Upload
wwwthiiinkcom
View
368
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
29
31
33
35
37
1985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009201120132015
by Michael Shellenberger Updated Nov. 1, 2016
Clean Energy Emergency
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
TWh
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Low-Carbon Power Has Grown in Absolute Terms…
Source: BP Statistical Review of World
Energy, 2016
Hydro
Nuclear
Wind
Solar
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
29%
31%
33%
35%
37%
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2015
…But Declined as Percentage of Total
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2016
-4.5
4.5 percentage points of global electricity =
60 nuclear plants the size of Diablo Canyon
or
900 of one of largest solar farms (Topaz, in California)
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Perc
ent o
f ele
ctric
ity g
loba
lly th
at is
nuc
lear
9
10.5
12
13.5
15
16.5
18
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
Declining power from nuclear energy…
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2015
-7
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
…was not made up by solar & wind
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2015
+4.5
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Over half of US nuclear fleet at risk of premature closure by 2030
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Five Abandoned Nuclear Plants Generated Almost Exact Same Amount of Power as All US Solar
Source: EIA. Assumes 90% capacity factor
June 2013 Feb. 2013 May 2013 Dec. 2014
GW
h
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
Electricity generated by abandoned nuclear 2015 U.S. solar generated
San Onofre June 2013
Crystal RiverFeb. 2013
Kewaunee May 2013
Vermont Yankee Dec. 2014
Ft. CalhounOct 2016
Billio
ns o
f 201
5 U
S D
olla
rs
$0 B
$35.5 B
$71 B
$106.5 B
$142 B
$142 B
CO2 value of plants at-risk before 2030
Assumes U.S. government cost of carbon of $36/ton, 60-year lifetimes Source: EPA, EIA
Nuclear plants at risk of closure have $142 billion carbon value
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
CO
2 M
MT
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
-376
164.5
Nuclear capacity at risk EPA CPP reduction goals
Premature closures would set back the EPA clean power plan goals by 44%
Calculation: Assumes replacement with natural gas
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
US
Japan
Sweden
Germany
Spain
Belgium
UK
Switzerland
GW
-55 -40 -25 -10
-3-4-6-7
-11-9
-37-55
GW of Nuclear at Risk of Early Closure
Globally, 132 GW of Nuclear Could Be Lost by 2030
Sources: Environmental Progress estimates based on WNA, EIA, BNEF, interviews and analysis, 2016.
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
GW
of C
apac
ity
-140
-102.5
-65
-27.5
10
-132-33
Lost last 10 years At-Risk
World at risk of losing four times more nuclear over next 13 years than we lost over last 10
Source: Multiple country-specific sources
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
GW
-140
-65
10
85
160
At-risk China & India
1060
70
-132
Low High India
China & India Not Building Enough Nuclearto Make up the Difference
Sources: Interviews with Chinese officials (and consonant with WNA) 2016;Indian government planning documents & interviews with Indian officials
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Closer Look at U.S.
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Source: EPA, EIA
Loss of Nuclear Plants Would Create 5 Times More Emissions than New York State Must Reduce Under EPA Clean Power Plan
Milli
on M
etric
Ton
s of
CO
2
-4.5
0
4.5
9
13.5
18
EPA CPP state reduction goal Increase if plants at risk in state close
16.8
-3.0
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Cos
t of p
ropo
sed
nucl
ear s
ubsi
dies
per
MW
h co
mpa
red
to re
new
able
sub
sidi
es
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
Renewables Nuclear
$22.00
$17.48
$23.00
New York Federal PTC
Renewables Subsidies 2x More Expensive than Proposed New York Nuclear Subsidies
Source: NYSERDA, PSC
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
New York victory buys us time but gives no incentive to replace
much less add to new nuclear.
