DOCSLIB.ORG

The Need for Nuclear Power Viewpoint on the World’S Challenging Energy Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Need for Nuclear Power Viewpoint on the World’S Challenging Energy Future THE NEED FOR NUCLEAR POWER VIEWPOINT ON THE WORLD’S CHALLENGING ENERGY FUTURE BY RICHARD RHODES AND DENIS BELLER he world needs more energy. Energy multiplies Thuman labor, increasing productivity. It builds and lights schools, purifies water, powers farm machinery, drives sewing machines and robot assemblers, stores and moves information. World population is steadily increasing, having passed six billion in 1999. Yet one-third of that number — two billion people — lack access to electricity. Development depends on energy, and the 43 alternative to development is suffering: poverty, disease, and death. Such conditions create instability and the potential for widespread violence. National security therefore requires developed nations to help increase energy production in their more populous developing counterparts. For the sake of safety as well as security, that increased energy supply should come from diverse sources. “At a global level,” the British Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering with vigorous conservation, to support consumption at a estimate in a 1999 report on world energy production mere one-third of today’s US nuclear energy and climate would have to triple by 2050 per capita rate. The change, “we can expect our consumption of energy at least Mr. Rhodes is the author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Dark Sun, to double in the next 50 years and other books. Mr. Beller is a nuclear engineer and Technical Staff and to grow by a factor of up Member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA. This article is to five in the next 100 years as based on the authors’ essay in Foreign Affairs, Vol 70, No. 1 (January- the world population increases February 2000) and is published here with permission of the New York and as people seek to improve Times Syndicate. their standards of living.” Even Photo: Maintaining electric power lines in Indonesia. (Credit:UNDP) IAEA BULLETIN, 42/2/2000 International Energy Agency plants, increasing capacity by secure than the fuels they have (IEA) of the Organization for more than 100%. With 433 begun to replace, and their Economic Cooperation and operating reactors worldwide, ascendance should be Development (OECD) nuclear power is meeting the endorsed. projects 65% growth in world annual electrical needs of more Even environmentalists energy demand by 2020, two- than a billion people. should welcome the transition thirds of that coming from In America and around the and reconsider their developing countries. globe, nuclear safety and infatuation with renewable “Given the levels of efficiency have improved energy sources. consumption likely in the significantly since 1990. In future,” the Royal Society and 1998, and again in 1999, unit CARBON-BASED Royal Academy caution, “it capacity factor (the fraction of ENERGY will be an immense challenge a power plant’s capacity that it Among sources of electric- to meet the global demand for actually generates) for power generation, coal is the energy without unsustainable operating reactors reached worst environmental offender. long-term damage to the record levels. The average US (Petroleum, today’s dominant environment.” That damage capacity factor in 1999 was source of energy, sustains includes surface and air 85% for about 100 reactors, transportation, putting it in a pollution and global warming. compared to 58% in 1980 and separate category.) Recent 66% in 1990. Despite a studies by the Harvard School A CLEAN BREAK TO reduction in the number of of Public Health indicate that THE FUTURE power plants, the US nuclear pollutants from coal-burning Most of the world’s energy industry generated 9% more cause about 15,000 premature today comes from petroleum nuclear electricity in 1999 than deaths annually in the United (39%), coal (24%), natural gas in 1998. Average production States alone. Used to generate (22%), hydroelectric power costs for nuclear energy are about a quarter of the world’s 44 (6.9%), and nuclear power now just 1.9 cents per primary energy, coal-burning (6.3%). Although oil and coal kilowatt-hour (kWh), while releases amounts of toxic waste still dominate, their market electricity produced from gas too immense to contain safely. fraction began declining costs 3.4 cents per kWh. Such waste is either dispersed decades ago. Meanwhile, By improving capacity and directly into the air or is natural gas and nuclear power performance alone, nuclear solidified and dumped. Some have steadily increased their power already has made the is even mixed into construction shares and should continue to largest contribution of any materials. do so. American industry to meeting Besides emitting noxious Contrary to the assertions of the US Kyoto commitment to chemicals in the form of gases anti-nuclear organizations, limiting carbon dioxide releases or toxic particles — sulfur and nuclear power is neither dead into the atmosphere. nitrogen oxides (components of nor dying. France generates Meanwhile, radiation exposure acid rain and smog), arsenic, about 75% of its electricity to workers