Skip to main content

EIA's Analysis of Senators Lieberman and Warner's Climate Security Act of 2007

Over the past few years, the Energy Information Administration has been asked by many members of Congress to model the effects of their proposed climate legislation on the US. The latest request released yesterday was from Senators Lieberman and Warner:
This report responds to a request from Senators Lieberman and Warner for an analysis of S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 and a subsequent analysis request from Senators Barasso, Inhofe, and Voinovich.
Here is the CO2 emissions reduction targets in the Lieberman-Warner bill:
The Title I caps decline gradually from 5,775 million metric tons (mmt) CO2-equivalent in 2012 (7 percent below 2006 emission levels), to 3,860 mmt in 2030 (39 percent below 2006 levels), and 1,732 mmt in 2050 (72 percent below 2006 levels).
When EIA conducts these requested analyses, they develop several different scenarios "to analyze some of the key areas of uncertainty that impact the analysis results." Here's the description of the main scenario:
The S. 2191 Core Case represents an environment where key low-emissions technologies, including nuclear, fossil with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and various renewables, are developed and deployed in a timeframe consistent with the emissions reduction requirements without encountering any major obstacles, even with rapidly growing use on a very large scale, and the use of offsets, both domestic and international, is not significantly limited by cost or regulation.
What role does nuclear energy play in this scenario? Drum-roll please ............ by 2030, nuclear energy accounts for 62 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S.!!! The core case assumes that 268 giga-watts of new nuclear come online by 2030. The average new nuclear plant size is about 1,400 MW which means that 268 GW equals 190-200 new nuclear plants. Wow!

Most would say that building 200 new nuclear plants by 2030 couldn't happen and they're probably right. 2040 is a more realistic year to have 200 new nuclear plants operating in the U.S. Regardless, EIA's analysis of the bill should tell people that nuclear energy has a significant role to play if the country is to continue to consume electricity while reducing emissions.

Comments

Dash said…
Sorry to be off-topic, but this editorial is a worthy read, and should be fun to correct all the errors or mis-information in the editorial.

Wikipedia distorts nuclear history
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/OPINION03/805010312/1039/OPINION03
Paul Studier said…
Speaking of Wikipedia, the nuclear power industry has to convince everyone that the uranium is not about to run out. 268 gigawatts will need a lot of it, and breeders will take decades to develop. See the Peak Uranium article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium . In particular, if anyone has a decent reference for the cost of uranium from seawater, that would help.
HiTekVagabond said…
Dash,
Wikipedia's articles are written by volunteers like you. If you see an error, you can correct it yourself or mark it to be corrected by a volunteer. The discussion page is a place where aspects of the article can be discussed. However, you cannot blame "Wikipedia" for distorting history. Your complaining about it here does not fix it. An equal amount of characters typed will get the fix underway many times.

Konrad Roeder
HiTekVagabond said…
Paul,
Please remember that peak uranium is not about uranium running out. There is plenty of uranium -- nearly endless amounts of it. It's about the *rate* at which it can supply the demand. Just like 268 gigawatts is a rate, not a quantity of energy, tons of uranium per year is a rate.

The nuclear industry needs to acknowledge that currently uranium is used just like a finite resource. It's not until the fuel cycle is closed that it approaches being a renewable source of energy. Some of the key problems are that there not enough reprocessing plants and breeders to even begin supplying the recycled fuel at the needed rate. Furthermore, the current technology needs to be improved so that the fuel cycle can be closed completely. Currently the cycle leaks too much highly radioactive waste.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…