Jae Edmonds and Son H. Kim Joint Global Change Research Institute May 24, 2006

Transcription

1 Stabilizing Radiative Forcing in New Economic-demographic Future Scenarios Jae Edmonds and Son H. Kim Joint Global Change Research Institute May 24, 26 1

2 Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to EPRI for supporting the research whose results are contained here, and to Layla Sandell and Tom Wilson for helpful comments on earlier drafts. 2

3 Background The work assess the potential role nuclear energy could play in a climate constrained world. The context: Part of the Global Energy Technology Strategy Program Addressing Climate Change One of 6 Deep Dives - CO2 Capture and Storage - Hydrogen Systems - Biotechnology - Other Renewable Energy - End-use Energy Technology - NUCLEAR Included in integrated analysis of energy, economy, agriculture, land use, greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric composition, and climate change. 3

4 Integrated Assessment Modeling 4

5 The Integrated Assessment Framework ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION CLIMATE & SEA LEVEL Atmospheric Chemistry Climate Ocean Carbon Cycle Ocean temperature sea level HUMAN ACTIVITIES ECOSYSTEMS Energy System Other Human Systems Terrestrial Carbon Cycle Un-managed Eco-system & Animals Agriculture, Livestock & Forestry Coastal System Crops & Forestry Hydrology

6 MiniCAM Model: Key Characteristics Energy-Agriculture-Economy Market Equilibrium 14 Global Regions Explicit Energy Technologies Fully Integrated Agriculture and Land Use Model Key for consistent biomass crop analysis Multiple Greenhouse Gases Typically Runs to 21 in 15-year time steps An Integrated Climate Assessment Model Internal Carbon Cycle Internal Atmospheric Chemistry Internal Radiative Forcing Internal Climate Simulation 6

7 Nuclear Energy 7

8 FY 25 The Work Four questions: 1.What is the value of maintaining a nuclear option in addressing climate change? 2.What are the implications of resource availability for nuclear technology? 3.What role could thorium (Th) play in addressing climate change? 4.What role could nuclear energy play in a hydrogen economy? 8

9 Conclusions The value of maintaining a nuclear option to address climate change is denominated in Trillions of dollars. The value is higher, when uranium resources are available beyond Redbook estimates even if the uranium cost is high. The value is lower, the better the economic performance of competing technologies. CCS is an important competing technology. If U resources are limited to Redbook values (11 TgU), then nuclear technology would have to evolve to extend that limited resource (Gen IV reactors) or the nuclear contribution to the global energy system will decline in the 2 nd half of the 21 st century. In the limited U scenario, Gen III and IV Breeder (Pu/U or U/Th cycle) reactors have 1-3 tril.$ value in the WRE 55 with and without CCS. Pu/U or U/Th breeder cycles are options for nuclear expansion under limited natural U resource scenarios Th LWR (once thru) reactors allow marginally better utilization of nat U. Attention to fissile material availability and economy required during Gen III to Gen IV transition. Nuclear energy could compete as a producer of H 2 if a hydrogen economy materializes. However, the H 2 market for nuclear energy is always smaller than the electricity market. 9

10 O bj ECTS MiniCAM Nuclear Energy System Modeling 1

11 Unconstrained Natural Uranium Resource Assumption Cost (23$/kg) Natural Uranium Supply Curve (PPM-Cost Model) KCR EAR-II SR(<13$/kg) dilute phosphate ore > 1 ppm Cumulative Uranium Extraction (MMT) 11

12 Global Population, GDP & CO2 Emissions Reference Scenario Billion Person Global Population Global GDP Global CO2 Emissions 2 Billion Tons of Carbon per Year Trillion 199 US$

