NITTY-GRITTY OF EMISSIONS: The International Energy Agency figures that a major investment in new electricity generation from renewable resources, particularly wind power, is part of how nations could collectively achieve an atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gas of no more than 450 ppm
Image: David Biello
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
COPENHAGEN—Revolutionizing the energy industry to achieve a target concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) would require building 17 nuclear power plants a year between now and 2030; 17,000 wind turbines a year; or two hydropower dams on the scale of Three Gorges Dam in China, according to the International Energy Agency. Such an effort would require an investment of $10.5 trillion during the next 20 years but would ultimately yield savings of $8.6 trillion, the IEA estimated.
At present, concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached 387 ppm and are rising fast, with some two ppm added per annum. In order to slow and ultimately halt such increases—while also accommodating economic growth, particularly in the developing world—non–carbon-emitting power sources, such as wind and nuclear, will need to be added in ever-increasing numbers. Presently, announced commitments for CO2-emission cuts from the various nations of the globe, particularly those form the developed countries grouped in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are more likely to deliver greenhouse gas concentrations of 550 ppm, says IEA executive director, Nobuo Tanaka. "This is about a 3-degree [Celsius] average temperature rise by the end of the century."
"The majority of [greenhouse gas emission] reductions should happen in non-OECD countries; the opportunity is there, but it doesn't say who pays for that," Tanaka said here Monday at a press conference. To achieve 450 ppm "in 2030, we need 13.8 [billion metric tons] of reductions." Large reductions are needed in OECD nations, too, but more cost-effective reductions can be made in non-OECD countries.
But global energy use is set to fall in 2009 for the first time since 1981 as a result of the global economic crisis, reducing the need for emission reductions by a full two billion metric tons, according to the IEA. "This is a window of opportunity if [the Copenhagen conference] sets out ambitious targets and achieves it," Tanaka says.
Without new policies, the IEA predicts energy use will begin to grow again within a few years, increasing by 40 percent by 2030 (paired with a 40 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions). The bulk of that increase (77 percent) will still come from fossil fuels as well being driven primarily (93 percent) by growth in developing countries, such as China and India.
To achieve 450 ppm, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere associated with a 2-degree Celsius rise in global average temperatures (a target advocated by the European Union), the "aggregate of fossil-fuel demand will peak out in 2020," Tanaka says. "Coal should decline or peak out much earlier," including the shutting down of some coal-fired power plants before the end of their useful lifetimes.
Yet, even in that scenario, oil and natural gas use would continue to rise, with increased production largely coming from OPEC countries, in the IEA's opinion. "As a whole, still in 2030 [under the 450-ppm scenario] dependency on fossil fuels is about 67 percent," Tanaka says. "Currently it's about 82 percent."
This would still require a major investment in new electricity generation from renewable resources, particularly wind power because it is a well-established and relatively cheap technology. "For every $100 that goes into electricity, $72 must go into renewables, in which wind plays the most important role, " IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol says.
Of course, such an investment in wind also means a major investment in improving the grid in countries and regions such as the U.S. and E.U. in order to cope with electricity generation that fluctuates, such as with wind power. Turbine manufacturers, such as Vestas of Denmark, General Electric of the U.S., and Suzlon of India have had maintenance issues with gearboxes and other mechanical parts. And it would be challenging to produce the amount of wind turbines required. "The industry is not ready today," says Tanti Tulsi, Suzlon CEO, although he also notes that part of that is difficulties in securing permits as well as a lack of grid investment and available funds. "The industry can deliver but the whole system has to work together."
Already, however, wind is the largest share of new installed electricity generation capacity in the U.S. and E.U., according to the Global Wind Energy Council. "We are installing a wind turbine every three hours, 24/7," adds Michael Zarin, Vestas director of government relations. "There's nothing alternative about wind energy anymore."
"Ten to 15 years ago, if you said in 2008 that there'd be more new investment in renewables than in fossil fuels or nuclear, they'd laugh at you," says Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Programme. "But that is indeed what happened in that year."
A single nuclear power plant takes at least 10 years to build in the U.S., says Paul Genoa, director of policy development for the Nuclear Energy Institute. But there are currently 53 new nuclear reactors under construction or planned around the globe for 2020, capable of producing 42 gigawatts of electricity. "We need 96 gigawatts of new nuclear, or 69 plants, to meet [U.S. CO2-reduction legislation] commitments based on [Energy Information Administration] analysis," Genoa says. That goal would make of U.S. electricity generation 33 percent nuclear.
Energy efficiency could deliver a full half of the needed reductions but "even the best countries are not capturing more than 60 percent of our energy-efficiency recommendations," IEA's Tanaka says. "We are likely to miss one fifth of the mitigation potential."
With some signs of progress, such as the global boom in renewable energy, the real issue becomes speed. "A renewable energy revolution is underway," says Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, "the only question is whether we can make it happen in time."
