Economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies

The events of March 2011 at the nuclear power complex in Fukushima, Japan, raised questions about the safe operation of nuclear power plants, with early retirement of existing nuclear power plants being debated in the policy arena and considered by regulators. Also, the future of building new nuclear power plants is highly uncertain. Should nuclear power policies become more restrictive, one potential option for climate change mitigation will be less available. However, a systematic analysis of nuclear power policies, including early retirement, has been missing in the climate change mitigation literature. We apply an energy economy model framework to derive scenarios and analyze the interactions and tradeoffs between these two policy fields. Our results indicate that early retirement of nuclear power plants leads to discounted cumulative global GDP losses of 0.07% by 2020. If, in addition, new nuclear investments are excluded, total losses will double. The effect of climate policies imposed by an intertemporal carbon budget on incremental costs of policies restricting nuclear power use is small. However, climate policies have much larger impacts than policies restricting the use of nuclear power. The carbon budget leads to cumulative discounted near term reductions of global GDP of 0.64% until 2020. Intertemporal flexibility of the carbon budget approach enables higher near-term emissions as a result of increased power generation from natural gas to fill the emerging gap in electricity supply, while still remaining within the overall carbon budget. Demand reductions and efficiency improvements are the second major response strategy.

[1]  T. E. Allibone.  Nuclear Power , 1972, Nature.

[2]  Leonardo Barreto,et al.  Biomass-fired cogeneration systems with CO2 capture and storage , 2007 .

[3]  N. Meinshausen,et al.  Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C , 2009, Nature.

[4]  James E. Connor.  Prospects for Nuclear Power , 1973 .

[5]  L. Clarke,et al.  International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios , 2009 .

[6]  Ferenc L. Toth,et al.  Oil and nuclear power: Past, present, and future B , 2006 .

[7]  R. Loulou,et al.  The role of nuclear energy in long-term climate scenarios: An analysis with the World-TIMES model , 2007 .

[8]  W. Patterson.  Nuclear Power , 1976 .

[9]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Mitigation Costs in a Globalized World: Climate Policy Analysis with REMIND-R , 2010 .

[10]  Kenji Yamaji,et al.  Important roles of Fischer–Tropsch synfuels in the global energy future , 2008 .

[11]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO 2 capture and storage , 2007 .

[12]  Alan S. Manne,et al.  MERGE. A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies , 1995 .

[13]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change Strategies , 1996 .

[14]  John F. Ahearne.  Prospects for nuclear energy , 2011 .

[15]  N. Bauer,et al.  The REMIND-R model: the role of renewables in the low-carbon transformation—first-best vs. second-best worlds , 2012, Climatic Change.

[16]  Waichi Iwasaki,et al.  A consideration of the economic efficiency of hydrogen production from biomass , 2003 .

[17]  Paul L. Joskow,et al.  The Future of Nuclear Power , 2012 .

[18]  T. E. Allibone,et al.  The Future of Nuclear Power , 1966, Nature.

[19]  H. Rogner.  AN ASSESSMENT OF WORLD HYDROCARBON RESOURCES , 1997 .

[20]  I. Gorst.  Survey of energy resources , 1985 .

[21]  Nathan E. Hultman,et al.  A reactor-level analysis of busbar costs for US nuclear plants, 1970-2005 , 2007 .

[22]  Steve Fetter,et al.  The Economics of Reprocessing versus Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel , 2005 .

[23]  Markus Blesl,et al.  A global perspective to achieve a low-carbon society (LCS): scenario analysis with the ETSAP-TIAM model , 2008 .

[24]  Timur Gül,et al.  An energy-economic scenario analysis of alternative fuels for transport , 2008 .

[25]  Tetsuo Fuchino,et al.  Thermo-economic analysis for the optimal conceptual design of biomass gasification energy conversion systems , 2009 .

[26]  Bob van der Zwaan,et al.  Prospects for nuclear energy in Europe , 2008 .

[27]  Christoph Schillings,et al.  Characterisation of Solar Electricity Import Corridors from MENA to Europe , 2009 .

[28]  Arnulf Grubler,et al.  The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing , 2010 .

[29]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  Intermediate steps towards the 2000 W society in Switzerland: An energy–economic scenario analysis , 2008 .

[30]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  CO2 control technology effects on IGCC plant performance and cost , 2009 .

[31]  Emmanuel Kakaras,et al.  Air-blown biomass gasification combined cycles (BGCC): System analysis and economic assessment , 2009 .

[32]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs , 2010 .

[33]  B. Ohlin,et al.  Heckscher-Ohlin Trade Theory , 1991 .

[34]  Bas Eickhout,et al.  Long-Term Multi-Gas Scenarios to Stabilise Radiative Forcing - Exploring Costs and Benefits Within an Integrated Assessment Framework , 2006 .

[35]  Lucas W. Davis.  Prospects for Nuclear Power , 2011 .

[36]  Martin Junginger,et al.  Technological Learning in the Energy Sector , 2008 .

[37]  Haisheng Chen,et al.  Progress in electrical energy storage system: A critical review , 2009 .

[38]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  Linking energy system and macroeconomic growth models , 2008, Comput. Manag. Sci..

[39]  Thomas Bruckner,et al.  The Role of Concentrating Solar Power and Photovoltaics for Climate Protection , 2009 .

[40]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  A MERGE Model with Endogenous Technological Progress , 2003 .

[41]  Jan Christoph Steckel,et al.  The economics of decarbonizing the energy system—results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison , 2012, Climatic Change.