and waste produced mercury, cadmium, selenium, with nuclear power; Belgium, per unit of energy have hit new lead, boron, chromium, copper, 58%; Sweden, 47%; lows. fluorine, molybdenum, nickel, Switzerland, 36%; Japan, Because major, complex vanadium, zinc, carbon 36%; Spain, 31%; the United technologies take more than monoxide and dioxide, and Kingdom, 29%; and the half a century to spread around other greenhouse gases — coal- United States (the largest the world, natural gas will fired power plants are also the producer of nuclear energy in share the lead in power world’s major source of the world), 20%. The Republic generation with nuclear power radioactive releases into the of Korea and China have over the next hundred years. environment. Uranium and announced ambitious plans to Which of the two will thorium, mildly radioactive expand their nuclear-power command the greater share elements ubiquitous in the capabilities — in the case of remains to be determined. But earth’s crust, are both released IAEA BULLETIN, 42/2/2000 Korea, by building 16 new both are cleaner and more when coal is burned. Radioactive radon gas, Hydropower is not even a true and greenhouse gas. A global produced when uranium in the renewable, since dams solar-energy system without earth’s crust decays and eventually silt in. Most fossil or nuclear backup would normally confined renewables collect extremely also be dangerously vulnerable underground, is released when diluted energy, requiring large to drops in solar radiation coal is mined. A 1000- areas of land and masses of from volcanic events such as megawatt-electric (MWe) coal- collectors to concentrate. the 1815 eruption of fired power plant releases about Manufacturing solar Tambura, which released 40 100 times as much radioactivity collectors, pouring concrete cubic kilometers of ash into into the environment as a for fields of windmills, and the atmosphere. This ash comparable nuclear plant. drowning many square miles significantly reduced solar Worldwide releases of uranium of land behind dams cause radiation for several years and thorium from coal-burning damage and pollution. afterward, which resulted in total about 37,300 tonnes Photovoltaic cells used for widespread crop failure during (metric tons) annually, with solar collection are large the “year without a summer” about 7300 tonnes coming semiconductors; their that followed. from the United States. Since manufacture produces highly Wind farms, besides uranium and thorium are toxic waste metals and requiring millions of pounds potent nuclear fuels, burning solvents that require special of concrete and steel to build coal also wastes more potential technology for disposal. A (and thus creating huge energy than it produces. 1000-MWe solar electric plant amounts of waste materials), The overlooked radioactive would generate 6850 tonnes are inefficient, with low waste that is generated while of hazardous waste from (because intermittent) burning coal emphasizes the metals-processing alone over a capacity. They also cause political disadvantages under 30-year lifetime. A visual and noise pollution and which nuclear power labors. comparable solar thermal are mighty slayers of birds. Current laws force nuclear plant (using mirrors focused Several hundred birds of prey, 45 utilities, unlike coal plants, to on a central tower) would including dozens of golden invest in expensive systems that require metals for eagles, are killed every year by limit the release of construction that would a single California wind farm; radioactivity. Nuclear fuel is generate 435,000 tonnes of more eagles have been killed not efficiently recycled in the manufacturing waste, of by wind turbines than were United States because of which 16,300 tonnes would lost in the disastrous Exxon proliferation fears. These be contaminated with lead Valdez oil spill. The National factors have warped the and chromium and be Audubon Society has economics of nuclear power considered hazardous. launched a campaign to save development and created a A global solar-energy system the California condor from a politically difficult waste- would consume at least 20% proposed wind farm to be disposal problem. If coal of the world’s known iron built north of Los Angeles. A utilities were forced to assume resources. It would require a wind farm equivalent in similar costs, coal electricity century to build and a output and capacity to a would no longer be cheaper substantial fraction of annual 1000-MWe fossil-fuel or than
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Science Based Coal Phase-Out Timeline for Japan Implications for Policymakers and Investors May 2018
