Showing posts with label Nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear. Show all posts

Monday, 5 August 2013

Germany’s Grim Nuclear Phase Out

In 2000, Germany committed to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. To achieve this ambitious goal, Germany planned to increase its use of renewable power sources and to take advantage of the country’s most commercially-viable source of carbon dioxide-free energy—nuclear power. But despite Germany’s goals a decade ago, they are now building coal-fired electricity generation and shuttering nuclear power plants. Germany has apparently realized two important lessons—coal provides low-cost, reliable electricity and switching to renewables is wildly expensive.


The ostensible reason for Germany’s course reversal on nuclear was the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. Immediately after the accident, Chancellor Angela Merkel shuttered eight nuclear reactors and ordered the phase-out of Germany’s remaining nuclear reactors by 2022. Merkel claimed that renewables, such as wind and solar, would be used to replace the nuclear-generated electricity, but renewables cannot fill the energy gap. According to the Breakthrough Institute’s Jessica Lovering, it would take at least ten years to replace the energy produced by Germany’s pre-Fukushima nuclear reactors with wind and solar—and even then, the country would need coal or natural gas plants for backup generation.


Solar and wind generation is increasing in Germany, but they are not reliable sources of energy. According to Bruno Burger, professor at the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, German electricity generation from coal increased by 16.8 percent between 2011 and 2012. While Merkel sees wind and solar power as viable replacements for nuclear power, but neither power source is readily available 24/7.  This is because of the intermittent nature of wind and solar power—the sun does not always shine[1], and the wind does not always blow[2]. When wind and solar are not available, Germans would then be forced to turn to coal and natural gas to fill the energy gaps.  Electricity generated by nuclear power, however, is readily available 24/7.


The following graphs from The Energy Collective illustrate the intermittency problems associated with German wind production—its capacity for generation ebbs and flows throughout the day:


Figure 1: MW Generated from Wind in Germany on January 14, 2013 by Hour


german nuclear


Figure 2: MW Generated from Wind in Germany on October 24, 2012 by Hour


german nuclear 2


Merkel’s hasty decision to ban nuclear makes it difficult to achieve the country’s carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets. And Germany does not seem to be very serious about achieving those reductions.  According to Laszlso Varro, head of the gas, coal and power markets division at the International Energy Agency, the phase-out has already caused a 22.7 million ton[3] annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions, equal to the annual emissions from 4.4 million cars in a country of 80 million residents. Laszlo concludes this rise in carbon dioxide emissions is largely due to the new coal plants that have come online to meet the shortfall of power.


As we have previously explained:



Germany is building a large amount of coal-fired electricity generation. New coal-fired plants with a capacity of 5.3 gigawatts of electricity will come on line this year. In total, there are 10 new coal and lignite power plants currently under construction in Germany. While Germany talks about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and provides large subsidies for renewables, the country is in fact expanding new coal resources, unlike the United States.


While Germany is building coal, the nuclear phase-out will likely still exacerbate unemployment and drive up electricity prices. One reactor is slated to close in 2015, with one in 2017, one in 2019, three in 2021, and three in 2022 to follow. The mandate will cost Germany 11,000 jobs in the medium term, according to E.ON, the world’s largest utility by sales. Affordable electricity will suffer, too. Christian Schulz, senior European economist at Berenberg Bank, estimated that the shutdown would increase energy costs by a fifth, which is particularly devastating since the German economy is heavily reliant on energy-intensive manufacturing. Germany’s electricity rates are already the second highest in Europe.Residential electricity rates are 34 cents (U.S.) a kilowatt hour compared to an average of 12 cents in the U.S


By vowing to close its nuclear power plants and instead replace much of the generation with coal-fired generation, Germany is demonstrating that it is not serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Given Germany’s already stratospheric electricity rates, there is no wonder Germany does not want to further drive rates higher, but instead will use low-cost, reliable coal to make sure the lights are kept on.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Tuesday, 30 July 2013

Fukushima nuclear clean-up to cost $58 bn

View of the unit 3 reactor at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant, on March 15, 2011. The clean-up after the Fukushima nuclear disaster will cost up to 5.81 trillion yen ($58 billion)—five times more than estimated, according to Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.

