Transcript Negatep - Science for Energy Scenarios

Negatep: future prospects
Combining climate protection and technological progress
1
« Negatep » means (much) less fossil
Limit temperature increase and reduce the use of
fossil fuels without use of CCS
We need to move out from fossil fuels for two main reasons
- Our energetic independence (geopolitical and economical aspects,
including our balance of payments)
- Greenhouse effect and reduction of CO2 emission
Thanks to nuclear energy, France has already made a part of the
way, by practically eliminating coal from the generation of
electricity, and today is an example among industrial countries
(for example the German emission per capita is 50 % higher)
But we need to go further, with an objective: a factor close to 3 to 4
on CO2 emissions.
2
Present situation of Primary Energy
in Toe: « tonne of oil equivalent »
1 toe= 42 GJ ( Gigajoules)
1toe ~ 1,6 tonne of coal, 1toe ~ 1170 m³ de gas , 1toe ~ 2,2 tonnes of wood.
France
265 Mtep
42 %
Germany
340 Mtep
Nuc 112 (440 TWh)
[38 Mtoe in final en.]
World
13 Gtep
Nuc 23
Nuc 0.7 (2760 TWh)
Ren 36
Ren 1,4 (1 + 4300 TWh)
Gas 75
Gas 2.8
Oil 116
Oil 4,2
Coal 90
Coal 3,6
Ren 20 (14 +75 TWh)
Gas 40
50 %
82 %
Oil 81
Coal 12
Emission: 6,3
per inhabitant
9,7
4,9 t CO2 /year
3
France, prospects for energy demand and carbon
dioxide emission, relative evolutions (100 in 1960)
1960
1975
2000
2050
4
Who is producing CO2 in France ?
The near four fold reduction in CO2 emission must focus
on the stationary and the mobility demands and involves
- Energy conservation (sobriety) and energetic efficiency
- Alternative sources of energy
Renewable production of heat
Additional zero carbon electricity (renewable and nuclear)
Bio fuels
5
The basis of Negatep
The priority: limitation of greenhouse gas emissions, among them
essentially, concerning energy, CO2.

Control of prices

Security of supplies (access to reserves, geopolitics).
The worst is the lack of energy.
With these criteria in mind, Negatep compares objectively the technical
feasibility, the costs of different technologies and comes to the conclusion:




The improvement of efficiency is essential but has economical
limits
The share of the electricity vector must be increased, with an
electricity produced without carbon
To this end, nuclear energy is essential
CCS is not retained
6
Final energy in Millions toe
- 20 % per capita/2008
- 42 % per capita/tendency
7
Main actions in residential and tertiary sectors
Control of needs
The thermal waste in the residential sector is on average : 210 kWh/m².year today
Negatep proposes 50 kWh/m².year in final energy for new constructions and 100 for
past ones, but considers that this will not give a division by 3 but by 2 of the total
energy consumption, as a consequence of the well known and general rebound effect
(a 60% gap between theoretical economy - official rules from 1975 to 2010 - and reality)
Renovations
20 millions apartments and houses (some of them spending more than 350 kWh/m².year)
500000 renovations per year
Cost to lower to 100 kWh/m².year: 7, 5 Billions € /year, total cost: 300 Billions €
Nota bene: to lower to 50 kWh/m².year: 15 Billions €/year, total cost : 600 Billions € would be
necessary , not feasible, too difficult and costly
-
CO2 emissions
Practically eliminate the use of oil and gas in the residential and tertiary sectors.
This can be achieved through improved insulation, renewable thermal energies,
combined or not with heat pumps, and a “smart” use of direct electrical heating.