    a SCIENCE BASED COAL PHASE-OUT TIMELINE FOR JAPAN IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS AND INVESTORS MAY 2018 In collaboration with AUTHORS Paola Yanguas Parra Climate Analytics Yuri Okubo Renewable Energy Institute Niklas Roming Climate Analytics Fabio Sferra Climate Analytics Dr. Ursula Fuentes Climate Analytics Dr. Michiel Schaeffer Climate Analytics Dr. Bill Hare Climate Analytics GRAPHIC DESIGN Matt Beer Climate Analytics This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit services without special permission from Climate Analytics, provided acknowledgement and/or proper referencing of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from Climate Analytics. We regret any errors or omissions that may have been unwittingly made. This document may be cited as: Climate Analytics, Renewable Energy Institute (2018). Science Based Coal Phase-out Timeline for Japan: Implications for policymakers and investors A digital copy of this report along with supporting appendices is available at: www.climateanalytics.org/publications www.renewable-ei.org/activities/reports/20180529.html Cover photo: © xpixel In collaboration with SCIENCE BASED COAL PHASE-OUT TIMELINE FOR JAPAN IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS AND INVESTORS Photo © ImagineStock TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary 1 Introduction 5 1 Coal emissions in line with the Paris Agreement 7 2 Coal emissions in Japan 9 2.1 Emissions from current and planned
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power - Conventional
    NUCLEAR POWER - CONVENTIONAL DESCRIPTION Nuclear fission—the process in which a nucleus absorbs a neutron and splits into two lighter nuclei—releases tremendous amounts of energy. In a nuclear power plant, this fission process is controlled in a reactor to generate heat. The heat from the reactor creates steam, which runs through turbines to power electrical generators. The most common nuclear power plant design uses a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). Water is used as both neutron moderator and reactor coolant. That water is kept separate from the water used to generate steam and drive the turbine. In essence there are three water systems: one for converting the nuclear heat to steam and cooling the reactor; one for the steam system to spin the turbine; and one to convert the turbine steam back into water. The other common nuclear power plant design uses a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). The BWR uses water as moderator and coolant, like the PWR, but has no separate secondary steam cycle. So the water from the reactor is converted into steam and used to directly drive the generator turbine. COST Conventional nuclear power plants are quite expensive to construct but have fairly low operating costs. Of the four new plants currently under construction, construction costs reportedly range from $4.7 million to $6.3 million per MW. Production costs for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station are reported to be less than $15/MWh. CAPACITY FACTOR Typical capacity factor for a nuclear power plant is over 90%. TIME TO PERMIT AND CONSTRUCT Design, permitting and construction of a new conventional nuclear power plant will likely require a minimum of 10 years and perhaps significantly longer.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 2.Iii.1. Fissionable Isotopes1
    FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES Charles P. Blair Last revised: 2012 “While several isotopes are theoretically fissionable, RANNSAD defines fissionable isotopes as either uranium-233 or 235; plutonium 238, 239, 240, 241, or 242, or Americium-241. See, Ackerman, Asal, Bale, Blair and Rethemeyer, Anatomizing Radiological and Nuclear Non-State Adversaries: Identifying the Adversary, p. 99-101, footnote #10, TABLE 2.III.1. FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES1 Isotope Availability Possible Fission Bare Critical Weapon-types mass2 Uranium-233 MEDIUM: DOE reportedly stores Gun-type or implosion-type 15 kg more than one metric ton of U- 233.3 Uranium-235 HIGH: As of 2007, 1700 metric Gun-type or implosion-type 50 kg tons of HEU existed globally, in both civilian and military stocks.4 Plutonium- HIGH: A separated global stock of Implosion 10 kg 238 plutonium, both civilian and military, of over 500 tons.5 Implosion 10 kg Plutonium- Produced in military and civilian 239 reactor fuels. Typically, reactor Plutonium- grade plutonium (RGP) consists Implosion 40 kg 240 of roughly 60 percent plutonium- Plutonium- 239, 25 percent plutonium-240, Implosion 10-13 kg nine percent plutonium-241, five 241 percent plutonium-242 and one Plutonium- percent plutonium-2386 (these Implosion 89 -100 kg 242 percentages are influenced by how long the fuel is irradiated in the reactor).7 1 This table is drawn, in part, from Charles P. Blair, “Jihadists and Nuclear Weapons,” in Gary A. Ackerman and Jeremy Tamsett, ed., Jihadists and Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Growing Threat (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2009), pp. 196-197. See also, David Albright N 2 “Bare critical mass” refers to the absence of an initiator or a reflector.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Electricity Prices During the Transition Away from Coal by William B
