Skip to main content

IEA and the Disaster of “Low Nuclear” Usage

Belgium-Nuclear-Power-JPEG-9This 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 intended as a warning, he said, without naming any particular governments.

Well, the AFP story calls out Germany and Belgium by name and the report mentions them, too, but perhaps Birol wants to be more subtle. Focusing on this is good for the nuclear energy business, but it probably sells short what the EIA report is and does.

What the EIA does is provide an Annual Energy Outlook report which presents a number of reference scenarios and cases showing what might happen over the next 25 years in the energy market given different variables. One of the variables – which is called the Low Nuclear Case – reduces nuclear energy capacity by half by 2035. And indeed, doing so has exactly the dire outcomes AFP and Dow Jones says it does.

This story from Dow Jones avoids the issue of warnings, allowing the EIA itself to say that later on:

The crisis at Japan's Fukushima atomic facility could result in a 15% fall in nuclear power capacity by 2035 if countries reconsider existing policies, the International Energy Agency said Wednesday.

This would result in increased costs for coal and gas imports for power generation and higher emissions of climate-warming gases, it said.

But it still should be stressed that the IEA also says no such thing will happen – in most of the other scenarios and cases. The New Policy scenario sees nuclear energy capacity increasing 70 percent. In introducing this scenario, the report directly says (no link – IEA would like to sell this report):

In the New Policies Scenario, generation from nuclear power plants worldwide increases by almost 2000 TWh over the Outlook period, more than the nuclear output in North America and OECD Europe combined in 2010. This increase comes predominantly from non-OECD countries, with China alone accounting for over two-fifths of the global increase. In India, nuclear power generation grows almost ten-fold. In Russia, it grows by two-thirds. About 60% of the nuclear capacity added in the OECD replaces ageing nuclear plants that are retired in the Outlook period; in total, capacity increases by only 16%.

And elsewhere in the report, the report mentions that most countries have reaffirmed their commitment to their nuclear energy industries.

That’s the thing about the future – you can say almost anything about it – ands IEA does, sometimes drastically different things, from year to year. And that’s fine: after all, the accident in Japan happened between two reports.

The IEA reports are highly informed, but still, they cannot be anything but provisional. It’s the nature of the work. (The OECD, by the way, is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a sort of international chamber of commerce.)

Now, having said all that, the point these stories make is more than valid. if nuclear capacity were halved in the next 25 years, IEA cannot project a plausible way to achieve key policy goals – about global warming and carbon emission reduction – and the price of electricity will certainly face upward pressure. Moreover, renewable energy source will take up some of the slack, but coal will take up a lot more.

And IEA says the cost to replace nuclear capacity and meet new demand will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion. (after a few billion, why just hand out blank pieces of paper?)

While it was certainly pleasing to watch EIA set the table for a lot of press attention, I think it’s fair to say that most policymakers understand what nuclear energy is and does – what policy goals it helps achieve – and how much electricity it can produce. So the somewhat dire tone taken – while justified by the report – reflects what is explicitly a prediction not a reality.

No one wants to alarm anyone, you understand.

Although the report is not available to the general public, you can still get a lot of information here.

Unusual angle on the Doel nuclear facility in Belgium. But not by name.

Comments

Every nation and every community on Earth doesn't have to have a nuclear power plant nearby in order for the nuclear industry to be successful and for the Earth to have carbon neutral energy production.

The fact that France exports nuclear electricity to Germany is an advantage for both France and Germany: Germany doesn't have to go through the political headaches of trying to build more nuclear power plants and France gets to make more money building nuclear power plants at home and exporting electricity to Germany.

France and other nations could export substantially more nuclear energy if it also built nuclear power plants dedicated to producing hydrogen for the synthetic production of methanol for peak load electricity production through methanol power plants or for conversion into gasoline through the MTG process for automobile transportation. The carbon required for the synthesis of methanol could either come from urban and rural biowaste or through CO2 extraction from air. The US produces enough carbon from rural and urban biowaste to completely replace all of its petroleum needs-- if nuclear hydrogen is added to the mix.

Nations with nuclear power plants could then export nuclear energy in the form of methanol or synthetic gasoline to non-nuclear nations all over the planet!

And the same goes for States within America. States that want to build more nuclear power plants for methanol and gasoline production could export methanol and gasoline to States that are politically unable to build nuclear power plants. A State like California that is currently hostile to building more nuclear power plants has no problems importing electricity from nuclear power plants from Arizona. So they should have no problems importing methanol produced from out of state nuclear power plants or carbon neutral gasoline.

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 …

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…