greenpeace & co clean energy emergency = windsolar no nuclear is a total failure = it's...

Environmental Progressnature and prosperity for all

29

31

33

35

37

1985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009201120132015

by Michael Shellenberger Updated Nov. 1, 2016

Clean Energy Emergency


TWh

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Low-Carbon Power Has Grown in Absolute Terms…

Source: BP Statistical Review of World

Energy, 2016

Hydro

Nuclear

Wind

Solar


29%

31%

33%

35%

37%

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2015

…But Declined as Percentage of Total


-4.5

4.5 percentage points of global electricity =

60 nuclear plants the size of Diablo Canyon

or

900 of one of largest solar farms (Topaz, in California)



Perc

ent o

f ele

ctric

ity g

loba

lly th

at is

nuc

lear

9

10.5

12

13.5

15

16.5

18

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

Declining power from nuclear energy…


-7


0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

…was not made up by solar & wind


+4.5


Over half of US nuclear fleet at risk of premature closure by 2030


Five Abandoned Nuclear Plants Generated Almost Exact Same Amount of Power as All US Solar

Source: EIA. Assumes 90% capacity factor

June 2013 Feb. 2013 May 2013 Dec. 2014

GW

h

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

Electricity generated by abandoned nuclear 2015 U.S. solar generated

San Onofre June 2013

Crystal RiverFeb. 2013

Kewaunee May 2013

Vermont Yankee Dec. 2014

Ft. CalhounOct 2016

Billio

ns o

f 201

5 U

S D

olla

rs

$0 B

$35.5 B

$71 B

$106.5 B

$142 B

$142 B

CO2 value of plants at-risk before 2030

Assumes U.S. government cost of carbon of $36/ton, 60-year lifetimes Source: EPA, EIA

Nuclear plants at risk of closure have $142 billion carbon value


CO

2 M

MT

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

-376

164.5

Nuclear capacity at risk EPA CPP reduction goals

Premature closures would set back the EPA clean power plan goals by 44%

Calculation: Assumes replacement with natural gas


US

Japan

Sweden

Germany

Spain

Belgium

UK

Switzerland

GW

-55 -40 -25 -10

-3-4-6-7

-11-9

-37-55

GW of Nuclear at Risk of Early Closure

Globally, 132 GW of Nuclear Could Be Lost by 2030

Sources: Environmental Progress estimates based on WNA, EIA, BNEF, interviews and analysis, 2016.


GW

of C

apac

ity

-140

-102.5

-65

-27.5

10

-132-33

Lost last 10 years At-Risk

World at risk of losing four times more nuclear over next 13 years than we lost over last 10

Source: Multiple country-specific sources


GW

-140

-65

10

85

160

At-risk China & India

1060

70

-132

Low High India

China & India Not Building Enough Nuclearto Make up the Difference

Sources: Interviews with Chinese officials (and consonant with WNA) 2016;Indian government planning documents & interviews with Indian officials


Closer Look at U.S.


Source: EPA, EIA

Loss of Nuclear Plants Would Create 5 Times More Emissions than New York State Must Reduce Under EPA Clean Power Plan

Milli

on M

etric

Ton

s of

CO

2

-4.5

0

4.5

9

13.5

18

EPA CPP state reduction goal Increase if plants at risk in state close

16.8

-3.0


Cos

t of p

ropo

sed

nucl

ear s

ubsi

dies

per

MW

h co

mpa

red

to re

new

able

sub

sidi

es

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

Renewables Nuclear

$22.00

$17.48

$23.00

New York Federal PTC

Renewables Subsidies 2x More Expensive than Proposed New York Nuclear Subsidies

Source: NYSERDA, PSC


New York victory buys us time but gives no incentive to replace

much less add to new nuclear.


