Australian researchers: nuclear is the least-cost, low-carbon, baseload power source

"A new paper by three Australian researchers, published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy, looks at 16 electricity generating technologies as candidates for meeting future greenhouse emission reduction targets.

The technologies are assessed in terms of their potential to produce reliable, continuous, baseload power. The assessment covers performance, cost and carbon emissions.

<>

Nuclear stands out as the cheapest solution to provide low-emission baseload electricity over almost the whole carbon price range shown. The next cheapest is CCGT (natural gas) with CCS, which needs a carbon price of just over $30. To justify building either of the two coal technologies (PF or IGCC) with CCS requires a carbon price over $40."

http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/47728/nuclear-least-cost-low-carbon-baseload-power-source?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

Abstract

"There is wide public debate about which electricity generating technologies will best be suited to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Sometimes this debate ignores real-world practicalities and leads to over-optimistic conclusions. Here we define and apply a set of fit-for-service criteria to identify technologies capable of supplying baseload electricity and reducing GHGs by amounts and within the timescale set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Only five current technologies meet these criteria: coal (both pulverised fuel and integrated gasification combined cycle) with carbon capture and storage (CCS); combined cycle gas turbine with CCS; Generation III nuclear fission; and solar thermal backed by heat storage and gas turbines. To compare costs and performance, we undertook a meta-review of authoritative peer-reviewed studies of levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) and life-cycle GHG emissions for these technologies. Future baseload electricity technology selection will be influenced by the total cost of technology substitution, including carbon pricing, which is synergistically related to both LCOE and emissions. Nuclear energy is the cheapest option and best able to meet the IPCC timetable for GHG abatement. Solar thermal is the most expensive, while CCS will require rapid major advances in technology to meet that timetable."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2S-51H0085-6&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F18%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ec74c4fcd16d25452e32deb5943e4506&searchtype=a

I can hear the screams from the "Baseload is bollocks" contingent already...

I'll be interested to see why they considered solar/storage but not wind/storage.

The fact that they have to assume CCS takes all the fossil fuel sources out of the running. That pretty much leaves only nuclear power.

So it goes.

barry.brook@adelaide.edu.au

He is a constant blogger on the subject and his posts reveal a person who is very willing to do exactly what he did in the OP paper - present cherry picked arguments as "science". While the paper is valid as far as it goes, he chose "baseload" as the primary attribute specifically because nuclear is an inferior technology in every respect that DOES matter. It is precisely this type of sleazy argumentation that has caused me to turn against nuclear power since coming to DU.

In spite of the attempt in reply #1 to inoculate the readers against the fact that baseload is a bogus standard by which to judge what power source we use going forward, it is a fact - baseload is an irrelevant standard since it is not a necessary part of getting electricity to the end user in a distributed, sustainable, renewable grid.

In fact, nuclear also promises to actually slow down the response to climate change since it is more costly in time and money than the renewable options - therefore it produces less results over the long term. A far more comprehensive study that focuses on the variables that actually are relevant was accomplished by Jacobson in 2009.

Anyone you don't want us to read that badly must have something interesting to say.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/31/so-just-who-does-climate-science/



Brook is the pro-nuclear sides' Jacobson.

Only with far more credentials.

Barry Brook talks about IFR, a technology which was almost completely developed.

20 years ago.

So spare me the "science fiction" bullshit.

Kinda like James Hansen.

Let's hear them.

Never lets us down. That kind of reliability is getting rare these days with all the gray areas and the proliferation of options and add-ons associated with each. But not KK, he can always be counted on to bash wind power, bash solar power (while telling us he's FOR it), bash nuclear power -- any technology that actually has the capability to seriously reduce our dependence on coal and other fossil fuels. So, ya got that goin' for ya... which is nice.

The facts speak for themselves. Put the same emissions standards on all the competitors and nuclear comes out clearly as a viable option (for those who are rational and not fanatics against nuclear anything).

We need nuclear power but not the same kind of reactors that we have now. Those were designed 40 to 50 years ago so why even think about them. Yet 100% of the new reactors recently approved for construction are light water/PWR designs much like the existing reactors with a serious makeover on the safety side.

That's all well and good but what we need is a rethinking of the whole industry: mass production of components to bring costs down, several "pre-approved" designs that get streamlined express approvals and pre-approved status to environmental sign-offs, only advanced passively save designs should be considered for approval, Thorium cycle reactors should be the primary focus of our nuclear industry --we have only 100 years of Uranium left but over 1000 years of Thorium supply worldwide, Generation IV and modular designs should get the lions share of subsidies. But here we are, running after the pressurized water reactor designs like the dog getting wagged by the tail all over again.

