A “Grammar” for assessing the performance of power-supply systems: Comparing nuclear energy to fossil energy

This article illustrates an innovative approach for the characterization and comparison of the performance of power-supply systems. The concept of ‘grammar’ forces to declare the pre-analytical decisions about: (i) semantic and formal categories used for the accounting – primary energy sources (PES), energy carriers (EC), and production factors; (ii) the set of functional and structural elements of the power-supply system included in the analysis. After having tamed the systemic ambiguity associated with energy accounting, it becomes possible to generate a double assessment referring to: (i) external constraints – the consumption of PES and the generation of waste and pollution; and (ii) internal constraints – the requirements of production factors such as human labor, power capacity, internal consumption of EC for making EC. The case study provided compares the production of EC (electricity) with “nuclear energy” and “fossil energy”. When considering internal constraints, nuclear energy requires about twice as much power capacity (5.9–9.5 kW/GWh vs. 2.6–2.9 kW/GWh) and 5–8 times more labor (570–640 h/GWh vs. 80–115 h/GWh). Things do not improve for nuclear energy when looking at external constraints – e.g. the relative scarcity of PES. This may explain the difficulties faced by nuclear energy to gain interest from investors.

[1]  C. Hall,et al.  Energy and the Wealth of Nations , 2012 .

[2]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review , 2008 .

[3]  Wilhelm Bier,et al.  Nuclear Power, The Energy Balance , 2005 .

[4]  Leonard L. Grigsby,et al.  Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution , 2007 .

[5]  Marina Fischer-Kowalski,et al.  Energy in nature and society: general energetics of complex systems , 2009 .

[6]  S. Toulmin.  Return to Reason , 2001 .

[7]  Mario Giampietro,et al.  Energy Analysis for a Sustainable Future: Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism , 2012 .

[8]  François Diaz Maurin,et al.  Biophysical requirements of power-supply systems: nuclear energy and fossil energy , 2012 .

[9]  Mario Giampietro,et al.  Are energy statistics useful for making energy scenarios , 2012 .

[10]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy , 1990 .

[11]  Lora L Pinkerton,et al.  Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1a: Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity Revision 3 , 2011 .

[12]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage , 2007 .

[13]  L. Lamar,et al.  World Energy Statistics , 1994 .

[14]  Michael Dittmar,et al.  Nuclear energy: Status and future limitations , 2012 .

[15]  R. Cowan.  Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock-in , 1990, The Journal of Economic History.

[16]  Lavinia Poruschi.  Energy analysis for a sustainable future: multi-scale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism , 2015 .

[17]  H. Mohr,et al.  Environment, Power, and Society. Odum, H. T. Wiley‐Interscience, New York 1971. £2,65 (Paperback), £4,50 (Leinen) , 1974 .

[18]  Joris Koornneef,et al.  Life cycle assessment of a pulverized coal power plant with post-combustion capture, transport and storage of CO2 , 2008 .

[19]  Mario Giampietro,et al.  The Metabolic Pattern of Societies: Where Economists Fall Short , 2011 .

[20]  D. North.  Competing Technologies , Increasing Returns , and Lock-In by Historical Events , 1994 .

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

[22]  Charles A. S. Hall,et al.  Year in review—EROI or energy return on (energy) invested , 2010, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[23]  C. Hall,et al.  Energy and Resource Quality: The Ecology of the Economic Process , 1992 .

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

[25]  Howard T. Odum,et al.  Environment, Power, and Society , 1972 .

[26]  Mario Giampietro,et al.  The epistemological predicament associated with purposive quantitative analysis , 2006 .

[27]  N. Georgescu-Roegen.  The Entropy Law and the Economic Process , 1973 .

[28]  G. Munda.  Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy , 2007 .

[29]  Mark T. Brown,et al.  A picture is worth a thousand words: energy systems language and simulation , 2004 .

[30]  Mario Giampietro,et al.  Integrated assessment and energy analysis : Quality assurance in multi-criteria analysis of sustainability , 2006 .

[31]  Irvin C. Bupp,et al.  Light water : how the nuclear dream dissolved , 1979 .