Why Massive Nuclear Deployment is Essential

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alistair I. Miller ◽  
Romney B. Duffey
Keyword(s):  
Energy Demand ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
World Population ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Efficiency Measures ◽  
Energy Needs ◽  
Reactor Types ◽  
Global Trajectory

Avoiding CO2 emissions while meeting global energy needs is a far greater challenge than most commentators and governments appreciate. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has offered no scenario that would stabilize atmospheric levels. The capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2 is limited to about 40% of the level of emissions in 1990. Shared equitably among the present-day world population, per capita emissions of 35% of the current European average would only return the world to 100% of 1990 emission levels. Yet world population will probably grow by 25% by 2050 and, between 1990 and 2007, global emissions increased by 29%. Our current global trajectory is hurtling us toward ever-higher levels, perhaps even disaster. Consequently, near-zero-emitting sources are the only approaches to energy generation that should be deployed. Nuclear power, with its immense energy density, is the only available source that qualifies for widespread deployment. Existing alternative options are not and cannot effectively contribute (see e.g. MacKay, 2008). The weakness in wind is the need for back-up and supplementation, not so much from its short-term fickleness but its seasonal variability. Carbon capture and storage would have to achieve far higher levels of capture than currently seem feasible. Hydroelectricity has limited remaining potential as well as needing careful deployment to avoid collateral emissions. Aggressive conservation and efficiency measures reduce but do not solve the growth in energy demand and usage. Global economic downturns provide temporary relief but huge social political pain, and energy supply security concerns remain unresolved issue for many countries, even today. Of course nuclear alone would face an overwhelming challenge. We shall need to deploy massive improvements in the efficiency with which energy is used. Solar power in various forms has promise and could have a substantial role at lower latitudes in consistently sunny areas though photovoltaic electricity is still a high-cost option. Geothermal and various forms of ocean-derived energy have development potential. However, we argue that worldwide deployment of 5000 to 10 000 nuclear reactors by 2050 is the only clearly accessible pathway to CO2 stabilization that exists today. This will require extension of the resource beyond once-through cycles and so the deployment of advanced reactor types. But it is doable, it is affordable, and our planet must plan to accomplish this deployment.

scholarly journals Review of Energy Efficiency of the Gas Production Technologies From Gas Hydrate-Bearing Sediments

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koji Yamamoto ◽  
Sadao Nagakubo
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Energy Conversion ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Dioxide Emission ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Gas Production ◽  
Energy Return On Investment ◽  
Production Technologies ◽  
Project Life

Even in the carbon-neutral age, natural gas will be valuable as environment-friendly fuel that can fulfill the gap between the energy demand and supply from the renewable energies. Marine gas hydrates are a potential natural gas source, but gas production from deposits requires additional heat input owing to the endothermic nature of their dissociation. The amount of fuel needed to produce a unit of energy is important to evaluate energy from economic and environmental perspectives. Using the depressurization method, the value of the energy return on investment or invested (EROI) can be increased to more than 100 for the dissociation process and to approximately 10 or more for the project life cycle that is comparable to liquefied natural gas (LNG) import. Gas transportation through an offshore pipeline from the offshore production facility can give higher EROI than floating LNG; however, the latter has an advantage of market accessibility. If the energy conversion from methane to hydrogen or ammonia at the offshore facility and carbon capture and storage (CCS) can be done at the production site, problems of carbon dioxide emission and market accessibility can be solved, and energy consumption for energy conversion and CCS should be counted to estimate the value of the hydrate resources.

Renewable Energy: A Very Short Introduction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Jelley
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
Lithium Ion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Heat Pumps ◽  
Energy Needs ◽  
Net Zero ◽  
History Of ◽  
Paris Climate Agreement

Energy is vital for a good standard of living, and affordable and adequate sources of power that do not cause climate change or pollution are crucial. Renewables can meet the world’s energy needs without compromising human health and the environment, and this VSI gives a history of their deployment and the principles of their technologies. Wind and solar farms can now provide the cheapest electricity in many parts of the world. Decarbonizing heat is just as important as clean electricity, and can be achieved using renewably generated electricity to power heat pumps and to produce combustible fuels such as hydrogen and ammonia. Several other clean alternatives, notably hydropower, biofuels, nuclear power, and carbon capture, are also becoming important. Lithium-ion batteries are enabling the electrification of transport and providing grid storage. But while market forces are helping the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, there are opposing pressures, such as the United States’ proposed withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, and vested commercial interests in fossil fuels. Net-zero emissions must be reached by 2050 for a sustainable future, and governments must act quickly to accelerate the transition.

scholarly journals Effect of the Implementation of Carbon Capture Systems on the Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance of the Brazilian Electricity Matrix

Energies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Sanchez Moore ◽  
Luiz Kulay
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Economic Performance ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Primary Energy ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Calcium Looping ◽  
Primary Energy Demand ◽  
Cost Of Energy

This study examined the effect of Carbon Capture and Storage units on the environmental, energy and economic performance of the Brazilian electric grid. Four scenarios were established considering the coupling of Calcium Looping (CaL) processes to capture CO2 emitted from thermoelectric using coal and natural gas: S1: the current condition of the Brazilian grid; S2 and S3: Brazilian grid with CaL applied individually to coal (TEC) and gas (TGN) operated thermoelectric; and S4: CaL is simultaneously coupled to both sources. Global warming potential (GWP) expressed the environmental dimension, Primary Energy Demand (PED) was the energy indicator and Levelised Cost of Energy described the economic range. Attributional Life Cycle Assessment for generation of 1.0 MWh was applied in the analysis. None of the scenarios accumulated the best indexes in all dimensions. Regarding GWP, S4 totals the positive effects of using CaL to reduce CO2 from TEC and TGN, but the CH4 emissions increased due to its energy requirements. As for PED, S1 and S2 are similar and presented higher performances than S3 and S4. The price of natural gas compromises the use of CaL in TGN. A combined verification of the three analysis dimensions, proved that S2 was the best option of the series due to the homogeneity of its indices. The installation of CaL in TECs and TGNs was effective to capture and store CO2 emissions, but the costs of this system should be reduced and its energy efficiency still needs to be improved.

Carbon capture and storage in the oil and gas industry: 40 years on

2017 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 413
Author(s):  
Christopher Consoli ◽  
Alex Zapantis ◽  
Peter Grubnic ◽  
Lawrence Irlam
Keyword(s):  
Oil Recovery ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
Gas Industry ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
And Storage

In 1972, carbon dioxide (CO2) began to be captured from natural gas processing plants in West Texas and transported via pipeline for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to oil fields also in Texas. This marked the beginning of carbon capture and storage (CCS) using anthropogenic CO2. Today, there are 22 such large-scale CCS facilities in operation or under construction around the world. These 22 facilities span a wide range of capture technologies and source feedstock as well as a variety of geologic formations and terrains. Seventeen of the facilities capture CO2 primarily for EOR. However, there are also several significant-scale CCS projects using dedicated geological storage options. This paper presents a collation and summary of these projects. Moving forward, if international climate targets and aspirations are to be achieved, CCS will increasingly need to be applied to all high emission industries. In addition to climate change objectives, the fundamentals of energy demand and fossil fuel supply strongly suggests that CCS deployment will need to be rapid and global. The oil and gas sector would be expected to be part of this deployment. Indeed, the oil and gas industry has led the deployment of CCS and this paper explores the future of CCS in this industry.

scholarly journals The Role of Nuclear Power in Meeting Current and Future Industrial Process Heat Demands

Energies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 3664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aiden Peakman ◽  
Bruno Merk
Keyword(s):  
High Temperature ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Industrial Process ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Low Carbon ◽  
Fast Reactors ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Heat Demand

There is growing interest in the use of advanced reactor systems for powering industrial processes which could significantly help to reduce CO 2 emissions in the global energy system. However, there has been limited consideration into the role nuclear power would play in meeting current and future industry heat demand, especially with respect to the advantages and disadvantages nuclear power offers relative to other competing low-carbon technologies, such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). In this study, the current market needs for high temperature heat are considered based on UK industry requirements and work carried out in other studies regarding how industrial demand could change in the future. How these heat demands could be met via different nuclear reactor systems is also presented. Using this information, it was found that the industrial heat demands for temperature in the range of 500 ∘ C to 1000 ∘ C are relatively low. Whilst High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactors (HTGRs), Very High Temperature Reactors (VHTRs), Gas-cooled Fast Reactors (GFRs) and Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) have an advantage in terms of capability to achieve higher temperatures (>500 ∘ C), their relative benefit over Liquid Metal-cooled Fast Reactors (LMFRs) and Light Water Reactors (LWRs) is actually smaller than previous studies indicate. This is because, as is shown here, major parts of the heat demand could be served by almost all reactor types. Alternative (non-nuclear) means to meet industrial heat demands and the indirect application of nuclear power, in particular via producing hydrogen, are also considered. As hydrogen is a relatively poor energy carrier, current trends indicate that the use of low-carbon derived hydrogen is likely to be limited to certain applications and there is a focus in this study on the emerging demands for hydrogen.

scholarly journals Boundary Work and Interpretations in the IPCC Review Process of the Role of Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) in Limiting Global Warming to 1.5°C

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Hansson ◽  
Jonas Anshelm ◽  
Mathias Fridahl ◽  
Simon Haikola
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Integrated Assessment ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Boundary Work ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Significant Degree ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
And Storage

Paris Agreement-compatible emissions pathways produced by integrated assessment models (IAMs) often rely on large amounts of carbon dioxide removals, especially afforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). These pathways feature prominently in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to the extent that the IAMs have been granted an interpretative privilege at the interface between climate science, economics, and policymaking. The privilege extends to and influences climate governance, including governance of BECCS. This paper contributes to recent debates about the role of the IPCC, and its framing of BECCS, at the science-policy interface. By analyzing all BECCS-related expert review comments and author responses on the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, the paper shows that boundary work influences the representation of BECCS by authors referring to: (1) a limited scope or capacity; (2) a restrictive mandate; (3) what constitutes legitimate science, and; (4) relativizing uncertainties. The responses to the review comments indicate a significant degree of compliance on behalf of the authors. Yet, the revisions do not seem to go to the heart of the unease that runs through many of the reviewer comments, i.e., that BECCS seems to be presented as a viable CDR technology at grand scale. While several revisions serve to clarify uncertainties surrounding BECCS, some fundamental aspects of the critique are deflected, through the boundary work identified. What the analysis reveals, beyond a dissatisfaction among many reviewers with the focus on integrated assessment modeling, the associated pathway literature, and analysis of BECCS, is a disagreement about how model results should be interpreted and communicated. While acknowledging the herculean task of the IPCC and the efforts to improve the pathway literature that the SR1.5 triggered within the IAM communities, we argue that the identified boundary work also risks entrenching rather than problematize dominant framings of the feasibility of BECCS. Such entrenchment can counteract the ambition of opening up the scientific work of the IPCC to include more diversity in the process of drafting reports, and arguably also influence the governance of CDR.

Carbon capture and storage: Pulling down the barriers in the European Union

2009 ◽  
Vol 223 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Tysoe
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
European Union ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Point Sources ◽  
Total Carbon ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
And Storage

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of the number of approaches to mitigating climate change by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. It involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from large point sources such as power plants, prior to compressing, transporting, and storing it securely in geological formations. The CO2 emitted is thus prevented from entering the atmosphere. CCS is believed, by many, to have massive potential to significantly reduce GHG emissions, with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggesting that CCS could contribute between 10 and 55 per cent of the world's total carbon mitigation effort until 2100. This article considers the principal impediments to the development of CCS projects and the steps taken in the European Union (EU) to overcome them. The development of CCS requires not only the establishment of adequate funding mechanisms and, most likely, the existence of consistently higher carbon prices than those prevail today, but also the settlement of a number of key legal issues. Although much further work is required on the part of legislators, a regulatory framework for CCS is slowly growing in various jurisdictions, especially in the EU where a large step forward was taken in December 2008 with the passing of a CCS Directive.

scholarly journals Public perceptions of climate engineering: Laypersons’ acceptance at different levels of knowledge and intensities of deliberation

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Merk ◽  
Geraldine Klaus ◽  
Julia Pohlers ◽  
Andreas Ernst ◽  
Konrad Ott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
The Past ◽  
Global Mean Temperature ◽  
And Storage

Over the past years, new options for addressing global warming and atmospheric CO2-concentrations ‐ such as bioenergy carbon capture and storage ‐ have been included in computer models that estimate how much more can be emitted before the global mean temperature increase surpasses 1.5°C. While the public in general remains mainly unaware of these, similar proposals in the past have triggered public protests. The prospect of public opposition therefore calls into question the use of these options in the models.Even if societies decarbonized rapidly, it is unlikely that they will achieve the 1.5°C target without also resorting to CO2 removal, by means, for example, of bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Such methods were included in the special report Global Warming of 1.5°C published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2018. This report also discusses solar radiation management, such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) which might be used to change global temperatures. However, public debate about the acceptability of these methods remains absent. We look at laypersons’ perceptions of BECCS and SAI at three stylized stages of increasing knowledge and deliberation. We found a high level of uncertainty among survey respondents as to whether to accept the use of these methods, which decreases when additional information is supplied by stakeholders. When comparing survey participants to members of a citizens’ jury, we found lower levels of acceptance for SAI and similar levels for BECCS among jury members who had deliberated the methods intensively. Despite fears of distracting from the aim of reducing emissions, decision-makers should publicly discuss these methods to avoid planning based on incorrect assumptions about the political feasibility of CO2 removal. People want to be informed about both approaches and the threat of SAI makes them focus their attention on mitigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document