Abstract
The nuclear energy response for mitigating global climate change across 18 participating models of the EMF27 study is investigated. Diverse perspectives on the future role of nuclear power in the global energy system are evident in the broad range of nuclear power contributions from participating models of the study. In the Baseline scenario without climate policy, nuclear electricity generation and shares span 0–66 EJ/year and 0–25 % in 2100 for all models, with a median nuclear electricity generation of 39 EJ/year (1,389 GWe at 90 % capacity factor) and median share of 9 %. The role of nuclear energy increased under the climate policy scenarios. The median of nuclear energy use across all models doubled in the 450 ppm CO2e scenario with a nuclear electricity generation of 67 EJ/year (2,352 GWe at 90 % capacity factor) and share of 17 % in 2100. The broad range of nuclear electricity generation (11–214 EJ/year) and shares (2–38 %) in 2100 of the 450 ppm CO2e scenario reflect differences in the technology choice behavior, technology assumptions and competitiveness of low carbon technologies. Greater clarification of nuclear fuel cycle issues and risk factors associated with nuclear energy use are necessary for understanding the nuclear deployment constraints imposed in models and for improving the assessment of the nuclear energy potential in addressing climate change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As of 2013, there are 69 nuclear reactors currently under construction in 14 countries. These include 28 reactors in China, 10 in Russia, 7 in India, 5 in Korea (Rep. of), 3 in the US, and one to two in several other countries (IAEA-PRIS 2013).
Currently planned or proposed nuclear reactors are not included in the nuclear “Off” scenario.
Gen II reactors refer to legacy reactors that are currently in operation, Gen III reactors are new commercially available reactors that are being deployed today, and Gen IV reactors are envisioned future reactors that have significant departures in design from Gen II or III reactors (GIF 2002).
The median nuclear electricity generations of all models convert to 556 and 1,389 GWe (using 90 % capacity factor) in 2050 and 2100, respectively, and are greater than the 2013 nuclear capacity of 371 GWe (IAEA-PRIS 2013). As a point of reference, 67 GWe of nuclear capacity is currently under construction (IAEA-PRIS 2013), and an additional 177 GWe is planned according to the WNA (2013).
Nuclear costs reported for other modeling regions have a similar range, but are not necessarily the same.
Whether the model type was partial or general equilibrium did not conclusive determine their relative electricity contributions.
The nuclear electricity generation in the 450 scenario converts to 1,157 and 2,352 GWe in 2050 and 2100, respectively, at 90 % capacity factor.
This response is counterintuitive to the increased use of electricity under the climate policy scenarios (see Fig. 2a) in a model that imposes nuclear share constraints. Information regarding this response was not available.
Natural uranium demand is based on a LWR with thermal efficiency of 33 %, capacity factor of 90 %, nuclear fuel burnup of 50 gigawatt-day per ton of initial heavy metal (GWd/ton IHM), fuel enrichment of 4.5 %, and tails assay of 0.2 %.
GCAM-IIM is not included.
The cumulative nuclear energy use in the “Nuclear Off” case for the Baseline, 550 and 450 scenarios are essentially the same.
Policy cost metrics include consumptions loss, area under the marginal abatement cost curve, and energy system cost mark-up.
The total policy cost covers the period from 2010 to 2100 discounted at 5 %. Not all models provided results for these scenarios.
The role of nuclear energy for climate mitigation as explored in the EMF27 study was limited to the electric power sector. The study did not include potentially wider applications of nuclear energy for industrial purposes that are of greater interest due to climate change concerns. Heat produced from nuclear power plants is currently utilized for district heating and desalinization in several countries (Andrews et al. 2012; IAEA 2002, 2012b). Increased use of nuclear heat for these and other industrial applications are under investigation (IAEA 2007, 2012b).
References
Andrews D, Riekkola AK, Tzimas E, Serpa J, Carlsson J, Pardo-Garcia N, Papaioannou I (2012) Background report on EU-27 district heading and cooling potentials, barriers, best practice and measures of promotion. European Commission, The Netherlands
Bauer N, Brecha R, Luderer G (2012) Economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(42):16805–16810
Edmonds J, Wilson T, Wise M, Weyant J (2006) Electrification of the economy and CO2 emissions mitigation. J Environ Econ Policy Stud 7(3):175–203
Edmonds J, Calvin K, Clarke L, Kyle P, Wise M (2012) Energy and technology lessons since Rio. Energy Econ 34(2012):S7–S14
GIF (2002) A technology roadmap for generation IV nuclear energy systems. Generation IV International Forum (GIF), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris
IAEA (2002) Market potential for non-electric applications of nuclear energy. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
IAEA (2007) Non-electric applications of nuclear power: seawater desalination, hydrogen production, and other industrial applications. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
IAEA (2012a) International status and prospects for nuclear power 2012. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
IAEA (2012b) Climate change and nuclear power 2012. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
IAEA (2013) Energy, electricity and nuclear power estimates for the period up to 2050. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna
IAEA-PRIS (2013) Power reactor information system. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstructionReactorsByCountry.aspx
IEA (2010) Projected costs of generating electricity–2010 edition. International Energy Agency, Paris, 218 pp
IEA (2012) Key world energy statistics–2012 edition. International Energy Agency, Paris, 24 pp
Krey V, Luderer G, Clarke L, Kriegler E (2014) Getting from here to there: technology transformation pathways in the EMF-27 scenarios. Clim Chang. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0947-5
Kriegler E, Weyant JP, Blandford GJ, Krey V, Clarke L, Edmionsds J, Faucett A, Luderer G, Riahi K, Richels R, Rose SK, Tavoni M, van Vuuren DP (2014) The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on technology and climate policy strategies. Clim Chang. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0953-7
Matthews I, Driscoll M (2010) A probabilistic projection of longterm uranium resource costs. Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT-NFC-TR-119. MIT, Cambridge
OECD NEA/IAEA (2009) Uranium 2009: resources, production and demand. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency/IAEA, Paris
OECD NEA/IAEA (2011) Uranium 2011: resources, production and demand. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency/IAEA, Paris
Schneider E, Sailor W (2007) Long-term uranium supply estimates. Nucl Technol 162:379–387
WNA (2013) World nuclear power reactors and uranium requirements. http://world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/World-Nuclear-Power-Reactors-and-Uranium-Requirements
Acknowledgments
Son H. Kim’s contribution was supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy as part of the Integrated Assessment Research Program. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for DOE by Battelle Memorial Institute under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is part of the Special Issue on “The EMF27 Study on Global Technology and Climate Policy Strategies” edited by John Weyant, Elmar Kriegler, Geoffrey Blanford, Volker Krey, Jae Edmonds, Keywan Riahi, Richard Richels, and Massimo Tavoni.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, S.H., Wada, K., Kurosawa, A. et al. Nuclear energy response in the EMF27 study. Climatic Change 123, 443–460 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1098-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1098-z