An interesting new poll

Recent poll results being reported by The Australian have 20% of Australians looking to nuclear power to provide the most of the nation's electricity by 2028.

The poll was conducted by UMR Research, reportedly a pollster for the Labor Party.

The full spectrum of the poll results are:

• 26% see solar supplying the bulk of electricity
• 23% tapped coal
• 20% nuclear
• 10% wind
• 9% gas
• 1% other

I will assume the other 11% were not sure.

Ziggy Switkowski and Leslie Kemeny both commented favourably. Switkowski sees progress toward a civilised discussion of nuclear technology. Kemeny notes an increasing awareness of nuclear's unique role in Australia's energy future.

Ziggy Switkowski's statements today

In Adelaide today at the 34th annual Essington Lewis Memorial Lecture.

"I am concerned that the exclusion of nuclear power from our national conversation and energy debate represents a triumph of political pragmatism over good policy."

"When it comes to the generation of base-load electricity - the 80 per cent of electricity that must be available round the clock to power our refrigerators, washing machines, plasma TVs, traffic lights, air conditioners, etc. - the options in front of us include the use of coal, gas, oil, hydroelectricity and nuclear energy."

"If fossil fuels are excluded because they are dirty and the risks to hydroelectricity from water scarcity are considered, then the only presently available clean option for
base-load electricity is nuclear power."

"Significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would almost certainly prove beyond the capability of existing technologies, while renewable energy platforms will fail to deliver the cuts in the time allowed."

"Our lights will start to go out as investment in clean, base-load energy generation stalls in an uncertain regulatory environment and the nuclear alternative is not validated."

"In a carbon-constrained future, nuclear-powered economies will exploit their cost advantages for clean energy in competing with Australian products newly burdened by embedded carbon costs."

"31 countries currently used nuclear power to generate 15 per cent of the world's electricity."

"An increasing number of countries around the world are turning to nuclear power to meet growing demand for energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and diversify their energy mix from a single platform or dominant fuel supplier."

"Why not Australia?"

The latest from Ziggy Switkowski

Dr. Ziggy Switkowski has written an article on a nuclear Australia in the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering's (ATSE) Focus Magazine.

It has also been re-posted at ScienceAlert.

It is a very objective piece that highlights both the specific advantages nuclear power technology offers Australia as well as the specific challenges faced here.

I encourage anyone interested in either nuclear power or Australia's approach to climate change mitigating technologies to read Dr. Switkowski's article.

Earlier in the month Dr. Switkowski went back-and-forth with Climate minister Penny Wong in this report.

Obviously, I believe Switkowski's arguments are valid, are put forward objectively and contain abundant facts and examples. But what impresses me most is his political courage. Australia could use a lot more of that.

Garnaut submits final report

The final report may be found here.

I don't have much to add from previous posts on Targets and Trajectories, another here and again here.

Nuclear power is mentioned in a similar fashion as it was in the draft reports. Public opinion remains the principal hurdle and Garnaut includes it as a later, if not last, resort. I note the cost scenario in the report [Chapter 20] was only for the 550 ppm carbon-dioxide scenario and not the 450 ppm scenario. I would like to have seen the later as well.

The report includes recommendations regarding nuclear research - basically that Australia is not a global research leader in any nuclear power technology field and its resources would be better served elsewhere. Personally, I think we could develop some helpful waste mitigation, permanent isolation and storage technologies for deployment, but other countries are far in the led as the report points out.

The report goes 'all-in' for coal, gas and carbon capture; betting the proverbial farm on the development effort recently launched by Government's announcement of a $100 million carbon capture research initiative. The case made for this approach is an economic one: why wouldn't Australia pursue a solution which is also in its own best interest? The success of carbon capture development would bring with it, tremendous political and economic advantage within Australia and beyond. However, there is one warning that comes in the form of a firm recommendation:

Priority should be given to the resolution of whether a near-zero coal future is even feasible, either partially or in total. If it is not, then Australia needs to know as soon as possible, so that all who depend on the coal industry can begin the process of adjustment, and so that adequate and timely investments are made in other industries.

This gives an indication of the both the current state of carbon capture technology development as well as the liberty taken with respect to the resulting assumptions. In the end, it may not work at all. That risk may need some serious mitigating actions and attention.

If one examines the projected contributions of renewables, it appears that significant technology development assumptions have been made in this area as well. The projections are ambitious and will also require aggressive technology development and deployment.

