IEA chief: nuclear power will drop to 10% of global electricity by 2035 (currently 14%)

[bananas]

As a percentage of global electricity, nuclear peaked at 16% around 2005 or 2006,
has declined to 14% now, and the IEA projects it will fall to 10% by 2035.
Even 10% may be high, scientists in China have been warning that government plans are over-optimistic.
For something which will only provide 10% of electricity while causing so many problems with accidents, disasters, waste, proliferation, security, etc, it's just not worth it. The money would be better spent on efficiency, renewables, etc.

http://www.neurope.eu/articles/International-Energy-Agency-chief-outlines-outlook-for-nuclear-power-/107672.php

International Energy Agency chief outlines outlook for nuclear power

Author: Lubomir Mitev
14 July 2011 - Issue : 944

<snip>

As such, Tanaka reported that the projections for increase of energy from nuclear power will be halved. Under the current scenarios, 360 gigawatt (GW) of new capacity would be built by 2035. In light of recent developments, a review of this situation shows that only 180GW will actually be realised, and most of this will happen outside the OECD. This implies that the share of atomic energy in the world will drop from 14% to 10%, leaving a gap between energy production and growing demand.

In new projections, named the ‘New Policy Scenario’, the IEA estimates that to replace nuclear power, roughly one-third of the gap will be filled by increasing production from coal, another third from gas, and the rest from renewable sources. In a startling comparison, Mr. Tanaka pointed out that this would require an increase of 130 million tons of coal (around the size of Australia’s current production), 80 billion cubic metres of natural gas (roughly Qatar’s production level), and 160 terrawatt-hours from renewables (five times Germany’s current output). Taking into consideration the increasing prices of the first two sources, with renewable energy already being very expensive, electricity costs are set to rise. In essence, a complete phase-out of nuclear power would create enormous risks for Europe’s energy security.

<snip>

There's a logical error here - those new nuclear power plants won't be "replaced" by coal, those nuclear plants never would have been built anyway. Entergy, Exelon, Constellation all abandoned their plans for nuclear before Fukushima because "the numbers just don't work". France was already having major problems with it's new reactors. Etc etc. The old IEA projections were based on hype, bogus cost estimates, etc etc. That hype has caused a delay in build-out of renewables and is responsible for increased coal emissions.

The IEA and other agencies have historically overestimated nuclear growth.
Some historical data:

As a percentage of electicity, nuclear peaked at 16% around 2005 or 2006,
based on nuclear industry bogus cost estimates,
the 2007 IPCC report said it could increase to 18% by 2030:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_assessment_report

In terms of electricity generation, the IPCC envisage that renewable energy can provide 30 to 35% of electricity by 2030 (up from 18% in 2005) at a carbon price of up to US$50/t, and that nuclear power can rise from 16% to 18%.

Renewables are currently 19% of electricity and growing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

The share of renewables in electricity generation is around 19%, with 16% of global electricity coming from hydroelectricity and 3% from new renewables.<2>

Wind power is growing at the rate of 30% annually, with a worldwide installed capacity of 198 gigawatts (GW) in 2010,<3><4> and is widely used in Europe, Asia, and the United States.<5> At the end of 2010, cumulative global photovoltaic (PV) installations surpassed 40 GW<6><7><8>

Here's an historical chart of IAEA forecasts for nuclear:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16721844@N00/429450898/



Every two years the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) together with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) publish detailed data about existing reactors, reactors under
construction, shut down reactors and also forecasts for the next 20–30 years. An early
forecasts in 1975 predicted the nuclear capacity of OECD member countries to grow to
between 772–890 GW by 1990. Based on such forecasts the uranium production capacities
were extended. But in reality, the installed capacity grew to 260 GW falling far below the
IAEA target range. The 1977 forecast was less ambitious, envisaging a range of between
860–999 GW by 2000. As the year 2000 came closer, the more modest the forecasts became
eventually predicting a capacity ranging between 318–395 GW by 2000. Actually, a total of
303 GW were installed in the year 2000. Every forecast by the IAEA in the past eventually
turned out as having been too optimistic.

[kristopher]

1. After Fukushima I suspect there will be few new nuclear nations.

So, I'm surprised they see the installs in the nonOECD sector.

[FBaggins]

3. Do the Saudis already have reactors?

IIRC, they announced plans to build 16 of them by then (and that was post-Fukushima). The UAE is reportedly moving forward on four reactors with strong public support (also reported post-Fukushima)

They're hardly the only ones.

