2000 Fuel Share of World Total Primary Energy Supply

Transcription

1

2 על מה נדבר היום? האם היציאה מפחם לייצור חשמ ל מוצדקת? האם גז טבעי הינה חלופה טובה? האם קיימות אפשרויות אחרות?

3 2000 Fuel Share of World Total Primary Energy Supply Oil 34.8% Coal 23.5% Other 0.5% Hydro 2.3% Tide 0.004% Wind 0.026% Solar 0.039% Renewables 13.8% Combustible Renewables and Waste (CRW) 11.0% Geothermal 0.442% Nuclear 6.8% Gas 21.1%

4 Past Annual Growth of Renewable Energy Supply Annual Growth Rate (%) % 8.8% 8.4% Geothermal Solar Wind Tide, other 2.7% 2.1% 2.1% 1.8% 9.4% 0 TPES Renewables CRW Hydro Other

5 Past and Future World Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) by Type Share of Renewables in Total TPES Mtoe Non-Renewables CRW Hydro Other Renewables

6 Canadian and Saudi Oil Reserves Billions of Barrels Year-end Canadian Conventional AB Crude Bitumen Saudi Conventional

7 World Consumption of Primary Energy 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 million tonnes oil equivalent Oil Gas Coal Nuclear Hydro

8 Oil prices last 10 years

9

10 Real oil prices historical prespective

11 Crude oil prices since 1861

12 Natural Gas Prices Historical and Forecast

13 Coal prices

14 Spare Capacity And Oil Price Dynamics

15 חלופות לנפט מחי ר ש ל נפ ט המחו ל ל כד איו ת ש ליי יי צור חלו פו ת: US$80 US$60 US$50 US$40 US$20 biodiesel ethanol from corn Shale oil tar sands; ethanol for sugar cane, gas to liquids; coal to liquids conventional oil

16 Back home on the farm replacing baseload The options: coal fired generation large natural gas fired generation nuclear generation? Other alternatives are not a good replacement for baseload capacity

17 Compares: Coal fired generation new scrubbed coal CERI s study Natural gas fired generation combined cycle gas turbine Nuclear generation, two options considered: twin CANDU 6 nuclear reactor twin ACR-700 nuclear reactor Comparisons made using levelised unit electricity costs (LUEC)

18 Characteristic and costs Variable Coal Natural Gas Twin ACR-700 Nuclear Twin CANDU 6 Station Capacity (net) 500 MW 580 MW 1406 MW 1346 MW Plant Cost $1,600/kW net $711/kW net $2,347/kW net $2,972/kW net ($800 million) ($412 million) ($3,300 million) ($4,000 million) Operating Life 30 years Fixed O&M $36.91/kW/yr $15.38/kW/yr $10.85/net MW.h/yr $12.90/net MW.h/yr Variable $4.62/MW.h/yr $3.07/MW.h/yr $0/MW.h/yr $0/MW.h/yr On-going Capital Expenditure $0 $0 $0 $0 Decommissioning Cost $0 $0 $8M per year $11.8M per year Heat Rate 9000 Btu/kW.h 7000 Btu/kW.h Capacity Factor 90% Fuel Costs $1.90/GJ level $6.47/Mcf (in 2005) $4.00 / net MW.h $2.30 / net MW.h real increase none 1.8% real/yr until 2025 none none Spent Fuel Cost $0 $0 $1.45 / net MW.h $1.45 / net MW.h

19 How long to build? Construction Operation CANDU 6 8% DP 21% 27.1% 19.6% 12% 7.2% 5.1% Environmental Assessment (2 years) ACR-700 8% DP 21% 27.1% 19.6% 12% 7.2% 5.1% Coal Environmental Assessment (2 years) Construction 3.1% DP 16.1% 30.8% 34.1% 15.9% 2nd ACR-700 and CANDU 6 units in Operation Environmental Assessment (2 years) Construction Gas E.A. (1 year) 50% 50% DP = Down Payment

20 Costs of financing Two stylised financing scenarios considered for the base case. Merchant financing: 50% debt, with a required return of 8% 50% equity, with a required return of 12% Straight line depreciation Income tax rate 30% Public financing: required return of 8% no taxes

21 Results: Base case LUEC - $/MW.h Coal - Gas - ACR CANDU 6 - Coal - Gas - ACR CANDU 6 -

22 CO 2 Emissions Cost ($15/tonne) LUEC - $/MW.h Coal - Gas - ACR CANDU 6 - Coal - Gas - ACR CANDU 6 -

23 Capital cost of new nuclear LUEC - $/MW.h st of a kind n th of a kind st of a kind 50.0 n th of a kind 40.0 Coal - Gas - ACR CANDU 6 - Coal - Gas - ACR CANDU 6 -

24 Other sensitivities considered Capacity factors Plant cost Heat rate Fuel costs Operational lifetime Emission costs at lower heat rates

25 Range of results LUEC - $/MW.h st of a kind n th of a kind 60 1 st of a kind 50 n th of a kind 40 Coal - Gas - ACR CANDU 6 - Coal - Gas - ACR CANDU 6 -

26 Financing assumptions Financing costs subject to some uncertainty Low capital cost technologies relatively robust to changes in financing assumptions For high capital cost technologies financing assumptions much more important. Key issues: Allocation of risk Possibility of -private partnership

27 Conclusions Natural gas fired generation for baseload power is an unattractive option in the event natural gas prices remain high. Tight domestic supply and increased reliance on imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) contribute to the view that natural gas prices will remain high. Under many of the scenarios considered, coal fired generation represents a low cost technology. Costs may be significantly higher if the potential cost of CO2 emissions is included. The costs of nuclear generation varies considerably with assumptions made about the technology deployed and the method of financing. CERI s study indicates that at the lower end of the range of costs estimated for nuclear generation it is competitive with coal.