My concern is when these assumptions come face to face with the more pragmatic world of engineering technology deployment - complete with budget constraints, schedule pressure and resource limitations - Australia will be looking at a very high emissions future.

Copy this path in a significant number of countries around the world [If Australia can bet the farm on carbon capture, why can't everyone else??]. If carbon capture fails to materialise, the world will need a fallback plan.

Coincidentally, I find I have some company. Ziggy Switkowski submitted this report, where he advocates the allocation of at least some resources to climate change adaptation.

This requires planning for extreme weather events and natural disasters, inadequate rainfall and water shortages, higher utility and food prices and insurance costs, drought-proofing, better health services for the vulnerable, and so on. And, of course, the responsible management of finite resources and fragile environments.

Solutions to these issues do not require international accords and are largely within our control and budgets. And their relevance is independent of the accuracy of climate forecasts or one's position in the climate change debate.

Western Australia politics and a Queensland coal union

In Western Australia, Premier Alan Carpenter has promised to initiate legislation to ban the mining of Uranium if reelected. He is reported to have claimed that "most of the world is moving away from nuclear power".

That claim is not supported by:

1. The ongoing nuclear expansion programme within the UK,
2. Italy's recent vote to reintroduce nuclear power following a complete rejection of the technology in the years immediately following the Chernobyl accident,
3. Reports of statements from German Chancellor Angela Merkel signaling the potential reversal of their nuclear phase-out policy,
4. A dozen license applications within the past year in the USA (and countless approvals and applications for licensing renewals / extensions at currently operating facilities there),
5. Several expansion announcements over the past two years from China - signalling repeated acceleration of their nuclear power development programme,
6. Sweden's serious considerations to reverse its phase-out policy as well as notable public support for the spent fuel repository,
7. Argentina's resumption of a stalled nuclear construction project and their efforts to partner with Brazil to further develop nuclear power capacity,
8. Russia's capacity expansion,
9. Serious interest in currently non-nuclear countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates to name a few,
10. A recent tender for a new reactor in Slovakia,
11. Increasing interest in Canada, South Korea as well as other countries.

The proposed legislation has been criticised by WA business groups as well as traditional owners.

Also in the news is a report that the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union will soon launch an ad campaign with the slogan, "Nuclear power will kill the coal industry."

This claim seems highly unlikely.

First, in this radio interview [hat tip to Luke Weston], Dr. Ziggy Switkowski clarifies that it is not reasonable to expect Australia to have its first nuclear reactor until shortly after 2020. [However, Macarthur Coal Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Nicole Hollows recently predicted 10 years.]

Also, most believe nuclear's potential role represents only a portion of Australia's total electricity generation capability and that with efficiency, conservation, wind, solar, geothermal and considerable development in carbon capture technology, our carbon emissions can be brought under control. As Ziggy Switkowski says, "This is not a zero sum gain".

Finally, the WNN article claims the union is fishing for support of a $1.5 Billion investment in clean coal currently being advocated by Labor and that raising the nuclear spectre will help keep Labor in power. This claim is supported by quotes from this article in the Business Spectator.

1 reactor in 10 to 15 years with up to another 24 in the 30 years that follow does not appear to be an industry breaking development. Particularly when one considers that most [nearly 2/3] of Australia's coal is exported. [According to Nationmaster, Australia's annual coal production is 338 million tonnes and our consumption is 131 million tonnes. Coal exports are expected to remain secure or increase into the foreseeable future.

Uranium mining in Queensland would tighten the labour market which would tend to increase wages.

With respect to the coal power generation industry, transition from a coal station to a nuclear station is not difficult for most skills. Operators, maintenance craft/trade workers and plant administrative staff perform very similar functions. ADD too this the need for licensing, documentation and security staff as well as greater technical/professional expertise to maintain critical systems to what is commonly regarded as 'nuclear grade', and it becomes apparent that a local nuclear plant provides more employment opportunities than a similarly sized fossil station.

Australian Nuclear Association - Expanding to Queensland

The Australian Nuclear Association has announced the formation of Australian Nuclear Association Queensland Inc due to the initiative of a group of persons in Queensland interested in promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology in that state.

Dr Ziggy Switkowski, chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) will address the official launch of ANA Queensland on August 21 in Brisbane. Dr Switkowski's topic: Is the climate right for nuclear power?

With Australians' demand for electricity, and energy in general, expected to double by 2050, Dr Switkowski says he believes the safest, cleanest and lowest cost form of electricity in a carbon-constrained world will be nuclear power.