The clean-up after the Fukushima nuclear disaster could cost five times more than estimated, figures have revealed, as Tokyo Electric Power said on Wednesday that steam had been seen again in a reactor building.


It is the third time steam has been observed in the battered structure over the last week.


The government-backed National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology said decontamination work in Fukushima prefecture will cost up to 5.81 trillion yen ($58 billion), far more than the 1 trillion yen the government has so far allocated.


The institute, in a report released Tuesday, said the costs—including for transportation and storage of - over a large area—would be in a range between 3.13 trillion yen and 5.81 trillion yen.


"We hope the study will be helpful in drafting plans for decontamination of forests and farmland, as well as plans for residents to return to their homes," the institute said.


The study calculated costs for several decontamination models, including one under which surface soil on farmland is removed and stored elsewhere, and another that would only see that soil turned over.


"It's important to examine the effects of several decontamination scenarios" as the ratio of evacuees who plan to return depends on the level of radiation after decontamination work, it said.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) officials inspect radioactive underground reservoirs at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, on April 13, 2013. The clean-up after the Fukushima nuclear disaster will cost up to 5.81 trillion yen ($58 billion)—five times more than estimated, according to Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.

As the report was released, government officials scolded TEPCO on Tuesday for a delay in admitting that radiation-polluted groundwater was flowing into the sea.


Earlier this month, the utility had reported spiking levels of possibly cancer-causing materials in soil from underneath the plant, but maintained that toxic groundwater was likely contained.


On Monday it admitted its own study, completed days earlier, revealed the groundwater was leaking into the ocean, prompting criticism over the delay.


Trade minister Toshimitsu Motegi told reporters Tuesday the slow release of data by TEPCO was "extremely deplorable", while Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said: "This kind of data should be disclosed quickly".


On Wednesday, TEPCO said workers had noticed steam around the fifth floor of the building housing Reactor No. 3, which was wrecked by the tsunami of March 2011. It was the second time in two days and the third time in a week that steam had been observed.


The firm has said there has been no increase in the amount of radioactive material being released, although it does not know where the steam is coming from.


TEPCO said it was looking at the possibility that accumulated rainwater had been the source.


The roof of the building was blown off in a hydrogen explosion after meltdowns in the days after the tsunami swept ashore.


Although the natural catastrophe is known to have killed more than 18,000 people, no one is officially recorded as having died as a direct result of the radiation released at Fukushima.


Explore further: Thyroid cancer risk for 2,000 Fukushima workers: TEPCO


© 2013 AFP

created12 hours ago Hi guys, So I'm starting to learn about magnetic fields and electrics fields, one of the equations we use is v= -L*di/dt ... I've been...
createdJul 28, 2013 Hi, I am trying to create a hall effect based position sensor to be attached onto a DC motor to generate feedback for position control. I am...
createdJul 27, 2013 Dear Experts I have this problem for a long time. I always cannot get my project done because parts are not available. I need gears, eg. Pinion...
createdJul 23, 2013 What magnetic field (magnitude, I know the direction) would need to be applied so I could align the particles of a neodymium membrane casting...
createdJul 22, 2013 I know that light curtains are generally known as an aligned collection of light beams that stop/enable a machine when such beams are blocked by a...
createdJul 20, 2013 I was digging a trench next to a building today so rain water would not back up to the buildings wall. Most of the material was soil but there were...
More from Physics Forums - General Engineering
Jul 19, 2013

Around 2,000 people who have worked at Japan's wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant face a heightened risk of thyroid cancer, its operator said Friday.

Jul 10, 2013

Japan's nuclear watchdog said Wednesday the crippled Fukushima reactors are very likely leaking highly radioactive substances into the Pacific Ocean.

