I think this is the best graphic on energy I have ever seen. It compares the CO2 displaced by using a particular technology based on per dollar spent on delivering the electricity.
Basically, the higher the bar the better it is and end use efficiency has the most gains of all.
Source: E09-01, Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? (Download – PDF)
I have been writing on nuclear energy on this blog and have quoted Stewart Brand. I ran past this idea with Atanu Dey on why Amory Lovins from the Rocky Mountain Institute is against nuclear energy.
Atanu’s response was that as long as the full life cycle costs are taken into consideration and nuclear energy is cheaper than other forms of energy then we should go ahead with it. He provided me with a NPR newsstory of Lovins and Brand debating on this.
Lovins wrote an article on Grist.org claiming that nuclear is not cost-competitive compared to energy efficiency and micro power. Lovins does not even talk about the safety issues because since it is not competitive to other forms of energy than there is no need to go to the next step.
The world in 2008 invested more in renewable power than in fossil-fueled power. Why? Because renewables are cheaper, faster, vaster, equally or more carbon-free, and more attractive to investors. Worldwide, distributed renewables in 2008 added 40 billion watts and got $100 billion of private investment; nuclear added and got zero, despite its far larger subsidies and generally stronger government support. From August 2005 to August 2008, with new subsidies equivalent to 100+% of construction cost and with the most robust nuclear politics and capital markets in history, the 33 proposed U.S. nuclear projects got not a cent of private equity investment.
Nonetheless, Stewart rejects all non-nuclear options, for four fallacious reasons:
Baseload: Wind and photovoltaics can’t keep the lights on because they can’t run 24/7.
Footprint: Photovoltaics need about 150-175 times, and wind farms from 600+ to nearly 900 times, more land than nuclear power to produce the same electricity.
Portfolio: We need every tool for combating climate change, including nuclear power.
Government role: The climate imperative trumps economics, so governments everywhere must and will do what France did—ensure that nuclear power gets built, regardless of economics or dissent.I believe each claim is unsupportable
From LightBucket:
ExternE’s definition of external costs:
An external cost, also known as an externality, arises when the social or economic activities of one group of persons have an impact on another group and when that impact is not fully accounted, or compensated for, by the first group.
External Costs, ExternE, 2003 [1]
The ExternE project considered seven types of damage in its valuation of external costs:
The impacts range from human mortality effects – cancers, accidents, reduced life expectancy – to amenity losses from noise exposure.
The external costs were calculated using an “impact pathway assessment”:
Impact pathway assessment is a bottom-up-approach in which environmental benefits and costs are estimated by following the pathway from source emissions via quality changes of air, soil and water to physical impacts, before being expressed in monetary benefits and costs.
External Costs, ExternE, 2003 [1]
ExternE certainly doesn’t claim to be the last word on external costs of energy, but it is among the most detailed and comprehensive analyses to date.
The results for electricity generation are summarised in the ExternE brochure “External Costs” [1], and more detail is available in the “National Implementation” document [2].
Fifteen countries and nine electricity generating technologies were studied. Table 1 has the summarised results for the external costs by country and by electricity technology. The external costs are expressed in euro cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated.
| Country | Coal &
lignite |
Peat | Oil | Gas | Nuclear | Biomass | Hydro | PV | Wind |
| € cent per kWhe (a) | |||||||||
| Austria | - | - | - | 1–3 | - | 2–3 | 0.1 | - | - |
| Belgium | 4–15 | - | - | 1–2 | 0.5 | - | - | - | - |
| Denmark | 4–7 | - | - | 2–3 | - | 1 | - | - | 0.1 |
| Finland | 2–4 | 2–5 | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - |
| France | 7–10 | - | 8–11 | 2–4 | 0.3 | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Germany | 3–6 | - | 5–8 | 1–2 | 0.2 | 3 | - | 0.6 | 0.05 |
| Greece | 5–8 | - | 3–5 | 1 | - | 0–0.8 | 1 | - | 0.25 |
| Ireland | 6–8 | 3–4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Italy | - | - | 3–6 | 2–3 | - | - | 0.3 | - | - |
| Netherlands | 3–4 | - | - | 1–2 | 0.7 | 0.5 | - | - | - |
| Norway | - | - | - | 1–2 | - | 0.2 | 0.2 | - | 0–0.25 |
| Portugal | 4–7 | - | - | 1–2 | - | 1–2 | 0.03 | - | - |
| Spain | 5–8 | - | - | 1–2 | - | 3–5 (b) | - | - | 0.2 |
| Sweden | 2–4 | - | - | - | - | 0.3 | 0–0.7 | - | - |
| U.K. | 4–7 | - | 3–5 | 1–2 | 0.25 | 1 | - | - | 0.15 |
| Data are from ref. [1].
