the geopolitics of energy: achieving a just and...

The GeoPolitics of Energy: Achieving a Just and Sustainable Energy

Distribution by 2040

Dr. James Conca & Dr. Judith Wright NuScale Exposition UFA Ventures, Inc. Corvallis, Oregon Richland, WA http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ August 2015

Global Energy Distribution

as indicated by nighttime electricity use

Kentucky 93% coal 4% gas 0% nuclear 2% hydro 1% renew.

European Union 30% coal 20% gas 28% nuclear 9% hydroelectric 3% oil 10% renewables

coal

gas

nuclear

hydro oil and other

petroleum

bio

United States 39% coal 27% gas 19% nuclear 7% hydroelectric 4% wind 4% other

World (2013)

China 74% coal 4% gas/biomass 2% wind 2% nuclear 17% hydro 1% other

Washington 4% coal 3% gas 8% nuclear 79% hydro 6% renew.

Illinois 43% coal 1% gas 49% nuclear 7% renew.

Korea 26% coal 23% gas 7% oil 36% nuclear 8% hydro + renewables

41%

21%

5%

12%

16%

2%

0.5% 2%

1980

20

30

40

10

2000 2020 2040

20

30

40

10

historic projected

World presently at 17 trillion kWhrs/year

U.S. presently at 4 trillion kWhrs/year

present fossil fuel contribution

2/3 of present total

In order to address any of the environmental issues we seem to care about: over 20 trkWhrs must be non-fossil fuel

1.6 billion people have no access to electricity, 80% of them in South Asia and sub–Saharan Africa. 2.4 billion people burn wood and manure as their main energy source. 3 billion more people will be born by 2040

Source: 2005 Kay Chernush for the U.S. Department of State

Map of Global Energy Poverty

Source: United Nations; McFarlane 2006

Millions of people without electricity

Millions of people relying on biomass

56 96

28 20

18 570

801

815

530 509

221

332

3,000 Millions of people to be born by 2040

80% of the world’s population of over 6 billion people is below 0.8 on the U.N. Human Development Index (HDI)

Source: United Nations Development Program; McFarlane 2006

4,000 8,000 12,000

China

Pakistan

Russia Germany Australia

Canada

France Japan

U.S.

Annual Electricity Use (kWh/Capita) 16,000

Prosperity

Education

Life span

Niger

Papua New Guinea

Ethiopia

Angola

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

Indonesia

UK CA

Iran

With modern efficiencies, conservation and technologies, 3,000 kWh/year can provide an HDI > 0.8; > 6,000 kWh/year is unnecessary and wasteful Access to energy is essential to quality of life

China (500)

China (800)

Korea

DPRK

Egypt India

How much energy do we need by 2040? - what levels are needed to end poverty, war and terrorism, i.e., raise everyone up to 0.8 HDI?

Energy/capita needed Annual to raise HDI to >0.8 Approximate energy Subpopulation group or maintain at 0.9 subpopulation requirement

Industrialized world - cut to 6,000 kWhrs/yr 1,000,000,000 6 tkW-hrs

Intermediate - maintain 3,000 kWhrs/yr 1,000,000,000 3 tkW-hrs

Developing world - increase to 3,000 kWhrs/yr 4,000,000,000 12 tkW-hrs

Those born by 2040 - achieve 3,000 kWhrs/yr 3,000,000,000 9 tkW-hrs

Total Annual Global Energy Requirement 30 tkW-hrs

This requires renewables and nuclear worldwide to quadruple over what anyone is expecting by 2040: 4 million+ MW wind turbines; over 1,700 new nuclear reactors; a 100 bbl of biofuels; 3 tkWhrs from hydro; 4 tkWhrs from other

World Target → a Third, a Third and a Third - 1/3 fossil fuel, 1/3 renewables and 1/3 nuclear

World (2013) 17 tkWhrs/yr

petroleum

(e-,H2-cars)

World (2040) 30 tkWhrs/yr

bio

geo

coal

gas

nuclear

hydro

wind

solar

nuclear

solar

Biofels

2015

What is the fastest growing energy source in the world?

Coal

1965 0

1975 1985 1995 2005

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000 Glob

al C

onsu

mpt

ion

(T

Wh)

Wind

Solar Geo and Biomass

Hydro Nuclear

Gas

How much will 1/3-1/3-1/3 energy mix cost?

How much does it cost to build a unit/farm/array that will produce about 500 billion kWhs over its lifespan?

(actual production costs, not financing costs, subsidies, production credits, mandates) -when comparing, costs must be corrected for capacity factor and lifespan

Key assumptions for different energy systems from recent builds and buys

cf Lifespan Inst. Cap. Constr. Costs ($2014) Source

Coal 0.57 50 years 1,340 MW $4.5 billion TransAlta

Natural Gas 0.73 40 years 248 MW $0.23 billion Clark PUD

Nuclear 0.96 60 years 574 MW $2.5 billion NuScale

Wind 0.27 25 years 400 MW $1.0 billion Windy Pt (CPG)

Solar 0.25 25 years 579 MW $2.2 billion Buffet (CA)

Hydro 0.44 88 years 955 MW $6.2 billion (Grant County PUD)

Reference spot prices:

Oil - $70/b Coal - $40/t NG - $4/mcf Steel - $500/t

Copper - $2.50/lb Cement - $70/t

Sources: Northwest Power and Conservation Council; WA State Energy Office; individual owners and operators

How much does it actually cost to produce electricity?