Jul 07, 2013

Toxic radioactive substances have once again been detected in groundwater at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, its Japanese operator said on Sunday, the latest in a series of incidents at the tsunami-battered ...

Dec 27, 2012

The operator of Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant on Thursday sought yet more money to pay ballooning bills for compensating victims of last year's disaster.

Jun 19, 2013

Cancer-causing radioactive substances have been found in groundwater at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, its Japanese operator said on Wednesday, as it pledged to prevent it getting into the sea.

Feb 04, 2013

Fukushima nuclear plant operator TEPCO on Monday slashed its outlook for the fiscal year to March, warning it expected to lose about $1.29 billion or almost three times an earlier estimate.

7 hours ago

Nearly doubling the efficiency of a breakthrough photovoltaic cell they created last year, UCLA researchers have developed a two-layer, see-through solar film that could be placed on windows, sunroofs, smartphone ...

10 hours ago

BMW AG is showing off the production model of its new i3 electric compact that uses carbon-fiber materials to keep the weight down and improve driving performance.

12 hours ago

Professor Ravi Silva of the University of Surrey's Advanced Technology Institute has identified the range of combinations of organic and inorganic materials that will underpin new 4th generation solar cell technology – ...

Jul 26, 2013

Foreign nuclear experts on Friday blasted the operator of Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, with one saying its lack of transparency over toxic water leaks showed "you don't know what you're doing".

Jul 26, 2013

In a newly released study, education researchers report that personifying energy allowed students to grapple with difficult ideas about how energy works. Contrasted with more traditional lectures and graphs, this innovative ...

Jul 25, 2013

Miles driven by U.S. motorists in light-duty vehicles are down about 5 percent since its peak in 2006, says a University of Michigan researcher.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2013 And its still leaking Cesium into the Pacific Ocean!3.5 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2013 For comparison: 58bn is about 4 years worth of Japan's investment in all renewables combined.

(And I doubt when all is said and done that 58bn will be enough. Who ever heard of cost estimates of that magnitude NOT being overrun?)

3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2013 That's awful. Even the US would have a difficult time dealing with that. That's something like 1/3 the cost of Apollo.

I have no problem with nuclear energy, but at least the first generation plants need to be phased out. I imagine since Fukushima, Japan is or will have the same regulatory nightmares in building new plants as the US. It's a shame the disasters like this make it harder to get the public on board for a solution.

2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2013 Cesium leaking in a little pond of Pacific Ocean? Put it into barrels and inflate the cost to $580000000000 Bn. The amount is minuscule, and Cs is virtually harmless, as it neither concentrates nor precipitates. First you kill hundreds by wholly unnecesassary evacuations, then squander billions for unnecessary decontaminations. For what? To settle down the antinuclear hysteria. No way. Rent a good shrank.1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2013 Well said praos. As with anything nuclear, the contractors make a killing by playing on the publics ignorance and fear. The Yakuza are laughing all the way to the bank with Fukushima.1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2013 This is why government should get out of free markets. If these nuclear power plants didn't receive government loan guarantees, they wouldn't exist because the private sector wouldn't risk the building and liability costs.2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 24, 2013
For comparison: 58bn is about 4 years worth of Japan's investment in all renewables combined.

(And I doubt when all is said and done that 58bn will be enough. Who ever heard of cost estimates of that magnitude NOT being overrun?)

So how much do you think it costs to treat and bury the 2M deaths EACH YEAR from fossil fuel use?
3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2013 I do not disfavor nuclear power but it is clear that apes are capable of designing and running nuclear power plants without poisoning themselves.

I advise avoiding significant increases in nuclear power until the Apes have evolved enough intelligence to properly manage the technology.

3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2013 I do not disfavor nuclear power but it is clear that apes are not capable of designing and running nuclear power plants without poisoning themselves.

I advise avoiding significant increases in nuclear power until the Apes have evolved enough intelligence to properly manage the technology.

3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2013 3.9 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2013
So how much do you think it costs to treat and bury the 2M deaths EACH YEAR from fossil fuel use?