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
GW
h El
ectri
city
Gen
erat
ion
0
25000
50000
75000
100000
125000
2014 2014 without Quad and Clinton
15,389
9,09873,37173,371
10,85110,851
Other Other nuclear Clinton Quad Cities
If Quad Cities and Clinton close, 23% of Illinois’s clean electricity would be lost
Source: EIA
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Proposed Illinois Nuclear Subsidy Would Cost Less than Half of Wind Subsidy
Cen
ts /
KWh
0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3
2.3
1
IL Nuclear (proposed) Wind
Source: Calculations based on $250 million/year subsidy (high end estimate) from Steve Daniels, Crane’s, May 19, 2016. DOE Wind PTC.
Clean California Power Declined
Source: California Almanac, “In-state System Power,” 2016; Rooftop Solar Added; https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uXuqaE-BBvdNLnmuUic5mmhCkqOoU0VTunn3meS_dAU/edit?usp=sharing
Electricity from Clean Energy Sources in California, 1986 - 20154200%
4533.333%
4866.667%
5200%
1990
2015
51
46
Percent of In-State Power that is Clean
400
412.5
425
437.5
450
1990 2014
431
442
Mega Tonnes CO2
California Emissions Rose Since 1990
Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), “2016 Edi;on California Greenhouse Gas for 2000-‐2014 — by Sector and Ac;vity,” 2016
150
225
300
375
450
2014 2030 Target
442
172
Mega Tonnes CO2
California Emissions Actual & Target
Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), “2016 Edi;on California Greenhouse Gas for 2000-‐2014 — by Sector and Ac;vity,” 2016
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Milli
on T
ons
CO
2
0
130
260
390
520
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
California Emissions did decline since 2000…
Source: EIA, State Energy Emissions Data, 2016
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
-0.1
-0.075
-0.05
-0.025
0
-7.5%-9.6%
United States California
…but less than national average
Source: EIA, State Energy Emissions Data, 2016
Mill
ion
Tons
CO
2
-10
-7.5
-5
-2.5
0
CO2 from Electricity (In-state)
-2.49-9.14
2001-2006 2007-2014
…and less after passage of climate legislation than before
Source: CARB, 2016 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2014 — by Sector and Activity, 2016
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Because solar and wind produce power just 10 - 30% of the time they almost always require fossil fuel back-up
Methane gas leaking from Aliso Canyon, California, where it was stored to provide rapid back-up power to solar & wind. Source: Environmental Defense Fund
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
2015
1,301
18,543
Diablo Canyon Topaz
Diablo Canyon produced 14 times more electricity than Topaz, one of world’s largest solar farms
Source: EIA
-14
-10.5
-7
-3.5
0
3.5
7
10.5
14
CO2 from Electricity (In-state)
10.45
-12.27
2000-10 2011-2014
California Power Emissions Rose Dramatically After Closure of San Onofre Nuclear Plant
Source: CARB, 2016 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2014 — by Sector and Activity, 2016
GW
h
-18,000
-13,500
-9,000
-4,500
0
4,500
9,000
13,500
18,000
2015
17,537
-17,443
Loss of San Onofre Cancelled Out Solar Gains
Source: EIA
Diablo Canyon
California Almanac, “In-State Generation by Fuel Type”, 2016
Milli
on T
ons
of C
O2
-12
-9
-6
-3
0
3
6
9
12
2011-2014
-10.39
10.45
Change in CO2 from In-State Power Change in CO2 from Power Imports
Decline in Emissions from Out-of-State Power Canceled Out by Rise of In-State Power Emissions
Source: CARB, 2016 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2014 — by Sector and Activity, 2016
Perc
ent o
f Ele
ctric
ity G
ener
atio
n To
tal
10%
28%
45%
63%
80%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015 w/o Diablo Canyon
40%
30%33% 32% 32%
24%
58%
67% 65% 66% 66%
74%
Fossil fuels Clean Energy
Total Nat Gas Rises with Nuclear Closures
Source: EIA
SONGS nuclear plant ceases to produce power in 2011
If Diablo Canyon is closed early, it could result in over 5,000 premature
deaths from air pollution.