    May 2021 | Vol. 10 / No. 10 PRICES AND SPENDING Trends in electricity prices during the transition away from coal By William B. McClain The electric power sector of the United States has undergone several major shifts since the deregulation of wholesale electricity markets began in the 1990s. One interesting shift is the transition away from coal-powered plants toward a greater mix of natural gas and renewable sources. This transition has been spurred by three major factors: rising costs of prepared coal for use in power generation, a significant expansion of economical domestic natural gas production coupled with a corresponding decline in prices, and rapid advances in technology for renewable power generation.1 The transition from coal, which included the early retirement of coal plants, has affected major price-determining factors within the electric power sector such as operation and maintenance costs, 1 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS capital investment, and fuel costs. Through these effects, the decline of coal as the primary fuel source in American electricity production has affected both wholesale and retail electricity prices. Identifying specific price effects from the transition away from coal is challenging; however the producer price indexes (PPIs) for electric power can be used to compare general trends in price development across generator types and regions, and can be used to learn valuable insights into the early effects of fuel switching in the electric power sector from coal to natural gas and renewable sources. The PPI program measures the average change in prices for industries based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
    [Show full text]
  • 小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category
    小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category Airborne contamination sensor Title Depth Evaluation of Entrained Products (DEEP) Proposed by Create Technologies Ltd & Costain Group PLC １．DEEP is a sensor analysis software for analysing contamination. DEEP can distinguish between surface contamination and internal / absorbed contamination. The software measures contamination depth by analysing distortions in the gamma spectrum. The method can be applied to data gathered using any spectrometer. Because DEEP provides a means of discriminating surface contamination from other radiation sources, DEEP can be used to provide an estimate of surface contamination without physical sampling. DEEP is a real-time method which enables the user to generate a large number of rapid contamination assessments- this data is complementary to physical samples, providing a sound basis for extrapolation from point samples. It also helps identify anomalies enabling targeted sampling startegies. DEEP is compatible with small airborne spectrometer/ processor combinations, such as that proposed by the ARM-U project – please refer to the ARM-U proposal for more details of the air vehicle. Figure 1: DEEP system core components are small, light, low power and can be integrated via USB, serial or Ethernet interfaces. 小型飛翔体／海外 Figure 2: DEEP prototype software ２．Past experience (plants in Japan, overseas plant, applications in other industries, etc) Create technologies is a specialist R&D firm with a focus on imaging and sensing in the nuclear industry. Createc has developed and delivered several novel nuclear technologies, including the N-Visage gamma camera system. Costainis a leading UK construction and civil engineering firm with almost 150 years of history.
    [Show full text]
  • Biomass Basics: the Facts About Bioenergy 1 We Rely on Energy Every Day
    Biomass Basics: The Facts About Bioenergy 1 We Rely on Energy Every Day Energy is essential in our daily lives. We use it to fuel our cars, grow our food, heat our homes, and run our businesses. Most of our energy comes from burning fossil fuels like petroleum, coal, and natural gas. These fuels provide the energy that we need today, but there are several reasons why we are developing sustainable alternatives. 2 We are running out of fossil fuels Fossil fuels take millions of years to form within the Earth. Once we use up our reserves of fossil fuels, we will be out in the cold - literally - unless we find other fuel sources. Bioenergy, or energy derived from biomass, is a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels because it can be produced from renewable sources, such as plants and waste, that can be continuously replenished. Fossil fuels, such as petroleum, need to be imported from other countries Some fossil fuels are found in the United States but not enough to meet all of our energy needs. In 2014, 27% of the petroleum consumed in the United States was imported from other countries, leaving the nation’s supply of oil vulnerable to global trends. When it is hard to buy enough oil, the price can increase significantly and reduce our supply of gasoline – affecting our national security. Because energy is extremely important to our economy, it is better to produce energy in the United States so that it will always be available when we need it. Use of fossil fuels can be harmful to humans and the environment When fossil fuels are burned, they release carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power Reactors in California
