Advertisement

Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 431–440 | Cite as

Nuclear Versus Coal plus CCS: a Comparison of Two Competitive Base-Load Climate Control Options

  • Massimo Tavoni
  • Bob van der Zwaan
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Economic competition Electricity sector Nuclear power Coal power CCS Renewables Climate policy 

JEL Classification

D8 D9 H0 O3 O4 Q4 Q5 

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Bosetti, V., Carraro, C., Massetti, E., Sgobbi, A., & Tavoni, M. (2009). Optimal energy investment and R&D strategies to stabilise greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations. Resource and Energy Economics, 31–2, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 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
  6. 6.
    Ferioli, F., Schoots, K., & van der Zwaan, B. C. C. (2009). Use and limitations of learning curves for energy technology policy: A component-learning hypothesis. Energy Policy, 37, 2525–2535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hendriks, C., Graus, W., & Bergen, F. V. (2002). Global carbon dioxide storage potential costs. Report EEP 02001. Utrecht: Ecofys.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IEA. (2000). Experience curves for energy technology policy. Paris: OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IEA. (2008). Energy technology perspectives 2008. Paris: OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
  10. 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. 11.
    IPFM, International Panel on Fissile Materials. (2007). Global fissile material report 2007. Second report of the IPFM. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MIT. (2003). The future of nuclear power: an interdisciplinary MIT study. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Rogner, H.-H., Sharma, D., & Jalal, A. I. (2008). Nuclear power versus fossil-fuel power with CO2 capture and storage: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 2(2), 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sailor, W. C., Bodansky, D., Braun, C., Fetter, S., & van der Zwaan, B. C. C. (2000). A nuclear solution to climate change? Science, 288, 1177–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Toth, F. L., & Rogner, H.-H. (2006). Oil and nuclear power: Past, present, and future. Energy Economics, 28, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vaillancourt, K., Labriet, M., Loulou, R., & Waaub, J. P. (2008). The role of nuclear energy in long-term climate scenarios: An analysis with the World-TIMES model. Energy Policy, 36(7), 2296–2307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Zwaan, B. C. C. (2002). Nuclear energy: Tenfold expansion or phaseout? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69, 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Zwaan, B. C. C. (2008). Prospects for nuclear energy in Europe. International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 30(1/2/3/4), 102–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weisser, D., Howells, M., & Rogner, H.-H. (2008). Nuclear power and post-2012 energy and climate change policies. Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM)MilanItaly
  2. 2.Centro Euro-Mediterraneo per i Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC)LecceItaly
  3. 3.Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN)AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Lenfest Center for Sustainable EnergyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations