KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
The Future of Nuclear Energyfor
Electricity Generation in Belgium
W. D’haeseleer University of Leuven Energy-Institute
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Relative Proportion Energy Basket Electricity Generation in Belgium
Nuclear Fuel 57,8%
Gaseous fuel 26,8%
Solid fuels 11,5%
Hydraulic 1,8%
Others 1,1%
Liquid fuels 1%
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Orders of magnitude Belgian electricity system (2000)
Installed power 16 000 MWe
Peak power (winter) 12 à 13 GWe
Min power (summer) 7 GWe
Electricity consumption 80 TWhe
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Present Situation Nuclear Energy in Belgium
Installed capacity ~ 5700 MWe
Commercial nuclear electricity generation ~ 50 à 60% of ~ 80 TWhe
Power Plants
Doel 1, 2 ~ 2 × 400 MWe Tihange 1 ~ 900 MWe Doel 3, 4 ~ 2 × 1000 MWe Tihange 2, 3 ~ 2 × 1000 MWe
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Evolution Nuclear Capacity in Phase-Out Scenario
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Nuclear Capacity in Belgium;phase-out scenario (MWe)
S1 S2
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Co-generation (CHP)
fuel
1
Co-generation
E = 0,35
Q = 0,50
1
0,35
0,50
loss 0,15
E=E
Q=Q
0,35
0,50
fuel
1,20
Power plant
E = 0,55
0,64
furnace
Q = 0,90
0,56
loss 0,35
E
E
Q
Q
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Cogeneration potential in Belgium
Based on VITO/IW study (also AMPERE) PPS > 5 % w.r.t. separate generation Only Pe > 85 kW No district heating
Energetic potential ~ 4000 MWe + 500 MWe economic potential ~ 2700 MWe + 400 MWe
market potential ~ 2000 MWe + 300 MWe
Remaining mkt potential ~ 1000 MWe + 500 MWe
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Renewable EnergyPotential Solar PV
Theoretically: 3000 TWh/a at 10% efficiency
~ 100 km2 via roofs, streets, ...=> 10 – 20 TWh/a technical pot=> 7.6 GW installed
Problem: day/night cycle; seasons
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Renewable EnergyPotential Wind; on shore
Theoretical potential
- 340 TWh/a total- 190 TWh/a > 5 m/s- 50 TWh/a > 6 m/s
5% surface:- 16 TWh/a total technical- 9.5 TWh/a > 5 m/s- 2.5 TWh/a > 6 m/s
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Renewable Energy Potential Wind; on shore
Several detailed studies(Wind Atlas Vlaanderen, TEE, Van Leuven)
Prognosis Commission Ampere: 1 à 2 TWh
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Renewable EnergyPotential Wind; off shore
± 120 km2, 10 to 30 km away from coast ± 1000 MW installed ± 3 TWh
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Renewable EnergyHydro
Theoretical potential ± 0.6 TWh/a Technical potential ± 0.4 TWh/a Already 0.3 TWh in use
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Renewable EnergyGeneration Cost
PV cells: 15 – 25 BEF/kWh Wind: 2 – 5 BEF/kWh (or more) Biomass: 2 – 6 BEF/kWh (or more) Hydro: 3.6 – 11 BEF/kWh Need green certificates to come to some sort of
pseudo-economical potential
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Renewable EnergyTotal Technical Potential
Total electricity consumption Belgium ~ 80 TWh (1998); perhaps ~ 100 TWh (2020)
Total renewable: max ~ 8TWh
3 – 4 TWh realistic (horizon 2020)
Without waste fraction: 2 – 3 TWh
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear Power
well designed nuclear plants very reliable & safe
- new generation of plants even safer (AP600, ABWR, System 80+, EPR,…)
- interesting new concepts (GT-MHTR)
- generation iv (Gen-iv) Nuclear fuel only valuable for electricity production Nuclear route without GHG emission Unreasonable fear of nuclear waste & ionizing radiation Nuclear power not perfect, but quite valuable
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear power; contd
New nuclear power stations
Nuclear plants are capital intensive- long Pay Back Time
Uncertainty for investors
- electricity markets: preference for short PBT
- pressure from public opinion & policy makers (NIMTO, NIMBY, BANANA))
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear power; contd
New power stations; contd
Attitude of utility executives
- struggle for life; cost cutting predominant
- no long term responsibility for electricity provision
- no longer guaranteed delivery produced electricity
- political climate (Sweden, Germany, Belgium)
- but reverse evolution in Finland and France
- if nuclear plant proposed today,
no guarantee to get operation license
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear power; contd
New power stations; contd
Presently “only” expansion in Far East
- transfer of know how West East
- later, we’ll import from Japan!