Moving slowly will only add to the eventual cost. "If we don't start now, the delay adds about $500 billion per year. This is the cost of inaction," Tanaka says. "There are many co-benefits: cost savings, energy security, lower pollution. A technology revolution is necessary."
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentAll of the "new energy" items listed are simple evolutionary developments beyond current energy production. They will happen with, or without,climate change - though perhaps a bit sooner with climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFailure to replace all all our fossil fuel use within ten years is likely to drive us right over the civilization ending climate/peak oil crisis.There is no renewable option that can and do it within our financial and industrial capacities - only nuclear. So called "renewables" are 10 times the cost of nuclear power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA worldwide investment in 10000 new nuclear reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use, eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives, end the global warming/peak oil problem with a 100% elimination of GHG's within a ten year time frame, is a great job producing economy boosting investment, requires only a small part of our industrial capacity, and pays for itself in less than three years.
www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/add-a-gigawatt-a-day-to-k_b_261728.html
Goggle Westinghouse china nuclear and you'll see that the real unsubsidized cost of building an American nuclear reactor is $1.2B/Gw cheaper than coal less than 10% the cost of any renewable. Service is due for 2013.
In 2004, AECL built two Candu reactors in three years in Quinshan China for $2B/Gw.
Mass produced reactor costs are expected to be less than $1B/Gw.
The US needs a $2500B nominal investment in nuclear power paid for by quickly weaning itself off its $1000B annual fossil fuel bill. Unfortunately we are crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames. Political action is needed.
Nuclear waste burning fuel efficient generation IV reactors like the IFR could power all the workds energy needs for hundreds of years on nuclear waste alone.
www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html
Canada's very efficient public power companies could help us out by rimming the border with their reactors making $trillions selling the US nuke power at premium rates.
Considering the costs and risks about nuclear wastes, wealth compensations, water-air & field controls and descontamination that must be paid by our taxes anyway I really doubt regarding nukes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand technological improvements and tquality management, not always followed, but absolutely needed
17 nuclear power stations and 17000 wind turbines are not particularly big numbers on a global scale. They are, however, big enough to give quite good economies of scale. In a nuclear power plant there are a large number of components that are required in large numbers so there is scope for real mass production. As for wind turbines these kind of numbers would support several high volume production lines comparable to the Liberty ship production in the second world war. With the right commitment, companies can build production facilities with the right level of automation. This would open up big opportunities for improved cost and reliable quality. We just need to get on with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe yearly production (and overall availability) of uranium is not enough for worldwide energy production. Currently we're already using up more Uranium than mines are currently producing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf reactors can be build using other fissile materials it may be possible.
Personally, I'm hoping IEC Fusion (Polywell) reactors will be proven to work (relatively) soon, which would allow everyone to build lots of, relatively small, boron burning reactors relatively quickly.
It is strange that the IEA did not take into consideration the reduction in CO1 and CO2 by replacing our fossil fuel vehicles with electric ones and replacing our carbon burning power plants with geothermal and solar power liquid salt plants. It takes, they said, ten years to build a nuclear power plant, but they did not say that it takes about one to two years to build a geothermal power plant. It takes billions of dollars to build a nuke plant, but it only takes millions of dollars to build a geothermal power plant. A nuke plant, if targeted, can devistate hundreds of miles for centures. A geothermal plant, if targeted, will only stop producing electricity. A nuke plant only picks up where coal, oil, and natural gas leaves off in land destruction and air, water, and land pollution. A geothermal plant, once it is built, is vertually pollution free and destroys nothing. Common sense, which no one seems to have much of anymore, dictates that the better, safer, and cheaper way to go would be the mass production of electric cars and other forms of electric transportation and geothermal power plants, and solar liquid salt power plants. It looks like it is difficult for Americans to take their minds away from the death, destruction, and war policies of the past Bush administration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe republicans, when alternative sources of energies are spoken of, complains that it is too expensive and where are you going to get the money, but when nuclear power, which is not an alternative source of clean energy, is spoken of, jumps on the banwagon, no matter how expensive, and does not care where or how you get the money...as long you do not get it from them.
This article seems very bias for the greedy and ignorant members of the conservative party.
Google altarock energy shuts down and you will see that aside existing from geysers and home heating, there is no hope geothermal can provide more than token amounts of energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReactor builds outside of the US show nuclear power is even lower cost than coal. Greenpeace's army of attorneys and Big Oil funded politicians are what makes it expensive in the US. Before Greenpeace and the Nuclear Rejection Commission nukes in the US were less than $1B/Gw (2009 dollars)
Gen IV reactors solve all nuclear waste and fuel supply issues.