GW
h
0
22500
45000
67500
90000
2015 2015 without Diablo Canyon
18,505
20,14620,146
12,34112,341
12,22812,228
13,97413,974
6,9216,921
Biomass Hydro Wind Geothermal Solar Nuclear
If Diablo closes, 21% of California’s clean electricity would be lost
Includes distributed solarSource: US Energy Information Administration
0
11
22
33
44
California population
4439
2014 2030
California Population Expected to Rise 13% by 2030
Source: California Department of Finance, “Projections: Population” 2016, http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/
0
22500
45000
67500
90000
electricity annually in GWh
84,500
17,500
5 million Nissan Leafs 24 million Nissan leafs
Electric vehicles will require 1 - 5x clean power currently provided by Diablo Canyon
Sources and Calculation: Nissan Leaf needs 30 kWh of electricity to travel 100 miles, or .3 kWh per miles. Department of Energy, 2016. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=37066. 5,000,000 Nissan Leafs at 0.3kWh per mile, multiplied by 12,000 miles (California average)
Germany
German electricity from clean energy is rising….
Source: BP Global Outlook 2016
TWhw
s
200
275
350
425
500
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Clean
CO
2 in
MM
T
0
237.5
475
712.5
950
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Average
…but Germany’s emissions aren’t declining.
0
200
400
600
800
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Electricity in Germany Remains 6x More Carbon-‐Intensive than in France
Sources: Daily German electricity production data from Fraunhofer ISE. Hourly French electricity production from RTE-‐France. Methods: Calculation of German Specific Carbon Intensity uses values of 1100g, 950g, 350g, and 983g of CO2 per kWh for lignite coal, hard coal, natural gas, and biomass (respectively). Calculation of French Specific Carbon Intensity calculated by RTE-‐France.
Germany
France shown in grams of CO2/KWh
German Electricity is 2x Expensive as French ElectricityAv
erag
e Pr
ice
per H
ouse
hold
[cnt
s/kW
h]
0
7.5
15
22.5
30
16
30
Germany France
Source: Eurostat, 2015
Germany Relies on Dirtiest Fossil FuelTe
raw
atth
ours
0
100
200
300
400
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Lignite Hard coal Oil Natural gas
Fossil electricity consumption declined 3% since 2000
Source: BP Global Outlook 2016
TWhw
s
0
67
133
200
267
333
400
2000 2015
371 360
Fossil
54% 46%
Clean DirtySource: BP Global Outlook 2016
7%
94%
8%
93%
Carbon-Intensity of Electricity Supply
10%
90%
Germany
SwedenFranceSwitzerland
54% 46%UK
42%58%
Belgium
66%
34%USA
83%
17%
Australia 54% 46%California
46% 54%
Illinois
German Electricity Costs Rose 47 Percent, 2006 - 2016
Composition of average power price in ct/kWh for an average household (3,500 kWh per year). Data: BDEW, 2016.
The Storage Fantasy
California has 23 minutes of electricity storage — if you used every car and truck in the state
along with existing storage.
One day of back-up power as batteries and pumped storage would cost $100 billion
App
roxi
mat
e C
apita
l Cos
t Alo
ne
$0
$25,0
00,00
0,000
$50,0
00,00
0,000
$75,0
00,00
0,000
$100
,000,0
00,00
0
$5,000,000,000$1,000,000,000$1,100,000,000
$100,000,000,000
One Day of Storage EV Batteries Batteries Pumped Hydro
Electricity Costs Rose with Less Nuclear & More RenewablesPr
ice
[cnt
s/kw
h]
0
7.5
15
22.5
30
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Renewables surcharge Other costs
8 nuclear reactors were shut down prematurely
Composition of average power price in ct/kWh for an average household (3,500 kWh per year). Data: BDEW, 2016.
Why is this happening?