The countries listed are the EU15 except Luxembourg, with Norway also included. Units of external costs are € cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity. External costs that exceed the UK domestic electricity price in 2003 are highlighted . Notes: (a) Sub-total of quantifiable externalities (such as global warming, public health, occupational health, material damage). (b) Biomass co-fired with lignites. |
|||||||||
What do the numbers show? There’s a significant spread in the country-to-country figures, but overall coal and oil have the highest external costs, and wind has the lowest external costs. Nuclear and solar PV have roughly similar external costs, with nuclear slightly lower, and both are lower than biomass and gas. The hydro figures have a thirty-fold spread between the highest and lowest values, reflecting the very site-specific nature of the impacts from hydropower.
Stewart Brand in the his new book:
To my mind, the Green path forward begins with environmentalists realizing that nuclear power will grow no matter what we do. Our customary opposition would make it grow badly – slowly, expensively, unsystemically, and with dangerously poor overall coordination. But if we encourage it in the right way, nuclear energy growing well would mean that it minimizes humanity’s carbon-loading of the atmosphere; that it collaborates well with other carbon-free or superefficient energy forms; that it helps generate other Green services such as desalination or hydrogen . . . that it helps eliminate nuclear weapons; that it securely energizes cities and thereby helps to reduce world poverty . . .
via NEI Nuclear Notes: Stewart Brand’s “Whole Earth Discipline”.
In his lecture at the Longnow Foundation (from Fora.tv) he explains how slum dwellers in Dharavi, Mumbai, India are the greenest people on earth who live on very less energy and resources and recycle everything. However, this is possible because they are some of the poorest people on earth. And, they do not want to be like that.
From one of his TED talks
Here is the biggest paradigm that the developed world does not want to understand.
You cannot be rich without abundant and cheap energy.
How do you become rich and have low per-capita emissions? – Nuclear Energy, Geothermal and Hydro.
LightBucket has some fantastic analysis in this regard.
Table 1 shows the energy mix and carbon emissions data for the so-called “developed regions” as defined by the UN Statistics Division [1]. I’ve highlighted some of the stand-out numbers, both highest and lowest, and I’ll discuss these below.
