과학은 원전을 택했다 A fresh look at nuclear energy

A fresh look at nuclear energy

John Parsons1⇑, Jacopo Buongiorno2⇑, Michael Corradini3⇑, David Petti4⇑

Science  11 Jan 2019:

We are running out of time, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned last October in a special report, Global Warming of 1.5°C. National commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement are only the first step toward decarbonization, but most countries are already lagging behind. It is time to take a fresh look at the role that nuclear energy can play in decarbonizing the world's energy system.

Nuclear power generation is increasing in China through the deployment of new power plants such as the one in Haiyang, China. PHOTO: TANG KE/IMAGINECHINA/AP IMAGES

과학은 원전을 택했다     세계 최고 권위의 학술지 『사이언스』가 “온난화를 막으려면 원전이 필요하다”는 사설을 게재했다. 『사이언스』는 ‘원자력 에너지에 대한 새로운 시각(A fresh look at nuclear energy)’이라는 사설에서 “신재생 에너지는 발전량이 들쭉날쭉하기 때문에 안정적이고 탄소 배출이 적은 발전원과 함께 사용해야 한다”며 “원전이 신재생과 함께 사용할 대안”이라고 주장했다. 또 “원전 없이 태양광·풍력만으로 온난화를 막으려면 전기료가 2~3배 뛸 것”이라고 내다봤다. 미국의 원전 수명 연장, 영국의 원전 신설 등을 소개하며 “한국·스위스처럼 탈원전을 추진하는 나라들은 (원전을 활용하는) 강력한 조치가 필요하다”고도 했다. 빌 게이츠 마이크로소프트 창업자 역시 블로그를 통해 “온실가스를 뿜지 않으면서 24시간 가동할 수 있는 원전은 최적의 기후변화 해결책”이라고 한 바 있다.  전 세계적으로 이처럼 원전 옹호론이 비등하고 있다. 경제성과 안전성, 온난화 방지 효과 등을 과학적으로 따져 내린 결론이다. 후쿠시마 참사를 직접 겪은 일본마저 한때 ‘원전 제로’를 선언했다가 재가동하고 있다. 반면에 한국 정부는 이념에 사로잡힌 듯 탈원전을 일방 추진 중이다. 하지 않은 탈원전 공론화를 “했다”고 강변까지 하면서다.     국민의 뜻은 다르다. 국민 68%가 ‘원전 비중 확대 또는 유지’를 희망한다는 조사가 있다. ‘탈원전 반대 및 신한울 3, 4호기 건설 재개 범국민 서명운동본부’는 33만 명이 서명한 청원서를 지난 21일 청와대에 냈다. 서명자는 이틀 새 5만 명이 늘어 어제 38만 명을 넘어섰다. ‘국민 청원 게시판’의 청와대 답변 기준인 20만 명을 훨씬 웃돈다. 국민은 탈원전에 반대하고 『사이언스』는 원전을 택했다. 이제 청와대가 답할 차례다. 이념에서 벗어나 철저히 과학·사실·합리에 근거해 응답해 주기 바란다. 중앙일보

edited by kcontents

Nuclear is already the largest source of low-carbon energy in the United States and Europe and the second-largest source worldwide (after hydropower). In the September report of the MIT Energy Initiative, The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World, we show that extending the life of the existing fleet of nuclear reactors worldwide is the least costly approach to avoiding an increase of carbon emissions in the power sector. Yet, some countries have prioritized closing nuclear plants, and other countries have policies that undermine the financial viability of their plants. Fortunately, there are signs that this situation is changing. In the United States, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York have taken steps to preserve their nuclear plants as part of a larger decarbonization strategy.''

In Taiwan, voters rejected a plan to end the use of nuclear energy. In France, decisions on nuclear plant closures must account for the impact on decarbonization commitments. In the United Kingdom, the government's decarbonization policy entails replacing old nuclear plants with new ones. Strong actions are needed also in Belgium, Japan, South Korea, Spain, and Switzerland, where the existing nuclear fleet is seriously at risk of being phased out.

Amazon.com

edited by kcontents

What about the existing electricity sector in developed countries—can it become fully decarbonized? In the United States, China, and Europe, the most effective and least costly path is a combination of variable renewable energy technologies—those that fluctuate with time of day or season (such as solar or wind energy), and low-carbon dispatchable sources (whose power output to the grid can be controlled on demand). Some options, such as hydropower and geothermal energy, are geographically limited. Other options, such as battery storage, are not affordable at the scale needed to balance variable energy demand through long periods of low wind and sun or through seasonal fluctuations, although that could change in the coming decades. Nuclear energy is one low-carbon dispatchable option that is virtually unlimited and available now. Excluding nuclear power could double or triple the average cost of electricity for deep decarbonization scenarios because of the enormous overcapacity of solar energy, wind energy, and batteries that would be required to meet demand in the absence of a dispatchable low-carbon energy source.

One obstacle is that the cost of new nuclear plants has escalated, especially in the first-of-a-kind units currently being deployed in the United States and Western Europe. This may limit the role of nuclear power in a low-carbon portfolio and raise the cost of deep decarbonization. The good news is that the cost of new nuclear plants can be reduced, not only in the direct cost of the equipment, but also in the associated civil structures and in the processes of engineering, licensing, and assembling the plant. The implication is that a large impact on the cost of new nuclear plants may come from several sources: improvements in project management practices; innovations in the serial construction of standardized designs to minimize reengineering and maximize learning; adoption of modular construction, to shift labor from construction sites to productive factories and shipyards; advanced concrete solutions to reduce the need for reinforcement steel formwork at the site; and seismic isolation to protect the plant against earthquakes, which simplifies the structural design of the plant.

It's time to transform our thinking. Renewable and nuclear energies are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. We should preserve existing nuclear power plants and reimagine how new plants can be delivered.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/105

kcontents