Wind & solar energy generation capacities catching up with nuclear

CleanTechncia

Renewables have been capturing a larger and larger portion of the total global energy infrastructure pie, while the portion nuclear energy has not just been stagnating but actually shrinking somewhat, as noted by a new Vital Signs report from Worldwatch Institute.

More interesting than that observation, though, is the fact that solar and wind energy have been gaining fast on nuclear — and are now, more or less, on the same trajectory that nuclear power was on in the 1970s and 1980s, in its heyday.

image8-570x414

So, it looks like that “nuclear renaissance” that some analysts have been babbling about for the last several years will have to wait for at least another couple of years — or, more likely, forever. Solar and wind energy will no doubt continue growing at a fair rate (at the least) in the years to come.

Here are some of the exacts: nuclear’s share of total global power production has steadily declined from a peak of 17.6% in 1996 to 10.8% in 2013. And renewables have increased their share from 18.7% in 2000 to 22.7% in 2012.

The Worldwatch Institute provides more:

Following a rapid rise from its beginnings in the mid-1950s, global nuclear power generating capacity peaked at 375.3 GW in 2010. Capacity has since declined to 371.8 GW in 2013, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Adverse economics, concern about reactor safety and proliferation, and the unresolved question of what to do with nuclear waste have put the brakes on the industry.

In stark contrast, wind and solar power generating capacities are now on the same soaring trajectory that nuclear power was on in the 1970s and 1980s. Wind capacity of 320 GW in 2013 is equivalent to nuclear capacity in 1990. The 140 GW in solar photovoltaic capacity is still considerably smaller, but growing rapidly.

Much of this reversal is of course down to the fact that renewables have been attracting far greater investment — owing to their superiority in almost every regard, from development costs, to safety, to operating costs.

As per estimates from the International Energy Agency, nuclear investments were right around $8 billion per year (average) for the years of 2000-2013, as compared to $37 billion for solar PV and $43 billion for wind, for the same period.

Strangely, and unfortunately, though, research budgets still seem to be heavily biased towards nuclear technologies.

Among members of the IEA (most European countries, the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand), nuclear power has received the lion’s share of public energy research and development (R&D) budgets during the last four decades. Nuclear energy attracted $295 billion, or 51%, of total energy R&D spending between 1974 and 2012. But this number has declined over time, from a high of 73.6% in 1974 to 26% today. Renewable energy received a cumulative total of $59 billion during the same period (10.2%), but its share has risen year after year.

While the surge in recent years by renewables has certainly been impressive in many ways, you can probably pretty much count on it to continue at an increasingly rapid rate as fossil fuel extraction becomes more and more expensive and as the effects of global warming become more and more obvious.

 

Source: CleanTechnica.  Reproduced with permission.

Comments

10 responses to “Wind & solar energy generation capacities catching up with nuclear”

  1. Keith Avatar
    Keith

    I’d be very cautious about the statistics provided by the IAEA.

    Their site has the following summary :

    437 nuclear power reactors IN OPERATION

    374,504 MWe total net installed capacity

    http://www.iaea.org/pris/

    Now there are NOT 437 nuclear power reactors in operation. For example all 48 Japanese reactors are still offline and while 2 have been approved to be restarted, this hasn’t happened yet and may not happen for some time. http://fukushimaupdate.com/japan-to-restart-two-nuclear-reactors/

    The 374,504 MWe of power is a theoretical calculation based on the number of reactors “operating”. This number needs to have the non-operating Japanese reactors removed.

    So that means there are possibly 389 nuclear reactors operating if the Japanese reactors are removed. Recalculating the energy produced suggests it is around 330,000 MWe.

    The UK has had 4 reactors turned off http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4d5c670e-212f-11e4-b96e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3FQbt3WnB due to suspected damage and a new problem has been found: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29481481 The world’s nuclear reactors are all aging and France is planning to switch off a significant % of its reactors. So the number may be below 389 operating reactors.

    Anyway I suggest it might be worth rethinking the heading for this article as renewables may already have caught up…. be careful about “facts” delivered by the world nuclear authority.

    1. Henry WA Avatar
      Henry WA

      Keith
      Just to add to your list. Belgium has 3 of its nuclear reactors shut down for major repairs and is facing a significant power shortage.
      http://online.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-shutdowns-leave-belgium-looking-for-power-1408632643

    2. Jan Veselý Avatar
      Jan Veselý

      Add some broken reactors (possibly beyond repairability) – 3 in Belgium, 1 in Germany.

      1. Jan Veselý Avatar
        Jan Veselý

        And I forgot another broken reactors in Britain.

  2. Rob G Avatar
    Rob G

    Unlike nuclear, the trajectory of wind and solar won’t level out as nuclear did. Instead, they will continue steeply upwards and overtake coal, oil and gas. Then at some point after that they’ll start to level out.

  3. Ray Del Colle Avatar
    Ray Del Colle

    Switching to renewable energy will stimulate the economy, create jobs, save money and clean up the environment. “Is it too hard to go to the moon, eradicate smallpox or end apartheid? Is it too hard to build a computer that fits in your pocket? No? Then it’s not too hard to build a clean energy future, either.” http://clmtr.lt/c/NrL0fz0cMJ

    1. News Views Avatar
      News Views

      That’s a furphy – wind and solar are not 24/7 renewable sources – end of story.

      1. Ken Fabian Avatar
        Ken Fabian

        There is a false expectation that renewables must be able to produce power 24/7 before we commit to it. The kinds of renewables that have storage – solar thermal – have been the ones power companies have most avoided investing in. We need to invest in them and we will. Other storage will keep getting better and cheaper as the need for it grows and time of use metering makes it more attractive for homes and businesses that invest in rooftop solar – and it doesn’t need to be 24/7 right away; just a few hours will mean solar will cover the evening peak whenever the sun is shining and force fossil fuels further into the role of intermittent backup.

        They will be forced to be more expensive along the way, making incentive for more solar and storage.

        Smart usage management will work to shift loads. It will be strongly enhanced by small initial investments in storage.

        Somewhere along the way some planning and forethought will find it’s way into the politics of energy. Perhaps nuclear’s ‘best friends’ will cease opposing the transition to low emissions, and finally use climate as reason to promote and defend it.

  4. Aenveigh Avatar
    Aenveigh

    When ‘capacity’ is cited – is it a real assessment of the power generation base? Given nuclear has say 90% availability, wind 35-45%, and solar maybe 25%, the data, while promising, would probably suggest renewables aren’t making quite the headway claimed. For instance, 320GW of wind equivalent to nuclear at 1990 – if it’s actually about 150GW ‘nuclear equivalent’, it something like nuclear in 1975, not 1990.

    1. Bob_Wallace Avatar
      Bob_Wallace

      Nuclear has a higher CF, but the story is the rate of installation.

      Nuclear never became cheaper in the US as promised. In fact nuclear kept on getting more expensive until people finally through in the towel and quit building any. That caused nuclear to stall out

      Wind and solar keep getting cheaper. When they finally settle in at a price point they will be our two cheapest ways to generate electricity and won’t show the same failure curve as nuclear,

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.