- Biomass (local heat networks, and basic individual heating combined
with electricity)
- Solar heating (mainly for sanitary hot water, limited for heating building)
- Low temperature geothermal energy (aquifer and local heat networks)
- Heat pumps (with electricity and ground water, vertical wells, surface collectors, air collectors)
8
Negatep , demand management
actions in industry
1 tonne of steel
0.5 toe
1 tonne of aluminium 3.4 toe
1 tonne of cement
0.25 toe
Importance of recycling
scrap iron 10 Mt (50 %)
papers .. 5 Mt (50 %)
Primary energy intensity
The easiest was done following the petroleum crisis in the seventy years
New improvements of roughly the same importance are possible
The priority goes to electricity (zero carbon)
New needs are likely, such as biofuel
9
Demand and supply
management in transports
Today’s situation: almost 100 % dependency on oil,
Main origin of CO2 emissions (more than residential and tertiary)
Reduce significantly the use of oil in the transport sector (factor 6 to 7)
- Management of mobility (mass transportation, freight)
- Technology progress (reduce the weight of cars, direct and high pressure injection,
variable distribution, downsizing, hybrid cars)
- Replacement of gasoline by electricity, either directly with electric motorisations
(electric cars and plug in hybrid cars) or indirectly by supplying energy to the bio fuel
synthesis process .
- Bio fuel of second generation (end of first generation)
Ligneous-cellulosic biomass
(secondary products of forest, specific cultures such as miscanthus)
Thermo chemical way: gasification, syngas (hydrogen, carbon monoxide...), Fischer
Tropsch process with catalysts)
22 Mtoe of biomass + 7.5 Mtoe of electricity produce : 15 Mtoe of fuel (50 % efficiency);
(external energy from electricity: 87 TWh may act as adjustment variable )
10
Renewables (replenishable sources)
- A social and political priority (should have all the virtues)
- A very large potential but with its limits, for the whole world x 4 ?
(very important, but not sufficient to meet all needs)
- Price: a false idea: « it’s gratis, they are free of charge !»
- Put the priority on heat production
(biomass, solar heat, geothermal, heat pumps )
- Be prudent with biofuels (competition with other needs for biomass)
- Electricity storage is limited, very bad adaptation of the network to
intermittent and fluctuating generation
11
Renewable « heats» in Mtoe
Biomass*
2008
10.5
Negatep
33.5
(firewood, wastes, biogas, biofuel)
Solar thermal energy
Geothermal combined with heat pump
Total renewables
•
0.5
11
4
8
45.5
* Be prudent with the use of land : « food, heat, mobility »
12
Recap biomass
Total needs: 33,5 Mtoe of biomass
(11 Mtoe in direct heating + 22,5 for biofuel)
Few modifications in the use of lands (15/10/15)
Less grass lands – 2 Mha
More artificial surfaces + 1 Mha
Needs for bioproducts + 2 Mha
Forests, coppices… present area: 15 Mha
In 2010 : 130 Mm³/year growth, only 51 recovered to produce 9 Mtoe
In 2050 on the same area, energy production of forest 20 Mtoe
Specific areas for biofuels
In 2010, 2.2 Mha give 2.8 Mtoe raw data (low energy outputs and CO2 reduction)
In 2050, same areas for second generation plants 11 Mtoe
for example miscanthus more than 15 tonnes of Dry Mass/ha
+ miscellaneous wastes, coppices 4 Mtoe,
A total of 35 Mtoe (small margin above needs)
13
Future for electrical renewables
HYDROPOWER
Today average 65 TWh
On land + 1 to 2 GW (including PSH)
70 TWh
Marine (tides, undercurrents, waves) Very limited
Others (OTEC, salinity y osmosis)
GEOTHERMAL
High temperature electricity
(negligible)
SOLAR
Photovoltaic (18 GW)
Thermodynamic CSP
20 TWh ?
(negligible)
1 TWh in 2010
WIND
On land (22 GW), Off shore (9 GW)
75 TWh ?
11 TWh en 2010
non Hydro x 8 ? (limited by costs and variability)
14
Grid energy flow and wind power variability
Wind power , France november 2010
Present daily variations of electricity
demand and generation
∆ hydropower ~ 10 GW
∆ nuclear
~ 4 GW
∆ fossil
~ 4 GW
∆ exp/imp
~ ± 4 GW
Exemple of daily production
More wind power, more ∆ fossils, or ∆ nuclear
15
or more electricity storage
Wind power
The false track of Europe’s balancing/compensation
16
Energy storage, the key to the development of
renewables
- PSH (Pumped storage hydro) Global efficiency: 70 %.
