At the current prices of technology and construction, nuclear power plant projects are becoming much more expensive, and even the nuclear power powers of England and France are failing to complete new projects. Can we do without a policy of reducing carbon intensity and causing a lack of nuclear-free energy?
From France : I'm on a hypothetical 'indirect nuclear rebound effect' ; when it works well (basic hypothesis : no extra costs), nuclear energy is lowering (during a certain time) the price of electricity (compare the average price of a Kw/h in different countries in EU, it's still cheaper in France ; but will probably not last) ; this is a permanent income effect for households, firms, etc (see Friedman's permanent income). This simply means that consumption and investment is at a higher level than without nuclear power (labour force is cheaper, added value - 'mehrwert' - so profits are higher ; see the stock exchange market level in France before the Ukrainian crisis) ; this is the indirect effect : your electricity bill in France allows you to use more things (more flying plans for holidays for ex., more cars etc.) ; what you save on CO2 with nukes, you spend it with loaded things that you can buy thanks to nukes.
I think that the overall carbon bilan of France is flawed, due to import/export accountability of CO2 and investments abroad (see for ex. in French :
https://reporterre.net/IMG/pdf/20200929_-_hcc_-rapport_empreinte.pdf)
At last : Italy does not have nuclear plants at all, but have a good standard of living and a relatively "low" CO2 emissions profile ; it's also a more market driven economy, more flexible.
@Joffrin Jean-Pierre agree, but I believe that without new nuclear plants we will front lack of energy at all.
Ladislav Rozenský
I just demonstrate (but with no proofs) that nuclear energy will not solve the climate problem (and logically it's the same for all cheap energies : if renewables are cheap, we have the same macroeconomic problem, the rebound) ; but nuclear energy will probably cost a lot at last (as we have to close plants, build new plants, pay a higher price for uranium as demand is going up, pay for the nuclear wastes costs, support accident risk costs...) ; so the rebound effect can turn into a 'debound effect' and finally save CO2 with the same reasoning.
Maybe that the real problem is the crowding out effect (see Sovacool) : all cheap energies are delaying hour need to consume less, produce less or differently (so : to "degrowth"), isolate housing etc. ; see the Italian model, we should follow this model I think.
I have an old draft here in French on this nuclear rebound hypothesis : again I can't prove anything as I can't do econometrics ; I'm only using raw data and logic.
@Joffrin Jean Pierre it is logical, what is clear, nuclear energy and Green energy are expensive and we will pay this cost evrbd. And again, lack of energy is here and will be worse...
In a nutshell :
use low-carbon energies (with a relatively low cost, a relatively low investment, relative to the average price of the global product on the long run) to consume more carbon loaded goods in the end, it logically serves no purpose (it's the rebound : we win at the start, we lose at the end), logically it can’t save the climate. That's all. So you can be skeptical about the warming if you want.
@Joffrin Jean-Pierre tnks. But you are ironic for no reason. And i'm not skeptical about the warming. It's just your demagogy!
Thanks Ladislav, I was not talking about you and I'm not ironic ; the initial question is interesting and it's open, it's fully 'popperian' : you are invited to prove that I'm wrong, by any mean ; it's good to have a discussion about this : after all the issue is huge ; this is not demagogy, just some logic and people don't like some kind of truth, some paradoxes ; see Nietzsche about that ; maybe that we will have another talk about those problems someday ; to be skeptical about the warming is one thing, to be skeptical about the current solutions to solve the problem is another thing ; best wishes, JPJ
Nuclear plans have to find fissionable material, Prof. Ladislav Rozenský
Look at the actual situation in Kazakhstan & its uranium mines, a good summary for a preprint is in:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/kazakhstan.aspx
Ciao.
Joffrin Jean-Pierre tnks for your invention.
Best regards
Ladislav
In India Nuclear power is the fifth-largest source of electricity after coal, gas, hydropower and wind power. As of November 2020, India has total installed capacity of 7,380 MW of nuclear power.
This is the final part of my paper in French here : 'le nucléaire un choix propre ?' ; I've used a translator on line (google) ; I think that the translation is good ; this is just a story (storytelling) or a scenario if you want ; you can bet that I'am wrong, but you face uncertainty ; you can make a rational choice dealing with a risk but facing uncertainty is another problem. Playing with fire. You can answer that if the demand goes up with nuclear plants, logically the price will also go up and that the effects are nil ; but the damage is done (at least : a part of the damage).
