Publication Laka-library:
Can reactors react? Is a decarbonized electricity system with a mix of fluctuating renewables and nuclear reasonable?
Author | C.Morris, IASS |
6-01-2-16-73.pdf | |
Date | January 2018 |
Classification | 6.01.2.16/73 (NP & GREENHOUSE EFFECT - NUCLEAR POWER YES OR NO SOLUTION & SCENARIOS) |
Front |
From the publication:
Can reactors react? Is a decarbonized electricity system with a mix of fluctuating renewables and nuclear reasonable? Craig Morris IASS DISCUSSION PAPER Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) Potsdam, January 2018 Summary In Nov 2017, the French government postponed its plan from 2015 to reduce the share of nuclear from 75% to 50% because it did not believe it could replace the missing 25% with renewables alone; power from natural gas would be needed, thereby increasing carbon emissions. One aspect remains overlooked in the French discussion: the potential inability of the country’s reactor fleet to ramp enough in order to make space for significant shares of wind and solar power. This oversight is typical of the current discussion about low-carbon power scenarios in English as well – but not in German.1 “Deep decarbonization” has become a buzzword in the energy sector in recent years. How can we achieve a low-carbon energy supply? Mobility is expected to be increasingly electric, as will heating and cooling. The power sector will therefore be more important. Nuclear power is a source of very low-carbon electricity. Yet, markets are focusing on wind and solar, and there are signs that the priority given to them is hurting the profitability of baseload plants, including nuclear. Recent academic studies focusing on climate change mitigation have therefore argued that nuclear should be included along with wind and solar towards creating the most affordable clean power supply. Germany’s nuclear phaseout is partly based on an understanding that baseload cannot flexibly accommodate fluctuating wind and solar,2 with nuclear being the least flexible of all conventional options. A discussion about this “inherent conflict” (Systemkonflikt) took place roughly from 2008-2011; the second phaseout of 2011 put an end to the debate. That phaseout also marked the point when Germany became the focus of international attention; the previous discussion in Germany about the flexibility of nuclear thus went largely unnoticed abroad. This paper summarizes that debate, possibly for the first time in English. Those calling for a “balanced” mix of nuclear, wind, and solar assume that nuclear reactors can ramp up and down sufficiently to back up wind and solar – when the subject of nuclear load-following is mentioned at all. In a 2016 final report on a symposium entitled “Getting to Deep De-carbonization: What Role for Nuclear Power?”, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists does not use the words “flexible” or “capacity factor” at all. Ramping and load-following were apparently not discussed (Stover 2016). This omission stands in stark contrast to the focus of the TAB study from Germany discussed below.