Titit Nuklir Iklim, ekonomi & keamanan energi. Case Finlandia.

1. Titit NuklirIklim, ekonomi & keamanan energi.Case Finlandia. Lauri Myllyvirta, Pelangi

2. Tenaga NuklirIklim, ekonomi & keamanan energi.Case Finlandia. Lauri Myllyvirta, Pelangi

3. Nuclear powerClimate, economics & energysecurity. Case Finland. Lauri Myllyvirta, Pelangi

4. Alasan-alasan • Cheap nuclear? • Nuclear solution to climate change? • Nuclear security of supply? • Who wants nukes and why? • The debate in Finland • Campaigning ideas

5. Economics of nuclear • O&M costs very low (around 15-20 USD/MWh) • High upfront costs and long lead time tend to be prohibitive in competitive markets (>high cost of capital) • Overall economics sensitive to liability of operators, degree of market liberalization and subsidies

7. What’s ‘cheap’ nuclear made of? • Historic and current subsidies • Non-competitive&distorted markets • No or inadequate liability for • Accidents • Decommissioning & waste • Huge grid investments • Adjustment & backup power

8. Historic subsidies • R&D and building of nuclear entirely publicly funded • In the US and EU15 $500-1000 bln • Protected and distorted market, de facto monopoly in many countries • Grid investments etc. paid by all consumers

9. Ongoing subsidies • Tax breaks, direct public spending • E.g. US $0.6 bln/yr, EU15 $2.2 bln/yr • Export credits, cheap loans • Case Finland investigated by EC as illegal public subsidy • Decomm costs borne by governments • E.g. UK plans to pay up to $6 bln • EU25 might face liabilities up to $600 bln from existing plants

10. Nuclear climate mitigation? • Mature, commercial technology • Life cycle emissions lower than some RES • Large centralized units, fits the present centralized markets & investment schemes • Baseload power

11. Theoretic potential • Currently 17 % of world’s electricity, 4 % of final energy • Produces only baseload electricity • Estimated resources (up to 5 times current price) of uranium last 70 years at current consumption • Nuclear renaissance would quickly deplete cheap uranium

12. Theoretic potential • What if you replace ½ of world’s fossil-fueled electricity generation by nuclear, other things equal? • Capacity triples • Construction rate must grow more than 10-fold to achieve by 2050 • Cut world GHGs by 9% • Cut world energy sector CO2 by 16%

13. Drawbacks: Rebound • Large unit with low operation costs • Decreases incentive for conservation • Often leads to promoting wasteful energy use, e.g. electric heating

14. Drawbacks: Adjustment power • Economics of nuclear require running plants continuously, irrespective of variations in consumption • Requires adjustment power with low upfront&fixed costs, “spinning reserve” • lock-in to fossils • In Finnish scenarios new nuke increased coal use…

15. Drawbacks: New technologies • Large unit increases uncertainty in the market and hampers demand of new technologies • Market interest in RES plummeted in Finland after NPP decision • Nuclear is usually a political alternative to demand-side measures, RES and responsible energy&climate policy

16. Drawbacks: Centralized • Deployment of new energy technologies requires decentralized and competitive energy markets • Nuclear easily maintains centralization and delays market reforms

17. Nuclear mitigation - conclusion • Could probably be used as a part of a portfolio to cut GHG emissions • Strong measures would be needed to tackle negative impacts and prevent lock-ins • Taxes, energy market regulation, feed-in/generation portfolio laws, soft support measures for new technologies • Not likely to happen, no scenario where nukes would lead to sustainable emission levels has been presented

18. Watch out…

19. Nuclear security of supply? • Fuel price risk low, fuel easy to store • Fuel less centralized than fossils, in more stable countries • Good track record in some countries

20. Nuclear security of supply? • Centralization, vulnerability to grid/plant failure • Limited fuel resources • Long lead time, not responsive to changes in demand • Usually a political alternative to more efficient and sustainable solutions

21. Who wants nukes and why? • Big power companies • DG and efficiency hard to cash in on • Old philosophy and approaches hard to abandon • Individual users and small dynamic companies tend to take over • Energy-intensive industries • Avoid competition for electricity

22. Who wants nukes and why? • Everyone opposed to free&decentralized energy market • Attitudes – ‘big is beautiful’ • Nuclear industry • Operators can always count on public subsidies • Desperate for contracts – cheap bids available

23. Debate in Finland - Industry tactics • Use pleasant and skilled female spokespersons • Capitalize on climate change & energy security concerns • ‘Nuclear is the only realistic way to reduce GHG emissions’ • Widely held belief, no. 1 obstacle in Finnish climate discussion

24. Industry tactics • Restrict choices to ‘fossils or nuclear’ • ‘RES and nuclear can live side by side’ • Win the waste debate first

25. Finnish debate - Counterarguments • Renewables&efficiency • How to demonstrate feasibility? • Adverse impacts on climate&energy policy, especially RES and efficiency • Very technical argument • Safety, proliferation, waste… • International reputation…

26. Why was the debate lost? • Failure to engage like-minded experts and businesses • NGOs tried to assume an expert role • Not credible • Moral&emotional arguments were forgot • Lacking differentiation of roles of NGOs • Public fears about nuclear were heavily and even dishonestly exploited in earlier debates

27. Campaigning ideas • Chernobyl • “Don’t think about a nuclear accident in Finland” • “This train is operated with the excellent precision and skill of GOI. Would you like us to operate a dangerous, high-tech nuclear plant in your hometown?”

28. Campaigning ideas • Waste • Liability for waste&decomm, mandatory insurance, no subsidies • Can turn nuclear into a non-issue • Engage local people • In Finland targeted heavily by companies and the government

29. Terima kasih atas tidak tidur selama presentasi! Lauri Myllyvirta