Example : for 25 GW of wind power, need for 14 Grand Maison (1 600
MW during 18 h)
- CAES (Compress air energy storage) Global efficiency: 55 %
Example : for 25 GW wind power, need 400 Huntorf (290 MW, 2 heures)
- Hydrogen (Electrolysis , compression or liquefaction, storage),
Efficiency for electrolysis alone: 70 %
Nota: the cost is very sensitive to the load factor of electrolyzers
* Fuel cell . Global output 30 to 35 %
* Methanation : CH4 (CO2 + H2 ) and electricity generation
Global output < 20 % (Methanation including the energy spent to procure
CO2 : 40 %)
* Injection in gas network
- Stationary batteries Global efficiency 60 %
-
Car batteries : only for loading without feedback to grid
Example : 10 millions cars: 10 GW for load (in preference during the night)17
Global outlook: share of renewables
from weak to significant (Mtoe final energy)
2008
18/164
Negatep
60/146
Business as usual
Sobriety
(energy conservation)
and efficiency
Nuc 37
Fos 109
Nuc
+ Fos
60
Ren 18
18
NUCLEAR
- 58 nuclear reactors put in service (1977 to 1999 )
78 % of French electricity generation
- Life expectancy: initially 30/40 years, now 50/60 ?
from Fessenheim (SCO in 1977), to Civaux 2 (SCO in 2000)
- Third generation EPR : 60 years (probably more)
- The future Gen IV: breeder reactor (Astrid ?)
Acceptance ?
Energy independence , continuity of supply
Cost of electricity: lowest, under control , stable
No CO2 emisssions, main asset against unacceptable climate change
Answer to population anxiety/concern
Accidents : the safest energy (for the same production : 5 times fewer severe injuries
than with gas, 20 fewer times than with coal…)
Wastes management : effective for the main part in volume (95 %)
Deep storage scheduled for the high activity, long-lived wastes (5 % in volume)
Radiations: Hiroshima has left a lasting fear of radiations, whatever their level
19
(natural radiation a few mSv, low levels (<50-100 mSv)…
NUCLEAR Social acceptance
RADIATIONS THE LOW DOSES
- France: average background radiation : 2.4 mSv/year, nuclear industry adds 1 %,
- The low radiation doses, from the linear extrapolation to hormesis, limit 50 to 100 mSv ?
WASTES:
No present and no future health risk: leave to future generations a controlled situation
Quantities very limited: per inhabitant in France 1 kg/year,
among them 10 g/year of very high radioactivity
(in comparison each year: all wastes: 4000 kg, of which 100 kg highly dangerous)
The law of June 2006 relative to « High-level radioactive waste management … deep geological
formations », the Bures Research Laboratory located 500 meters underground : license a
repository by 2015, beginning of operation expected in 2025.
ACCIDENTS
According to WHO: The less “murderous” energy
The PWR reference took the Three Mile Island accident into account
The importance of the feedback of experience (Chernobyl, Fukushima)
Safety authority’s independence
Strength of EDF, Areva and specialized companies
THE BEST CHOICE FOR ENERGY AND HEALTH (French Medicine Academy)
20
Nuclear fuel reserves, not renewable, but sustainable ?
