substantially.

Yet while we're bracing ourselves to deal with climate change, we also face soaring demand for more energy - which means burning more fossil fuels and generating more greenhouse gases.

That demand is forecast to boom this century. Energy consumption worldwide is rising fast, partly because we're using much more of it - for air conditioning and computers, for example. In Australia alone, energy consumption jumped by 46 per cent between the mid-1970s and the mid- 1990s where our population grew by just 30 per cent. And energy use is expected to increase another 14 per cent by the end of this decade, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Then there's China, which, along with other fast-growing nations, is developing a rapacious appetite for power to feed its booming economy.

And fossil fuels won't last forever. Current predictions are that we may reach the point of peak production for oil and natural gas within the next decade - after which production levels will continually decline worldwide.

That's if we haven't hit the 'peak oil' mark already. That means prices will rise, as they have already started to do: cheap oil has become as much a part of history as bell-bottomed trousers and the Concorde.

Even coal, currently the world's favourite source of electricity generation, is in limited supply. The U.S. Department of Energy suggests that at current levels of consumption, the world's coal reserves could last around 285 years. That sounds like breathing room: but it doesn't take into account increased usage resulting from the lack of other fossil fuels, or from an increase in population and energy consumption worldwide.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as of 2003, coal provided about 40 per cent of the world's electricity - compared to about 20 per cent for natural gas, nuclear power and renewable sources respectively. In Australia, coal contributes even more: around 83 per cent of electricity.

This is because coal is abundant and cheap, especially in Australia. And although a coal-fired power plant can cost as much as A$1 billion (US$744 million) to build, coal has a long history of use in Australia. Coal is also readily portable, much more so than natural gas, for example - which makes it an excellent export product for countries rich in coal, and an economical import for coal-barren lands.

But the official figures on the cost of coal don't tell the whole story. Coal is a killer: a more profligate one than you would expect.

And it maintains a lethal efficacy across its entire lifecycle.

One of the main objections held against nuclear power is its potential to take lives in the event of a reactor meltdown, such as occurred at Chernobyl in 1986. While such threats are real for conventional reactors, the fact remains that nuclear power - over the 55 years since it first generated electricity in 1951 - has caused only a fraction of the deaths coal causes every week.

Take coal mining, which kills more than 10,000 people a year. Admittedly, a startling proportion of these deaths occur in mines in China and the developing world, where safety conditions are reminiscent of the preunionised days of the early 20th century in the United States. But it still kills in wealthy countries; witness the death of 18 miners in West Virginia, USA, earlier this year.

But coal deaths don't just come from mining; they come from burning it. The Earth Policy Institute in Washington DC - a nonprofit research group founded by influential environmental analyst Lester R. Brown - estimates that air pollution from coal-fired power plants causes 23,600 U.S. deaths per year. It's also responsible for 554,000 asthma attacks, 16,200 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks annually.

The U.S. health bill from coal use could be up to US$160 billion annually, says the institute.

Coal is also radioactive: most coal is laced with traces of a wide range of other elements, including radioactive isotopes such as uranium and thorium, and their decay products, radium and radon. Some of the lighter radioactive particles, such as radon gas, are shed into the atmosphere during combustion, but the majority remain in the waste product - coal ash.

People can be exposed to its radiation when coal ash is stored or transported from the power plant or used in manufacture of concrete. And there are far less precautions taken to prevent radiation escaping from coal ash than from even low-level nuclear waste. In fact, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the U.S. estimates the amount of exposure to radiation from living near a coal-fired power plant could be several times higher than living a comparable distance from a nuclear reactor.

Then there are the deaths that are likely to occur from falling crop yields, more intense flooding and the displacement of coastal communities which are all predicted to ensue from global warming and rising oceans.

There's so much heat already trapped in the atmosphere from a century of greenhouse gases that some of these effects are likely to occur even if all coal-fired power plants were closed tomorrow. Whichever way you look at it, coal is not the smartest form of energy.

Read more...

[Article]Nuclear power: Energy solution or evil curse?

Explosions and meltdown fears at Japan's damaged nuclear plants have renewed debate about the safety of atomic energy and cast doubts over its future as a clean energy source.

Environmental groups and others have been quick to point out that this is a total vindication of their stance against any form of nuclear-sourced energy.