GW

h El

ectri

city

Gen

erat

ion

0

25000

50000

75000

100000

125000

2014 2014 without Quad and Clinton

15,389

9,09873,37173,371

10,85110,851

Other Other nuclear Clinton Quad Cities

If Quad Cities and Clinton close, 23% of Illinois’s clean electricity would be lost

Source: EIA


Proposed Illinois Nuclear Subsidy Would Cost Less than Half of Wind Subsidy

Cen

ts /

KWh

0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

2.3

1

IL Nuclear (proposed) Wind

Source: Calculations based on $250 million/year subsidy (high end estimate) from Steve Daniels, Crane’s, May 19, 2016. DOE Wind PTC.

Clean California Power Declined

Source: California Almanac, “In-state System Power,” 2016; Rooftop Solar Added; https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uXuqaE-BBvdNLnmuUic5mmhCkqOoU0VTunn3meS_dAU/edit?usp=sharing

Electricity from Clean Energy Sources in California, 1986 - 20154200%

4533.333%

4866.667%

5200%

1990

2015

51

46

Percent of In-State Power that is Clean

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uXuqaE-BBvdNLnmuUic5mmhCkqOoU0VTunn3meS_dAU/edit?usp=sharing

400

412.5

425

437.5

450

1990 2014

431

442

Mega Tonnes CO2

California Emissions Rose Since 1990

Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), “2016 Edi;on California Greenhouse Gas for 2000-‐2014 — by Sector and Ac;vity,” 2016

150

225

300

375

450

2014 2030 Target

442

172

Mega Tonnes CO2

California Emissions Actual & Target

Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), “2016 Edi;on California Greenhouse Gas for 2000-‐2014 — by Sector and Ac;vity,” 2016


Milli

on T

ons

CO

2

0

130

260

390

520

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

California Emissions did decline since 2000…

Source: EIA, State Energy Emissions Data, 2016


-0.1

-0.075

-0.05

-0.025

0

-7.5%-9.6%

United States California

…but less than national average

Source: EIA, State Energy Emissions Data, 2016

Mill

ion

Tons

CO

2

-10

-7.5

-5

-2.5

0

CO2 from Electricity (In-state)

-2.49-9.14

2001-2006 2007-2014

…and less after passage of climate legislation than before

Source: CARB, 2016 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2014 — by Sector and Activity, 2016


Because solar and wind produce power just 10 - 30% of the time they almost always require fossil fuel back-up

Methane gas leaking from Aliso Canyon, California, where it was stored to provide rapid back-up power to solar & wind. Source: Environmental Defense Fund

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

2015

1,301

18,543

Diablo Canyon Topaz

Diablo Canyon produced 14 times more electricity than Topaz, one of world’s largest solar farms

Source: EIA

-14

-10.5

-7

-3.5

0

3.5

7

10.5

14

CO2 from Electricity (In-state)

10.45

-12.27

2000-10 2011-2014

California Power Emissions Rose Dramatically After Closure of San Onofre Nuclear Plant


GW

h

-18,000

-13,500

-9,000

-4,500

0

4,500

9,000

13,500

18,000

2015

17,537

-17,443

Loss of San Onofre Cancelled Out Solar Gains

Source: EIA

Diablo Canyon

California Almanac, “In-State Generation by Fuel Type”, 2016

Milli

on T

ons

of C

O2

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12

2011-2014

-10.39

10.45

Change in CO2 from In-State Power Change in CO2 from Power Imports

Decline in Emissions from Out-of-State Power Canceled Out by Rise of In-State Power Emissions


Perc

ent o

f Ele

ctric

ity G

ener

atio

n To

tal

10%

28%

45%

63%

80%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015 w/o Diablo Canyon

40%

30%33% 32% 32%

24%

58%

67% 65% 66% 66%

74%

Fossil fuels Clean Energy

Total Nat Gas Rises with Nuclear Closures

Source: EIA

SONGS nuclear plant ceases to produce power in 2011

If Diablo Canyon is closed early, it could result in over 5,000 premature

deaths from air pollution.

