Nuclear power

Titit Nuklir Iklim, ekonomi & keamanan energi. Case Finlandia. Lauri Myllyvirta, Pelangi Tenaga Nuklir Iklim, ekonomi & keamanan energi. Case Finlandia. Lauri Myllyvirta, Pelangi Nuclear power Climate, economics & energy security. Case Finland. Lauri Myllyvirta, Pelangi Alasan-alasan • • • • • • Cheap nuclear? Nuclear solution to climate change? Nuclear security of supply? Who wants nukes and why? The debate in Finland Campaigning ideas Economics of nuclear • O&M costs very low (around 1520 USD/MWh) • High upfront costs and long lead time tend to be prohibitive in competitive markets (>high cost of capital) • Overall economics sensitive to liability of operators, degree of market liberalization and subsidies What’s ‘cheap’ nuclear made of? • Historic and current subsidies • Non-competitive&distorted markets • No or inadequate liability for – Accidents – Decommissioning & waste – Huge grid investments – Adjustment & backup power Historic subsidies • R&D and building of nuclear entirely publicly funded – In the US and EU15 $500-1000 bln • Protected and distorted market, de facto monopoly in many countries • Grid investments etc. paid by all consumers Ongoing subsidies • Tax breaks, direct public spending • E.g. US $0.6 bln/yr, EU15 $2.2 bln/yr • Export credits, cheap loans • Case Finland investigated by EC as illegal public subsidy • Decomm costs borne by governments • E.g. UK plans to pay up to $6 bln • EU25 might face liabilities up to $600 bln from existing plants Nuclear climate mitigation? • Mature, commercial technology • Life cycle emissions lower than some RES • Large centralized units, fits the present centralized markets & investment schemes • Baseload power Theoretic potential • Currently 17 % of world‟s electricity, 4 % of final energy • Produces only baseload electricity • Estimated resources (up to 5 times current price) of uranium last 70 years at current consumption • Nuclear renaissance would quickly deplete cheap uranium Theoretic potential • What if you replace ½ of world‟s fossilfueled electricity generation by nuclear, other things equal? – Capacity triples – Construction rate must grow more than 10fold to achieve by 2050 – Cut world GHGs by 9% – Cut world energy sector CO2 by 16% Drawbacks: Rebound • Large unit with low operation costs – Decreases incentive for conservation – Often leads to promoting wasteful energy use, e.g. electric heating Drawbacks: Adjustment power • Economics of nuclear require running plants continuously, irrespective of variations in consumption • Requires adjustment power with low upfront&fixed costs, “spinning reserve” – lock-in to fossils – In Finnish scenarios new nuke increased coal use… Drawbacks: New technologies • Large unit increases uncertainty in the market and hampers demand of new technologies – Market interest in RES plummeted in Finland after NPP decision • Nuclear is usually a political alternative to demand-side measures, RES and responsible energy&climate policy Drawbacks: Centralized • Deployment of new energy technologies requires decentralized and competitive energy markets • Nuclear easily maintains centralization and delays market reforms Nuclear mitigation - conclusion • Could probably be used as a part of a portfolio to cut GHG emissions • Strong measures would be needed to tackle negative impacts and prevent lock-ins – Taxes, energy market regulation, feedin/generation portfolio laws, soft support measures for new technologies – Not likely to happen, no scenario where nukes would lead to sustainable emission levels has been presented Watch out… Nuclear security of supply? + Fuel price risk low, fuel easy to store + Fuel less centralized than fossils, in more stable countries + Good track record in some countries Nuclear security of supply? – Centralization, vulnerability to grid/plant failure – Limited fuel resources – Long lead time, not responsive to changes in demand – Usually a political alternative to more efficient and sustainable solutions Who wants nukes and why? • Big power companies – DG and efficiency hard to cash in on • Old philosophy and approaches hard to abandon • Individual users and small dynamic companies tend to take over • Energy-intensive industries – Avoid competition for electricity Who wants nukes and why? • Everyone opposed to free&decentralized energy market • Attitudes – „big is beautiful‟ • Nuclear industry – Operators can always count on public subsidies – Desperate for contracts – cheap bids available Debate in Finland - Industry tactics • Use pleasant and skilled female spokespersons • Capitalize on climate change & energy security concerns – „Nuclear is the only realistic way to reduce GHG emissions‟ • Widely held belief, no. 1 obstacle in Finnish climate discussion Industry tactics • Restrict choices to „fossils or nuclear‟ • „RES and nuclear can live side by side‟ • Win the waste debate first Finnish debate - Counterarguments • Renewables&efficiency – How to demonstrate feasibility? • Adverse impacts on climate&energy policy, especially RES and efficiency – Very technical argument • Safety, proliferation, waste… • International reputation… Why was the debate lost? • Failure to engage like-minded experts and businesses • NGOs tried to assume an expert role • Not credible • Moral&emotional arguments were forgot • Lacking differentiation of roles of NGOs • Public fears about nuclear were heavily and even dishonestly exploited in earlier debates Campaigning ideas • Chernobyl • “Don‟t think about a nuclear accident in Finland” • “This train is operated with the excellent precision and skill of GOI. Would you like us to operate a dangerous, high-tech nuclear plant in your hometown?” Campaigning ideas • Waste • Liability for waste&decomm, mandatory insurance, no subsidies – Can turn nuclear into a non-issue • Engage local people – In Finland targeted heavily by companies and the government Terima kasih atas tidak tidur selama presentasi! Lauri Myllyvirta