Walt Patterson at the London-based foreign affairs think-tank Chatham House, questions why any government would build nuclear plants when there are so many others sources of energy generation.

"Why turn to the slowest, the most expensive, the narrowest, the most inflexible, and the riskiest in financial terms?" he asks.

But proponents of the nuclear option insist nuclear power has the lowest carbon footprint, the latest reactors are perfectly safe, and it produces sustainable energy at a cost that is competitive with other methods.

Safety addressed

The facilities north of Tokyo were damaged after an 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami left more than 1,000 dead and at least 10,000 missing.

"Putting things into perspective, when the loss of life in Japan is probably going to be much higher than presently recorded, the problems with the nuclear reactors are a high-profile side-line," says Ian Hore-Lacy at the World Nuclear Association (WNA).

He points out that although the facilities were built in the 1960s, there have only been minor radiation releases.

A disaster on the scale of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the former Soviet Union is highly unlikely, according to experts, because Japan's reactors are built to a much higher standard and have much more rigorous safety measures.

"New reactors are much more sophisticated," Mr Hore-Lacy says. "They are one or two orders of magnitude safer than older models."

He insists the very latest nuclear reactor models have passive cooling systems, so if they were to experience any disaster such as those currently being experienced in Japan, it would not present any danger whatsoever to the public.

Public perceptions

An incident at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979 and the Chernobyl accident in 1986, raised concerns about the safety of the nuclear power industry as well as nuclear power in general, slowing its expansion for a number of years.

But the public perception of the nuclear industry has to be balanced with the compelling need to reduce dependence on oil, gas and coal, along with the climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions they produce, proponents insist.

Mr Hore-Lacy is adamant that the only way enough energy can be sustainably produced to cater for the increasing global demand is with nuclear power.

"Nuclear power has two distinct advantages over coal and gas," he says.

"First there is the question of energy security."

He explains that uranium, used in the production of nuclear power, has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy, which is easily and cheaply transportable, and that the quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil.

"One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal," he says.

The second issue is that of the carbon footprint.

Nuclear energy is considered by proponents to be a clean alternative to the expensive exploration of oil and gas - both of which are faced with dwindling reserves.

However, that is not a view shared by everyone.

"Nuclear power needs climate change more than climate change needs nuclear power," says Mr Patterson of Chatham House.

Alternative methods

Anti-nuclear campaigners say the crisis in Japan is a timely reminder of the dangers of atomic energy, particularly in a region known for its seismic activity.

They advocate the use of alternative systems to meet the global demand for energy - the most popular being solar energy, biomass energy, hydropower and wind turbines.

All systems have their drawbacks, however, whether it is the cost of installation, the transformation of farming land, or the site of large structures on the landscape.

The European Gas Advocacy Forum has issued a report saying that natural gas should play a key role in reaching Europe's 2050 climate targets in the most cost-efficient manner.

Rune Bjornson, at the Norwegian energy company Statoil, says natural gas is cost competitive, with CO2 emissions being 70% lower than those of coal.

Meanwhile, the WNA's Mr Hore-Lacy says that once a nuclear reactor is up and running, the operators are "laughing all the way to the bank".

He maintains that the biggest disincentive to building more nuclear power plants is raising the capital for the initial start-up cost - some 80% of the required amount.

"Once it is running, the actual price per kilowatt of energy produced is cheaper than other methods, and running costs are minimal," he says.

But everything comes at a cost.

Governments, companies and individuals have to decide upon a balance between environmental concerns, and the price they are willing to pay, or can afford, for their energy.

And the crisis in Japan has upset that balance for many.

Read more...

[Article]Nuclear energy: assessing the emissions

For decades nuclear power has been slated as being environmentally harmful. But with climate change emerging as the world's top environmental problem, the nuclear industry is now starting to enjoy a reputation as a green power provider, capable of producing huge amounts of energy with little or no carbon emissions¹. As a result, the industry is gaining renewed support. In the United States, both presidential candidates view nuclear power as part of the future energy mix. The US government isn't alone in its support for an expansion of nuclear facilities. Japan announced in August that it would spend $4 billion on green technology, including nuclear plants.