Table 1. Energy mix, energy use and CO2 emissions by GDP and by population Country Energy Mix Power/ Capita
CO2/GDP CO2/Capita fossil nuclear renew- ables
other kW/capita tonnes CO2/ US$10000
tonnes CO2/ capita
Luxembourg 92% 0% 2% 6% 13.9 3.4 26.5 United States [6] 86% 8% 6% 0% 10.5 5.2 20.4 Australia [7] 97% 0% 3% 0% 7.9 5.1 19.0 Canada [8] 67% 7% 25% 0% 11.2 6.4 18.5 Estonia 87% 0% 10% 3% 5.0 16.3 14.3 Finland 59% 16% 23% 2% 8.9 3.5 13.2 Czech Republic 79% 15% 3% 3% 5.9 10.8 12.5 Belgium 75% 22% 2% 1% 7.2 2.8 12.2 Ireland 97% 0% 2% 1% 4.9 2.3 11.1 Netherlands 94% 1% 3% 2% 6.7 2.4 11.1 Germany 84% 12% 4% 0% 5.5 2.9 10.7 Denmark 85% 0% 14% 1% 4.8 2.2 10.2 Japan [9] 83% 12% 5% 0% 5.5 2.7 10.1 Greece 94% 0% 5% 1% 3.7 3.7 10.0 Norway [10] 37% 0% 60% 0% 9.2 3.4 9.6 Austria 77% 0% 21% 2% 5.5 2.4 9.4 United Kingdom 89% 9% 2% 0% 5.2 2.7 9.4 Italy 90% 0% 7% 3% 4.2 2.6 8.5 New Zealand [11] 71% 0% 29% 0% 5.5 3.2 8.4 Poland 95% 0% 5% 0% 3.2 12.2 8.3 Spain 82% 12% 6% 0% 4.4 3.2 8.3 Slovenia 69% 19% 11% 1% 4.9 5.0 8.2 Slovakia 72% 23% 4% 1% 4.6 8.6 7.9 Iceland [12] 28% 0% 73% 0% 16.3 1.7 7.8 France 52% 40% 6% 2% 5.8 1.9 6.9 Bulgaria 71% 22% 5% 2% 3.4 17.5 6.8 Portugal 83% 0% 15% 2% 3.4 3.3 6.3 Sweden 37% 37% 26% 0% 7.7 1.5 6.2 Switzerland [13] 63% 24% 13% 0% 4.8 1.1 6.1 Hungary 81% 12% 4% 3% 3.7 5.6 5.9 Romania 84% 4% 12% 0% 2.3 12.0 5.4 Lithuania 50% 37% 7% 6% 3.3 5.9 3.9 Latvia 60% 0% 36% 4% 2.7 5.2 3.2 World Mean [14] 87% 6% 6% 1% 2.4 5.6 4.0 Data are sorted by descending order of CO2 emissions per capita; Units of CO2/GDP are metric tons of CO2 per US$10,000 of GDP;
Units of CO2/Capita are metric tons of CO2 per capita per annum;
Units of Power/Capita are kilowatts per capita. Power refers to Total Primary Energy Supply;
There are small rounding errors in some of the percentages;
Data are for 2004 except where noted;
Data are for “developed regions” as defined by the UN Statistics Division;
CO2/capita data are from ref [1];
CO2/GDP data are calculated from refs [2] and [3];
Power/Capita data are from ref [4];
Energy mix data for EU nations are from ref [5];
Remaining energy mix data are from refs [6] to [14], and are noted in the table.
What do these numbers show?
Four developed countries have emissions intensities below 2 tonnes-CO2 per US$10,000 of GDP. They are France, Iceland, Sweden and Switzerland. These are working models of low-emissions, high-income industrialised economies. How do they do it?
Iceland has the highest per capita energy consumption of any country (it’s the cold winters), so one might expect it to have high carbon emissions, yet it is among the very lowest carbon emitters – how? It’s thanks to its very large geothermal and hydroelectric resources, sufficient for its small population. Iceland’s energy mix has the highest fraction of renewables of any country (geothermal 56.0%, hydroelectric 16.6%) [12], giving it the lowest emissions intensity of any “developed region” nation that doesn’t use nuclear power.
France has the highest nuclear fraction at 40% – about 80% of its electricity is nuclear-fuelled – and Sweden is close behind with 37% nuclear energy. Sweden’s mix of hydroelectric and nuclear power, and France’s heavy use of nuclear power, give both of them very low emissions by population and by GDP.
The best performer of all by emissions intensity is Switzerland.
Switzerland has by far the lowest CO2 emissions per unit GDP of any developed nation, and the third lowest emissions/GDP ratio of any nation at all (only Chad and Cambodia have lower emissions intensities). This isn’t just down to its very high GDP; Switzerland also has the lowest per capita CO2 emissions of the western economies (four eastern European nations have lower per capita emissions).
