Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 13.2.
Projected end-use power demand (TW) in 2030, by sector for world and
United States if conventional fossil fuel and wood use continues as projected and if
100 percent of conventional fuels are replaced with wind, water, and sunlight (WWS)
technologies
Conventional fossil fuels
Replacing fossil fuels and
and wood
wood with WWS
Energy sector
World
United States
World
United States
Residential
2.26
0.43
1.83
0.35
Commercial
1.32
0.38
1.22
0.35
Industrial
8.80
0.92
7.05
0.74
Transportation
4.53
1.10
1.37
0.33
TOTAL
16.92
2.83
11.47
1.78
Forcomparison, world and U.S. end-use power demands from conventional fossil fuels plus wood in 2008 were
12.5 and 2.5 TW, respectively.
Source:
Jacobson and Delucchi (2011).
facilities in Pakistan, India, Iraq (prior to 1981), Iran,
and, to some extent, North Korea. If the world were con-
verted to electricity and electrolytic hydrogen by 2030,
the 11.5 trillion watts (TW) in resulting end-use power
demand (Table 13.2) would require
warming and air pollution. Although recent nuclear
reactor
construction times
worldwideareshorter than
the 9-year median construction times in the United
States since 1970 (Koomey and Hultman, 2007), they
still averaged 6.5 years worldwide in 2007 (Ramana,
2009). Construction time must be added to the site per-
mit time (
15,800 850-MW
nuclear reactors, or one installed every day for 43 years.
Even if only 5 percent of these were installed, the num-
ber of nuclear reactors worldwide would nearly double
the number of reactors in 2011 (about 440). Many more
countries would possess nuclear facilities, increasing
the likelihood that these countries would use the facili-
ties to hide the development of nuclear weapons, as has
occurred historically.
Second,
nuclear energy results in nine to twenty-
five times more carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions
(defined in Example 12.4) per unit energy generated
than does wind energy
.Thisisdue in part to emis-
sions from uranium refining and transport and reactor
construction (e.g., Lenzen, 2008; Sovacool, 2008) and
in part due to the longer time required to site, permit,
and construct a nuclear plant compared with a wind
farm, resulting in greater emissions from the fossil fuel
electricity sector during this period (Jacobson, 2009).
Not accounted for in the emissions number is the slight
increase in global temperature resulting from the water
evaporated during the cooling of nuclear facilities (Sec-
tion 12.2.3).
Such evaporation also occurs in coal, nat-
ural gas, and biofuel energy facilities
.
The longer the time between the planning and oper-
ation of an energy facility, the more the emissions
from the background electric power grid enhance global
∼
3 years in the United States) and
construc-
tion permit and issue time
(
∼
3 years). The overall his-
toric and present range of nuclear planning-to-operation
times for new nuclear plants has been 11 to 19 years,
compared with an average of 2 to 5 years for wind and
solar installations.
The
long period of time required between planning
and operation of a nuclear power plant
poses a signifi-
cant risk to the Arctic sea ice. Sea ice records indicate
a32percent loss in the August 2010 sea ice area rel-
ative to the mean from 1979 to 2008 (Polar Research
Group, n.d.). Such rapid loss indicates that solutions
to global warming must be implemented quickly. Tech-
nologies with long lead times will allow the high-albedo
Arctic ice to disappear, triggering more rapid positive
feedbacks to warmer temperatures by uncovering the
low-albedo ocean below.
Third, accidents at nuclear power plants have
been either catastrophic (Chernobyl, Russia, in 1986;
Fukushima Dai-ichi, Japan, in 2011) or damaging
(Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, in 1979; Saint-
Laurent, France, in 1980). The nuclear industry has
improved the safety and performance of reactors and
proposed new reactor designs that they suggest are safer.
However, these designs are generally untested, and there
∼
Search WWH ::
Custom Search