13 Global Primary Energy Consumption & Electricity Generation Reference Scenario (with Gen III Nuclear) EJ/yr Global Primary Energy Consumption (with Gen II and III nuclear) nuclear biomass renewable natural gas unconventional oil crude oil coal EJ/yr Global Electricity Generation (with Gen II and III nuclear) solar pv fuel cell oil biomass hydro wind nat gas coal nuclear Gen III nuclear Gen II GWe (9% CF) : 966 / 295: 2248 # of Nuclear Reactors 13

14 Nuclear Electricity Generation by Region Reference Scenario (with Gen III Nuclear) Nuclear Electricty Generation Reference Scenario (+Gen III) Annex I Non-Annex I 1% 75% Nuclear Electricty Generation Reference Scenario (+Gen III) Non-Annex I Annex I EJ / yr EJ / yr 5% % %

15 Background: Unconstrained Uranium Resource Scenario What is the value of maintaining a nuclear option in addressing of climate change? 15

16 WRE Scenarios CO 2 Emissions Path for Stabilizing Concentrations BTC/year WRE Global CO2 Emissions Path Baseline WRE45 WRE55 WRE65 WRE75 Carbon Tax (9$/tC) Carbon Tax / WRE 55 Scenario Gen II No CCS +Gen III No CCS Gen II w/ CCS +Gen III w/ CCS $/tc $/tc = c/kwh c/kwh (24 (24% above above base base c/kwh) c/kwh) 16

17 Composition of Electricity Generation WRE 55 Scenario Unconstrained Uranium Resource Case 25 Global Electricity 295 EJ / yr Electricity Generation 25 Reference WRE 55 w/ CCS WRE 55 No CCS solar PV fuelcell biomass oil CCS oil wind hydro coal CCS coal nat gas CCS nat gas nuclear Gen III EJ / yr Electricity Generation 295 Reference WRE 55 w/ CCS WRE 55 No CCS 17% / 29% / 33% Nuclear share 2% / 38% / 49% Nuclear share 17

18 Cost of Carbon Policy & Value of Nuclear Technologies Unconstrained Uranium Resource Case Total Discounted Cost (Trillion 199 US$) Gen II No CCS** Cost of WRE 55 Policy +Gen III No CCS Gen II w/ CCS** +Gen III w/ CCS **Gen II (nuclear moratorium) WRE55 Value (Trillion 199 US$) Gen III No CCS Value of Advanced Nuclear WRE 55 Scenario +Gen III w/ CCS WRE55 The value of the Gen III option (no CCS) for 55 ppm is Cost of Stabilizing at 55 ppm (no CCS) under nuclear moratorium Less Cost of Stabilizing at 55 ppm (no CCS) with Gen III technology 18

19 Cost of Carbon Policy & Value of CCS Technology Unconstrained Uranium Resource Case Total Discounted Cost (Trillion 199 US$) Gen II No CCS** Cost of WRE 55 Policy +Gen III No CCS Gen II w/ CCS** +Gen III w/ CCS **Gen II (nuclear moratorium) WRE55 The value of CCS is also smaller if it must compete with nuclear power. The combination of CCS nuclear power yield the lowest cost of stabilization. The value of the CCS option (nuclear moratorium) for 55 ppm is Cost of Stabilizing at 55 ppm (no CCS) under nuclear moratorium Less Cost of Stabilizing at 55 ppm (with CCS) under nuclear moratorium 19

20 Cost of Carbon Policy & Value of Nuclear ALTERNATIVE CO 2 CONCENTRATITONS Unconstrained Uranium Resource Case 2 WRE55 +Gen III No CCS +Gen III w/ CCS Value of Advanced Nuclear WRE 55 Scenario Value of Advanced Nuclear +Gen III No CCS +Gen III w/ CCS Value (Trillion 199 US$) WRE75 WRE65 WRE55 WRE45 Value (Trillion 199 US$)

21 Background: Limited Uranium Resource Scenario What are the implications of resource availability for nuclear technology? 21

22 Limited Natural Uranium Resource Assumption Cost (23$/kg) Natural Uranium Supply Curve (PPM-Cost Model) KCR EAR-II SR(<13$/kg) dilute phosphate ore > 1 ppm Cumulative Uranium Extraction (MMT) 22