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear power; contd
Existing Nuclear Plants
Continue to operate “good” power stations
- clean bill of health on safety aspects
- positive contribution to GHG-issue
- economically competitive
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear power; contd
Existing nuclear plants; contd
No predetermined design life power station
- original “estimates” based on guess for thermal
transients
- all components replaceable; but safety level to be kept
- ten-yearly overhaul
- translated in economic price tag
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear power; contd
Existing nuclear plants; contd
No technical arguments for premature closure but in a democracy, government can impose limitations
Careful with “subtle” opposition against further operation
- delays & heavy administration for permits replacements/modifications
- heavy procedures for transport & management of nuclear
waste
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear power; contd
Uncertainties for energy efficiency & renewables
necessary to keep nuclear technology
- replace present generation by future generation
- re-activate & improve breeding concept necessary to invest in development “alternative” concepts
- GT-MHTR, ADS necessary to keep investing in R&D nuclear fusion research
- unexhaustible and “clean” source
- given political will, almost certain to succeed
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
CO2 emissions
due to electricity generation
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Climate and Human Activity
Conclusions Ampere climate expert:
There is little doubt that the measured increase ofthe CO2-eq emissions lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Climate and Human Activity
Conclusions consistent with
IPCC 2-nd assess.: “The balance of evidence suggests
a discernible human influence on
global climate”
IPCC 3-rd assess.: “In the light of new evidence … most of the
observed warming up over the last 50 years
is likely (chance > 0.66 - 0.90) to have been
due to the increase in GHG concentrations”
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
GHG “reductions” Kyoto Protocol
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Climate and Human Activity
Further Ampere observations:
• Kyoto Protocol will have “negligible” impact
• We will not be able to prevent global warming; we will have to prepare for adaptation
• Kyoto is only the beginning; later, much more stringent reductions will be necessary
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Climate and Human Activity
CO2 emissions in EU: ~ constant between 1990-1996
but, * Germany: DDR* UK : massive switch coal gas
CO2 emissions in Belgium: + 13,7 % between 1990-1996
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Preliminary figures
1996 for Belgium: 150 Mt GHG
130 Mt CO2
118 Mt CO2 due to combustion
22 Mt CO2 electricity generation
CO2 electricity generation < 20 % CO2 due to combustion
European average ~ 30 %
CO2 emissions due to electricity generation
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Emission scenariosPromix
Promix simulation till 2012 Nuclear generation frozen IEA fuel prices No tax (energy, nor CO2)
Demand evolution
A : + 2 %/a till 2005; + 1.5 %/a till 2012
B : + 0.5 %/a till 2005; 0 %/a till 2012
C : + 3.5 %/a till 2005; + 3 %/a till 2012
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
PROMIX Simulation CO2-evolution 1998-2012
18000
20000
22000
24000
26000
28000
30000
32000
34000
36000
38000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
CO
2-eq
. [
kto
n/a
]
A_GPiea_N=_T0 + 2%/a till 2005, then + 1,5%/a
B_GPiea_N=_T0 +0,5%/a till 2005, then 0%
C_GPiea_N=_T0 + 3,5%/a till 2005, then + 3%
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Emission scenariosReversed scenario
What would have been the CO2 emissions
in Belgium
if we never had any nuclear electricity generation?
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation, and MARKAL Simulation CO2-evolution without Nuclear Power
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998
Mton CO
2
nuclear replaced by coal only
nuclear replaced by generation mix nuclear replaced by gas only
Real emissions
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?
State of Affairs January 31, 2003:
• Nuclear phase out after 40 years in governmental declaration (July 1999)
• Law is orthogonal to then installed AMPERE Commission• Nuclear Phase-Out Law
- implements phase out in period 2015 – 2025
- prohibits construction new nuclear plants
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?State of Affairs March 6, 2002; contd
Explanatory Memorandum / Phase-Out Bill:
- suggests no conflict between phase out and GHG commitments
“uses” Ampere figures to “demonstrate reasonableness” of energy savings
explicit reference to “Triptique Approach”
- incorporates “texts” that should guarantee security of supply
indicative plan
international electricity exchanges
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?State of Affairs March 6, 2002; contd
- specifies that AMPERE requested to keep nuclear option open
keep up competences for operation of facilities
keep up scientific knowledge follow up new developments
- exceptional “Act of God”
in case of threat of the security of supply(at competitive prices), a Royal Decree can halt automatic phase out
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Problems with Planned Phase Out
Observation: AMPERE “Conclusions & Recommendations” too diplomatic
Must read between the lines!
Suggests potential “routes” in case of nuclear phase out
But does not address the consequences of such phase out
AMPERE document “Synthesis Report” provides all
elements to demonstrate risks related to nuclear phase out
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Problems with Planned Phase Out; contd
Enhanced GHG effect / Climate Change- Electricity Generation in B: moderate CO2 emitter thanks to NE
- Bill manipulates AMPERE figures to “demonstrate” reasonableness
of energy savings
- Simple computation shows difficulties for 2012 (Kyoto) and quasi-impossibility after 2012
- Post-AMPERE analysis with MARKAL shows magnitude of penalty
- Triptique Approach: simply non-defendable!