[bananas]

4. The Saudis want a nuclear weapons infrastructure because of Iran

They're in a cold war with Iran and it may escalate: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4892335

[FBaggins]

5. Riiight.

They need 16 clearly light-water reactors to develop a nuclear weapons infrastructure. :sarcasm:

Iran's reactor is heavy-water.

Let me know if you need help with the difference.

[bananas]

6. Iran has been violating the NPT to develop a nuclear weapons infrastructure.

edit to add a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4076415&mesg_id=4078457

edit to add a couple more links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4078769&mesg_id=4078991

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3405555&mesg_id=3421987

edit to add: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4083835&mesg_id=4084729

[FBaggins]

7. I have no doubt at all that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

But 16 commercial power reactors (each ~30 times as powerful as the Iranian heavy-water unit) can't rationally be seen as a Saudi attempt to develop a bomb.

They may have such intentions using some other (unknown) facility, but unlike the Iranians, their stated rational for the units makes sense (and the units don't make sense as plutonium factories.

Kris was attempting to spin that this isn't really building power reactors... it's just a weapons' program in response to Iran's actions.



Also - re: the OP. When analyzing the estimate, keep in mind that global generation is expected to grow at a stated rate and that 25 years from now a very high percentage of the existing reactors will be retiring. Taking those into account, how many new reactors would you say this means over that period?

[kristopher]

8. I was? That's news to me; do you have something you can point to that ...

...gave you that idea?

I agree with bananas however, that the nuclear path is being followed there because of an arms race with Iran. How many reactors does it take to justify your own enrichment facilities to 1) ensure your energy independence and 2) be economically justified?

Nuclear weapons proliferation is a national security challenge and requires diplomatic and institutional solutions. As nations advance technologically, it becomes increasingly difficult to deny them the technology and materials to develop nuclear weapons if they are motivated by security interests to do so. Thus proliferation at its center is an institutional challenge. The civilian nuclear power fuel cycle is one of several routes to nuclear weapons materials; therefore, strong incentives exist to adopt fuel cycle strategies that minimize the potential coupling of nuclear weapons and commercial nuclear fuel cycles. Hence, avoiding the creation of separated plutonium in future cycles would be an example of minimizing the potential coupling.

In the context of civilian fuel cycles and nonproliferation, the reactor is not the principal concern. The primary concerns are associated with uranium enrichment and/or reprocessing facilities—the front and back-end fuel cycle facilities that would enable a nation to acquire weapon usable materials in a breakout scenario. Establishment of enrichment and/ or reprocessing capability are not economic choices for small reactor programs; however, guaranteed supplies of fuel are important to countries that embark on electricity production from nuclear energy. Waste management will be a significant challenge for some countries.

Recommendation
The US and other nuclear supplier group countries should actively pursue fuel leasing options for countries with small nuclear programs, providing financial incentives for forgoing enrichment, technology cooperation for advanced reactors, spent fuel take back within the supplier’s domestic framework for managing spent fuel, and the option for a fixed term renewable commitment to fuel leasing (perhaps ten years).

MIT Study on the Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2010

[bananas]

11. It was me, not kris. nt

[FBaggins]

14. My mistake... you're right.

Though wrong, of course, on the original point.

The Saudis wouldn't design a program like this if the intent was to develop a bomb in response to Iran. Such a program would, in fact, look a great deal like Iran's. One or two small heavy-water reactors and a large amount of enrichment capability... rather than a large number of much larger light-water reactors and no enrichment.

[bananas]

16. It gives them a stockpile of enriched uranium and an excuse to build enrichment and/or reprocessing

facilities.

[FBaggins]

18. Not enriched enough to make a bomb.

And their own enrichment facilities aren't currently on the table. They look more likely to follow the UAE roadmap which agrees to not persue such facilities (enrichment or reprocessing) at all.

Since Iran is many years ahead of them in that regard, it's hard to view this as part of an arms race.

[GliderGuider]

2. The future percentage of nuclear depends on how much overall electrical demand grows in the future

If consumption grows a lot, the share of nuclear power will decline more. If it grows less the nuclear percentage will be higher. That's why I prefer to look at the absolute contribution in TWh - it tells you directly how much nuclear activity is going on.

It looks to me like we've seen Peak Nuke at this point. There are just too many pressures arrayed against it now: economic and public opinion being chief among them.

The constant downward revisions of the NEA/IAEA forecasts reminds me of the revisions of oil production forecasts by the EIA/IEA. These agencies are always too optimistic and not focused enough on the realities of the unfolding situation.