NASA is stuck in the 1960s in terms of its focus on rockets, they still have yet to recreate the Apollo boosters of the '60s and have no plans to so they keep chasing a third place medal with their rockets anyway. Similarly, the nuclear construction industry seem to want to redo the 1970s focus on light water reactors/PWRs. When did America lose its ability to move forward? When did we stop looking ahead and began only looking behind! Only Generation IV, only mass produced, and no idiotic contracts that make it profitable for the construction contractor to drag their feet or screw things up so they will get an extension to redo their own mess ups. Who is the idiot who is approving these companies?

Moving on to the renewable energy sources, they should have to be compared against nuclear on a 24/7 energy output standpoint. Who would be so simple minded as to think otherwise? And the only way to get to that is energy storage coupled with the renewable energy generation and therefore an increase in their size. If wind power farms are 33% available then we do not need 1GW of them... we need 3 GW of wind. But if energy storage is included in the design that figure should increase.

Wind, in many ways, complements solar power as well. Overall wind is higher in winter and overall solar output is higher in summer so the renewable energy generation needs to be looked at as a whole and not piece by piece. Surely our government has someone with the brain capacity for this task??? Solar power plants should be required to include energy storage and increased capacity in order to output a stable amount of power 24/7 and THAT should be the accepted rating for their output. The High Voltage DC energy transmission lines that will bring the massive amounts of solar and wind from the southwest and midwest to the population areas where it will be used is quite possibly the most critical aspect of a rational renewable energy strategy.

Into the "distributed, sustainable, renewable grid" you envision that doesn't require baseload production?

Reading it after the news.

"Of the FFS (fit-for-service) technologies, nuclear has the lowest EI (emission intensity) by a factor of about six."

"An objective review of the existing authoritative literature demonstrably supports the conclusion that today current generation nuclear power is the only proven baseload technology that can deliver the EI target needed for effective climate change mitigation."

"Non-climate impacts do have an influence on public perception of technology acceptance. This is particularly the case for nuclear power, where safety and security issues and long-term waste storage are perceived as significant environmental risks...a level playing field is required where equal financial assistance is provided to all technologies to allow them to compete on their merits and not be handicapped by community biases that are not supported by objective analysis."

"An objective analysis of these data shows nuclear power to be the standout solution for low-emissions baseload electricity, in terms of cost and ability to meet the timetable for GHG abatement."

But they had nothing to really go by with Gen IV.

Millions of litres of radioactive water from the Ranger uranium mine have flowed into internationally acclaimed and World Heritage-listed wetlands in Kakadu National Park.

Where is the part about "millions of litres of radioactive water"? :shrug:

Do we want to cut CO2 or don't we? If we do, then it looks like nuclear power is our only realistic option at the moment. If we're more afraid of brown-skinned people being able to rebuff imperial threats, then we deserve whatever Mother Nature decides to throw at us.

Do you feel that nuclear war is a greater threat than global warming?

It is 6 Minutes to Midnight
"First and foremost ... nuclear weapons"

I disagree, of course. I think that the forces that are unleashed by GW may be slower and more insidious than nuclear war, but they are far more destructive to the planet. So it goes.

Which was what runaway global warming looks like on a planetary scale.

Even with a global nuclear war, a 95% extinction rate of all life on the planet is pretty hard to beat.

Isn't that the Republican's job?

Problem solved!

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

I don't envy your certainty.

and that's a fact.

Not based on fantasy numbers which have no meaning.

I note with some amusement the use of the word "turnkey".

BTW, FOAK stands for "First of a kind".

...political environments. Basically, if you want these things built, they use less base materials than renewables. Even Gen III+. However, I don't support the building of Gen III+, but that is beyond the scope of the paper.

Nice.

Which of course means "I agree with it". ;-)

I especially appreciated this part:


Nice piece of work.

...infrastructure.

But with nuclear he wants to see Gen IV, IFR/LFTR type technology, none of this bullshit "99% of our fuel gets stored in Yucca Mountain" crap.

Anyone who argues against IFR/LFTR breeder reactors are arguing for hundred thousand year half life storage of nuclear waste.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/12/04/media-reactions-energy-paper-p1/

Nice read. Glad Barry is defending his work.