    Nuclear Power Reactors in California As of mid-2012, California had one operating nuclear power plant, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which consists of two units. Unit 1 is a 1,073 megawatt (MW) Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) which began commercial operation in May 1985, while Unit 2 is a 1,087 MW PWR, which began commercial operation in March 1986. Diablo Canyon's operation license expires in 2024 and 2025 respectively. California currently hosts three commercial nuclear power facilities in various stages of decommissioning.1 Under all NRC operating licenses, once a nuclear plant ceases reactor operations, it must be decommissioned. Decommissioning is defined by federal regulation (10 CFR 50.2) as the safe removal of a facility from service along with the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC operating license. In preparation for a plant’s eventual decommissioning, all nuclear plant owners must maintain trust funds while the plants are in operation to ensure sufficient amounts will be available to decommission their facilities and manage the spent nuclear fuel.2 Spent fuel can either be reprocessed to recover usable uranium and plutonium, or it can be managed as a waste for long-term ultimate disposal. Since fuel re-processing is not commercially available in the United States, spent fuel is typically being held in temporary storage at reactor sites until a permanent long-term waste disposal option becomes available.3 In 1976, the state of California placed a moratorium on the construction and licensing of new nuclear fission reactors until the federal government implements a solution to radioactive waste disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers
    DOE/EE-0288 Leading by example, saving energy and Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers taxpayer dollars Using this time-tested fuel-switching technique in existing federal boilers in federal facilities helps to reduce operating costs, increase the use of renewable energy, and enhance our energy security Executive Summary To help the nation use more domestic fuels and renewable energy technologies—and increase our energy security—the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) in the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, assists government agencies in developing biomass energy projects. As part of that assistance, FEMP has prepared this Federal Technology Alert on biomass cofiring technologies. This publication was prepared to help federal energy and facility managers make informed decisions about using biomass cofiring in existing coal-fired boilers at their facilities. The term “biomass” refers to materials derived from plant matter such as trees, grasses, and agricultural crops. These materials, grown using energy from sunlight, can be renewable energy sources for fueling many of today’s energy needs. The most common types of biomass that are available at potentially attractive prices for energy use at federal facilities are waste wood and wastepaper. The boiler plant at the Department of Energy’s One of the most attractive and easily implemented biomass energy technologies is cofiring Savannah River Site co- fires coal and biomass. with coal in existing coal-fired boilers. In biomass cofiring, biomass can substitute for up to 20% of the coal used in the boiler. The biomass and coal are combusted simultaneously. When it is used as a supplemental fuel in an existing coal boiler, biomass can provide the following benefits: lower fuel costs, avoidance of landfills and their associated costs, and reductions in sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and greenhouse-gas emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecotaxes: a Comparative Study of India and China
    Ecotaxes: A Comparative Study of India and China Rajat Verma ISBN 978-81-7791-209-8 © 2016, Copyright Reserved The Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) is engaged in interdisciplinary research in analytical and applied areas of the social sciences, encompassing diverse aspects of development. ISEC works with central, state and local governments as well as international agencies by undertaking systematic studies of resource potential, identifying factors influencing growth and examining measures for reducing poverty. The thrust areas of research include state and local economic policies, issues relating to sociological and demographic transition, environmental issues and fiscal, administrative and political decentralization and governance. It pursues fruitful contacts with other institutions and scholars devoted to social science research through collaborative research programmes, seminars, etc. The Working Paper Series provides an opportunity for ISEC faculty, visiting fellows and PhD scholars to discuss their ideas and research work before publication and to get feedback from their peer group. Papers selected for publication in the series present empirical analyses and generally deal with wider issues of public policy at a sectoral, regional or national level. These working papers undergo review but typically do not present final research results, and constitute works in progress. ECOTAXES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDIA AND CHINA1 Rajat Verma2 Abstract This paper attempts to compare various forms of ecotaxes adopted by India and China in order to reduce their carbon emissions by 2020 and to address other environmental issues. The study contributes to the literature by giving a comprehensive definition of ecotaxes and using it to analyse the status of these taxes in India and China.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase-Out 2020: Monitoring Europe's Fossil Fuel Subsidies
