Module 14 Environmental Impact of Energy Sources

Transkript

1 Module 14 Environmental Impact of Energy Sources Status Prof.Dr. Böck Vienna University of Technology Atominstitute Stadionallee 2 A-1020 Vienna, Austria ph: boeck@ati.ac.at

2 General Aspects

3 CO 2 Emission for producing Electricity by different Fuel Fuel Emission of g C02 per kwh Operation Construction Fuel Production Hard Coal 720 < 50 < 10 Lignite 950 < 20 < 10 Natural Gas 370 < 10 < 10 Oil 370 < 70 < 10 Photo Voltaic Wind Hydro Nuclear - < 1 25 Source: Siemens PG, 2002 & Vattenfall Fuel, IC on Innovative NP, Vienna, 2003

4 Energy Intensity/Output of Fuel Fuel (using 1 kg of Fuel ) OUTPUT of Electrical Energy per 1 kg of Material (kwhe) Firewood ~ 1 Coal 3 Oil 4 Uranium Plutonium Source: Vattenfall Fuel, IC on Innovative Nuclear Power, Vienna, 2003 & H.Blix, World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium, London, 2001

5 Amortisation Time Fuel Time to amortise (months) (Energy Output minus Energy for construction) Hard Coal 3,2 3,6 Lignite 2,7 3,3 Gas (Combined Cycle) 0,8 Photo Voltaic Wind 4,6 13,7 Hydro 8,2 13,7 Nuclear 2,9 3,4 Source: University of Stuttgart, IER

6 Fuel Need of Materials to construct Electricity Producing Power Plants Material (in kg per GWhe) Iron Copper Bauxite Hard Coal Lignite Natural Gas Photo Voltaic Wind Hydro Nuclear Source: University of Stuttgart, IER

7 Cost for Electricity production Fuel Costs* (EURO-Cent) per kwh Min. Max. Hard Coal 3 4 Lignite 3 5 Natural Gas 3 4 Photo Voltaic Wind 3 7 Hydro 4 17 Nuclear 2 3 * Source: University of Stuttgart, IER neglecting impact on climate

8 Area needed for Power Plants Type of plant Area needed for a 1000MW electrical in Square Kilometers Photo Voltaic (10% efficiency) 100 Windmill (3000 Turbines,1 MWe each) Biogas (60 Million pigs or 800 Million chicken) Bio-alcohol (sugar beets) 6,200 (potatoes) 7,400 (corn) 16,100 (wheat) 272,000 Bio-oil (rape seed) 9,000 Bio-mass (wood) 30,000 Nuclear <1 Source: ENTERGY Nuclear, GENES4/ANP2003, Kyoto

9 Cost comparison of electricity production in US cents/kwh 2003 left: Credit interests 5%, right: 10%

10 Waste Production Comparison of a coal fired and a nuclear 1000 MWe plant Coal plant Nuclear plant Daily fuel consumed 7000 tons 0,08 tons Waste per year 900 tons of SO2 20 tons of spent 4500 tons of NOx high-.active fuel 6,5 million tons of CO2 400 tons of heavy metals Source: Vattenfall Fuel, IC on Innovative Nuclear Power, Vienna, 2003

11 CO 2

12

13

14

15 Vernagt Glacier in Austria 1912, 1938, 1968, 2003

16

17 Cumulative Emissions Hard coal Lignite Gas Nuclear Photovoltaic Wind Water

18 Emissions in the whole energy cycle Quelle: ETH Zürich und PSI

19

20 CO2 reduction potential of coal fired power plants

21 CO2 emissions

22 Kyoto Protocol 1997 Industrialised countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 at least for 5% against the level of 1990 Until now 170 countries have signed the protocol which contribute to 61,6% of the world wide CO 2 - production. USA, China, India, Australia did not yet sign

23 Reduction of CO 2 -emissions by replacement of fossile power plants by nuclear power plants Percent of nuclear power 1 % 3 % 22 % 35 % 76 % (1 toe = kwh)

24 Austria

25 Österreichs Elektrizitätserzeugung

26 Österreich 2009

27 Austria and the Kyoto-Protocol 85% Emissionen is CO 2 Traffic increased since 1990 for about 92%

28 Austria's National Inventory Report 2013 Umweltbundesamt

29 CO 2 -Emissions in Austria

30 Kyoto Targets

31 Electricity Production and Consumption in Austria

32 Share of Nuclear Electricity in Austria 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Jahr % of European nuclear electricity Electricity imports to Austria % of Austrian nuclear electricity