There are 2 million deaths in Japan from fossil fuels? Man, that country must have quite the population explosion.

As always you fall into your old habit of false dichotomies
I know you can never grasp the idea that there are more than two sides to an issue. But at least TRY occasionally, won't you? Electricity can be produced by more than just nuclear OR fossil fuels. There are third (and fourth and fifth, ... ) ways. Or what exactly do you think those investments in renewables I mentioned go to?

2.1 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2013 If the anti-nukers, oil lobbyists and the greenies had not protested and crow barred the nuclear technology developments, more of the capital lost could have been going the plants themselves and their quick successors. Facing high costs due to these holy crusaders, the investors must milk these old-tech dinosaurs for all their money's worth, instead of scrapping them after 10 year or so, to built safer, next generation reactors and repeat. By inciting fear and costly delays, the anti-nukers prevented the safer reactor designs ever coming into existence, thus "validating" their propaganda and safeguarding their income sources. Sordidly ingenious!3.2 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2013
There are 2 million deaths in Japan from fossil fuels? Man, that country must have quite the population explosion.

Perhaps ghost means to say 2M worldwide per year?
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2013

There are 2 million deaths in Japan from fossil fuels? Man, that country must have quite the population explosion.

Perhaps ghost means to say 2M worldwide per year?
AA the antinuke nut is playing dumb as usual. 'Oh my! 58 billion and counting! Nuclear is so evil!' yawn.

I wonder how much it will cost to remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere that fossil fuels have pumped into it in the last 100 years.

3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2013
Perhaps ghost means to say 2M worldwide per year?

Probably. But then his argument makes even less sense. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt of simply misqouting than being outright stupid.

Japan is pouring money into this and the renewables I mentioned - and it is only Japan that benefits from the power produced at the powerplant - how exactyl does that even relate to GLOBAL fossil fuel deaths on any level whatsoever?

3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2013
AA the antinuke nut

I'm actually not anti-nuclear. I'm anti-dumb.

Fission power is cool from the technical standpoint
Fission power is awesome from the physics standpoint.
I see a bright future for nuclear power in off-world uses (both fission and fusion types) where contamination is not an issue.


But on this planet using nuclear fission is just plain idiotic.


It's not economical: If you take the real cost of nuclear - which includes all the subsidies for it - then it's the WAY most expensive form of producing electricity out of all types - more expensive than even wind energy by almost an entire order of magnitude.


It's not sustainable: Not because of lack of fuels but because of finite amounts of land and ocean resources we can afford to lose to contamination.


It leads to monopolization: Which has never been in the interest of consumers - and certainly not in the interest of looking fo better alternatives.

1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2013 Before two days a Greek company Defkalion demonstrated its version of LENR/cold fusion with alleged COP > 3,7. Apparently no radioactivity escaped during this demonstration.1.5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2013 I see an X Prize in here somewhere. Lets reduce the cost of nuclear cleanup. 2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2013
I'm actually not anti-nuclear...But on this planet using nuclear fission is just plain idiotic
Ahaahaa forgive me. On this planet using fossil fuels is just plain idiotic because it releases FAR more radioactive material into the environment than nukes, not to mention all that other crud we breathe every day which gives us tumors.
it's the WAY most expensive form of producing electricity out of all types
Absolutely untrue. Only fossil fuels are cheaper where there is direct access to them. Many studies.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/

-You have been shown these figures before but you refuse to accept them because of your prejudiced opinions.

It's not sustainable...because of finite amounts of land and ocean resources we can afford to lose to contamination
Sorry but this is far more the case with fossil fuels.
leads to monopolization
?? No more so than anything else. Uranium is ubiquitous.1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2013 "Coal ash is formed when coal is burned in boilers that generate steam for power generation and industrial applications. TENORM is generated when burning removes organic constituents, leaving minerals and concentrating trace quantities of naturally occurring radionuclides:
uranium
thorium
potassium
their radioactive decay products including radium. (The amount radium in coal can vary by more than two orders of magnitude depending upon the type of coal and where it was mined.)"

