NEI Nuclear Notes

From Scientific America : The International Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency suggest in a report released Thursday that nuclear will have such a significant role to play in climate strategy that nuclear power generation capacity will have to double by 2050 in order for the world to meet the international 2°C (3.6°F) warming goal . You’d expect that from NEA, but the IEA? That’s something. The SciAm story gives a good rundown of the report, but obviously, nothing beats the report itself. After noting the slowdown following the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the report notes , as we have done, that global progress continues apace: However, in the medium to long term, prospects for nuclear energy remain positive. A total of 72 reactors were under construction at the beginning of 2014, the highest number in 25 years. According to the 2D scenario, China would account for the largest increase in nuclear capacity additions from 17 GW in 2014 to 250GW in 2050 and, by 2050, would...

The International Energy Agency released its key annual report, World Energy Outlook, today and in it, makes a number of striking forecasts about the profile of energy. And forecast is the right word – the IEA takes the pulse of energy markets as they stand today and projects them out to about 2035. These are not Nostradamus-like predictions of the future. The forecasts vary in detail from year to year, but are useful to policymakers and to those interested in energy-related issues. This year, the IEA report has stirred some controversy. In an indication how “fracking” is reshaping the global energy picture, the International Energy Agency today projected that the United States will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer by 2017. And within just three years, the United States will unseat Russia as the largest producer of natural gas. The response to this assertion has been mixed. Rob Wile at Business Insider polled his sources and found a decided la...

First, an additional tidbit on our coverage of IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2011 , where we learned that the rumors of nuclear energy’s demise are greatly exaggerated. Just consider this chart from page two of the “Key Graphs” part of the report.  As you can see, the IEA sees nuclear’s future more in line with the measured growth of renewables rather than coal or oil’s steady decline. In its report, the IEA imagines a world without (or actually, with very little) nuclear power . It’s called the “Low Nuclear Case” scenario. And surprise! It’s not the utopia some would have you believe. The net result would be to put additional upward pressure on energy prices, raise additional concerns about energy security and make it harder and more expensive to combat climate change. Of course, it’s a projection, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. But the data coming in from countries that have scaled back their nuclear energy plans show that the IEA is onto something. Fir...

This isn’t bad : Nuclear energy remains vital to cope with rising energy demand, mainly in emerging economies, fight global warming and avert increased damage to the environment, the IEA warned on Wednesday. Here’s another bit from the same Agence Presse Francais story: The IEA also warned that global nuclear generation capacity could fall by 15.0 percent by 2035 if countries such as Germany and Belgium pressed ahead with cutting their nuclear output in the light of the nuclear accident at Fukushima in Japan in April. This is exactly right. In a Dow Jones story, EIA even calls it a warning: But the report's "Low Nuclear" scenario is still only a possibility, rather than a certainty, said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. "We made the low nuclear scenario to show governments the consequences" of the policies they are considering in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, Birol told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview. It is intende...

Here’s what the International Energy Agency has to say about carbon reduction ambitions in the Netherlands: The head of the International Energy Agency urged the Dutch government Monday to expand its nuclear power base, but the country's environment minister said that's not in the energy equation for now. Nobuo Tanaka, the IEA executive director, said the Netherlands will find it tough to reach its target of slashing carbon emissions 30 percent below 1990 levels within the next dozen years without building more nuclear power stations. We’ve made the same argument (a lot) about the most efficacious way to achieve carbon reduction. We do wonder why IEA focused on the Dutch. A look at its Web site shows it does reports (for a price) focused on individual countries and how plans shape up versus goals. IEA seems neutral on energy generators, so it isn’t recommending nuclear because that’s what it always does. Here’s a bit more on where the Dutch are on this issue : ...

The long-term political fight over Germany's nuclear generating capacity took another interesting turn over the weekend as the government's environment minister proposed shutting the nation's older nuclear power plants in exchange for allowing the country's newer units to operate longer : The German Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, has called for seven of the country's oldest nuclear reactors to be closed down immediately. Justifying his demand, Mr Gabriel pointed to recent breakdowns at two ageing nuclear plants. Germany is committed to phasing out nuclear power by 2020. Mr Gabriel told a German newspaper that it would be of great technical benefit from the safety standpoint to close the oldest reactors now. As a trade-off, newer reactors could be kept running longer. As I'm sure many of you already recall, the government led by Prime Minister Angela Merkel is a coalition comprised of Social Democrats and Christian Democrats -- and in this case the Prime M...

In the latest issue of The Economist , our readers will find a series of inconvenient facts that we've covered here at NEI Nuclear Notes many times before: Germany's aversion to nuclear power may run counter to its desire for both cheap electricity and security of supplies. It is set to replace half its ageing power stations (nuclear and conventional) over the next 15 years. Ms Merkel has presided over three “energy summits”, the last one in July, but there is still no clear idea of how to fill the gap left by the nuclear phase-out. The environment ministry, created after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, has many ideas. Seeking to boost Germany's energy efficiency by 3% a year, it proposes offering tax incentives to modernise buildings and imposing road tolls not only on heavy vehicles but also on light trucks. It wants to tweak subsidies for renewable energy, which already cost consumers some €4 billion ($5.5 billion) a year. Solar energy (not much use in cloudy Germa...

From our buddies at World Nuclear News : The International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power would limit its full potential to reduce carbon emissions "without a doubt." The IEA made the statement on the launch of its 2007 review of its summary of German energy policy. The agency publishes similar documents on policies in all its 26 member countries. IEA executive director Claude Mandil praised German prudence on climate change, saying the country was promoting "sound, sustainable energy policy in Europe and around the world" through its presidencies of the Group of Eight industrialised nations (G8) and the EU. Nevertheless, he continued to say Germany was facing some key challenges in energy - one of which was the key issue of the nuclear phase-out. Not anything here that we haven't talked about in the past , but it's nice to see a third party confirm a possible crack-up in German energy policy.

It’s been awhile since I’ve debunked a report so I thought I’d break my hiatus by starting on a new one. This one is from the Council on Foreign Relations titled Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks . To start off this post, readers should note that our CEO (Skip Bowman) and CNO (Marv Fertel) were on an “Advisory Committee” for this report noted on page 37. By reading the paper one would of course think that NEI endorsed the report. Quite the opposite. The two raised serious objections to their conclusions but apparently had no weight. However, as the long disclaimer at the front of the report notes, the advisory committee “are not asked to sign off on the report or otherwise endorse it.” Instead, these advisors are a “sounding board” to provide comments on the report after it is drafted. While Mr. Ferguson addresses the challenges to a greater role for nuclear energy, he doesn’t recognize the efforts being made today to overcome those challenges. In any event, to address clim...