How does Switzerland do it? It is a very wealthy nation, which certainly explains one side of the emissions-to-GDP ratio, but that doesn’t explain the emissions per capita ratio, which is also among the very lowest. Its electricity generation is almost entirely hydroelectric and nuclear. These are the two low-carbon energy sources available in quantity. Coal use is confined to two specific industries, foundries and cement factories [15]. These are the factors that combine to deliver Switzerland’s very low emissions figures.
At the other extreme, the U.S. stands out as a poor performer in every respect. It’s not just that its per capita emissions are the second highest of all (after Luxembourg), it also performs poorly on the economic measure of emissions intensity. Also noteworthy are Australia and Ireland, two economies almost entirely reliant on fossil fuels. Ireland has high per capita emissions despite low energy use, while Australia combines a high-carbon energy mix with high energy use to end up with the third highest per capita emissions of all. Given its low population density and natural advantages, it’s an extraordinary position to be in.
Robert Gottliebsen in Business Spectator:
While much of the rest of the world embraces nuclear technology as part of a mix of measures to reduce carbon emissions, Australia stands virtually alone among the majors in turning its back on the nuclear options while at the same time supplying most of the other nations with uranium.
But I don’t think Penny Wong will need to be reminded by the Chinese of Australia’s odd position because, as I will explain below, there is a dramatic community change taking place.
I am indebted to The Australians contributing editor Peter Van Onselen for explaining what actually happened at the Bali carbon conference and reminding me that 19 of the G20 countries have nuclear power in their energy mix or are planning the construction of reactors. There is only one G20 country that turns its back on the nuclear option – Australia.
I have been saying this for more than 18 months now that if Australia is serious about carbon than nuclear is the way to go. With Australian’s only ready to pay about $10 a month more on energy and no other base load solution comes near nuclear right now this is the way to go.
I think the Australian public will change their mind in the next couple of years.
Climate change opinion changing
In 2006, 68% of Australians said ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’. Since then support for this position has dropped by 20 points with 48% of Australians now feeling this way, while support for the more intermediate response ‘we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost’ has risen.Our poll last year asked people about their willingness to pay to help solve climate change. We found (see chart below) that most people were only prepared to pay $10 or less a month extra on their electricity bill if it would help solve climate change. Not that much.
Ceramic Fuel Cells has developed a small $6,000 home generator that has an 85 per cent power/heat conversion rate. A normal large power station has a 40 per cent power conversion rate. Ceramic’s high conversion figures have fascinated a whole range of European and Japanese power utilities who can see that the units can slash greenhouse emissions and halve the amount of gas required to generate home/office electricity and heating. And as the energy is produced in the home or office there is no transmission waste, although surplus electricity can be sold back to the grid.
via Small but powerful – Robert Gottliebsen – News – Business Spectator.
Meanwhile, our major trading partner, China, looks like showing Australians (and Copenhagen) what is needed to reduce carbon emissions. The New York Times reports that although China took over from the US as the main carbon emitter in 2007, China has approached carbon reduction using a three pronged attack and it’s starting to show results.
The first prong of the China carbon reduction plan is to use nuclear energy. On the basis of current technology, including waste management, nuclear is an attractive option which is why the world wants our uranium. Australia sells the world huge tonnages of uranium, but we don’t use it ourselves to cut carbon. The popular Australian jokes in Asia haven’t cottoned onto this yet but they will.
China is also going all out for wind generation. In this area Australia is on the same path. And thirdly China is really working on making itself more energy efficient.
Australia (and the US) can reduce carbon emissions quickly via coal gas but because carbon reduction has degenerated into an political play-thing we have not taken clear steps.
And Europe has discovered the carbon reduction advantages of Ceramic Fuel’s household generators, which are based on gas. Again, Australia sticks to the same old rhetoric.
What we are looking to do is introduce what Geoff Carmody describes as a “GST from hell”. We plan to make exporters buy carbon permits which are simply a tax and we will allow imports in without taxation.
via China is winning the emissions race – Robert Gottliebsen – News – Business Spectator.