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Historic CO2-evolution and Nuclear Electricity Generation
-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10
0 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
CO2 emission [%] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Nuclear energy [%]
CO2 emission Nuclear energy
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Belgium 307 g/kWhe
France 56 g/kWhe
Sweden 42 g/kWhe
Norway 5 g/kWhe
Germany 588 g/kWhe
NL 603 g/kWhe
UK 521 g/kWhe
Spain 471 g/kWhe
Denmark 791 g/kWhe
Italy 521 g/kWhe
EU 399 g/kWhe
USA 610 g/kWhe
JPN 350 g/kWhe
World (1994) 544 g/kWhe
Typical emissions electricity generation
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
PROMIX Simulation CO2-evolution 1998-2012
18000
20000
22000
24000
26000
28000
30000
32000
34000
36000
38000
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
CO
2-eq
. [
kto
n/a
]
A_GPiea_N=_T0 + 2%/a till 2005, then + 1,5%/a
B_GPiea_N=_T0 +0,5%/a till 2005, then 0%
C_GPiea_N=_T0 + 3,5%/a till 2005, then + 3%
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation, and MARKAL Simulation CO2-evolution without Nuclear Power
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998
Mton CO
2
nuclear replaced by coal only
nuclear replaced by generation mix nuclear replaced by gas only
Real emissions
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Back of Envelope CalculationGHG versus Nuclear Phase Out
1990-1996 increase in C02 emission + 13.7 %
Simulation scenario A 1998-2012 + 8 % Required Kyoto reduction 7.5 %
30 % compared to A Most voluntaristic attempt :
• + 1000 MWe CHP CO2 reduction with 2-3 %
• + 1500 MWe wind CO2 reduction with 8 %
• + 4 % el. generation bio mass CO2 reduction with 8 %
20 %
In 2012 still 10 % - pts short!
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Back of Envelope CalculationGHG versus Nuclear Phase Out; contd
Post-Kyoto with nuclear phase out
…. very difficult “squaring the circle” - nuclear phase out from 2015 - need for storable fuel (coal) - all potential CHP, bio mass and wind exhausted; still too early for PV
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Post-Ampere MARKAL; hypotheses
analysis performed by ETE research groupK.U. Leuven (S. Proost, D. Van Regemorter)
period 1990 – 2030, intervals of 5 years
technology database compatible with Ampere data
max. installed nuclear power in 2030 is 8000 MWemin. electricity production with coal: 4 TWh
Kyoto extrapolated until 2030 (-15% w.r.t. 1990)
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Scenario 1No Kyoto constraint; no nuclear phase out
Demand ELEC: 113 TWh
Nuclear 60 TWh
Coal: 33 TWh
Gas: 1 TWh
Cogeneration: 19 TWh
Renewables: 1 TWh
Cost: -0.5% of GDP 2000
Demand ELEC: 99 TWh
Nuclear 60 TWh
Coal: 9 TWh
Gas: 10 TWh
Cogeneration: 19 TWh
Renewables: 1 TWh
Cost: - 0.7% of GDP 2000
Demand ELEC: 84 TWh
Nuclear 43 TWh
Coal: 4 TWh
Gas: 19 TWh
Cogeneration: 17 TWh
Renewables: 1 TWh
Cost: - 0.1% of GDP 2000
203020202010
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
No Kyoto constraint, new nuclear
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
TW
h
Renew ables
Cogeneration
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Scenario 2No Kyoto constraint; nuclear phase out
Demand ELEC: 106 TWh
Nuclear 4 TWh
Coal: 74 TWh
Gas: 9 TWh
Cogeneration: 19 TWh
Renewables: 1 TWh
Cost: -0.4% van GDP 2000
Demand ELEC: 88 TWh
Nuclear 30 TWh
Coal: 16 TWh
Gas: 23 TWh
Cogeneration: 19 TWh
Renewables: 1 TWh
Cost: -0.7% van GDP 2000
Demand ELEC: 84 TWh
Nuclear 43 TWh
Coal: 4 TWh
Gas: 20 TWh
Cogeneration: 17 TWh
Renewables: 1TWh
Cost: -0.1% van GDP 2000
203020202010
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
No Kyoto constraint, no new nuclear
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
TW
h
Renew ables
Cogeneration
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Scenario 3Kyoto; nuclear phase out
Demand ELEC: 98 TWh
Nuclear 4 TWh
Coal: 4 TWh
Gas: 62 TWh
Cogeneration: 22 TWh
Renewables: 5 TWh
Cost: 2.7% van GDP 2000
Demand ELEC: 86 TWh
Nuclear 30 TWh
Coal: 4 TWh
Gas: 27 TWh
Cogeneration: 20 TWh
Renewables: 5 TWh
Cost: 0.1% van GDP 2000
Demand ELEC: 81 TWh
Nuclear 43 TWh
Coal: 4 TWh
Gas: 17 TWh
Cogeneration: 17 TWh
Renewables: 1 TWh
Cost: -0.3% van GDP 2000
203020202010
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Kyoto constraint, no new nuclear
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
TW
h
Renew ables
Cogeneration
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Scenario 4Kyoto; no nuclear phase out
Demand ELEC: 100 TWh
Nuclear 60 TWh
Coal: 4 TWh
Gas: 11 TWh
Cogeneration: 21 TWh
Renewables: 5 TWh
Cost: 0.6% van GDP 2000
Demand ELEC: 95 TWh
Nuclear 60 TWh
Coal: 4 TWh
Gas: 12 TWh
Cogeneration: 18 TWh
Renewables: 1 TWh
Cost: -0.4% van GDP 2000
Demand ELEC: 82 TWh
Nuclear 43 TWh
Coal: 4 TWh
Gas: 17 TWh
Cogeneration: 17 TWh
Renewables: 1 TWh
Cost: -0.3% van GDP 2000
203020202010
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Kyoto constraint, new nuclear
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
TW
h
Renew ables
Cogeneration
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Buying emission certificates from Russia ?