But despite the enthusiasm for nuclear energy's status as a low-carbon technology, the greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power are still being debated. While it's understood that an operating nuclear power plant has near-zero carbon emissions (the only outputs are heat and radioactive waste), it's the other steps involved in the provision of nuclear energy that can increase its carbon footprint. Nuclear plants have to be constructed, uranium has to be mined, processed and transported, waste has to be stored, and eventually the plant has to be decommissioned. All these actions produce carbon emissions.

Critics claim that other technologies would reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions more drastically, and more cost effectively. "The fact is, there's no such thing as a carbon-free lunch for any energy source," says Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace in Washington DC. "You're better off pursuing renewables like wind and solar if you want to get more bang for your buck." The nuclear industry and many independent analysts respond that the numbers show otherwise. Even taking the entire lifecycle of the plant into account nuclear energy still ranks with other green technologies, like solar panels and wind turbines, they say.

Life studies

Evaluating the total carbon output of the nuclear industry involves calculating those emissions and dividing them by the electricity produced over the entire lifetime of the plant. Benjamin K. Sovacool, a research fellow at the National University of Singapore, recently analyzed more than one hundred lifecycle studies of nuclear plants around the world, his results published in August in Energy Policy². From the 19 most reliable assessments, Sovacool found that estimates of total lifecycle carbon emissions ranged from 1.4 grammes of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (gCO₂e/kWh) of electricity produced up to 288 gCO₂e/kWh. Sovacool believes the mean of 66 gCO₂e/kWh to be a reasonable approximation.

The large variation in emissions estimated from the collection of studies arises from the different methodologies used - those on the low end, says Sovacool, tended to leave parts of the lifecycle out of their analyses, while those on the high end often made unrealistic assumptions about the amount of energy used in some parts of the lifecycle. The largest source of carbon emissions, accounting for 38 per cent of the average total, is the "frontend" of the fuel cycle, which includes mining and milling uranium ore, and the relatively energy-intensive conversion and enrichment process, which boosts the level of uranium-235 in the fuel to useable levels. Construction (12 per cent), operation (17 per cent largely because of backup generators using fossil fuels during downtime), fuel processing and waste disposal (14 per cent) and decommissioning (18 per cent) make up the total mean emissions.

According to Sovacool's analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO₂e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO₂e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO₂e/kWh. However, nuclear emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO₂e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO₂e/kWh. "A number in the 60s puts it well below natural gas, oil, coal and even clean-coal technologies. On the other hand, things like energy efficiency, and some of the cheaper renewables are a factor of six better. So for every dollar you spend on nuclear, you could have saved five or six times as much carbon with efficiency, or wind farms," Sovacool says. Add to that the high costs and long lead times for building a nuclear plant about $3 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, with planning, licensing and construction times of about 10 years and nuclear power is even less appealing.

Power games

But, says Paul Genoa, director of policy development for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a nuclear industry association based in Washington DC, "it's a fallacy to say one energy source is better, and that we should use it everywhere. The reality is that we need a portfolio solution that will include nuclear."

"If you look at lifecycle emissions from renewable technologies, typically they are on the order of only 1 to 5 per cent of a coal plant," says Paul Meier, director of the Energy Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Looked at as a replacement for fossil fuels, existing nuclear plants prevent 681 million tonnes of carbon from being emitted every year in the United States alone, according to the NEI.

Meier also points out that nuclear energy is capable of providing baseload power - that is, large amounts of power that can run consistently and reliably. Nuclear plants run 90 per cent of the time, while wind and solar power provide electricity only intermittently and have to be backed up, often by fossil fuel plants. "The modern electric grid relies on baseload power," says Genoa. "That's power that's running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It's only shut down for maintenance." Money spent on energy efficiency, however, is equivalent to increasing baseload power, since it reduces the overall power that needs to be generated, says Sovacool. And innovative energy-storage solutions, such as compressed air storage, could provide ways for renewables to provide baseload power.

Thomas Cochran, a nuclear physicist and senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group in Washington DC, says that although nuclear power has relatively low carbon emissions, it should not be subsidized by governments in the name of combating global warming. He argues that the expense and risk of building nuclear plants makes them uneconomic without large government subsidies, and that similar investment in wind and solar photovoltaic power would pay off sooner. "There are appropriate roles for federal subsidies in energy technologies," he says. "We subsidized heavily nuclear power when it was an emerging technology 30, 40, 50 years ago. Now it's a mature technology."