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
0
22.5
45
67.5
90
Solar Wind Oil Nuclear Coal
252830
7885
Source: Ipsos, December 2014
Percent of Public Globally With
Favorable Attitudes
Public fears nuclear…
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Dea
ths
Per T
Wh
0
7.5
15
22.5
30
Coal Petroleum Biomass Natural Gas Nuclear
Deaths from air pollutionDeaths from accidents
Health effects of electricity generation in Europe by primary energy sourceSource: Markandya, A. & Wilkinson, Electricity generation and health. Lancet 2007; 370:970-90
…even though it is the safest way to make reliable power
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Nuclear support declined from 62% to 51% last five years
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Gallup: 53% Oppose “increased use” nuclear power
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Pew: 58% oppose expanding nuclear power
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
State clean energy standards exclude nuclear…
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Gra
ms
of C
O2
per K
Wh
0
225
450
675
900
Coal
Biomass - co-firingNatural Gas
Biomass
Solar PV - utilitySolar PV - roof
GeothermalSolar - concentratedHydropower
Nuclear
Wind offshoreWind onshore
1112122427384148
230
490
740820
…even though is lower-carbon than solar
Source: IPCC 2014, Annex III Table A III.2 Schlömer S., T. Bruckner, L. Fulton, E. Hertwich, A. McKinnon, D. Perczyk, J. Roy, R. Schaeffer, R. Sims, P. Smith, and R. Wiser, 2014: Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
“Nuclear power is one of the chief long-term hopes for conservation.”
— David Siri, Sierra Club Director, 1966
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
“If a doubling of the state’s population in the next 20 years is encouraged by providing the power resources for this growth, [California’s] scenic character will be destroyed.”
— David Brower, Sierra Club Director, 1966
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
“It’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it.”
— Amory Lovins
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
In 1966, 1967 and again in 1969 the Sierra Club’s Board
of Directors, and its members, voted in favor of building Diablo Canyon.
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
“Our campaign stressing the hazards of nuclear power will supply a rationale for increasing regulation… and add to the cost of the industry…”
— Sierra Club Executive Director, Michael McCloskey, 1974
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
“I really didn’t care [about possible nuclear accidents] because there are too many people anyway… I think that playing dirty if you have a noble end is fine.”
— Martin Litton, Sierra Club Board Member
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
“If you’re trying to get people aroused about what is going on… you use the most emotional issue you can find.”
— Doris Sloan, anti-nuclear activist
Source: Thomas Wellock, Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in California, 1958-1988, 1998, University of Wisconsin Press
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
Diablo Canyon No Nukes concert, June 1979
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
“The governor [Jerry Brown] said, ‘I want the Department of Water Resources to build a coal plant.’ So we embarked on the planning of a coal plant… a dreadful prospect.”
— Ron Robie, California Department of Water Resources
GW
h
0
57500
115000
172500
230000
2015 2015 + planned nuclear build-out
12,34112,341 6,9216,92112,22812,22820,14620,14613,97413,974
100,86118,505
34,951
118,082
Fossil Fuels Nuclear Hydro Solar Wind Biomass Geothermal
Nuclear Abandonments Locked in Fossil
Includes distributed solarSource: US Energy Information Administration
Source: California Almanac, “In-State Power,” 2016; Rooftop Solar Added;https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uXuqaE-BBvdNLnmuUic5mmhCkqOoU0VTunn3meS_dAU/edit?usp=sharing
Electricity from Clean Energy Sources in California, 1986 - 2015
0%
33.333%
66.667%
100%
2015 Actual 2015 + Killed Nuclear
88%
46%
+42
California Clean Power 42% Less Without California Nuclear
Milli
on M
egat
onne
s C
O2-
eq
0
23
45
68
90
MMT CO2-eq
40
88
CA Total Power CA Total Power w/Nuclear Build-Out
California Emissions Are 2x Higher Without Nuclear
Source: California Almanac, “In-State Generation by Fuel Type”, 2016
Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all
“Nuclear energy is the only practical alternative that we have to destroying the environment with oil and coal.”
— Ansel Adams, 1983