Jaïtapur, or how the French are going to warm the planet from India
To illustrate the general idea of a 'nuclear rebound effect', let's take the example of Jaïtapur, the world's largest thermonuclear power plant project, based on the construction of six French EPRs on the west coast of India, between Goa and Mumbai. Let's imagine that the project is finally built and that we are in the start-up phase. What happens next? Will we close fossil fuel power plants in India? First, the Indians will have to pay the EPR and dip into their savings; if this is insufficient, they will have to invest to export and find foreign currency: whether the investment is rather public or private, it does not matter, it will not be clean. Let us consider 'exports' in the form of tourists in India who bring in foreign currency to pay for these reactors: to what extent can we say that these tourists arriving by plane to consume services are low CO2 emitters? Secondly, and this is the main point, if they succeed in eliminating the purchase price of the six EPRs, the classic configuration 'amortization of fixed costs' - 'economies of scale' will operate at full speed and the marginal cost of the electricity will eventually drop (with the illusory effect of 'zero marginal cost' which poses nuclear as a godsend). The effect of Jaïtapur will be – in the long term – to boost purchasing power and the rebound effect will appear at this level. If this scenario is plausible, this project will increase consumption in general and energy consumption in particular; it will paradoxically perpetuate the old fossil fuel power stations that it was to replace. The rebound effect will result in overconsumption of energy and an increase in CO2 emissions by a considerable population. The general hypothesis is therefore the following: to pay for this plant, the Indians will have to emit carbon and once they have paid for this plant, it will have a potential for economic growth which will increase an energy consumption that it will be unable to satisfy. . We can evoke 'Keynesian multipliers' for income effects or Friedman's competing theory of 'permanent income' which focuses on the wealth effect in planned consumption (with one caveat: the ability of Indians to anticipate real costs and not being deceived by a temporary effect). To get a general idea of the effect on energy demand, we can think about the interdependence of forms of consumption when the budget constraint changes at a microeconomic level. The effect of nuclear power is therefore the equivalent of a reduction in the budgetary constraint of households and businesses, an effect which can last over the long term if a general growth dynamic is set in motion. The effect largely compensates for the investment and the increase in the short-term constraint (linked to financing) and the long-term constraint (linked to the problems of depreciation-renewal, waste management and accidents, price of the uranium or others). Part of the drama is that in this type of country, the possibility of “socializing” the costs on the poorest pushes the middle class in the direction of unbridled over-consumption. By lifting a constraint on energy consumption, we lift constraints on other forms of consumption (this is the rebound effect by income-wealth effect) but we also shift the constraints in the economy: if general consumption increases , there is a 'social cost' which should rather be called a 'socialised cost', for the simple reason that it is not negotiable (Coase, 1960, in particular the last page). A socialized cost is a cost imposed on others without their being able to engage in the slightest negotiation: the transaction cost being infinite, there is no conceivable haggling (this is in my opinion what Tocqueville saw happen in democracy as a tyrannical 'soft' form). In general, the one who bears this cost is the one who cannot defend himself because he lacks resources. To illustrate, we must go to the 'microeconomic' level and, extending the scenario above, imagine a middle-class Indian household that chooses to equip its home with air conditioner(s) because its budget constraint is less severe and because it is getting hotter and hotter in India, as in the rest of the planet. The need to air-condition housing, associated with the fall in the cost of electricity, will logically cause the demand for household appliances to explode and each household will want to connect the 'air conditioning', the 'fridge', the 'ventilator' and all the other appliances to the French EPRs... like all households in the world, none will take into account the energy cost and the considerable carbon footprint of the production of these tools (we find Tocqueville and the notion of individualism as a retreat into the private sphere). A particularly remarkable element is that 'air conditioning', like the 'fridge' or motor vehicles, will increase the heat in cities and lead to an increasing demand for 'air conditioning', which will heat cities and so on... The effect is socialized because no one will be able to regulate the problem.
Interesting.
Tnks for your contribution @Joffrin Jean-Pierre
Best regards
Ladislav
Dear Ladislav,
On the one hand, the answer to the above question depends on the specific conditions for the development of other alternative energy sources. In many countries, hydrogen energy can be an important factor in the mix of energy sources in a situation where geoclimatic conditions do not allow for the large-scale development of renewable energy sources. On the other hand, hydrogen energy is not a fully environmentally clean source of energy. However, on the other hand, due to the fact that the development of hydrogen energy requires huge financial outlays, it is worth considering the development of modern renewable energy sources, i.e. the construction of power plants based on hydrogen energy, which is completely environmentally clean and can be equally energy efficient.
