GeoPhysics 200A – Oil and War: Oil Peak and Oil Panic ( As presented to WIE Energy Group Seminar) Burton Richter Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies Paul Pigott Professor Emeritus, Stanford University Director Emeritus, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center May 26, 2006
30
Embed
GeoPhysics 200A – Oil and War: Oil Peak and Oil Panic ( As presented to WIE Energy Group Seminar) Burton Richter Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
GeoPhysics 200A – Oil and War: Oil Peak and Oil Panic
( As presented to WIE Energy Group Seminar)
Burton Richter
Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute of International StudiesPaul Pigott Professor Emeritus, Stanford University
Director Emeritus, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
May 26, 2006
2
Abstract
Nuclear energy is undergoing a renaissance around the world. Twenty new reactors are under construction today and many more are in the planning stage. Even in the U.S., utilities are beginning to run new nuclear plants through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing procedure. The drivers for this renaissance are mainly energy supply issues and to a lesser extent environmental issues, global warming in particular. In this talk I will discuss some of the background leading to this expansion and then go on to look at the 3 main issues that are of concern to some; safety (little new to say), spent-fuel disposal (how many Yucca Mountains), and nuclear weapons’ proliferation (internationalization of the fuel cycle).
3
IIASA Projection of Future Energy Demand
4
AreaGDP (ppp)
(Billions of U.S. Dollars)
CO2/GDP
Kg/$(ppp)
World 42,400 0.56
France 1,390 0.28
CO2 Intensity
(IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2003)
5
The Renaissance:
20 under construction (most in Asia) 1 in Europe (Finland) Germany is reconsidering planned
shutdown of reactors 2 moving through licensing phase in U.S. In total about 100 (including above) in
discussion or design.
6
• Over 130 reactors are being built, planned, or under consideration world-wide
• U.S. has not ordered a reactor for decades, despite an existing fleet of over 100 reactors
• The U.S. should be in a position to influence how these facilities are designed, constructed, and operated–Safety–Waste disposal–Proliferation-resistance
World Nuclear Expansion: U.S. Role
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
EgyptFrance
IsraelLithuania
Czech RepublicSlovakiaVietnamTurkey
IndonesiaUSA
BrazilSouth Africa
BulgariaUkraine
South KoreaArgentina
FinlandPakistanRomania
North KoreaIran
JapanTaiwan
ChinaRussia
India
Under Construction
Planned and Approved
Under Consideration
7
Nuclear Power Projection to 2030
8
In the U.S.
Nuclear Incentives in 2006 Energy Bill Licensing streamlined “Insurance” against regulatory delays Cost sharing for First-of-a-Kind costs
Restricted activity days 4751 4976 12248 1446 314 1977 90
Days with bronchodilator usage
1303 1365 3361 397 86 543 25
Cough days in asthmatics 1492 1562 3846 454 98 621 28
Respiratory symptoms in asthmatics
693 726 1786 211 45 288 13
Chronic bronchitis in children 115 135 333 39 11 54 2.4
Chronic cough in children 148 174 428 51 14 69 3.2
Nonfatal cancer 2.4
*Kerwitt et al., “Risk Analysis” Vol. 18, No. 4 (1998).
26
Costs
AREVA, GE, Westinghouse all claim costs of electricity about 4¢/kw-hr for a new plant after First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) costs recovered and after building a few.
AREVA Finnish plant costs $1800/kw which implies capital cost of about 2¢/kw-hr (30 yr @ 7%).
“Regulatory Risk” a concern addressed in 2006 Energy Bill.
27
Waste Treatment Costs
Federal Government is responsible for spent fuel.
0.1¢/kw-hr built into cost of nuclear electricity now.
Review of Yucca Mt. costs say 0.1¢/kw-hr still about right.
Opponents of reprocessing say Actinide fuel costs about twice that of fresh U(235) fuel (correct).
Supporters of Reprocessing say cost of electricity increase by about 5%; in the noise (also correct).
28
Cost (Continued)
At Today’s Interest Rates & Treatment of Externalities:Nuclear is competitive with coal.Cheaper than gas.
Cost Including Reprocessing and Actinide Burning Not Yet KnownReprocessing and fuel fabrication will cost more than
French MOX (radioactive fuel).Fast spectrum burners will cost more /kw-hr than
LWRs. Number needed per LWR uncertain.Repository will cost less than Yucca Mountain.
Will Take 20 Years To Do All the R&D.
29
Cost (Continued)
If Externalities are Included, Nuclear Will be the WinnerCO2 sequestration 2-3¢/kw-hr for coal and
1-1.5¢/kw-hr for gas.Wind about equal to coal now, but get 1.6¢/kw
hr tax credit.If Supplier States – User States Model
Works, Proliferation Risk Will be Greatly Reduced and Smaller Countries Greatly Benefited.
30
Conclusion
Nuclear is Growing Fast in Rest of World.
Nuclear is Probably Restarting in U.S.
Spent Fuel Problem Can be Solved.
GNEP is an Important Step for U.S. Nuclear Energy and for Significant Greenhouse Gas Reduction.