When we look to the future, people the world over are hopeful for
an era of abundant reliable electricity supplying all of our energy
needs; all at a reasonable cost and with little to no impact to the
environment. Unfortunately, in many western countries the politics of
electricity planning has become largely a case of exploring the depths
of our imagination with no real path to achieving this essential goal.
As stated by Malcolm Grimston at the World Nuclear Association (WNA) Annual Symposium last month in his brilliant talk “Sclerosis at the heart of energy policy”
(in advance of a book he has coming out), we have become so accustomed
to reliable and cost effective electricity supply that we can no longer
ever consider a scenario where this can be at risk. He noted we even use
the less than frightening phrase “keeping the lights on” when talking
about reliability which greatly understates the importance of reliable
electricity supply to our modern society. (As he said, he turns out his
lights every night without concern – certainly a large scale disruption
to our energy supplies would be much worse than having the lights go
off.)
Given we can’t imagine electricity reliability to be at
risk; and given we have relatively slow growth in most western advanced
economies there is a major reluctance to take decisions to protect and
invest in our infrastructure for the future even while we want to work
towards decarbonizing the system. Yes electricity demand growth is
modest, but our lives depend more on reliable electricity supplies than
ever before. Without electricity society quickly becomes paralyzed with
no ability to communicate, travel, maintain our food supply, sanitation,
deliver health care and so on…in fact it is very difficult for us in
all of our modern comfort to imagine how severe the consequences would
be. Therefore in our great complacency we continue to do nothing because
we all expect that the next great technological breakthrough is just
around the corner. All we need to do is wait and advanced renewables
will be available so we can have clean limitless energy forever. And so
goes the narrative.
Ben Heard in his excellent WNA presentation “World without Nuclear” quotes Naomi Klein as she spoke to the media against the nuclear option in South Australia – “What’s
exciting about this renewables revolution spreading around the world,
is that it shows us that we can power our economies without the enormous
risk that we have come to accept”. She said the latest research showed renewables could power 100 per cent of the world’s economies. “We can do it without those huge risks and costs associated with nuclear so why wouldn’t we?” she said.
But
of course if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Ben’s
presentation goes on to review 20 studies that suggest that a world
powered by 100% renewables can be a reality. However, in his review he
rates most of these studies as poor. Overall he concludes that there is
actually scant evidence for 100 % renewable feasibility while the
literature affirms large dispatchable, i.e. guaranteed 24/7 supply is
indispensable. His final conclusion is that global decarbonization
requires a much faster-growing nuclear sector.
Reproduced from Agneta Rising Presentation at the WNA Annual Symposium 2015
But
how can we have more nuclear when it has this perception of huge risks?
We have written extensively on the issues associated with the
perception of nuclear as a dangerous technology when in reality it has
the best safety record of all technologies out there so we won’t talk
about that again now. In his presentation Malcolm Grimston places much
of the responsibility for this public perception squarely on the nuclear
industry noting that the industry “spends half of its time implying
that it is the new priesthood, with superhuman powers to guarantee
safety; and the other half of its time behaving as if radiation is much
much more dangerous than it actually is.” While it is hard to know
what comes first, the fear or the industry reaction to it, we certainly
agree that Malcolm makes a good point.
Then there are those that
say nuclear power is way too expensive to be part of our future
electricity system even though there is no doubt that wind and solar
power are clearly the more expensive options. The most recent edition of
“Project Costs of Electricity”; an important report that is now in its 8th
edition from the IEA and NEA looking at the costs of various forms of
electricity generation has just been published. (This report is a must
for anyone seriously looking at trends and costs of electricity
generation around the globe.) While the report acknowledges the huge
gains made by renewables in reducing their costs, it also demonstrates
that nuclear power is one of the lowest cost options available depending
upon the scenario. Of more importance, the report notes that the belief
that nuclear costs continue to rise is false stating that, in general,
baseload technologies are not increasing in costs and specifically “this
is particularly notable in the case of nuclear technologies, which have
costs that are roughly on a par with those reported in the prior study,
thus undermining the growing narrative that nuclear costs continue to
increase globally”.
We will have more to say about this
report in upcoming posts. But for now, let’s all do more than dream
about a future of abundant, reliable, clean and yes, economic
electricity; let’s make this dream a reality by making sure that the
electricity system of the future includes highly reliable 24/7 nuclear
power.
http://www.theenergycollective.com/mzconsulting/2286933/dreaming-future-abundant-clean-reliable-energy-then-dream-about-nuclear
No comments:
Post a Comment