The ANA is urging supporters of nuclear science and technology in other states to form similar branch organisations.

For further information on the activities of the group please contact the organisation via Email at info@anaq.org.au.

Nuclear debate: in-depth status report

One of the most thorough reviews I've seen in many months. Pasting in key paragraphs would not do it justice.

Detailed history, numerous references and high quality, objective reporting; it's all there.

See the complete report at Arms Control Today.

Ethics, accuracy and Ziggy Switkowski

Ziggy Switkowski penned this piece for the Age. In it Ziggy asks a lot more questions then he tries to answer and in so doing, puts forth a passive argument for Australia's technology development and export in lieu of working to decrease domestic emissions linked to climate change. He also uses a very poor analogy - population increase - to frame his argument. Sure population increase is a significant challenge in many countries. But it is principally a local problem. It is sometimes difficult to find the linkage between overpopulation in sub-Saharan Africa and life on an Australian beach. However according to the climate experts, it is nearly impossible to break the link between the world's coal plants and bleaching coral in the Whitsundays, increasing Australian farm failures and ever tightening water restrictions.

This argument, that Australia could help the most through high-profile technology development, may be 'technically correct' - any country that cracks the code for clean-coal technology will undoubtedly have a tremendous impact on global emissions. Ditto for any other cheap, no/low emissions form of energy production. But the global confidence in this is not high as indicated by the lack of its projected deployment in the recent World Energy Outlook report. Ziggy also repeats a somewhat common argument about Australia's small population and relatively small emissions [which aren't really 'that' small - only 6 countries on the planet crank out more CO2 from electricity production]. But is this argument - and the actions/in-actions associated with it 'right'? Is it moral? Is it ethical? Is it sustainable?

As I have said repeatedly, I believe the clear answer is a certain and obvious - NO. How can we expect other countries [big or small] to take actions, pay costs, endure risks, make sacrifices that we, Australia, will not? As it stands, we are the international poster-society for good living through low cost, high emissions based power. For those seeking our lifestyle, why would they consider any tactics other than our own?

Furthermore, Australia has motivation beyond occupancy of the moral and ethical high-ground to lead the effort to reduce emissions. Unlike many of the other top emitters [such as USA, China, Russia, India, Japan, and Germany] Australia is already seeing the effects of climate change and, according to many, the situation only stands to get worse. In this case, as in most others, leadership means going first, assuming the point and motivating through courage, action and achievement.

At the moment, I think this crown can not be claimed by Australia, but rather California in the USA. Arnold et. Co. have committed to attain 1990 emission levels by 2020 and further reduce them by a staggering 80% [of 1990 levels] by 2050 [ref UN 2007 Human Development Report, Table 3.1, pg 114 and box 3.1, pg 116].

Australia must make a difference globally - and this means driving the herd.

Kevin Rudd & Ziggy Switkowski on climate change and nuclear energy

In a speech on the climate and nuclear power's relevance within his party's political agenda, Kevin Rudd commented on what is becoming an often heard theme about emissions reductions via some sort of cap and trade scheme.

Mr Rudd said once the target was set, the emissions trading scheme and the market could establish the most cost-effective means of achieving that target.

I agree with this, but more importantly so does John Howard and the Liberals as was outlined in their recent report from the Task Group on Emissions Trading. It's great to see some consistency and agreement between the two parties - being an optimist, I'll interpret this as a high probability that some tangible action is on the horizon.

Not much further down in the article however there is another quote from Rudd [emphasis is mine]:

"On the question of nuclear ... our position on that is for Australia, with this rich array of other alternative energy options available, we can achieve our overall carbon target without taking on the extra safety and environmental risks which the nuclear option for Australia would represent.''

There's nothing new here. But it does not appear to be consistent with the first quote above. If nuclear is ruled out in advance, wouldn't Labor be open to the accusations regarding 'picking winners'?

Additionally, I'm not certain what Mr. Rudd means by 'available' but I doubt it has much to do with the demonstrated, technical capabilities of those 'other options'.

Most nuclear advocates believe all no/low carbon energy options, including nuclear must be subjected to life-cycle comparisons. Such comparisons include all cost, risk, capability, reliability, waste, etc. associated with each technology. This data has been derived and well publicised for nuclear, but sadly not so much for other technologies. Furthermore, the comparisons must be based - to the extent possible - on real world experiences [from prototype, demonstration or actual full scale commercial facilities]. A thorough consideration for them all is indeed justified. Anything else would be irresponsible, inefficient, ineffective or some depressingly perverse combination thereof.