23 Global U Prices & Cumulative Production WRE 55 Scenario Limited Uranium Resource Case 23 $/ kg Global Uranium Prices / WRE 55 +Gen III No CCS Million Metric Tonnes Cumulative Global U Production / WRE 55 +Gen III No CCS Gen III Nuclear Fuel Cost / WRE Mills / kwh

24 Global Electricity Generation WRE 55 Scenario Limited Uranium Resource Case (With CCS) (No CCS) EJ/yr EJ/yr Global Electricity Generation WRE 55 / Gen II and III / No CCS solar PV fuelcell oil coal biomass hydro wind nat gas nuclear Gen III nuclear Gen II Global Electricity Generation WRE 55 / Gen II and III / With CCS 35 solar PV 12 oil CCS 3 oil fuelcell 1 25 biomass coal CCS coal 8 2 wind hydro nat gas CCS 6 15 nat gas nuclear Gen III nuclear Gen II Gen III GWe (9% CF) GWe (9% CF) EJ/yr EJ/yr Gen III & IV Global Electricity Generation WRE 55 / Gen II, III and IV / No CCS solar PV oil coal fuelcell wind hydro biomass nat gas nuclear Gen IV nuclear Gen III nuclear Gen II Global Electricity Generation WRE 55 / Gen II, III and IV / With CCS solar PV oil CCS oil fuelcell biomass wind hydro coal CCS coal nat gas CCS nat gas nuclear Gen IV nuclear Gen III nuclear Gen II GWe GWe (9% CF) 12 1 GWe (9% CF) 24

25 (No CCS) (With CCS) US Electricity Generation WRE 55 Scenario Limited Uranium Resource Case EJ/yr EJ/yr US Electricity Generation WRE 55 / Gen II and III / No CCS solar PV fuelcell oil hydro biomass wind coal nat gas nuclear Gen III nuclear Gen II Gen III US Electricity Generation WRE 55 / Gen II and III / With CCS solar PV oil CCS oil hydro fuelcell biomass wind coal CCS coal nat gas CCS nat gas nuclear Gen III nuclear Gen II USA GWe (9% CF) GWe (9% CF) EJ/yr EJ/yr US Electricity Generation WRE 55 / Gen II, III and IV / No CCS solar PV fuelcell oil hydro biomass wind coal nat gas nuclear Gen IV nuclear Gen III nuclear Gen II Gen III & IV US Electricity Generation WRE 55 / Gen II, III and IV / With CCS solar PV oil CCS oil hydro fuelcell biomass wind coal CCS coal nat gas CCS nat gas nuclear Gen IV nuclear Gen III nuclear Gen II GWe (9% CF) GWe (9% CF) 25

26 Value of Nuclear Technologies WRE 55 Scenario Limited Uranium Resource Case Value of Advanced Nuclear Technologies Limited Uranium Resource Case Gen III No CCS WRE55 Value (Trillion 199 US$) +Gen IV No CCS +Gen III w/ CCS +Gen IV w/ CCS

27 Conclusions The value of maintaining a nuclear option to address climate change is denominated in Trillions of dollars. The value is higher, when uranium resources are available beyond Redbook estimates even if the uranium cost is high. The value is lower, the better the economic performance of competing technologies. CCS is an important competing technology. If U resources are limited to Redbook values (11 TgU), then nuclear technology would have to evolve to extend that limited resource (Gen IV reactors) or the nuclear contribution to the global energy system will decline in the 2 nd half of the 21 st century. In the limited U scenario, Gen III and IV Breeder (Pu/U or U/Th cycle) reactors have 1-3 tril.$ value in the WRE 55 with and without CCS. Pu/U or U/Th breeder cycles are options for nuclear expansion under limited natural U resource scenarios Th LWR (once thru) reactors allow marginally better utilization of nat U. Attention to fissile material availability and economy required during Gen III to Gen IV transition. Nuclear energy could compete as a producer of H 2 if a hydrogen economy materializes. However, the H 2 market for nuclear energy is always smaller than the electricity market. 27