Nevertheless, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 saw the US Congress offer billions of dollars in tax breaks and loan guarantees in an attempt to kickstart construction. Although a number of utilities are pursuing licences for a total of 30 new nuclear plants in the United States, none have been approved yet. Even assuming that new subsidies were to increase US nuclear power by 1.5 times the current capacity, the result would be only an additional 510 megawatts per year from now until the year 2021. Wind power, the NRDC estimates, provides more than 1,000 megawatts a year, and that figure is likely to increase.

Another question has to do with the sustainability of the uranium supply itself. According to researchers in Australia at Monash University, Melbourne, and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, good-quality uranium ore is hard to come by. The deposits of rich ores with the highest uranium content are depleting leaving only lower-quality deposits to be exploited.³ As ore quality degrades, more energy is required to mine and mill it, and greenhouse gas emissions rise. "It is clear that there is a strong sensitivity of ... greenhouse gas emissions to ore grade, and that ore grades are likely to continue to decline gradually in the medium- to long-term," conclude the researchers.

But the nuclear industry points to technological advances of its own that are likely to make nuclear power less expensive and less carbon intensive. Genoa says that new methods of mining uranium and building reactors designed to run on less uranium-rich fuel could make nuclear power even more attractive. "If we're using the same reactors in two centuries, then we've missed the boat. There are going to be other technologies," Genoa says.

References

1. Solomon, S. et al. (eds.) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2007); http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
2. Sovacool, B. Energy Policy 36, 2950–2963 (2008).
3. Mudd, G. M. & Diesendorf, M. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 2624–2630 (2008).

Read more...

Chernobyl

Chernobyl accident in 1986.

This accident dated 24 years back is still a nightmare in most people's heart and is one of the contributing factor why nuclear technology is heavily opposed or go against.

It is one of the most advanced nuclear powerplant of its time, operated by a group of most brilliant scientists and engineers; however, the disaster still happened because of their pride and ego.

Basically, what happened was, they were trying to run an experiment to prove the plant's capability or performance, hence all the safety systems were bypassed, and accident occured! Without containment building, the radiation spreaded throughout Europe reaching as far as Sweden.

Another thing that makes Chernobyl as the last is that the nuclear reactor out there currently are all "negative void temp coefficient" type of reactor eversince Chernobyl occured. Chernobyl was using the "positive void temp coefficient" concept which makes it not so safe.

The below pictures will explain why.

For Chernobyl type of reactor, as the coolant heats up and vaporize, the reaction in the reactor will increase due to the absence of the coolant that acts as moderator and to capture some of the neutrons. Hence, the increase in reaction will further increase the temperature, more and more coolant will heats up and vaporize, allowing the reactor to reach a certain temperature where the core will melt down. This is called "positive void temp coefficient".

Meanwhile, for modern reactors, that mostly use water as moderator or coolant, this problem is no longer a worry. As the moderator(water) heats up and vaporize, the neutrons are not moderated and hence fission with the fuel will not present as they are still fast neutrons. As this happens, the reaction rate will slow down and the temperature of the reactor will accordingly decrease, allowing the moderator/coolant(water) to condense and fill back the void. When the void is filled, the reaction rate will rises and it keeps on repeating. In a way, such design is self-regulating and self-sustaining. This is known as the "negative void temp coefficient".

As a nutshell, Chernobyl accident is once and for all. The chances that accident of such magnitude will happen again is almost zero, as the world now is alert and cautious when dealing in nuclear. As long as we do the following, we will be on the safe side, preventing history from being repeated:

• DO NOT bypass safety systems - what is going to protect us, when safety systems are bypassed?
• DO NOT let pride take over - when pride is there, we tend to miss plenty of details.
• DO NOT neglect designed procedures - no one knows better than the designers about their systems, they experimented!
• DO NOT run dangerous experiments on any operating nuclear reactor - do it on experimental nuclear reactor!
• DO make sure containment building is there!

Once bitten, twice shy. We are in the shy state now, another accident, and nuclear will no longer be in talk. Hence, it is of utmost importance, that safety should always be the number 1 priority or concern in nuclear! 

Read more...