    Phase-out 2020 Monitoring Europe’s fossil fuel subsidies Ipek Gençsü, Maeve McLynn, Matthias Runkel, Markus Trilling, Laurie van der Burg, Leah Worrall, Shelagh Whitley, and Florian Zerzawy September 2017 Report partners ODI is the UK’s leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues. Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe is Europe’s largest coalition working on climate and energy issues. Readers are encouraged to reproduce material for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. As copyright holders, ODI and Overseas Development Institute CAN Europe request due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For 203 Blackfriars Road CAN Europe online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. London SE1 8NJ Rue d’Edimbourg 26 The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not Tel +44 (0)20 7922 0300 1050 Brussels, Belgium necessarily represent the views of ODI or our partners. Fax +44 (0)20 7922 0399 Tel: +32 (0) 28944670 www.odi.org www.caneurope.org © Overseas Development Institute and CAN Europe 2017. This work is licensed [email protected] [email protected] under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licence (CC BY-NC 4.0). Cover photo: Oil refinery in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany – Ralf Vetterle (CC0 creative commons license). 2 Report Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for support and advice on the report from: Dave Jones of Sandbag UK, Colin Roche of Friends of the Earth Europe, Andrew Scott and Sejal Patel of the Overseas Development Institute, Helena Wright of E3G, and Andrew Murphy of Transport & Environment, and Alex Doukas of Oil Change International.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioenergy's Role in Balancing the Electricity Grid and Providing Storage Options – an EU Perspective
    Bioenergy's role in balancing the electricity grid and providing storage options – an EU perspective Front cover information panel IEA Bioenergy: Task 41P6: 2017: 01 Bioenergy's role in balancing the electricity grid and providing storage options – an EU perspective Antti Arasto, David Chiaramonti, Juha Kiviluoma, Eric van den Heuvel, Lars Waldheim, Kyriakos Maniatis, Kai Sipilä Copyright © 2017 IEA Bioenergy. All rights Reserved Published by IEA Bioenergy IEA Bioenergy, also known as the Technology Collaboration Programme (TCP) for a Programme of Research, Development and Demonstration on Bioenergy, functions within a Framework created by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Views, findings and publications of IEA Bioenergy do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or of its individual Member countries. Foreword The global energy supply system is currently in transition from one that relies on polluting and depleting inputs to a system that relies on non-polluting and non-depleting inputs that are dominantly abundant and intermittent. Optimising the stability and cost-effectiveness of such a future system requires seamless integration and control of various energy inputs. The role of energy supply management is therefore expected to increase in the future to ensure that customers will continue to receive the desired quality of energy at the required time. The COP21 Paris Agreement gives momentum to renewables. The IPCC has reported that with current GHG emissions it will take 5 years before the carbon budget is used for +1,5C and 20 years for +2C. The IEA has recently published the Medium- Term Renewable Energy Market Report 2016, launched on 25.10.2016 in Singapore.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Era for Wind Power in the United States
    Chapter 3 Wind Vision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States 1 Photo from iStock 7943575 1 This page is intentionally left blank 3 Impacts of the Wind Vision Summary Chapter 3 of the Wind Vision identifies and quantifies an array of impacts associated with continued deployment of wind energy. This 3 | Summary Chapter chapter provides a detailed accounting of the methods applied and results from this work. Costs, benefits, and other impacts are assessed for a future scenario that is consistent with economic modeling outcomes detailed in Chapter 1 of the Wind Vision, as well as exist- ing industry construction and manufacturing capacity, and past research. Impacts reported here are intended to facilitate informed discus- sions of the broad-based value of wind energy as part of the nation’s electricity future. The primary tool used to evaluate impacts is the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s) Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model. ReEDS is a capacity expan- sion model that simulates the construction and operation of generation and transmission capacity to meet electricity demand. In addition to the ReEDS model, other methods are applied to analyze and quantify additional impacts. Modeling analysis is focused on the Wind Vision Study Scenario (referred to as the Study Scenario) and the Baseline Scenario. The Study Scenario is defined as wind penetration, as a share of annual end-use electricity demand, of 10% by 2020, 20% by 2030, and 35% by 2050. In contrast, the Baseline Scenario holds the installed capacity of wind constant at levels observed through year-end 2013.
    [Show full text]