Solar cf = 20%

$34 b Wind cf = 27%

$24 b

Nuclear cf = 96%

$4.3 b Gas

cf = 73%

$1.8 b

Coal cf = 57%

$6.8 b

Hydro cf = 44%

$9.3 b

Bill

ions

of D

olla

rs

$ 2

$ 4

$ 6

$ 8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$40

Construction Costs to produce similar power (500 bkWhs; 2014$) function of installation cost, installed capacity (kW), capacity factor (cf), lifespan, 8,766 hours/year

$4.5 billion 1,340 MW coal plant with a cf = 57% and lifespan = 50 yrs 1,340 MW x 1000 kW/MW x 0.57 x 8,766 hrs/yr x 50 yrs = 335 billion kWhrs

∴ to produce 500 billion kWhrs ⇒ 1.5 units at $6.8 billion

$230 million 248 MW natural gas CC with a cf = 73% and lifespan = 40 yrs 248 MW x 1000 kW/MW x 0.73 x 8,766 hrs/yr x 40 yrs = 63 billion kWhrs

∴ to produce 500 billion kWhrs ⇒ 8 units at $1.8 billion

$2.5 billion 574 MW SMR nuclear with a cf = 96% and lifespan = 60 yrs 574 MW x 1000 kW/MW x 0.96 x 8,766 hrs/yr x 60 yrs = 290 billion kWhrs


$1 billion 400 MW GE turbine with a cf = 27% and lifespan = 25 yrs 400 MW x 1000 kW/MW x 0.27 x 8,766 hrs/yr x 25 yrs = 24 billion kWhrs

∴ to produce 500 billion kWhrs ⇒ 21 units at $24 billion

$2.2 billion 579 MW solar with a cf = 25% and lifespan = 25 yrs 579 MW x 1000 kW/MW x 0.25 x 8,766 hrs/yr x 25 yrs = 32 billion kWhrs

∴ to produce 500 billion kWhrs ⇒ 15 units at $34 billion

$6.2 billion 955 MW hydroelectric with a cf = 44% and lifespan = 88 yrs 955 MW x 1000 kW/MW x 0.44 x 8,766 hrs/yr x 88 yrs = 324 billion kWhrs


Fuel Costs per kWhr Produced (2014$) Coal - $40/t NG - $4/mcf U - $100/lb yellowcake

Nuclear cf = 96%

1.4¢ Wind

cf = 27%

0¢

Solar cf = 20%

Gas cf = 73%

4¢

Coal cf = 57%

3¢ Hydro cf = 44%

Fuel Costs

Cen

ts p

er k

Whr

5¢

6¢

4¢

3¢

2¢

1¢

0¢ 0¢

Cen

ts p

er k

Whr

O&M Costs per kWhr Produced (2014$)

Nuclear cf = 96%

2.3¢

Wind cf = 27%

2.7¢

Solar cf = 20%

1.3¢ Gas

cf = 73%

Coal cf = 57%

0.7¢

2.0¢

2.4¢

2.8¢

1.6¢

1.2¢

0.8¢

0.4¢

Hydro cf = 44%

0.8¢

O&M Costs

0.6¢

3.2¢

Actual Costs per kWhr Produced (2014$)

Nuclear cf = 96%

4.6¢

Wind cf = 27%

7.5¢

Solar cf = 20%

8.5¢ Gas

cf = 73% Coal

cf = 57%

5.1¢ Hydro cf = 44%

Cen

ts p

er k

Whr

10¢

12¢

14¢

8¢

6¢

4¢

2¢ 2.7¢

Total Life Cycle Costs (¢/kWhr) for each source to produce 500 bkWhs

5.0¢

The average price for electricity in the U.S. is 12¢/kWhr – WA - 7¢/kWhr (h,n,w) WV - 8¢/kWhr (c) NY - 19¢/kWhr (g,n,h) MI - 16¢/kWhr (c,n,g) IA - 7¢/kWhr (c,w)

What is driving the price of electricity if it’s not the actual cost of producing the electricity?

Actual Costs per kWhr Produced (2014$)

Nuclear cf = 96%

4.6¢

Wind cf = 27%

7.5¢

Solar cf = 20%

8.5¢ Gas

cf = 73% Coal

cf = 57%

5.1¢ Hydro cf = 44%

Cen

ts p

er k

Whr

10¢

12¢

14¢

8¢

6¢

4¢

2¢ 2.7¢

5.0¢

To produce 6.5 tkWhrs/year by mid-century in the United States with the present mix (⅔ fossil, ⅓ others) will cost over $7.5 trillion

of which $1.7 trillion is capital investment

But to produce 6.5 tkWhrs/year by mid-century in the United States with the ⅓ - ⅓ - ⅓ mix (fossil-renewable-nuclear) will cost about $7.4 trillion

of which $3.4 trillion is capital investment However, this mix uses half of the fossil fuel (saves 2 billion tonsCO2/yr)

and the health care savings alone from lower coal and gas (~$3 trillion) more than pays for the extra capital investment

The materials, resource and capital needs: • the price of oil • the price of natural gas • the price of steel • the price of concrete • the price of copper

The most sensitive to these prices is wind energy, followed by coal, then gas. The least affected is nuclear.