"The average yearly generation of coal ash is about 61 million metric tons (MT). In 1990, the combustion of coal in utility and industrial boilers generated 61.6 million MT of coal ash and slags and 17.2 million MT of sludges."


"Typically 70 to 80 percent of coal ash is disposed of in dry landfills. (Sluiced ashes and sludges are first dewatered in ash ponds then landfilled.) A landfill for a typical coal fired power plant (500-1000 Megawatts) requires about 30 to 60 hectares (74 to 148 acres)"

3 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2013

It's not economical: If you take the real cost of nuclear - which includes all the subsidies for it - then it's the WAY most expensive form of producing electricity out of all types - more expensive than even wind energy by almost an entire order of magnitude.

Thanks AA. That astronomical costs must be because they are heartless robber bastards, and has nothing to do with what I said. I respectfully submitted that your aversion to nuclear power is not quite honestly balanced and checked by your impartial objectiveness, considering all the factors- technological, political, financial, emotional, and so on.

1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2013 Exactly $58 billion dollars? I'd bet I could do that cleanup even cleaner, for $57 billion.4 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2013 1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2013 5 / 5 (1) 13 hours ago
That astronomical costs must be because they are heartless robber bastards,

The cost is because the ones who operate the powerplants have found ways of pushing the real costs to other people (e.g. power plant operators are not responsible for storing the stuff afterwards for 1000s of years). Much like the coal industry doesn't pay for the many deaths resulting in its emissions.

But those costs ARE costs that have to be paid by someone. If it's not the owners of said powerplants then these ARE hidden subsidies. And they need to be included if you look at the total cost of a power source.


From an engineering standpoint it's just that any technology where you don't have a "plan B" in case of failure (at least a plan for permanent cleanup) is not ready for widespread adoption. And no engineer will claim that system X is 100% foolproof AND failsafe (note the distinction). Especially as a system gets more complex. And arguable nuclear power systems are as complex as they come.

not rated yet 11 hours ago Correction above - I meant to say "there can be no guarantee this will not happen again"

Sharing on social media helps hackers sharpen "spear phishing" attacks they use to trick their way into computers, security experts said Monday.


(Phys.org) —UCLA computer science professor Amit Sahai and a team of researchers have designed a system to encrypt software so that it only allows someone to use a program as intended while preventing any ...


It may seem like a stretch to envision a 3D printer in every home. However, a Michigan Technological University researcher is predicting that personal manufacturing, like personal computing before it, is ...


Nearly doubling the efficiency of a breakthrough photovoltaic cell they created last year, UCLA researchers have developed a two-layer, see-through solar film that could be placed on windows, sunroofs, smartphone ...


Scientists concerned about world hunger, dwindling resources and wasteful processes are looking more closely into alternative prospects for protein, and edible insects are of considerable interest. An Austrian ...


(Medical Xpress)—New research at the University of Adelaide is looking at how the human brain ages, which could lead to insights into how to repair the brain when it's damaged by stroke or traumatic brain injury.


Doctors in England and Wales are much less likely to report a woman's death to a coroner than they are a man's, reveals research published online in the Journal of Clinical Pathology.


Government advisers have endorsed lung cancer screening for the first time. They say certain current and former heavy smokers should get annual CT scans, a type of X-ray, to cut their chances of dying of the disease.


(Phys.org) —Determining the mass of dark matter particles requires accounting for several factors, one of which is the velocity distribution of the particles. Most current estimates of dark matter mass ...


Astronomers have found a new way of measuring the spin in supermassive black holes, which could lead to better understanding about how they drive the growth of galaxies.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Monday, 29 July 2013

Is Cheap Gas Killing Nuclear Power?


Courtesy: Exelon

It has not been a good 2013 for nuclear power.


