Upload
shana-watkins
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Comparison of Nuclear Power with Other Energy
SourcesMary Quillian
Director, Business and Environmental Policy
Nuclear Energy Institute
202-739-8013
Overview
Different Sources of Energy Brief History of Energy Use
– Energy Consumption Different Types of Electricity Generation
– Operating stats– Environmental stats– Safety stats– Public opinion– Economic stats
Meeting Future Electricity Demand GHG Emissions Getting New Nuclear Plants Built Incentive for New Nuclear in The Energy Policy Act of
2005
Different Sources of Energy
Timeline of Energy Use
Fire for cooking, heat (long, long ago…)
Vertical waterwheel invented (~200 BC)
Windmills invented for pumping water,
grinding grain (500 – 900 AD)
Greeks observe static electricity (?)
Canals diverting water to mills (1300s-1700s)
Electrostatic generators developed (1600s)
Steam engine introduced (1700s)
Timeline of Energy Use
Battery invented (1799)
Electric motor runs small printing press (1834)
Telegraph introduced in U.S. (1844)
Oil discovered in Pennsylvania (1859)
Wood still used as primary fuel in U.S. for heating, cooking, steam engines (1860)
Light bulb invented (1879)
First power plant built providing direct current (DC) electricity (1882)
Coal displaces wood as dominant fuel for steam engines. Mass production of automobiles begins (1890)
Timeline of Energy Use
Hydroelectric plant at Niagra Falls opens
providing alternating current (AC) electricity
(1895)
Coal dominates urban heating. Gas and diesel
are standard auto fuels (1930)
U.S. starts importing a majority of its oil
(1993)
92% of coal used for electricity generation
(2000)Sources: IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ) Virtual Museum; the Energy Information Administration Kid’s Page, http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/history/timelines/index.html;“History of Energy,” James C. Williams, Franklin Institute, http://fi.edu/case_files/energy.html .
Total U.S. Energy Consumption by Sector
Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2001http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html
Petroleum Consumption
Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2001http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html
Coal Consumption
Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2001http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html
Electric Utility Retail Sales
Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2001http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html
Capacity Brought Online by Fuel Type 1950-2005 (Nameplate Capacity, MW)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Water
Renew
Oil
Other
Nuclear
Gas
Coal
Source: Global Energy Decisions
Updated: 3/06
Recent years have seen an explosion in new gas fired generation, but little building in other fuels.
U.S. Energy Consumption
Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Energy Information Administration
Electric Generation
Rotation can come from:• Falling water• Wind• Hot gases
Condenser
Cooling Source
Circulating Pump
Heat Source
Turbine Generator
Circulating Pump
Steam Electric StationHeat Source:• wood• coal• natural gas• oil• fission
Load Curve
12 AM 4 AM 9 AM 2 PM 7 PM 12 AM 4 AM
ele
ctr
ic d
em
an
d
Dispatch Curve
Fuel Type Average Capacity Factors (%)
Nuclear 89.9
Coal (Steam Turbine) 71.1
Gas (Combined Cycle) 39.9
Gas (Steam Turbine) 17.2
Oil (Steam Turbine) 14.9
Hydro 31.8
Wind 30.3
Solar 18.8
U.S. Capacity Factors by Fuel Type2006*
*Preliminary
Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration
Coal49.0%
Renewable and Other
3.1%
Hydro6.9%
Nuclear19.4%
Oil1.6%
Gas19.9%
U.S. Electricity Generation Fuel Shares 2006*
* Preliminary
Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration
Updated: 4/07
Land RequirementsTechnology Total Acres/GW Capacity Factor % Acres/ GWh
Hydro 1,000,000 30 3,333,000
Biomass (direct fire) 1,205,600 80 1,507,000
Wind 60,000 30 200,000
Solar – PV (flat plate) 12,360 20 61,900
Coal 23,700 70 33,900
Solar – Thermal (parabolic trough) 5,440 34 16,000
Geothermal 8,500 90 9,400
Natural Gas 3,710 40 9,300
Oil 1,720 30 5,700
Nuclear 3,000 90 3,300
Sources: “Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations,” DOE’s Office of Utility Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and EPRI, 1997; “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” NRC, 1996; “The Most Frequently Asked Questions About Wind Energy,” American Wind Energy Association, 2002; “PV FAQ’s,” DOE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2004; Capacity factors from Global Decisions/Energy Information Administration.