33 Situation in Austria Electricity consumption increased since 2000 appr.2%/year, from 2009 to 2010 for 4,3% Total consumption 68,1 TWh Practically no hydropower plants sites available, during the last 6 years only 264 MW hydro added Hainburg would be the largest hydro project Since 2002 Austria converted from electricity exporter to importer In the next decade Austria would need a second Danube with the same number of hydro power plants to compensate electricity demand Until recently wind energy strongly supported by government

34 Situation in Austria Electricity production price from wind approx 7,4 cents/kwh, normal 2 cents/ kwh, wind electricity contribution in Austria only 3% Safe back-up energy (fossile, water, nuclear) necessary anyhow Fraction of nuclear electricity in Austria s grid up to 15% (maximum Tirol, Vorarlberg) Net Imports: 5.6 TWh are equal to the annual production of one Temelin NPP block In summer cheap night electricity from NPP s is used to fill the pump storage hydro plants in the Alps which is converted to green water electricity during the day Austria is about 30% away from the Kyoto-target, instead-13% we are at +17%, 2010 Austria bought 400 M CO2 certificates from Lituania CO2 1990: 78,2 Mt, ,6 MT 160 M Zertifikate

35 Wir haben aber 2014 trotz den zusätzlichen 6% mit 8,6 cent/kwh subventioniertem Windstrom und 0,4% Solarstrom um fast 20% zu wenig Strom. Wir hätten genug, wenn alle Gas- und Kohle-Kraftwerke in Betrieb wären/blieben. Aber dazu müssten wir teures Gas und Kohle importieren aktuelles Problem mit russischem Gas! Mellach, Werndorf, Dürnrohr eingemottet.. (Simmering) Also importieren wir lieber Strom = billig, denn den subventioniert der deutsche u.teilw. der österr. Stromkunde mit den Ökostrombeiträgen, aber es ist trotzdem weniger Wind- und Sonnenstrom als Braunkohle- und Atomstrom. Daher sind also kommt unsere Stromquellen. 35

36 Energieaufwand Beschneiung 2014 in Österreich ca Beschneiungsanlagen mit ca 20 kw Leistung In 400 h soviel wie zwei Haushalte im ganzen Jahr Wasserverbrauch von 600 lt / min Für 1h Skipiste Grundbeschneiung 10e6 lt Wasser und kwh Kosten der Beschneiung macht ca 15% des Skipasses Schladming: 700 Kanonen, m3 /Tag, Kosten ca 90 k /Tag In letzten 10 Jahren 4500 Kanonen installiert 70% aller Pisten in Österreich beschneit 1,5-4,5 pro m3 Schnee

37 Summary and Conclusions Mankind is most probably responsible for a major climate change NPP s could contribute a major fraction to avoid greenhouse gas emissions Presently technology for nuclear waste is more advanced than CO2 removal from atmosphere Up to 80% of CO2 emission savings could be realised by increase of efficiency at the producer and at the consumer Construction of new NPP s takes about 10 years =>Today s started NPP construction could only be operational around 2025 The Gen IV NPP s could lead towards a hydrogen economy by using the VHTR To reduce greenhouse gases all possible options must be considered as soon as possible, there is no time left to continue political, psychological and technical obstructions Austria has a large fraction of hydro power, this avoids additional CO2 production

38 What you should remember Largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions are coal fired plants Largest environmental impact of NPPs are highactive spent fuel elements Austria is about 30% away from the 1990 Kyoto target Less than 50% of the electricity production in Austria is from hydro-power Imports originate uniquely from coal and nuclear Nuclear electricity in the Austrian grid is approx. 8% equal to about one year s production of a 1000 MWe NPP

39 References Impacts of Europe s changing climate-2008 indicator-based assessment EEA Report no4/2008, Lebenszyklusanalyse fossiler, nuklearer und regenerativer Stromerzeugungstechniken-Torsten Marheineke, Universität Stuttgart IER World Nuclear Association, nuclear.org EIA( Energy Information Administration) Comparison of Electricity Generation Costs-Tarjanne Risto, Kivistö Aija, Lappeenranta University of Technology Anpassung der Klimastrategie Österreichs zur Erreichung des Kyoto-Ziels ; umwelt.lebensministerium.at/filemanager/download/19873/ IEA(International Energy Agency) Key World Energy Statistics Hans Dieter Schilling-Wie haben sich die Wirkungsgrade von Kohlekraftwerken entwickelt und was ist künftig zu erwarten? World Coal Institute E.ON CO2-Emissionen der Kernenergie-Vergleich mit anderen Stromerzeugungstechniken J. Burkhardt, K.Koch, Ph.Kruse, H.-J.Wagner:VGB Power Tech-Zahlen und Fakten zur Stromerzeugung VGB Power Tech 2012/2013