Titit NuklirIklim, ekonomi & keamanan energi.Case Finlandia.
Lauri Myllyvirta, Pelangi
Tenaga NuklirIklim, ekonomi & keamanan energi.Case Finlandia.
Lauri Myllyvirta, Pelangi
Nuclear powerClimate, economics & energysecurity. Case Finland.
Lauri Myllyvirta, Pelangi
Alasan-alasan
• Cheap nuclear?• Nuclear solution to climate
change?• Nuclear security of supply?• Who wants nukes and why?• The debate in Finland• Campaigning ideas
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
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
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
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
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
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
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%
Drawbacks: Rebound
• Large unit with low operation costs– Decreases incentive for
conservation– Often leads to promoting wasteful
energy use, e.g. electric heating
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…
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
Drawbacks: Centralized
• Deployment of new energy technologies requires decentralized and competitive energy markets
• Nuclear easily maintains centralization and delays market reforms
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
Watch out…
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
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
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
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
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
Industry tactics
• Restrict choices to ‘fossils or nuclear’
• ‘RES and nuclear can live side by side’
• Win the waste debate first
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…
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
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?”
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
Terima kasih atas tidak tidur selama presentasi!Lauri Myllyvirta