Zero Carbon Options: Report launch
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like811 views
The document explores the potential for a fully decarbonized, energy-rich world and examines options for replacing coal power stations in Australia with renewable and nuclear solutions. It compares the costs, greenhouse gas emissions, lifespan, and resource requirements of renewable energy sources (solar, wind) versus nuclear power, concluding that nuclear could provide more reliable and cheaper energy with less environmental impact. Ultimately, it questions whether Australia is prepared to adopt nuclear energy as a viable option for its energy future.
Zero Carbon Options: Report launch
- 2. There is good news A fully decarbonised, energy rich world is in reach... Power, water, food and development for a world of 10 billion – plus means to protect, maintain and restore a bio-rich planet
- 3. But we have serious policy problems Australia forms strategy based on this graph
- 4. The problem actually looks like this • Greenhouse gas accumulates • Temperature forcing builds • Tipping points are real GHG accumulation from Australian electricity sector 1990-2010 (Adapted from AGEIS data) 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 Carbon Budget tCO2-e 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0
- 5. The pathway matters as much as the destination Nuclear mimics fossil – but without the GHG But nuclear power is prohibited in Australia Selecting “No” delivers an inferior result Would this be clear in a comparative energy case study?
- 6. Zero Carbon Options: The Task • Replace coal power stations at Pt Augusta: Northern and Playford – 740 MW – Responsible for over 5 million tCO2-e every year – 4,650 GWhs per year (Fully dispatchable i.e. available whenever it is wanted)
- 7. Option 1: Reference Renewable Solution – Solar and Wind Hybrid Energy Source Technology Generation Assumed Annual Rating Generation Solar Concentrating Solar Thermal Six modules 2,810 GWh total (CST) power towers with 760 MW total heliostat mirror fields and molten salt energy storage Wind Enercon E-126 turbines 95 turbines at 1,840 GWh total 7.5 MW each for 712.5 MW Source: BZE 2012
- 8. Option 2: Reference Nuclear Solution Energy Source Technology Generation Rating Nuclear 1 x Enhanced CANDU 6 (EC6) 1 module at 690 pressurised heavy water reactor MWe net Source: ThinkClimate Consulting and Bown and Pang 2012 Two CANDU 6 reactors at Qinshan, China
- 9. The Criteria Financial/ Economic $ • Capital cost • Levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) • Requirement for transmission network upgrade • Lifespan • Capacity factor • Reliability Environmental • Greenhouse gas emissions abatement • Water consumption • Land area • Major construction material requirements • Operational waste Social • Job creation
- 10. Capital Cost •No capital cost provided in reference renewable solution •“Requirement for $5 billion in public funding for 25% balance of financing” for the solar component (BZE 2012) •Low range estimate of $2,000 per kW installed for onshore wind in South Australia •Nuclear: three sources for potential costs up to 2030 •Highly inclusive cost •$5,000 - $7,000 per kW net generation capacity Criteria Renewable Renewable Renewable: Nuclear EC6 Solar CST Wind Combined Capital Cost $6.7 billion $1.4 billion $8.1 billion $3.5 billion - $4.8 billion
- 11. Levelised cost of electricity Criteria Renewable Renewable Renewable: Nuclear EC6 Solar CST Wind Combined LCOE $250-$300/ $90-$110 MWh - $101-$138 MWh
- 12. Greenhouse gas emissions abatement Criteria Renewable Renewable Renewable: Nuclear EC6 Solar CST Wind Combined GHG - - 2 million – 5 million 5.36 million Abatement tCO2-e/year tCO2-e/year
- 13. Lifespan CST: Low global experience Collection and storage components may differ to generation components Wind: Significant global experience and confident ratings Nuclear: Significant global experience. Specific rating for EC6 Criteria Renewable Renewable Renewable: Nuclear EC6 Solar CST Wind Combined Lifespan Assumed 25 25 years - Rated 60 years years
- 14. Operational Waste Essentially zero for reference renewable solution Reference nuclear solution generates spent nuclear fuel Single EC6 generates 104 t spent fuel per year Stored on-site in MACSTOR
- 15. Operational Waste Criteria Renewable Renewable Renewable: Nuclear EC6 Solar CST Wind Combined Operational - - - 6,250 t spent Waste fuel, MACSTOR over 9,500 m2
- 16. Future Fuel in Fast Reactor GEH S-PRISM 311 MWe IFR module “Study finds waste-fuelled reactor feasible for UK The report includes a vote of confidence by analysts DBD Ltd, which says that in terms of fuel fabrication, reactor operation, and fuel storage, there are "no fundamental impediments" to licensability in the UK. July 2012