Today U 235 (0.7 % in natural uranium) is burnt (fission),
together with partial recycling of Pu from reprocessing (Mox fuel))
- For the present use: conventional U reserves: 270 years
unconventional U: x 2 to 4 (excluding sea water)
- If world’s nuclear x 3 between today and 2060, with conventional U,
avalability until 2110
- If world’s nuclear x 5 from today to 2080, with unconventional U,
avalability until 2120
Beyond that: breeder U 238 (fertile)
Pu ( fissile); reserves x 100
Sustainable (without limit with U in sea water)
Other possibility: Th 232 fertile
U233 ( fissile)
Th 232 + n
Th 233
Pa 233
U 233 (ex. MSFR )
Nota : In France, the 300000 tonnes of uranium depleted to 0.25 % , could be depletd
with the new enrichment method (GB 2) to 0.1 %, and produce 7000 tonnes of fuel,
which means 7 operating years, and with breeders (fast reactors ): 3000 years
21
The evolution of installed nuclear power
according to Négatep
Figure presented during 2012 France’s debate on the energetic transition
in opposition with the official current to promote less nuclear
Nota: Not validated beyond 2050
22
Recap Negatep
Final energy in Mtoe and Mtoe + TWh
Residential and tertiary
Industry and food
2008
2050
2008
2050
72
64
41.8
55
Transports
2008
2050
50
30
9
19
11.5
39
2
4
1.4
16
28.2
47
24
15
41
12.3
7
27.5
8
1
48 Mtoe
+ 279 TWh
23 Mtoe
29.4 Mtoe
27.5 Mtoe
+ 478 TWh
+ 142 TWh
+ 321 TWh
Renowable heating
Fossil fuels
49 Mtoe
22 Mtoe
+ 12 TWh
+ 93 TWh
Electricity
23
Negatep: residential and tertiary
limiting demand and CO2 emissions
Ren Ther
Fossil fuel
(out élec)
Electricity
Demand management
- 33 % / business as usual
- 16 % / 2008 (-24 %/inh.)
CO2 emissions
From 112 Mt
to 25 Mt/an
24
Negatep: industry and food
limiting demand and CO2 emissions
Demand management
- 30 % / business as usual
- 4 % / 2008 (- 15 %/inh.)
Ren Therm
Fossil fuel
CO2 emissions
From 80 Mt
to 46 Mt/an
Electricity
25
Negatep: transports
Limiting demand and CO2 emissions
+ 15
Demand management
- 43 % / business as usual
- 10 % / 2008 (-20 %/inh.)
Ren. Ther
Fossil fuel
CO2 emissions
From 155 Mt
to 24 Mt/an
Electricity
26
Recap Negatep
Primary energy in Mtoe, and electricity vector in TWh
2008
264 Mtoe
2050
279 Mtoe
2008
575 TWh
2050
990 TWh
Nuc 745
Nuc 114
Nuc 182
Nuclear power
inst. : 93 GW
Nuc 440
Ren 21
Gas 42
Oil 75
Coal 12
Ren 60 :
45 the + 15 elec.
Gas 24
Oil 8
Coal 5
Ren 75
Fos f 60
So half of total
elect. power inst
188 GW
Wind 75
Hyd. 70
Ren 175 Ph V 20
Biom 10
Fos f 70
27
Negatep, the cost of the energy transition
Estimations of total costs (investments, maintenance and operation) over a period of 40 years,
according to different scenarios : a) status quo (no global change in spite of + 13 % inhabitants
b) business as usual (no crisis)
c) Negatep (sobriety and efficiency)
- Negatep, average additional costs 28 G€/year compared with the status quo
- Negatep, practically same costs as business as usual
28
Negatep, the cost of the energy transition
With present costs of fossil fuels
Compared to the status quo* the energy transition proposed by
Negatep would cost an average of 28 Billions €/year
This extra cost would be zero
- If the cost of fossil increased of 117 %
- Or with a combination of a 100 €/t CO2 carbon tax,
and a 70% increase in the cost of fossil energies
* same global energy supply and demand, but as the population increases 13 %,
13 % less of final energy per inhabitant.
-
29
Recap Negatep 2011 edition
(Revision forecast in 2014)
- Global reduction of demand with regard to today,
when the business as usual leads to a 38 % increase.
- Division by about 4 of fossil fuels.
- Multiplication by about 3 of renewable energies
- About twice more electricity*, but same as now, practically free of carbon
*Electricty is the main factor of adjustment for the robustness of the scenario) 30
Thank you for your attention
Questions ?
31