Only six months in, the U.S. nuclear fleet has had one of its worst years ever, arguably worse than 2011, with the impact of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan. Whatever damage the nuclear industry suffered in public relations that year, no U.S. reactors shut down as they did in Japan and Germany. You would need to go back to 1979 and the Three Mile Island accident to find a larger reversal of fortune.


On January 1, the U.S. nuclear fleet numbered 104 units. That has now fallen to 100, the biggest contraction ever in one year (which is, again, only half over). Granted, two of those plants, Crystal River in Florida and San Onofre in California, were on life support when the year began, and the decisions of their owners, Duke Energy and Southern California Edison, to pull their respective plugs, came as little surprise to industry observers. In both cases, the utilities concluded it made more economic sense to retire the plants rather than repair them.


The fourth shuttered reactor, the Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin, was shut down in May with 20 years left on its operating license after owner Dominion was unable to find a buyer. The announcement blamed market conditions stemming from low natural gas prices, which made the merchant plant a money loser.


And those are only the highlights (or lowlights, if you prefer). Consider what else has happened in just the past two months:

Duke announced in May that it would suspend its plans to add two units to the Shearon Harris nuclear plant in North Carolina, saying the additional capacity was no longer needed under current forecasts.In early June, MidAmerican Energy scuttled plans for a reactor in Iowa that had been envisioned as a lead site for small modular designs, saying it was too soon to proceed when no such designs have been approved.A week later, Exelon cancelled what had been an already deferred 335 MW worth of uprates for four of its reactors, the two-unit Limerick plant in Pennsylvania and two units at LaSalle in Illinois. The reason? “Market conditions,” said the release, again.A week after that, the Tennessee Valley Authority announced that it was once again mothballing its on-again-off-again Bellefonte project in Alabama, saying it needed to focus on getting the also long-delayed Watts Bar Unit 2 completed.

If you plug a search for “natural gas nuclear power” into Google News, you get a cavalcade of headlines like “How Fracking Killed Nuclear Power,” “Thanks to Cheap Natural Gas, America’s Nuclear Renaissance is on Hold,” “Atomic Power’s Green Light or Red Flag,” and “Nuclear Plant Shutdown to Increase California’s Reliance on Natural Gas.”


It’s not hard to see how we got here. In 2008, when the “nuclear renaissance” was in full upswing and utilities filed 12 applications for new plants with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the price of gas for electric power spiked up to $12/MMBtu in June. The shale boom was still over the horizon, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected that by 2013, gas prices for electric power would average $6 and the U.S. would be importing 2 Tcf of liquefied natural gas. On paper at least, quite bullish for nuclear.


Obviously, a lot of projections and expectations five years ago were wrong, embarrassingly so in some cases. Gas under $4 changes a lot of economics.


To be sure, most nuclear industry veterans shrug these events off as short-term concerns—not without some justification. Shale or not, gas prices have always been volatile because of the highly elastic nature of the industry. Low prices increase usage but cut production. Shrinking supplies boost prices and production, but cut usage, sending supplies back up and prices back down. And so on. Nuclear, at least in theory, is insulated from these gyrations.


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

EIA Projects Massive Growth for Renewables, Nuclear Power Through 2040

The U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) International Energy Outlook 2013 (IEO2013) released today projects that renewable energy and nuclear power will each increase 2.5% per year through 2040, but fossil fuels will continue to supply almost 80% of world energy use by 2040.


According to the new IEO2013, energy consumption around the world is set to grow by 56% between 2010 and 2040, mostly in developing countries. World energy consumption will rise from 524 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2010 to 630 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 820 quadrillion Btu in 2040, the EIA forecasts. Energy use in countries outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) will grow 90% while in OECD countries, growth will spurt a moderate 17%.


World net electricity generation is, meanwhile, forecast to increase by 93% in the IEO2013 Reference case, from 20.2 trillion kWh in 2010 to 39.0 trillion kWh in 2040. Total net electricity generation in non-OECD countries increases by an average of 3.1% per year in the Reference case, led by non-OECD Asia (including China and India), where annual increases average 3.6% from 2010 to 2040. In contrast, total net generation in the OECD nations grows by an average of 1.1% per year from 2010 to 2040.