Water ConsumptionTechnology Cooling Type Gallons/MWh
Steam - coal, oil, natural gas, biomass Once through 300
Steam - coal, oil, natural gas, biomass Cooling tower 480
Nuclear Once through 400
Nuclear Cooling tower 720
Combined cycle - natural gas, oil Cooling tower 180
Combined cycle - natural gas, oil Dry Cooling 0
Hydropower na 1,430
Wind na 1
Solar - PV na 30
Solar - Thermal na 1,060
Geothermal (vapor) Once through 3,430
Sources: “Water & Sustainability (Volume 3),” Electric Power Research Institute, March 2002; “The Most Frequently Asked Questions About Wind Energy,” American Wind Energy Association, 2002; “Water and Energy,” Peter H. Gleick, 1994.
Radiation In Perspective
We receive 40 millirem from a medical X-ray 5 millirem from a round-trip, coast-to-coast airplane flight 1-2 millirem from watching television 7 millirem from living in a stone, brick, or concrete building 0.1 millirem from a computer terminal 0.06 millirem from a luminous wrist watch 0.008 millirem from a smoke detector 0.03 millirem from living within 50 miles of a coal-fired power
plant and .009 millirem from living within 50 miles of a nuclear power
plant.
To put this in perspective, you would have to live near a nuclear power plant for over 2,000 years to get the same amount of radiation exposure you get from a single diagnostic medical X-ray.
Lifecycle GHG Emissions(grams CO2e/kWh)
Source A Source B Source C Source D Source E
Coal 755-1309 na 944 790-1182 949-1280
Oil 546-902 na 794 na 519-1190
Gas 389-689 na 564 389-511 485-991
Solar – PV 30-280 100-200 35 13-731 79
Biomass 31-61 na 42 15-101 92-156
Hydro 4-237 16 16 2-48 3-27
Wind 9-48 15 13 7-124 14-21
Nuclear 9-21 9 15 2-59 8-11
Geotherm
al
na na 14 na na
Lifecycle Emissions Sources
Source A- “Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity Generation Chains,
Assessing the Difference,” International Atomic Energy Agency, 2000.
Source B – “Full-energy-chain Greenhouse-gas Emissions: A Comparison
between Nuclear Power, Hydropower, Solar Power and Wind Power,” Int.
J. Risk Assessment and Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.59-74, 2002.
Source C – “Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems
and Applications for Climate Change Policy Analysis,” Paul J. Meier,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, August 2002.
Source D – “Hydropower – Internalised Costs and Externalised Benefits,”
Frans H. Koch, International Energy Agency-Implementing Agreement
for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes, Ottawa, Canada, 2000.
Source E – “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy Systems:
Comparison and Overview,” R. Dones, T. Heck, S. Hirschberg, PSI
Annual Report 2003, Annex IV.
U.S. Industrial Safety Accident Rate2006
0.12
2.00
3.50
Nuclear Power Plants Electric Utilities Manufacturing
Sources: Nuclear (World Association of Nuclear Operators), Electric Utilities and Manufacturing (2005, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Updated: 4/07
ISAR = Number of accidents resulting in lost work, restricted work, or fatalities per 200,000 worker hours. Electric utilities and manufacturing do not include fatality data.