Best regards,
Dariusz
Tnks for your contribution @Darius Prokopowicz..
I have to agree, and exactly Czech Republic has not conditions for other sorts of renewable energy and the nuclear energy is absolutly crucial for the country and wellbeing of the citizens...
Best regards
Ladislav
Dear Ladislav Rozenský ,
It's a controversial subject.
However, as we know nuclear energy must be encouraged as part of the world energy matrix. Amounts invested in their constructions are easily amortized over time of use of nuclear power plants.
The fact that your security always needs to be improved implies costs. New designs with better materials and better equipment reflects this.
As for reduction of CO2 emitters, there are several favorable studies.
From an ecological point of view, there will be many studies that nuclear waste is a problem, and the cost of safe storage as well.
Fact is, I don't see a future without nuclear energy, even nuclear fission energy, until nuclear fusion is available.
Thanks for the question.
My best regards,
Prof. Wiltgen
I have to absolutly agree with You,
Prof. @Filipe Wiltgen. This is čase of the Czech Republic and her energy policy mix.
Tnks for your contribution
Best regards
Ladislav
Dear researchers, I would like to stimulate that “Nuclear Power is warming environment at greater rate than fossil fuels fired thermal Power for same quantum of power generation. It is not renewable and green. Nuclear power is a clean source of power as compared to coal based thermal power, except radiation hazards. The cost of power generated is competitive at present market prices and much less as compared to gas, oil, and coal based thermal power. But in thermodynamic cycle, it converts only 28% of the energy into electricity and rest 72% of heat generated in nuclear reactors is rejected to environment and it is a potential source of warming the atmosphere. The increasing energy demand and the necessity to reduce CO2 emissions are worldwide problems. This motivates the increasingly "green" choices, in order to reduce the anthropogenic environmental impact, made by companies and governments of many countries in the world. Nonetheless, among the clean energy options currently available on the world market, only nuclear power can provide constant energy, regardless of weather or geological conditions, making nuclear one of the most promising low-carbon energy options. Energy storage technologies are improving and these may pose a threat to the revival of the nuclear power.”
All living things in an ecosystem need energy to survive. The cycle of organisms eating and being eaten is one way that parts of the environment interact with each other. The main source of energy for life on Earth comes from the sun. Ecological Impact is the effects left on organisms and their environment due to actions made by humans and natural occurrences. These changes can be beneficial or adverse to the ecosystem. An example of ecological impact can be seen in the case of invasive species.
Read Prof. Wiltgen's answer :
"However, as we know nuclear energy must be encouraged as part of the world energy matrix. Amounts invested in their constructions are easily amortized over time of use of nuclear power plants."
Prof. Wiltgen does not see that his answer is logically flawed : if 'amounts invested in their construction (construction of nuclear plants) are easily amortized over time', this is precisely the reason why we should NOT 'encourage (nuclear energy) as part of the world energy matrix'.
Just a few more words ; read the IAEA's papers (highlights are mine) :
IAEA, CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER 2015
p. 42 : "Improving economic well-being of citizens is a key priority in most countries. Nuclear power belongs to the energy options that involve large upfront capital costs. Yet these investments tend to trickle down to other sectors in the economy such as construction, manufacturing and services, thus generating economic growth and creating new employment. Apart from energy security and climate change mitigation potential, nuclear power can thereby make a significant contribution to a country’s economic development.
Empirical evidence about the relationship between nuclear investments and economic growth is emerging, although some conflicting results were reported in the past. An econometric analysis — based on a large dataset including 16 countries for 1980–2005 — has revealed the role of nuclear energy in boosting long term economic growth in the analysed countries. A 1% increase in nuclear energy production and consumption would increase real GDP by 0.32%, according to this study. In comparison, the impact on GDP resulting from investments in real gross fixed capital is significantly lower (0.17% only)."
IAEA, CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER 2016
p. 58 : "Apart from the potential to create jobs, nuclear power has positive implications for electricity and aggregate price stability leading to an overall more favourable macroeconomic context for economic growth. Also, nuclear power typically provides baseload energy, while generating relatively low system costs in comparison with the intermittent renewables. In addition, being a low carbon generation technology, nuclear power reduces the volatility of electricity prices due to fluctuations in the carbon price component."
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Higher Education
- Universities