- 17. Land Use 1,360 MWe Nuclear, Qinshan China 350 MWe solar, USA (SEGS) Criteria Renewable Renewable Renewable: Nuclear EC6 Solar CST Wind Combined Land area 16 km2 2.1 km2 18.1 km2 2 km2 exclusive exclusive exclusive, 175 exclusive, 191 km2 non- km2 non- exclusive exclusive
- 18. Water Consumption No water Clean water for mirror washing Ocean water for cooling Criteria Renewable Renewable Renewable: Nuclear EC6 Solar CST Wind Combined Water use 0.74 GL fresh - 0.74 GL fresh -
- 19. Material Inputs Technology Comment Confidence CST Heliostats only, no towers Fair. Certain underestimate Wind Good general literature, not specific to Good Enercon turbine Nuclear Detailed, extensive estimates for CANDU6 Excellent
- 20. Material Inputs Criteria Renewable Renewable Renewable: Nuclear EC6 Solar CST Wind Combined Material Inputs 295,000 t steel 80,000 t steel 375,000 t steel 600,000 t concrete 90,000 t glass 300,000 t concrete 85,000 t glass 35,000 t steel 290,000 t concrete 590,000 t concrete Lifespan Assumed 25 years 25 years Rated 60 years Annual output 2,810 GWh 1,840 GWh 4,650 GWh Up to 5,400 GWh per year Lifetime 70,250 GWh 46,000 GWh 116,250 GWh Up to 324,000 GWh output For a significant materials saving, the nuclear reference solution delivers nearly three times the lifetime output of zero -carbon electricity AP1000 construction USA
- 21. Capacity Factors Ratio of maximum potential rated output and actual electricity output e.g. Maximum potential rated output of 7.5 MW wind turbine in 1 year is: 7.5 MW x 24 x 365 = 65,700 MWh If actual output = 21,900 MWh CF = 21,900/65,700 CF= 0.33 (33%) CF speaks to overall variability and intermittency of output, but DOES NOT mean “it only runs 33% of the time” Criteria Renewable Renewable Renewable: Nuclear EC6 Solar CST Wind Combined Capacity Factor 40% 30% - Assumed 85%, rated to 90%
- 22. Reliability + ≠ = - CO2-e Criteria Renewable Renewable Renewable: Nuclear EC6 Solar CST Wind Combined Reliability Diminished compared Un-diminished to fossil compared to fossil
- 23. Job Creation Both solutions provide a good job-creation outcome Criteria Renewable Solar CST Renewable Renewable: Nuclear EC6 Wind Combined Job creation 360 direct - - 1,600 construction jobs permanent and up to 520 ongoing operations and operational onsite, maintenance jobs; offsite and contractor Approximately 1,300 employment construction jobs opportunities
- 24. Network Enhancement Criteria Renewable Renewable Renewable: Combined Nuclear EC6 Solar CST Wind Network - Minimal enhancement Minimal enhancement enhancement for project connection, for local connection. enhancement for larger Connection barrier based renewable pathway on size of single generating unit
- 25. Existing global and local capacity Nuclear: Nationally significant Globally manageable, technologically unremarkable Solar CST: Largest single facility in the world (by far) 76 times bigger than largest Australian solar Wind: 58% increase in wind capacity in South Australia Operable GWe Reactors GWe On order or GWe Reactors under planned construction 433 372 65 65 158 175 Source: World Nuclear Association 2012 World’s largest solar, 350 MW (no storage)
- 26. We have options This option could mean: •10% more greenhouse gas abatement per year...
- 27. We have options This option could mean: •For about half the capital cost...
- 28. We have options This option could mean: •Providing significantly cheaper electricity...
- 29. We have options This option could mean: •That is completely reliable...
- 30. We have options This option could mean: •Consuming far less land area...
- 31. We have options This option could mean: •And no fresh water...
- 32. We have options This option could mean: •Requiring less material resources to build...
- 33. We have options This option could mean: •With over double the lifespan...
- 34. We have options This option could mean: •That uses our local fuel source...
- 35. We have options This option could mean: •And provides high-tech jobs...
- 36. We have options This option could mean: •Deploying commercially mature technology
- 37. We have options This option could mean: •10% more greenhouse gas abatement per year... •For about half the capital cost... •Providing significantly cheaper electricity... •That is completely reliable... •Consuming far less land area... •And no fresh water... •Requiring less material resources to build... •With over double the lifespan... •That uses our local fuel source... •And provides high-tech jobs... •Deploying commercially mature technology Are we ready to put this option on the table?
Editor's Notes
- #3: You may need more detail on how I have reached these numbers, and I am happy to provide the references.
- #4: You may need more detail on how I have reached these numbers, and I am happy to provide the references.
- #5: You may need more detail on how I have reached these numbers, and I am happy to provide the references.
- #6: You may need more detail on how I have reached these numbers, and I am happy to provide the references.