Nuclear versus Coal plus CCS Bob van der Zwaan (ECN and Columbia University) with Massimo Tavoni (FEEM and Princeton University) International Energy Workshop IEW 2009 Venice, Italy June 2009

2Jun-16 Outline I. Nuclear energy: renewed interest II. Coal plus CCS: high expectations III. Two competitive base-load options IV. Integrated assessment modeling V. Conclusions Tavoni, M., B.C.C. van der Zwaan, 2008, “Nuclear versus Coal plus CCS: A Comparison of Two Competitive Base-load Climate Control Options”, working paper.

3Jun-16 I. Nuclear energy and climate change Globally some 17% of electricity is produced by about 440 nuclear power plants totaling 370 GWe across over 30 countries. Today nuclear energy is reappearing on the political agenda of many countries, including those that do not have reactors. Among main reasons: it emits essentially no CO 2, even when considering the entire fuel cycle and power plant construction. Nuclear power is today the only non-carbon energy source that is deployed on a large scale and can still be significantly expanded.

4Jun-16 I. Other benefits Nuclear energy emits essentially no substances like SO 2, NO x, Hg and particulates. Even while it relies on limited uranium resources, use of nuclear energy can increase energy independency. There is a large nuclear energy infrastructure and industry that has accumulated five decades of operation experience.

5Jun-16 I. Nuclear power in Europe Nuclear power in Europe: 16 countries today produce nuclear energy domestically and 20 countries do not.

6Jun-16 I. Radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation, reactor accidents The problems related to these three intrinsic nuclear drawbacks are real, significant, and will never be solved entirely. Still, they are dynamic: they have evolved substantially over the past decades, and more progress can be made. The waste problem can be mitigated through e.g. lifetime reduction (transmutation) and regional disposal options (IMWRs). The proliferation problem can be reduced by new reactor types (Gen-IV) and expanded mandate of supranational means (IAEA). Accident risks can be reduced by use of passive safety features and reactor operation improvement and coordination.

7Jun-16 II. CCS benefits CO 2 Capture and Storage (CCS) is a promising climate mitigation option, based on known technology used extensively in industry. Main advantage is that it allows for the continued use of fossil fuels while curtailing emissions of CO 2. CCS is receiving lots of attention, from scientists, analysts and policy makers (IPCC, 2005).

8Jun-16 II. CCS implementation For at least a decade CCS has been seriously discussed, but no power plant has been fully equipped with CCS so far. This probably results from a lack of incentive, that is, from the absence of a stable and significant carbon price. CCS application is costly, has an imperfect capture rate, and generates a non-negligible energy penalty. Other obstacles may be the implementation of a CO 2 pipeline network and possible leakage from geological storage.

9Jun-16 III. Base-load power production Nuclear energy and coal-based electricity generation are two competing base-load power production options. Among the differences between the two are their investment costs, construction time, and need for a role by government. If coal-based power plants are equipped with CCS, the difference between these two options becomes smaller.

10Jun-16 IV. Integrated assessment modeling It becomes increasingly relevant to know how nuclear and coal plus CCS based power generation behave relative to each other. Integrated assessment modeling can be used to investigate this mutual behavior and interaction. In particular, we ask ourselves: how do these two options compare if one relaxes the usual constraints on nuclear energy? We employ the energy-environment-economy model WITCH, developed and used at FEEM. We consider two climate stabilization targets: 450 and 550 ppm CO 2 (i.e. about 550 and 650 ppm total CO 2 equivalent).

11Jun-16 IV. WITCH Optimal growth structure with far-sighted economic agent. Simulation of long time frame allows assessing climate impacts. Power sector consists of 7 options. Consumption of public goods and production of public bads. Game-theoretical set-up between 12 regions. For details:

12Jun-16 IV. Results: nuclear WITCH simulation of nuclear capacity additions (GW) under BAU, 450 and 550 ppm, past and present.

13Jun-16 IV. Results: coal WITCH simulation of coal capacity additions (GW) under BAU, 450 and 550 ppm, past and present.

14Jun-16 IV. Results: renewables WITCH simulation of renewables capacity additions (GW) under BAU, 450 and 550 ppm, past and present.

15Jun-16 IV. What if CCS improves? WITCH simulation of nuclear capacity additions (GW) in the 450 ppm scenario, with CCS improvements.

16Jun-16 IV. What if CCS improves? WITCH simulation of electricity generation in 2050 (PWh) by nuclear and coal plus CCS, in the 450 and 550 ppm scenarios.

17Jun-16 V. Conclusions If nuclear energy is unconstrained, capacity additions typically return to historic growth rates under stringent climate goals. CCS and nuclear additions globally achieve about the same level, but do not necessarily follow the same pattern. Renewables also become important, but it takes longer to exploit their potential as a result of gradual learning-by-doing. Nuclear energy is deployed at significantly lower rates - yet still by about 15 GW/yr - if CCS technology improvements are large. Policy cost savings as a result of CCS improvements can run into trillions US$, but such improvements require investments.