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Mto
n C
O2
Kyoto agreementDecember 1997
permitted CO2 emissions
(w/o sinks)fictitiousemissioncertificates
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Problems with Planned Phase Out; Contd
Security of Supply
- See MARKAL Analysis: “all gas basket”
- Indicative Plan: is only indicative! liberalised market has problems with new investments (California, New Zealand,
Spain)
- international electricity exchanges:
flawed argument
other countries could think similarly lack of transmission capacity
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Problems with Planned Phase Out; Contd
Postponement Clause: - in case of “Act of God”
- due to international threat security of supply
- how about commitments GHG-reduction?
Final decision on phase out? No, future parliament can change lawbut
very uncertain context for investors;
future nuclear investments not evident
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Conclusion
If Belgium is serious about GHG reductions
e.g., - 15% in 2030 compared to 1990
and automatic nuclear phase out goes ahead
Major problems for security of “affordable” supply
due to - geopolitical instability
- price fluctuations- non-transparant behavior liberalised market
- limited availability renewable sources
- insufficient impact energy efficiency
reorientation taxes (CO2-tax, energy tax) may help
but careful economic analysis needed (competitiveness industry)
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Conclusion; contd
Because of major uncertainties,
deciding now to automatically close NPP’s seems irresponsible
Better alternative:
evaluate energy and environmental context continually; set appropriate safety and environmental standards and let the market choose whether NE is an option
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
General Conclusion
Commercial Nuclear Energy is “sustainable”
can be applied continually to benefit future generations and third world
prohibiting nuclear energy does away with prosperity effects
Government & parliament have erred with phase-out law
- based on ideological considerations
- likely very “expensive”
(GHG, higher prices, interruptions, deny “clean” technology for later generations)
- creates uncertainty for future investors
Belgium will pay considerable penalty!
KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT
LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE
Cost of electricity production by technologies producing only electricity in 2010 in constant 2000 BEF/kWhe
Cost (non fuel)
Fuel cost Total 1 External cost / CO2
External cost / other
Total 2
Pulverised coal (SC) 0.76 0.61 1.37 0.60 0.37 2.34
Pulverised coal (ASC) 0.83 0.58 1.41 0.57 0.23 2.21
Pulverised coal (USC, 2020) 0.85 0.53 1.38 0.51 0.22 2.10
IGCC 1.03 0.64 1.67 0.62 0.13 2.42
Kerosene gasturbines 1.81 1.57 3.38 0.62 0.76 4.76
Gas gasturbines 1.86 1.29 3.15 0.38 0.25 3.79
STAG power plant 0.45 0.86 1.31 0.25 0.17 1.74
PWR nuclear (40 years) 0.87 0.38 1.24 0.01 0.03 1.28
AP600 nuclear (40 years) 0.78 0.40 1.18 0.01 0.03 1.22
MHTGR nuclear (30 years) 1.41 0.26 1.67 0.01 0.03 1.70
Wind turbine onshore, seaside 1.81 0.00 1.81 0.02 0.02 1.85
Wind turbine onshore, polders 2.62 0.00 2.62 0.02 0.02 2.66
Wind turbine offshore 2.35 0.00 2.35 0.02 0.02 2.39
Wind turbine onshore, inland 3.14 0.00 3.14 0.04 0.08 3.26
Wood gasification – STAG 0.90 1.97 2.87 0.07 0.29 3.23
Waste incinerators 0.59 1.17 1.76 (0.41) (0.20) (2.38)