Territories of power

“In the coming century, there are [...] two main options for Denmark’s energy supply: nuclear energy or solar energy (including wind, wave, etc.)” Bleggaard et. al. [21] wrote in the concluding chapter of the first alternative energy plan in 1976, perhaps the world’s first techno-economic consistent and qualified alternative energy plan. This is perhaps really a defining choice that needs to be made in energy system design: the choice between possibly incompatible options, between nuclear energy and intermittent resources? But is it true that nuclear energy and intermittent resources really are incompatible? And if so, in which way are they incompatible?

And what consequences should this have with respect to the way we attempt to evaluate and compare options in energy?

Nuclear and wind are techno-economic incompatible, according to previous manager in the West Danish system operator Eltra, and an expert in the Danish electricity system, Paul-Frederik Bach. “The system cannot be designed for both options to co-exist without serious economic consequences,”

he says. His conclusion is that nuclear energy is incompatible with the current Danish energy system, which is based on wind power and distributed generation. Bach’s conclusion is supported by professor Dr. Poul Lebeck Ølgaard from Risoe National Laboratories, an expert on nuclear energy research, saying that “the electricity system would clearly have to undergo changes if nuclear power was introduced [...].Nuclear power plants operate continuously [...] and should be dimen-sioned as base load plants in the system. In result, nuclear power plants would compete with current base-load technolo-gies, wind power and distributed generators. On a high note, Ølgaard continues to say, that “... at least, this would give us an energy system, which is easily controlled, because it is does not depend upon wind and weather conditions.” [53]

Interestingly, only little research is found that considers a combination of nuclear energy and intermittent resources, and some of that may not be properly careful in considering the technical operational differences. One article published in

Publications 135

48

“Progress in Nuclear Energy” suggest that a potential synergy exists between wind power and nuclear energy when combin-ing these technologies in the production of distributed hydro-gen [54]. Another article published in “International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy” finds by dynamic programming that 20% nuclear energy, 5% wind power, and 8% cogenera-tion is the optimal mix for India’s future energy system [55].

In “Solar Energy”, researchers from University of Leuven in Belgium, published results from modelling GHG-emission consequences of introducing up to 1500 MW wind power in Belgium’s energy system, in which nuclear power in 2004 made up 55% of total electricity production. The reduction potentials were found to be ranging from 350 to 450 kg CO2 per MWh of power generated by wind power, comparable to marginally displacing gas-fired power plants [56], however it should be realized that 1500 MW wind power would corre-spond to only about 4% of Belgium’s total electricity produc-tion in 2004.

There is however substantial research that indirectly supports the understanding, that nuclear power and intermittent options are incompatible, for example by way of comparing the two options as alternatives to each other, i.e. per se incompatibles. In 2003, researchers from IAEA and Centre for Energy Research (NZ) published a study in “Energy Policy”

that compares three basic resource options: fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and intermittent energy [57]. While conclud-ing that only nuclear energy is a mature alternative to fossil fuels, the authors were considering the resources as compet-ing platforms for energy system developments. In 2003, researchers from Eastern Mediterranean University and Bahcesehir University published an article in “Energy” with results from a study that compared a nuclear energy program with a cogeneration program for Turkey, concluding that the nuclear option would be USD 72,6 billion more costly in 2020, in terms of accumulated costs [58]. The article does not consider any combination of nuclear power and cogeneration.

National energy sector statistics indicate that nuclear energy and intermittent resources are incompatible options. Combin-ing data from IEA and EUROSTAT, Fig. 18 illustrate the shares of cogeneration and intermittent production as a function of the nuclear share of total electricity production in 2004. A medium negative correlation of -0,27 between nuclear and

136 Publications

49

intermittent production, and a weak negative correlation of -0,14 between nuclear and cogeneration may be carefully used to suggest that nuclear energy finds it difficult to co-exist with distributed cogeneration and intermittent resources. As this is not surprise - a growing share of one resource is certainly likely to reduce the share of another – it should be noticed that in energy systems for which the share of nuclear power has gone above 27% of total electricity production, no room is left for intermittent resources, with Sweden as an exception with 1% intermittent supply share. However, for less shares of nuclear power, we see no statistical evidence for incompatibil-ity. The cases of Germany and Spain are particularly worth noticing. While the share of nuclear power reaches 27% and 23% respectively, the contribution from intermittent produc-tion is significant and increasing, currently at 4% and 6%

respectively. In EU-25, these penetration rates are only surpassed by Denmark.

Fig. 19 addresses the potential compatibility between intermit-tent resources and cogeneration dividing European energy systems into two categories: nuclear and non-nuclear. For nuclear energy systems, there is a weak negative correlation of -0,14 between cogeneration and intermittent production, while for non-nuclear energy systems, there is a very strong positive correlation of 0,77. Nuclear energy systems do not only discourage the penetration of intermittent resources, but they do also discourage the combined penetration of cogene-ration and intermittent resources. In contrast to this, we see that in non-nuclear energy systems, increasing shares of cogeneration supports increasing shares of intermittent resources. These conclusions are based on a single year aggregate statistical representation, and the correlation results are highly sensitive to the inclusion of the Danish energy system.

The existence of competing and conflicting models are evident in the October 2007 attempt by the European Commission to map the various capacities of the member states with respect to energy [59]. About one out of three Member States list nuclear-related research among the first priorities in the national plan (not surprisingly for countries exhibiting a relatively nuclear-intensive power sector, headed by France, and followed by Lithuania, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic).

Publications 137

50

Fig. 18: Cogeneration's and intermittent production's share of total electricity production as a function of the nuclear share of total electricity production.

Fig. 19: Intermittent production's shares of total electricity production as a function of cogeneration's share of total electricity production.

138 Publications

51

In 2005, France, Germany and Italy accounted for 73% of the aggregated EU public energy R&D funding. France has the largest energy R&D budget in EU-25 from which nuclear research takes up more than 60% of the total budget in 2005, by which it is clearly indicated that France’s future focus is the continuation of its nuclear legacy. “[France’s] national advan-tages need to be highlighted [in a common EU energy policy]

(nuclear plants competitiveness, CO2 emissions, renewable energies, white certificates, etc.). Thus, France might evolve from “black sheep” to an energy model based on better energy intensity, energy independence, low electricity costs, energy capacities storages and low emissions.”, writes research Paris Dauphine about France’s stance on an European energy policy in Energy Policy in 2007 [60]. Fairly, France is working on several fronts, and assigns considerable research resources for other low-carbon technologies than nuclear reactors, including biomass use, solar and geothermal energy, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

Current projections and existing R&D strategies suggest the existence of three basic territories for sustainable energy exists: nuclear/hydro, coal with sequestration, and intermit-tent renewables in combination with distributed generation.

As for EU, the combined mapping of energy R&D in member states concludes that 40% is dedicated to nuclear energy, 20% to renewables, and some 10% to fossil fuels and energy efficiency. As for the world, a tallying of public research priorities in US, Japan, and EU, reveals the dominating atten-tion nuclear and fossil strategies for sustainable energy receives (Fig. 20).

It is evident that a nuclear strategy for sustainable energy is currently followed by France and United Kingdom, hybrid strategies are followed by German and Italy, Poland has no strategy, and the CO2 sequestration strategy is in play, with Germany and Italy investing heavily here.

Publications 139

52

What would be a wise sustainable energy strategy for Den-mark?