GW

h

0

22500

45000

67500

90000

2015 2015 without Diablo Canyon

18,505

20,14620,146

12,34112,341

12,22812,228

13,97413,974

6,9216,921

Biomass Hydro Wind Geothermal Solar Nuclear

If Diablo closes, 21% of California’s clean electricity would be lost

Includes distributed solarSource: US Energy Information Administration

0

11

22

33

44

California population

4439

2014 2030

California Population Expected to Rise 13% by 2030

Source: California Department of Finance, “Projections: Population” 2016, http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/

0

22500

45000

67500

90000

electricity annually in GWh

84,500

17,500

5 million Nissan Leafs 24 million Nissan leafs

Electric vehicles will require 1 - 5x clean power currently provided by Diablo Canyon

Sources and Calculation: Nissan Leaf needs 30 kWh of electricity to travel 100 miles, or .3 kWh per miles. Department of Energy, 2016. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=37066. 5,000,000 Nissan Leafs at 0.3kWh per mile, multiplied by 12,000 miles (California average)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=37066

Germany

German electricity from clean energy is rising….

Source: BP Global Outlook 2016

TWhw

s

200

275

350

425

500

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Clean

CO

2 in

MM

T

0

237.5

475

712.5

950

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Average

…but Germany’s emissions aren’t declining.

0

200

400

600

800

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Electricity in Germany Remains 6x More Carbon-‐Intensive than in France

Sources: Daily German electricity production data from Fraunhofer ISE. Hourly French electricity production from RTE-‐France. Methods: Calculation of German Specific Carbon Intensity uses values of 1100g, 950g, 350g, and 983g of CO2 per kWh for lignite coal, hard coal, natural gas, and biomass (respectively). Calculation of French Specific Carbon Intensity calculated by RTE-‐France.

Germany

France shown in grams of CO2/KWh

German Electricity is 2x Expensive as French ElectricityAv

erag

e Pr

ice

per H

ouse

hold

[cnt

s/kW

h]

0

7.5

15

22.5

30

16

30

Germany France

Source: Eurostat, 2015

Germany Relies on Dirtiest Fossil FuelTe

raw

atth

ours

0

100

200

300

400

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Lignite Hard coal Oil Natural gas

Fossil electricity consumption declined 3% since 2000

Source: BP Global Outlook 2016

TWhw

s

0

67

133

200

267

333

400

2000 2015

371 360

Fossil

54% 46%

Clean DirtySource: BP Global Outlook 2016

7%

94%

8%

93%

Carbon-Intensity of Electricity Supply

10%

90%

Germany

SwedenFranceSwitzerland

54% 46%UK

42%58%

Belgium

66%

34%USA

83%

17%

Australia 54% 46%California

46% 54%

Illinois

German Electricity Costs Rose 47 Percent, 2006 - 2016

Composition of average power price in ct/kWh for an average household (3,500 kWh per year). Data: BDEW, 2016.

The Storage Fantasy

California has 23 minutes of electricity storage — if you used every car and truck in the state

along with existing storage.

One day of back-up power as batteries and pumped storage would cost $100 billion

App

roxi

mat

e C

apita

l Cos

t Alo

ne

$0

$25,0

00,00

0,000

$50,0

00,00

0,000

$75,0

00,00

0,000

$100

,000,0

00,00

0

$5,000,000,000$1,000,000,000$1,100,000,000

$100,000,000,000

One Day of Storage EV Batteries Batteries Pumped Hydro

Electricity Costs Rose with Less Nuclear & More RenewablesPr

ice

[cnt

s/kw

h]

0

7.5

15

22.5

30

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Renewables surcharge Other costs

8 nuclear reactors were shut down prematurely

Composition of average power price in ct/kWh for an average household (3,500 kWh per year). Data: BDEW, 2016.

Why is this happening?