28 FY6 Proposal Four Areas 1. Nuclear Waste Assess cumulative generation and character of nuclear waste by technology Assess interaction of waste storage availability and nuclear technology choice 2. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Timing of transition from Gen III to Gen IV Potential for Gen IV expansion with and without carbon mitigation policies Assessment of global flow of nuclear fuels and waste stream 28

29 FY6 Proposal - Continued 3. Nuclear H2 Better assessment of end-use demand for hydrogen and magnitude of the hydrogen market Incorporate PNNL detailed transportation modeling capability 4. Interaction of Nuclear with Competing Renewable Technologies Better assessment of wind and solar technology and their response to carbon policies Better assessment of nuclear competition with renewable technologies 29

30 Background: Limited Uranium Resource Scenario What role could Th play in addressing climate change? 3

31 Global Electricity Generation WRE 55 Scenario / Thorium Cycle Limited Uranium Resource Case EJ/yr EJ/yr Comparison of Electricity Generation WRE 55 / Gen III vs. Gen Thor Gen III (U LWR) Gen III (TH LWR) Global Electricity Generation WRE 55 / Gen II, III and IV / No CCS solar PV oil coal fuelcell wind hydro biomass nat gas nuclear Gen IV nuclear Gen III nuclear Gen II Pu/U Cycle GWe (9% CF) Once thru Th cycle in LWR allows marginally better utilization of natural U. Number of Yucca Mtn Both cycles with reprocessing equally capable of expanding nuclear energy. EJ/yr Number of Yucca Mtns Required Globally WRE 55 Scenario +Gen III LU (Global) +Gen Thor LU (Global) Global Electricity Generation WRE 55 / Gen II,Thor(LWR) and Thor(Brd) / No CCS solar PV fuelcell oil hydro biomass wind coal nat gas nuclear Thor (Brd) nuclear Thor (LWR) nuclear Gen II U/Th Cycle GWe (9% CF) 31

32 Value of Nuclear Technologies WRE 55 Scenario, U & Th Cycles Limited Uranium Resource Case Gen III Th provides marginal value in terms of CO 2 emissions limitation in a Gen III world. Value of Advanced Nuclear Technologies WRE55 Value (Trillion 199 US$) +Gen III (U LWR) No CCS +Gen III (Th LWR) No CCS +Gen IV (Pu/U) No CCS +Gen IV (U/Th) No CCS

33 Background: Unconstrained Uranium Resource Scenario What role could nuclear energy play in a hydrogen economy? 33

34 H2 Production Costs by Source WRE 55 Scenario Unconstrained Uranium Resource Case Cost of H2 Production 235 (left) and 295 (right) $25 $2 199 USD/EJ $15 $1 $5 $- Biomass Natural Gas Natural Gas w CCS Coal Coal w CCS Electrolysis NUCLEAR 34

35 Global H2 Production WRE 55 Scenario / with and without CCS Unconstrained Uranium Resource Case EJ/yr oil CCS oil electrolysis coal CCS coal nuclear nat gas CCS nat gas biomass Global H2 Production WRE 55 / Nuclear H2 / With CCS Global H2 Production w/ CCS No CCS EJ/yr oil coal electrolysis nat gas nuclear biomass Global H2 Production WRE 55 / Nuclear H2 / No CCS

36 Value of Nuclear H2 Technology Unconstrained Uranium Resource Case Value (Billion 199 US$) Nuclear H2 No CCS Value of Nuclear H2 Production (relative to no nuclear H2) Nuclear H2 w/ CCS WRE55 Value of Nuclear H2 is 1X less than Nuclear Electricity Elect market 3X H2 market H2 production less carbon intense than elect. 36

37 37