April Public Opinion Survey
1,000 U.S. adults
Surveyed March 30-April 1, 2007
Telephone interviews
Margin of error plus or minus three
percentage points
Done for NEI by Bisconti Research, Inc
Opinion about Global Climate Change %
9
23
26
41
0 25 50
It is not a problem and does not
require any action
More research is needed before
action is taken
It could be a serious problem, and
we should take some action now
It is a serious problem, and
immediate action is necessary
Perceptions of Electricity Sources Used Most Today (Multiple Choices) %
6
8
10
16
22
31
32
0 10 20 30 40
Wind energy
Solar energy
Nuclear energy
Hydropower
Oil
Coal
Natural gas
Expectations for Sources of Electricity Used Most 15 Years from Now (Multiple Choices)
%
10
14
14
16
19
24
27
0 10 20 30 40
Oil
Hydropower
Coal
Natural gas
Wind energy
Nuclear energy
Solar energy
63% Favor Use of Nuclear Energy
(Annual Averages)
49
46
31
63
Apr-2007
Oppose
Favor
20
40
60
80
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 20061983
Five Steps of Support for New Plants:Down but Still High %
Important
for our energy
future
80%
Prepare to build
71%
Definitely build
56%
Accept new
reactors at nearest
plant
66%
Renew licenses
81%
Acceptability of New Reactor
At Nearest Nuclear Power Plant Site: Down but Still High %
5
29
66
0 25 50 75
Don't know
Not acceptable
Acceptable
Other Polls
LA Times/Bloomberg, Aug 2006: 61% Americans polled said they support the increased use o nuclear poer as a way to contain projected global warming, 30% oppose
BBC World, June 2006: 63% of Americans favor building new nuclear plants to reduce reliance on oil and coal
Gallup, March 2006: 56% of Americans support the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity, 38% oppose
Cost ComparisonEnergy Technology Investment O&M Fuel Total
Geothermal NA NA NA 41.5
Biomass - landfill gas and waste 21.1 - 142.4 12.8 - 25.7 (-109.8) – 0.0 20.6 - 52.3
Natural Gas 5.8 - 26.4 0.7 - 8.4 28.0 - 44.9 40.9 - 63.8
Nuclear 18.3 - 42.4 6.1 - 14.5 2.8 - 11.8 30.3 - 68.6
Coal 12.7 - 40.7 1.4 - 14.9 1.0 - 34.6 25.9 - 69.1
Oil NA NA NA 92
Biomass - combustible 27.7 - 34.3 9.6 - 13.4 12.9 - 52.8 50.3 - 100.5
Wind 38.1 - 128.8 4.9 - 35.8 0 46.1 - 144.2
Hydro 56.6 - 210.3 1.6 - 31.6 0 63.5 - 241.9
Solar 204.4 - 1,738.7 0.0 - 137.7 0 209.1 - 1,876.4
Source: International Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency, “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2005 Update”, OECD 2005. Data from 21 OECD countries. Assumes a 10% discount rate.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Nuclear 1.72Coal 2.21Gas 7.51Oil 8.09
2005
U.S. Electricity Production Costs 1995-2005 (Averages in 2005 cents per kilowatt-hour)
Production Costs = Operations and Maintenance Costs + Fuel CostsSource: Global Energy Decisions/Energy Information AdministrationUpdated: 6/06
Annual Fuel Costs to U.S. Electric Utilities
1995-2005 (In 2005 cents per kilowatt-hour)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Nuclear 0.45
Coal 1.72
Gas 7.05
Oil 7.36
Source: Global Energy Decisions/Energy Information AdministrationUpdated: 6/06
O&M22%
O&M74%
Fuel78% Fuel
94%
Fuel26%
6%
Coal Gas Nuclear Nuclear Fuel CostComponents
Fuel as a Percentage of Electric Power Production Costs
2005
Source: Global Energy Decisions/Energy Energy Administration
ConversionFabrication
Waste Fund
Enrichment
Uranium
Electricity Generation
Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Energy Information Administration
CO2 Emissions from Electric Generation
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
mill
ion
me
tric
to
ns
CO
2
Total
Natural Gas Oil
Coal
Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Energy Information Administration
CO2 Emissions by Sector
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
mill
ion
me
tric
to
ns
CO
2
Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Energy Information Administration
