Nuclear or Unclear: Powering
ahead with nuclear energy
Dr Vaibhav Chaturvedi
Research Fellow
Council on Energy, Environment and Water
Based on paper co-authored by Prof. Priyadarshi R. Shukla (IIM
Ahmedabad, India) and Mr. Karthik Ganesan (CEEW, India)
Climate Day: Negotiating the Climate Cliff: India’s Climate Policy and
INDCs
New Delhi, 03 Feb 2015
© Council on Energy, Environment and Water, 2015
CEEW: addressing global challenges through an integrated approach
| 1
Introduction
•
Energy access an important development challenge, hence all energy technologies need
to be considered simultaneously
•
Nuclear power arguably the most controversial form of energy
•
Need for independent, impartial and analytical assessment of the role of nuclear power in
India’s energy and climate policy
| 2
Cost is going to be a defining factor!
•
Between 2008 and 2013, cost of nuclear power plants increased by 98% (AEO 2008,
AEO 2013)
•
Historical experience with nuclear power plants has delivered little confidence in the
cost and economics of nuclear power plants
•
Fundamental uncertainties in the cost of key components of fuel cycle (MIT, 2011)
•
Ultimately, any risk mitigation measure is bound to increase the cost of nuclear power
plant installation and operation
| 3
Sensitivity analysis around future nuclear energy cost trajectories
•
6 cost scenarios- Reference, 10% increase, 25% increase, 50% increase, 100%
increase, and Complete Retirement scenarios
•
2 policy scenarios- Reference, and Two Degree scenarios
| 4
Modelling Framework: Global Change Assessment Model
(GCAM)
•
Economy-Energy-Agriculture
Market Equilibrium (Edmonds et
al., 2004)
•
14 Global Regions Fully
Integrated
•
•
Explicit Representation of
Energy Technologies
Tracks 15 greenhouse gases
•
Dynamic-recursive model
•
Typically runs to 2095 in 5-year
time steps
•
Used extensively for energy and
climate policy analyses
conducted for DOE, EPA, IPCC,
etc. (Clarke et al., 2007)
|
Nuclear energy’s role with varying costs
Reference Scenario
100% cost
increase over
Reference
Hydro
Wind
Solar
Nuclear
Biomass_CCS
Biomass
2100
2050
2030
2100
2050
Fossil_CCS
2100
Fossil
2050
Wind
100%
90%
Solar
80%
70%
Nuclear
60%
50%
Biomass_CCS
40%
30%
Biomass
20%
10%
Fossil_CCS
0%
25% cost
increase over
Reference
2030
Hydro
Reference
Cost
2030
2100
2050
100% cost
increase over
Reference
2030
2100
2050
2100
2050
2030
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
25% cost
increase over
Reference
2030
Reference
Cost
Two Degree Scenario
Fossil
Nuclear energy share in electricity generation
Ref Cost
25% increase
100% increase
2050 share
Ref sc
2 Degree sc
8%
20%
5%
13%
2%
5%
| 6
Conclusion
•
Nuclear energy highly sensitive to any further increases in cost
•
NUCLEAR LIABILITY OFF-SETS CLIMATE LIABILITY
•
Domestic manufacturing, insurance pool, snall modular reactors, unambiguous
policy environment?
•
Finally, bridging the information chasm about the risks from nuclear power plants
among stakeholders will help to find best-fit for nuclear power in India’s long-term
optimal energy mix.
| 7
THANK YOU
http://ceew.in
| 8
http://ceew.in
|