The Gen IV IFR had an unequaled 30 year run at Idaho National Laboratory but it and a completed design for a 1 Gw power reactor was shelved by Bill Clinton and John Kerry in exchange for Big Oil campaign donations. IFR's at $1B/Gw could supply all the world's power for hundreds of years on existing nuclear waste.
The tiny amount of Nuclear waste from IFR's is same level as some high grade uranium deposits - put it back in the mine.
Check out the IFR
www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html
please read my balloon inside balloon theory of twin cyclic universes of matter and antimatter on opposite entropy path producing gravitoethertons at the common spherical boundary due to annihilation of matter and antimatter that which we perceive as gravity due to expansion of our universe and equal opposite reaction of negative pressure as gravity and DOC.6198 to understand global warming better where I also explained why sea temperature is rising . Sea temp . rise is being ignored and reason not discussed so far. After reading my thories only ,take decision steps accordingly. I want to go to copenhagen to assist the discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"would require building 17 nuclear power plants a year between now and 2030" - article
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat scale of production is quite doable and quite manageable but with a lead time of 15 years to the end of construction, you would have to double the rate of construction in order to get them all on line by the target date.
As a matter of comparison...
In total, for a world population of 15 billion running on nuclear power alone at U.S. rates of energy waste, the world would have to construct 200,000 nuclear reactors in total, and with a life expectancy of 100 years per reactor, continue this construction at a rate of 2,000 reactors per year.
In the short term we can afford to build more reactors. But only in the short term.
"please read my balloon inside balloon theory of twin cyclic universes" - Debu
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease you show us here, how your theory necessarily produces newtons equations of motion for relative motion at low velocities.
Are you taking into account the following subsidies:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. $61 billion on nuclear power research contributed by the Federal government.
2. $3 billion in yearly Federal government subsidies for insurance.
3. $2.9 billion loss to the Federal government for privatizing the US Enrichment Corporation.
3. $10 billion cost to clean up after USEC which the Feds are still on the hook for.
4. $340 million per year to cost to the Feds to reprocess fuel rods at Savannah River, Hanford, and winding down at Argonne.
5. $100 billion estimated cost to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.
6. $400 million cost to decommission a nuclear power plant.
7. $100 million in lost tax revenue to help subsidize the nuclear industry by lowering the corporate tax rate on the from 34% to 20%
8. $1 billion in fusion research provided by the Feds.
All in all, since 1945 the average yearly Federal government subsidy to the nuclear industry has been $7.1 billion
Of course every one of alty3 excerpts from Amory Lovins' has been thoroughly debunked. Read the comments following
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-13-stewart-brands-nuclear-enthusiasm-falls-short-on-facts-and-logic
Even if Lovins subsidy argument is correct, since we've paid the subsidies we can now enjoy the benefits.
On insurance - who insures the Hoover dam?
On power research, reprocessing, and fusion, he is using the nuclear weapons related data.
On decommissioning $400 million after 60 years of service has a present value of $10 million - peanuts.
His Yucca mountain comment shows he just doesn't know how to read - GenIV reactor's.
With Copenhagen's failure, we must adopt the nuclear power solution to the world's impeding warming/pollution/peak oil disaster.
The reality is that Deniers and Conservatives will get on board with nuclear - they will fight to the death on 10 times the cost "renewables". Greenies need to decide. Do they want to end civilization fighting the "renewable" battle or face their fears, get educated and embrace the nuclear solution.
A minimum of one reactor a day has to built worldwide.
The 1Gw Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactor Lifter can be factory mass produced build at a cost of $.5B/Gw or less than 1 cent a kwh. No new technology is needed - just allocate the money and build the thing. No nuclear waste is produced, it needs no containment vessel, it shuts itself down, and can run forever on thorium or nuclear waste. India with its limited means is pursuing the technology.
A very promising group of pulse fusion technologies are getting little or no support. Polywell, Focus Fusion and TriAlpha energy need research/prototype money and they are getting but a pittance.
Call your senator and congressmen and demand to know why they aren't funding these technologies and are wasting our resources on renewables.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Universal Solution of Climate Change The United World.
The United World.
Solution all in one.
Solution all in built.
Knowledgeable new born.
Flying lovers Copenhagen.
Roaming climate romance.
Curiously lost the track.
Open battle game war.
Traps/tricks counter act.
Wisdom voice back track.
How to open the heart?
Where, the natural love.
What some would say?
Lost that your mind.
Found free and fresh.
Memory access upgrade.
No hang up No disk crash.
Sectors arranged all intact.
No pressure no sugar.
Smartly moving graphs.
Revision Report short vision.
Simplicity too evident.
Complexity un-designed.
Sure insure yes we can.
Change the world even.
Climate lovers Copenhagen.
Climate lovers earth around.
Found the magic lamp.
Solution all in built.
Solution all in one.
The United World.
Best of luck,
Hari Kotadia