Nuclear Versus Coal plus CCS: a Comparison of Two Competitive Base-Load Climate Control Options
- 363 Downloads
In this paper, we analyze the relative importance and mutual behavior of two competing base-load electricity generation options that each are capable of contributing significantly to the abatement of global CO2 emissions: nuclear energy and coal-based power production complemented with CO2 capture and storage (CCS). We also investigate how, in scenarios developed with an integrated assessment model that simulates the economics of a climate-constrained world, the prospects for nuclear energy would change if exogenous limitations on the spread of nuclear technology were relaxed. Using the climate change economics model World Induced Technical Change Hybrid, we find that until 2050 the growth rates of nuclear electricity generation capacity would become comparable to historical rates observed during the 1980s. Given that nuclear energy continues to face serious challenges and contention, we inspect how extensive the improvements of coal-based power equipped with CCS technology would need to be if our economic optimization model is to significantly scale down the construction of new nuclear power plants.
KeywordsEconomic competition Electricity sector Nuclear power Coal power CCS Renewables Climate policy
JEL ClassificationD8 D9 H0 O3 O4 Q4 Q5
- 1.Bosetti, V., Carraro, C., Galeotti, M., Massetti, E., & Tavoni, M. (2006). WITCH: A World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model. The Energy Journal, Special Issue on “Hybrid Modelling of Energy Environment Policies: Reconciling Bottom-up and Top-down”, 13–38.Google Scholar
- 3.Bunn, M., Fetter, S., Holdren, J. P., & van der Zwaan, B. C. C. (2005). The economics of reprocessing vs. direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear Technology, 150, 209–230.Google Scholar
- 4.Chakravorty, U., Magne, B., & Moreaux, M. (2005). Can nuclear power solve the global warming problem? Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=781245.
- 5.Clarke, L., Edmonds, J., Jacoby, H., Pitcher, H., Reilly, J., & Richels, R. (2007). Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Sub-report 2.1A of synthesis and assessment product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC.: Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research. 154 pp.Google Scholar
- 7.Hendriks, C., Graus, W., & Bergen, F. V. (2002). Global carbon dioxide storage potential costs. Report EEP 02001. Utrecht: Ecofys.Google Scholar
- 8.IEA. (2000). Experience curves for energy technology policy. Paris: OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
- 9.IEA. (2008). Energy technology perspectives 2008. Paris: OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
- 10.IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change. (2007). Working group III report “Mitigation of climate change”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 11.IPFM, International Panel on Fissile Materials. (2007). Global fissile material report 2007. Second report of the IPFM. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
- 12.MIT. (2003). The future of nuclear power: an interdisciplinary MIT study. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- 13.Paltsev, S., Reilly, J. M., Jacoby, H. D., & Morris, J. F. (2009). “The cost of climate policy in the United States” MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report 173.Google Scholar