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