
低碳经济体系核能优缺点.pdf
183页?????????????????? ????????????????????????? ????????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ??????? ?????????????????????????????? !“???#???????$??????????????? ????????????????? ??????????????????? ???????????????%?)+’, ?+(%.)’(?)%????,%(:1?,+)??????+33+’, ?00+.%???????? ?? ?????!??(433%63??2?+6“?(’:%(?:?(8+6#%.?%4(’?,?:’%)-%2#%.?%4(’ rotating turbine- generators provide damping for stability. Big but dispatchable and flexible units will expedite the future penetration of large amounts of intermittent and non-dispatchable units. A balance between centralised and decentralised generation is desirable. 2012 Interdisciplinary Study – Compilation of the experts' reports February 2013 8 Nuclear has ample capability to contribute to the three EU energy policy pillars simultaneously, certainly with more RD but its safety record has received a serious dent. Waste management and proliferation controls should be further improved. Better understanding of low-dose effects of radiation could ameliorate its reputation and acceptability. Security of supply is offered by resource availability (possibly using fast reactors), stable but dispatchable electricity production facilities capable of load following and large turbine- generators providing inertia to the system, permitting reactive power control for voltage stability. Nuclear leads to cheap decarbonisation, if it can keep its investment and operational costs low. Future load following, however, must be examined as an important issue. Given the uncertainties, a priori exclusion of nuclear in the EU would be irresponsible. Energy policy is a national competence with more than half of the EU countries backing nuclear, although all members have an interest in the successful operation of all nuclear plants in the EU. Collaborative RD hence, the need for credible EU nuclear R all that matters is the overall EU cap and all emissions have to be justified by emission allowances (called EU allowances – EUAs). Other sectors (mainly residential, commercial, service and transportation) are subject to binding national emission targets, ranging from -20 % to +20 % across the 27 EU members, with a total -10 % GHG reduction compared to 2005. At the time of writing, EUA prices are very low, i.e. below EUR 10/tonne CO2, reflecting a surplus of allowances largely because of the economic recession that started in 2008 (the beginning of the Kyoto climate agreement period). As a consequence of the surplus and the right to (2) Main references: EU Energy Roadmap 2050 COM(2011) 885 final, 15 December 2012, including Impact Assessment SEC(2011) 1566 and the final report of the Advisory Group SEC(2011) 1569; EU Climate 2050 Roadmap COM(2011) 112 final, 8 March 2011; EU Strategic Communication on Renewable Energy COM(2012) 271 final, 6 June 2012; IHS CERA Sound energy policy for Europe; European Policy Dialogue, 2011; and ENEF SWOT Parts 1 opportunities it can e.g. also be thermal power, or other kinds of power flow. Instantaneous power is similar to the water flowing out of a tap; “energy” is similar to the amount of water in the bathtub (17) Energy per year is actually the average power on an annual basis (18) This type of security is to be distinguished from security issues regarding malicious threats like terrorism, etc. 2012 Interdisciplinary Study – Compilation of the experts' reports February 2013 13 The most general guideline for SoES is diversity of supply (in terms of primary energy, conversion technologies and transport); do not put all the eggs into the same basket! 1.6. Cost of energy transition according to the 2050 Roadmap scenarios The roadmap says that overall energy system costs (including: capital costs of production and transformation, transportation, transmission and distribution, energy-using equipment, appliances and vehicles; fuel and electricity costs; direct efficiency investment costs such as house insulation, control systems and energy management) would not differ substantially by 2050 from those under the current policy initiatives scenario (19). Taking a closer look at the impact assessment (20), the cumulative time-integrated cost over the period 2011–50 of all scenarios varies between 14.06 % and 14.58 % of the expected cumulative European GDP of 2011–50, with the reference scenario (the baseline or effectively business as usual) amounting to 14.37 % and the current policy scenario resulting in the highest cost of 14.58 %. The cheapest scenarios would be the ones with delayed CCS (14.06 %) and the diversified supply technologies scenario (14.11 %). The high RES scenario cost would be 14.42 %, whereas the high energy efficiency scenario cost would be 14.56 %. For comparison, the total energy system cost (likewise defined) in 2005 is about 10.5 % of the 2005 European GDP (21). The numbers are close because the energy system, as defined here, is so large. The absolute numbers pro。