0

22.5

45

67.5

90

Solar Wind Oil Nuclear Coal

252830

7885

Source: Ipsos, December 2014

Percent of Public Globally With

Favorable Attitudes

Public fears nuclear…


Dea

ths

Per T

Wh

0

7.5

15

22.5

30

Coal Petroleum Biomass Natural Gas Nuclear

Deaths from air pollutionDeaths from accidents

Health effects of electricity generation in Europe by primary energy sourceSource: Markandya, A. & Wilkinson, Electricity generation and health. Lancet 2007; 370:970-90

…even though it is the safest way to make reliable power


Nuclear support declined from 62% to 51% last five years


Gallup: 53% Oppose “increased use” nuclear power


Pew: 58% oppose expanding nuclear power


State clean energy standards exclude nuclear…


Gra

ms

of C

O2

per K

Wh

0

225

450

675

900

Coal

Biomass - co-firingNatural Gas

Biomass

Solar PV - utilitySolar PV - roof

GeothermalSolar - concentratedHydropower

Nuclear

Wind offshoreWind onshore

1112122427384148

230

490

740820

…even though is lower-carbon than solar

Source: IPCC 2014, Annex III Table A III.2 Schlömer S., T. Bruckner, L. Fulton, E. Hertwich, A. McKinnon, D. Perczyk, J. Roy, R. Schaeffer, R. Sims, P. Smith, and R. Wiser, 2014: Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

“Nuclear power is one of the chief long-term hopes for conservation.”

— David Siri, Sierra Club Director, 1966


“If a doubling of the state’s population in the next 20 years is encouraged by providing the power resources for this growth, [California’s] scenic character will be destroyed.”

— David Brower, Sierra Club Director, 1966


“It’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it.”

— Amory Lovins


In 1966, 1967 and again in 1969 the Sierra Club’s Board

of Directors, and its members, voted in favor of building Diablo Canyon.


“Our campaign stressing the hazards of nuclear power will supply a rationale for increasing regulation… and add to the cost of the industry…”

— Sierra Club Executive Director, Michael McCloskey, 1974


“I really didn’t care [about possible nuclear accidents] because there are too many people anyway… I think that playing dirty if you have a noble end is fine.”

— Martin Litton, Sierra Club Board Member


“If you’re trying to get people aroused about what is going on… you use the most emotional issue you can find.”

— Doris Sloan, anti-nuclear activist

Source: Thomas Wellock, Critical Masses: Opposition to Nuclear Power in California, 1958-1988, 1998, University of Wisconsin Press


Diablo Canyon No Nukes concert, June 1979


“The governor [Jerry Brown] said, ‘I want the Department of Water Resources to build a coal plant.’ So we embarked on the planning of a coal plant… a dreadful prospect.”

— Ron Robie, California Department of Water Resources

GW

h

0

57500

115000

172500

230000

2015 2015 + planned nuclear build-out

12,34112,341 6,9216,92112,22812,22820,14620,14613,97413,974

100,86118,505

34,951

118,082

Fossil Fuels Nuclear Hydro Solar Wind Biomass Geothermal

Nuclear Abandonments Locked in Fossil

Includes distributed solarSource: US Energy Information Administration

Source: California Almanac, “In-State Power,” 2016; Rooftop Solar Added;https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uXuqaE-BBvdNLnmuUic5mmhCkqOoU0VTunn3meS_dAU/edit?usp=sharing

Electricity from Clean Energy Sources in California, 1986 - 2015

0%

33.333%

66.667%

100%

2015 Actual 2015 + Killed Nuclear

88%

46%

+42

California Clean Power 42% Less Without California Nuclear

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uXuqaE-BBvdNLnmuUic5mmhCkqOoU0VTunn3meS_dAU/edit?usp=sharing

Milli

on M

egat

onne

s C

O2-

eq

0

23

45

68

90

MMT CO2-eq

40

88

CA Total Power CA Total Power w/Nuclear Build-Out

California Emissions Are 2x Higher Without Nuclear

Source: California Almanac, “In-State Generation by Fuel Type”, 2016


“Nuclear energy is the only practical alternative that we have to destroying the environment with oil and coal.”

— Ansel Adams, 1983