The IEO2013 Reference case projects increases for world consumption of marketed energy from all fuel sources through 2040. World coal consumption is forecast to rise about 1.3% per year through 2040, reflecting significant increases in China, India, and other non-OECD countries. However, the outlook notes that due to environmentally driven policies, "coal's share of world energy consumption stops growing in the next decade and gradually declines after 2025"—particularly in the power sector.


For example, the coal-fired share of world electricity generation declines from 40% in 2010 to 36% in 2040, while the renewables share increases from 21% to 25%, the natural gas share from 22% to 24%, and the nuclear share from 13% to 14%.


The report highlights that natural gas will be the fastest growing fossil fuel over the next three decades as global natural gas consumption increases by 1.7% per year, from 113 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 185 trillion cubic feet in 2040.


"Natural gas continues to be the fuel of choice for the electric power and industrial sectors in many of the world's regions, in part because of its lower carbon intensity compared with coal and oil, which makes it an attractive fuel source in countries where governments are implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," the report says. "In addition, it is an attractive alternative fuel for new power generation plants because of relatively low capital costs and the favorable heat rates for natural gas generation." The EIA projects that industrial and electric power sectors together account for 77% of the total projected world increase in natural gas consumption.


Significantly, the report notes that world natural gas trade, both by pipeline and by shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG), is poised to increase. LNG's share of world natural gas trade will more than double, with most increases in liquefaction capacity in Australia, the U.S., and Canada, "where a multitude of new liquefaction projects are expected to be developed, many of which will become operational within the next decade." Pipeline transportation of natural gas will also soar, however, and the outlook includes several new long-distance pipelines and expansions of existing infrastructure through 2040. "The largest volumes of internationally traded natural gas by pipeline currently occur between Canada and the United States, and among a number of OECD and non-OECD countries in Europe. By the end of the projection period, the IEO2013 Reference case also includes large volumes of pipeline flows into China from both Russia and Central Asia."


At the same time, almost 80% of the projected increase in renewable electricity generation is fueled by hydropower and wind power. Most of the growth in hydroelectric generation (82%) occurs in the non-OECD countries, and more than half of the growth in wind generation (52%) occurs in the OECD countries. "High construction costs can make the total cost of building and operating renewable generators higher than those for conventional plants. The intermittence of wind and solar energy, in particular, can further hinder the economic competitiveness of those resources, as they are not necessarily available when they would be of greatest value to the system. However, improving battery storage technology and dispersing wind and solar generating facilities over wide geographic areas could help to mitigate some of the problems associated with intermittency over the projection period," the EIA projects.


Nuclear power, too, will see significant growth, despite consequences of the March 2011 disaster at Fukushima Daiichi. Electricity generation from nuclear power worldwide increases from 2,620 billion kWh in 2010 to 5,492 billion kWh in 2040 in the IEO2013 Reference case, as "concerns about energy security and greenhouse gas emissions support the development of new nuclear generating capacity." The outlook notes that while, in addition to the four damaged Fukushima Daiichi reactors, Japan's 50 other nuclear reactors were shut down over the following 14 months, two reactors have returned to service, and "additional reactors are expected to return to service soon." And, though Germany and Switzerland had pledged to phase out nuclear power altogether, substantial increases in nuclear generating capacity are projected for several other countries, including 149 GW in China, 47 GW in India, 31 GW in Russia, and 27 GW in South Korea.


The report notes that the industrial sector continues to account for the largest share of delivered energy consumption, and the world industrial sector still consumes over half of global delivered energy in 2040, the EIA notes. "Given current policies and regulations limiting fossil fuel use, worldwide energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rise from about 31 billion metric tons in 2010 to 36 billion metric tons in 2020 and then to 45 billion metric tons in 2040, a 46-percent increase."


 


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.