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

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …