Related Pages
(updated June 2010)
Primary energy and electricity outlook
The World Energy Outlook 2009 from the OECD's International Energy Agency (IEA) sets out the present situation and also reference* and carbon reduction scenarios. From 1980 to 2007 total world primary energy demand grew by 66%, and to 2030 it is projected to grow at a slightly lesser rate (40%, average 1.5% per year, from 503 EJ to 703 EJ). Electricity growth is almost double this, and is projected to grow 76% from 2007 to 2030 (growing at average 2.5% per year from 16,429 TWh to 28,930 TWh) in the reference case. Increased demand is most dramatic in Asia, averaging 4.7% per year to 2030. Currently some two billion people have no access to electricity, and it is a high priority to address this lack
* the Reference case describes what would happen if, among other things, governments were to take no new initiatives bearing on the energy sector, beyond those already adopted by mid-2009. It is thus a baseline, not a forecast.
With the United Nations predicting world population growth from 6.6 billion in 2007 to 8.2 billion by 2030, demand for energy must increase substantially over that period. Both population growth and increasing standards of living for many people in developing countries will cause strong growth in energy demand, as outlined above. Over 70% of the increased energy demand is from developing countries, led by China and India - China overtook the USA as top CO2 emitter in 2007.
Nuclear power generation is an established part of the world's electricity mix providing in 2007 some 15% of the world's electricity (cf. coal 42%, oil 6%, natural gas 21% and hydro & other 18%). It is especially suitable for large-scale, continuous electricity demand which requires reliability (ie base-load).
The World Energy Outlook highlights the increasing importance of nuclear power in meeting energy needs while achieving security of supply and minimising carbon dioxide emissions. The 2006 edition of this report warned that if policies remained unchanged, world energy demand to 2030 is forecast to increase by 53% accompanied by supply crises, giving a "dirty, insecure and expensive" energy future which would be unsustainable. The report demonstrates that nuclear power could make a major contribution to reducing dependence on imported gas and curbing CO2 emissions in a cost-effective way, since its uranium fuel is abundant. However governments must play a stronger role in facilitating private investment, especially in liberalized electricity markets where the trade-off between security and low price has been a disincentive to investment in new plant and grid infrastructure.
The World Energy Outlook 2009 report said that investment of US$ 25.6 trillion* is required by 2030 under the reference scenario, and $10.5 trillion more under an alternative low-carbon energy scenario. Under this, nuclear capacity increases 378 GWe (86%) to 816 GWe rather than to 475 GWe in reference case, energy demand increases by 20% rather than 40% and CO2 emissions reduce to 26.4 Gt/yr from 28.8 Gt/yr in 2007.
* Of the $25.6 trillion amount, $13.7 trillion is for electricity: about half for generation and the rest for transmission and distribution.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its annual Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period to 2030 published in September 2009 revised upwards its projections for 2030. Its low projection shows a nuclear capacity increase from 372 GWe today to 511 GWe in 2030, the high one gives 807 GWe then, in line with forecast growth in all power generation. The rising costs of natural gas and coal, together with energy supply security and environmental constraints, are among the factors contributing to anticipated nuclear growth. Increased commitments by governments, utilities and equipment vendors to expand nuclear capacity, plus the end of nuclear trade restrictions with India, confirmed earlier trends.
The OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency published its first Nuclear Energy Outlook in October 2008. Apart from nuclear being virtually carbon-free, it points out that energy security is enhanced due to nuclear fuel's high energy density, which means that transport is less vulnerable and storage of large reserves is easy. In its high scenario, life extensions and plant upratings continue and present plans for new capacity are largely implemented to 2030. After that new build accelerates to bring over 50 GWe on line each year, giving 1400 GWe nuclear capacity in 2050. It identifies factors which would result in that outcome.
In June 2010 this NEO was supplemented by the joint NEA-IEA Nuclear Technology Roadmap, with scenario for cutting energy-related CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050. This would see 1200 GWe of nuclear capacity on line then, providing 24% of electricity (world production having grown from 20,000 TWh in 2007 to 41,000 TWh then). Nuclear power would then be the single largest source of electricity. If constraints on building new nuclear capacity were overcome, nuclear could provide 38% of electricity by 2050, and in this case the power would be 11% cheaper then. The roadmap saw nuclear as a mature technology which required no major technological breakthrough to achieve the projected growth. However, global industrial capacity to construct nuclear power plants will need to double by 2020 if nuclear capacity is to grow in the 2020s and beyond as projected. The Roadmap estimates the investment in nuclear power needed by 2050 to be almost $4000 billion: including $893 billion in China, $883 billion in USA and Canada, $615 billion in OECD Pacific (including Japan & Korea), $389 billion in India, and $330 billion in centrally-planned economies.
The US Energy Information Administration has also revised upwards its normally low projections for nuclear in recent editions of its annual International Energy Outlook (IEO). In 2010 it projected 558 GWe nuclear capacity in 2030 and 593 GWe in 2035. The 2030 figure is 53% higher than its 2030 projection published seven years earlier. The reference case for 2035 includes 66 GWe added in China, 23 GWe in India, 25 GWe in Russia and 12 GWe in the USA. It projected 4200 TWh from nuclear in 2030 and 4510 TWh in 2035.
The World Nuclear Association introduced Nuclear Century Outlook projections for nuclear growth based on country by country assessments extending to 2100. These projections, which will be regularly updated, appear on the WNA website. For each country, two projections are made, using optimistic and pessimistic assumptions. When added, the projections provide high and low "boundaries" for likely future global nuclear capacity. For 2030 the boundaries are now 602 GWe and 1339 GWe. The Outlook also aims to identify what would be required to achieve a worldwide change to clean energy and to assess how much nuclear power could contribute to this. It envisages the capacity needed for full transformation of electricity to be emissions-free plus much greater use of electricity in transport. It also envisages greater use of electricity or clean heat for industrial processes including desalination, synthetic oil and hydrogen production, though most of this beyond the 2030 time frame.
Electricite de France (EdF) in about 2008 published forecast world figures for the period to 2020. These show 140 GWe of new capacity being built and 10 GWe decommissioned to give 480 GWe in 2020. Of the 140 GWe new build, almost 30% is in China, 15% is in India and 15% other Asia. Europe, Americas and Russia have about 12% each.
Cameco is reported to project a net increase of 97 nuclear power rectors by 2020, including eight in the USA by then.
Generation options
The renewable energy sources for electricity constitute a diverse group, from wind, solar, tidal and wave energy to hydro, geothermal and biomass-based power generation. Apart from hydro power in the few places where it is very plentiful, none of these is suitable, intrinsically or economically, for large-scale power generation where continuous, reliable supply is needed.
Growing use will however be made of the renewable energy sources in the years ahead, although their role is limited by their intermittent nature. Their economic attractiveness is still an issue also. Renewables will have most appeal where demand is for small-scale, intermittent supply of electricity. In the OECD about 2% of electricity is from renewables other than hydro and this is expected to increase to 4% by 2015.
This diagram shows that much of the electricity demand is in fact for continuous 24/7 supply (base-load), while some is for a lesser amount of predictable supply for about three quarters of the day, and less still for variable peak demand up to half of the time.
Without nuclear power the world would have to rely almost entirely on fossil fuels, especially coal, to meet demand for base-load electricity production. Most of the demand is for continuous, reliable supply on a large scale and there is little scope for changing this. There is as much electricity generated by nuclear power today as from all sources worldwide in 1960.
Implications of Electric Vehicles
Future widespread use of electric vehicles, both pure electric and plug-in hybrids, will increase electricity demand modestly - perhaps up to 15% in terms of kilowatt-hours. But this increase will mostly come overnight, in off-peak demand, so will not much increase the system's peak capacity requirement in gigawatts. Overnight charging of vehicles will however greatly increase the proportion of that system capacity to be covered by base-load power generation - either nuclear or coal. In a typical system this might increase from about 50-60% to 70-80% of the total, as shown in the Figures below.
This then has significant implications for the cost of electricity. Base-load power is generated much more cheaply than intermediate- and peak-load power, so the average cost of electricity will be lower than with the present pattern of use. And any such major increase in base-load capacity requirement will have a major upside potential for nuclear power if there are constraints on carbon emissions. So potentially the whole power supply gets a little cheaper and cleaner, and many fossil fuel emissions from road transport are avoided at the same time.
Drivers for increased nuclear capacity
The first generation of nuclear plants were justified by the need to alleviate urban smog caused by coal-fired power plants. Nuclear was also seen as an economic source of base-load electricity which reduced dependence on overseas imports of fossil fuels. Today's drivers for nuclear build have evolved:
o Increasing energy demandGlobal population growth in combination with industrial development will lead to a doubling of electricity consumption by 2030. Besides this incremental growth, there will be a need to renew a lot of generating stock in the USA and the EU over the same period. An increasing shortage of fresh water calls for energy-intensive desalination plants, and in the longer term hydrogen production for transport purposes will need large amounts of electricity and/or high temperature heat. See first section above for recent projections.
o Climate changeIncreased awareness of the dangers and effects of global warming and climate change has led decision makers, media and the public to realize that the use of fossil fuels must be reduced and replaced by low-emission sources of energy, such as nuclear power, the only readily available large-scale alternative to fossil fuels for production of continuous, reliable supply of electricity.
o Security of SupplyA major topic on many political agendas is security of supply, as countries realize how vulnerable they are to interrupted deliveries of oil and gas. The abundance of naturally occurring uranium makes nuclear power attractive from an energy security standpoint.
o EconomicsIncreasing fossil fuel prices have greatly improved the economics of nuclear power for electricity now. Several studies show that nuclear energy is the most cost-effective of the available base-load technologies. In addition, as carbon emission reductions are encouraged through various forms of government incentives and trading schemes, the economic benefits of nuclear power will increase further.
o Insurance against future price exposureA longer-term advantage of uranium over fossil fuels is the low impact that increased fuel prices will have on the final electricity production costs, since a large proportion of those costs is in the capital cost of the plant. This insensitivity to fuel price fluctuations offers a way to stabilize power prices in deregulated markets.
As the nuclear industry is moving away from small national programmes towards global cooperative schemes, serial production of new plants will drive construction costs down and further increase the competitiveness of nuclear energy.
In practice, is a rapid expansion of nuclear power capacity possible?
Most reactors today are built in under five years (first concrete to first power), with four years being state of the art and three years being the aim with prefabrication. Several years are required for preliminary approvals before construction.
It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. These included 47 in USA, 42 in France and 18 in Japan. The average power was 923.5 MWe. So it is not hard to imagine a similar number being commissioned in a decade after about 2015. But with China and India getting up to speed with nuclear energy and a world energy demand double the 1980 level in 2015, a realistic estimate of what is possible might be the equivalent of one 1000 MWe unit worldwide every 5 days.
A relevant historical benchmark is that from 1941 to 1945, 18 US shipyards built over 2700 Liberty Ships. These were standardised 10,800 dwt cargo ships of a very basic British design but they became symbolic of US industrial wartime productivity and were vital to the war effort. Average construction time was 42 days in the shipyard, often using prefabricated modules . In 1943, three were being completed every day. They were 135 metres long and could carry 9100 tonnes of cargo.
See also the paper in this series: Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants.
Greenhouse Gases
On a global scale nuclear power currently reduces carbon dioxide emissions by some 2.5 billion tonnes per year (relative to the main alternative of coal-fired generation, about 2 billion tonnes relative to the present fuel mix). Carbon dioxide accounts for half of the human-contributed portion of the global warming effect of the atmosphere.
The UN Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has comprehensively reviewed global warming and has reached a consensus that the phenomenon is real and does pose a significant environmental threat during the next century if fossil fuel use continues even at present global levels. See also Global Warming - science paper.
The 2007 IPCC report on mitigation of climate change says that the most cost-effective option for restricting the temperature rise to under 3°C will require an increase in non-carbon electricity generation from 34% (nuclear plus hydro) now to 48 - 53% by 2030, along with other measures. With a doubling of overall electricity demand by then, and a carbon emission cost of US$ 50 per tonne of CO2, nuclear's share of electricity generation is projected by IPCC to grow from 16% now to 18% of the increased demand (ie 2650 TWh to some 6000 TWh/yr), representing more than a doubling of the current nuclear output by 2030. The report projects other non-carbon sources apart from hydro contributing some 12-17% of global electricity generation by 2030.
These projected figures are estimates, and it is evident that if renewables fail to grow as much as hoped it means that other non-carbon sources will need to play a larger role. Thus nuclear power's contribution could triple or perhaps quadruple to more than 30% of the global generation mix in 2030 - around 10,000 TWh.
Nuclear power has a key role to play in reducing greenhouse gases. Every 22 tonnes of uranium (26 t U3O8) used saves one million tonnes of carbon dioxide relative to coal.
Use of Natural Resources
Carbon and hydrocarbon resources have many other uses that generating power on a large scale. Coal and other fossil fuels are required in much larger quantities than uranium to produce the equivalent amount of electricity. Nuclear power already has substantially reduced the use of fossil fuels. There are particular questions of ethics and opportunity cost in the use of gas to generate base-load power.
A further aspect of natural resource use in some places is regarding fresh water. Coal-fired plants are often built on coalfields for logistical reasons, and then cooled with fresh water using evaporative cooling towers. These use a lot of water. With nuclear plants, there is no similar siting consideration and they may more readily be put on the coastline, using seawater for cooling without evaporation. In Australia, a dry continent, a move from coal-fired to nuclear power could save enough fresh water to supply a city of four million people.
See also Sustainable Energy in this series.
Sourcesas quoted.