Concrete + steel + copper are > 98% of construction inputs, and become more expensive in a carbon-constrained economy

200

400

600

800

1000

100 200 300 400 500

Mass of Steel (MT/MW)

Con

cret

e Vo

lum

e (m

3 /MW

)

Natural Gas Combined Cycle Nuclear Coal Wind

What can change these costs?

Environmental and Health Costs Externalities (non-direct costs) not included in any cost estimates but may be reflected in up-coming legislation

such as Cap&Trade or C-Tax, and Footprint costs Possible legislation has carbon costs up to $15/ton CO2 emitted The EU has assigned about $100/acre for simple footprint costs

Cen

ts p

er k

Whr

Nuclear cf = 92%

0.02¢

Wind cf = 27%

0.02¢

Solar cf = 20%

0.08¢

Gas cf = 84%

0.90¢

Coal cf = 71%

1.46¢ CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2 1 mile2

36 miles2

62 miles2

1.25¢

1.50¢

1.75¢

2.00¢

1.00¢

0.75¢

0.50¢

0.25¢

Hydro cf = 44%

0.14 ¢

CO2

24 miles2

2011($) Carbon Tax Costs (¢ per kWhr Produced)

8 miles2

4 miles2

Area (sq miles) to produce 1 billion kWhrs/yr

4 gramsCO2 per kWhr

40 deaths per 1012 kWhr

10x

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths per trillion kWh)

Coal – global average 100,000 (50% of global electricity)

Coal – China 170,000 (75% of China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 10,000 (39% of U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of global energy, 8% of global electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% of global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% of global energy)

Solar 440 (< 1% of global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% of global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% of global electricity, 171,000 Banqiao dead)

Nuclear – global average 40 (17% of global electricity w/Chernobyl&Fukushima

Nuclear – U.S. 0.01 (19% of U.S. electricity) Sources –World Health Organization; CDC; 1970 - 2011

Beijing, China

Social - risks facing Americans over the past 5 years

alcohol consumption

automobile driving

coal industry

construction

food poisoning

iatrogenic

murder

mining

nuclear industry

police work

smoking tobacco

Number of Deaths in U.S. Activity over the past 5 years

iatrogenic 950,000

smoking 760,000

alcohol 500,000

automobile accidents 250,000

coal use (~ 50% of U.S. power) 60,000

murder 80,000

food poisoning 25,000

construction 5,000

police work 800

mining 360

nuclear industry (~ 20% of U.S. power) 1

(medicine gone wrong)

Relative Number of Deaths in U.S. Danger Activity Normalized to Sub-Population Index

1) smoking (43.4 million smokers) 760,000 0.01751

2) alcohol (60 million impacted Americans) 500,000 0.00833

3) iatrogenic (180 million receive medical treatment per/yr) 950,000 0.00527

4) automobile accidents (190 million drivers) 250,000 0.00138

5) police work (680,000 police officers) 800 0.00118

6) mining (350,000 miners) 360 0.00103

7) construction (7.7 million workers) 5,000 0.00065

8) murder (300 million impacted) 80,000 0.00027

9) coal use (240 million impacted) 60,000 0.00025

10) food poisoning (304 million eat every day) 25,000 0.00008

11) nuclear industry (~ 20% of U.S. power) (60 million) 1 0.0000001

U.S. Nuclear

Accidents per 200,000 worker-hours

U.S. Manufacturing

U.S. Finance, Insurance, Real Estate

OSHA Accident Rates

Even non-lethal routine accidents are dramatically lower in the nuclear industry

than in any other industry

1) Incorrect, but intentional, association with nuclear weapons during the Cold War - 1945

2) Inaccurate and purposefully simplistic modeling of health effects of low radiation doses (LNT) - 1959

3) Misunderstanding of the nature and amount of nuclear power waste - 1976

• not much of it (< 1 km3 worldwide) - over 20,000 km3 of direct solid coal waste

• we know what to do with it - 1999

Why is Everyone So Afraid of Nuclear Energy?

Because we told them to be!

Depending upon final design, whether spent fuel rods, salt waste or pebbles, waste volume will still be smaller than GenII/III LWRs. All could be packaged for a repository or even a deep borehole.

Will SMR waste pose difficulties for waste disposal?

No, in fact, it will be easier to dispose of, no matter what form it takes.

Probable Outcomes for U.S. Nuclear Waste

Defense Tank Waste (TRU and HLW)

Commercial nuclear fuel

•

stays right where it is (EIS’ show no real problem)

WIPP

Second salt repository

Burn in fast reactors Deep borehole

Interim storage

SMRs and other new designs

Carbon Footprints

the geopolitics of energy: achieving a just and...

Documents