Electric Power
Transportation
Industrial
Residential
Commercial
CO2 Emissions
Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Energy Information Administration
Capacity Additions
Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Energy Information Administration
Renewable Energy Additions
Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2007, Energy Information Administration
Coal57.4% Renewable
and Other3.7%
Hydro5.3%
Nuclear15.5%
Oil1.8% Gas
16.2%
U.S. Electricity Generation Fuel Shares 2030
* Preliminary
Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration
Updated: 4/07
Coal49.0%
Renewable and Other
3.1%
Hydro6.9%
Nuclear19.4%
Oil1.6%
Gas19.9%
U.S. Electricity Generation Fuel Shares 2006*
* Preliminary
Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration
Updated: 4/07
Growing Need for Additional Baseload Capacity (2006)
Electricity demand in 2030 will be 45%
greater
than today
To maintain current electric fuel supply mix
would mean building:Nuclear reactors (1,000 MW)
Renewables (100 MW)
Natural gas plants (400 MW)
Coal-fired plants (600 MW)
50
93
279
261
Source: 2006 Annual Energy Outlook, Energy Information Administration
New Nuclear Plants Under Consideration
Company Location (Existing Plant) Units
Dominion Louisa County, VA (North Anna) 1
NuStart Energy (TVA) Jackson County, AL (Bellefonte) 2
NuStart Energy (Entergy) Claiborne County, MS (Grand Gulf) 1
Entergy West Felciana Parish, LA (River Bend) 1
Southern Co. Burke County, GA (Vogtle) 1-2
Progress Energy Wake County, NC (Harris) & Levy County, FL 2-4
South Carolina Electric & Gas Fairfield County, SC (V.C. Summer) 1-2
Duke Energy Cherokee County, SC (Lee) 2
UniStar Nuclear Calvert County, MD (Calvert Cliffs) 1-5
Florida Power and Light TBD in FL 1
NRG/STPNOC Matagorda County, TX (South Texas Project) 2
Amarillo Power Carson County, TX 2
TXU TBD in TX 2-5
Exelon TBD in TX 2
Alternate Energy Holdings Owyhee County, ID TBD
DTE Energy Monroe County, MI (Fermi) 1
PPL Corporation Luzerne County, PA (Susquehanna) 1
Roadmap to Commercial Operation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Building a new nuclear plant is not a one-step process or decision: It is a sequence of 3 successive decisions
Years (estimates)
1
2
3
First Decision: To file an application for a COL
Second Decision: Long-lead procurement of major components and commodities
Third Decision: Proceed with construction
Energy Policy Act of 2005:Production Tax Credit
$18/MWh for first 6,000 MW of new nuclear capacity
Distributed on a pro rata basis to all plants that:
– Submit a COL application to the NRC by Dec. 31, 2008
– Begin construction by Jan. 1, 2014
– Start commercial operation by Jan. 1, 2021
Production tax credit
– Enhances financial attractiveness of project after it is
built and in commercial operation
– Does not address financing challenges before and during construction
Energy Policy Act of 2005:Standby Support
Federal insurance coverage for delays caused by licensing or litigation
Covers debt service only Limitations on coverage reduce value
– First two $500-million policies: 100% of delay costs, no waiting period for claims
– Second four $250-million policies: only 50% of delay costs after 6-month delay
Energy Policy Act of 2005: Loan Guarantee Program
2005 Energy Policy Act authorizes loan
guarantees
up to 80 percent of project cost
Should allow nuclear plant developers to
– Increase leverage
– Reduce financing costs
– Reduce cost of electricity from project
– Non-recourse to project sponsor’s balance sheet
Final regulations late 2007
State Policies Supporting Nuclear Construction
Legislation in place that helps secure financing
Regulation in place that helps secure financing
Legislation under consideration that helps secure financing
Legislation and regulation in place that help secure financing