If we get an extended contraction of the global economy we will see a decline in electrical demand as well. IMO such a contraction is becoming more and more likely as time goes on. Nuclear and coal plants are prime candidates for closure when demand declines. If the recession goes on long enough that coal plants are fully decommissioned (not just idled temporarily), that should leave space for renewables to replace them when/if demand picks up again.

[bananas]

12. The reason it's important to consider the percentage

As pointed out in MIT's "The Future of Nuclear Power",

To preserve the nuclear option for the future requires overcoming the four
challenges described above—costs, safety, proliferation, and wastes. These
challenges will escalate if a significant number of new nuclear generating
plants are built in a growing number of countries. The effort to overcome
these challenges, however, is justified only if nuclear power can potentially
contribute significantly to reducing global warming, which entails major
expansion of nuclear power.

In other words, if nuclear is only going to be a small percentage,
it's not worth bothering with at all.

[FBaggins]

13. If 10% is a small percentage then why do we even talk about solar power?

Or wind or geothermal?

It seems that your notion of "small" and "large" depend a great deal on what is being discussed. Compare the "large" solar isntallation we discussed a couple days ago (that could be matched by a trailer-sized generator) to this "small" amount of generation that represents 10% of a vastly increased world demand.

[bananas]

15. Because solar and wind and geothermal are growing and will be very much higher than 10%. nt

[FBaggins]

17. When?

What percentage of that 2030 electricity generation is currently provided by solar power?

The figure has to be cited in tenths of a percent, right?

[bananas]

19. It's like deja-vu all over again

As pointed out in the OP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_assessment_report

In terms of electricity generation, the IPCC envisage that renewable energy can provide 30 to 35% of electricity by 2030 (up from 18% in 2005) at a carbon price of up to US$50/t, and that nuclear power can rise from 16% to 18%.

Renewables are currently 19% of electricity and growing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

The share of renewables in electricity generation is around 19%, with 16% of global electricity coming from hydroelectricity and 3% from new renewables.<2>

Wind power is growing at the rate of 30% annually, with a worldwide installed capacity of 198 gigawatts (GW) in 2010,<3><4> and is widely used in Europe, Asia, and the United States.<5> At the end of 2010, cumulative global photovoltaic (PV) installations surpassed 40 GW<6><7><8>

30% growth means doubling every 3 years, and that's without a carbon price.

[FBaggins]

20. Did I ask about "renewables"?

Hydro/solar/wind/geothermal are all sources that we would like to see increase, but they aren't at all the same thing any more than coal and gas-fired thermal are the same.

What I asked was what percentage of that 2030 demand will be met by solar. We can also discuss wind or geothermal... but you can't lump them together.

30% growth means doubling every 3 years

If it can maintain 30% over decades. There's little reason to believe that it can.

that's without a carbon price.

Is it? Some of the largest installers are in areas where this is such a price. They're certainly in areas where the government subsidies are necessary. Just look at how the predictions changed when Germany was expected to change their FIT.

[bananas]

21. MIT: preserving the nuclear option for the future "IS JUSTIFIED ONLY IF" ...

According to the 2003 MIT report,
if there isn't going to be a major expansion of nuclear power,
then we shouldn't even bother preserving it as an option for the future,
it should be phased out completely.
How much solar or wind expands is irrelevant to this issue.

Quoting the MIT report:

The effort to overcome these challenges, however, is justified only if nuclear power can potentially contribute significantly to reducing global warming, which entails major expansion of nuclear power.

What challenges?

To preserve the nuclear option for the future requires overcoming the four
challenges described above—costs, safety, proliferation, and wastes.

In other words - if there isn't going to be a major expansion of nuclear power,
then we shouldn't even bother preserving it as an option for the future,
it should be phased out completely.

Nuclear will reduce from a high of 16% around 2006 down to 10% in 2030,
if total electricity increases 50% over that time, nuclear won't have changed much in absolute terms.
There won't be a "major expansion", so it's better to phase it out completely,
because maintaining it at that level isn't worth it.

That is the point I was making when I started this thread,
and how much solar or wind expands is irrelevant.

[FBaggins]

22. Is 2030 the end of time?

You've drawn inaccurate conclusions caused by an artificial timeframe.

Remember that there hasn't been a homogeneous buildout of nuclear power over time. Even a rapid construction project over the next couple decade will do little more than replace older retiring reactors. Maintaining the same rate over the following two decades would result in that "Major expansion".

China alone plans to excede the current world nuclear capacity well before that point.

[kristopher]

9. All the IAEA does is publicize what the industrial nuclear players want them to say.

I look forward to a world where the energy supply is no longer subject to the ills associated with bottlenecks and chokepoints - either corporate or bureaucratic.

[SpoonFed]

10. well said. n/t