My optimism gets strained, however, when I hear Ziggy Switkowski continuing to move away from Australian emissions reductions. Take for example this recent speech. He - like others so aligned - continues to beat the tired drum of Australia's minuscule contribution to global emissions - pointing instead to the USA and China.

As I've said here, I do not - in the slightest - understand the rational for this argument. If 1000 MWe of carbon based energy capacity is displaced by a no/low carbon technology, please tell me why the global climate is better off if that reduction takes place in the USA, China, India, Brazil or Australia? Obviously, locations and technologies must be selected based an a multitude of other factors including some that are fairly objective; cost, energy security, physical security, capacity and reliability as well as those that tend to be a bit more subjective; impact on economy, public acceptance and impact on the environment.

I claim economic impact is subjective because some [typically the 'haves'] tend to interpret this as maintaining their standard of living, or even maintaining consistent GDP growth; while others [typically the 'have nots'] interpret it as their right to achieve a standard of living equal to that of the 'haves'. [NNadir, a left leaning pro-nuclear advocate has a fair amount to say with regard to nuclear power's ability to address the latter.]

Public acceptance is often linked to environmental impact - but not always. Some people loath wind-farms for example because of the simple fact that they don't like the look of them [not me though, I can't stop looking when I am lucky enough to be within sight].

Typically the environmental impact is almost totally subjective. Nuclear is criticised for its lack of an operational waste strategy [despite the recycling/reprocessing taking place in many countries around the world] and the 'risk' this poses to the perhaps millions of people that live within a few hundred kilometers of a power station. However, since the dawn of the industrial revolution fossil plants - mostly coal stations - have been indiscriminately dumping their waste which has lead to the premature deaths of countless people and continues to poison the atmosphere and change our planet. Current predictions are that 30% of all species will face extinction by the turn of the next century and billions of people will be adversely impacted by climate change. To many this reality dwarfs the 'risks' associated with nuclear - whose safety record is second to no other energy technology. So in calling it subjective, I think I'm being fairly generous. See this NEI post for more.

One final quote from Ziggy:

"And, frankly, if we're going to have a nuclear industry in this country you really need to have alignment between the federal government, the state governments and the broader community and we're a fair way away from achieving that."

We sure are, but I remain optimistic.

More on Ziggy Switkowski's message

Adelaide Now is reporting some details on Dr. Switkowski's speach.

He said that while some countries had endorsed the 60 per cent target "no country knows how to get there".

He is calling for the consideration of all available forms of no/low emissions energy (solar, wind, gothermal, nuclear etc.).

He does not see a nuclear plant in Australia within the next 15 years, with geothermal coming in 20 to 30.

Sometimes it’s like drinking from a fire hose…

Whether Peter Beattie in Queensland, Alan Carpenter in Western Australia or Peter Garrett in Canberra… they all seem to be sending the same message…

The Task Group on Emissions Trading report is flawed…

Howard’s continued support for nuclear is stuffed…

And ‘modern’ [mystical] technologies will allow Australia to achieve a 60% reduction in greenhouse gasses with Labor at the helm.

Nothing specific though. Yes there are the common warm-fuzzy words we all know and love – renewables, wind, solar, geothermal etc., but nothing specific; no plans, no siting of examples of stations or capacity in other locations anywhere on the planet; no demonstration of such technologies on an industrial level. Are they serious? Who’s supposed to believe this?

Without nuclear on the table, any substantial goal for emissions reductions are no more than pipedreams.

Sure there’s gas – better than coal, but still not an emissions darling, and the long term price projections, I believe, are anything but stable. Reading the bottom of this We Support Lee post, along with this quote from the International Energy Outlook pg. 46:

Although Australia has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, several of the government’s environmental policies have been put in place to help stimulate increases in natural gas use for electric power generation and to moderate growth in the use of coal, of which Australia has large reserves.

And we can see why Mr. Carpenter is so down on nuclear. The sale of all his State’s gas, will earn them big-bucks – I imagine he is reminded of this frequently.

Also Dr. Ziggy Switkowski’s recent remarks (reported in no less than 402 linked news articles!) are being trumpeted as something significant… an admission of sorts(??). I guess those who are against nuclear are much more willing to defer to his expertise when he is saying something they can use to support their arguments (pathetic). Basically he is saying that the path to nuclear power in Australia will be a fairly long one. On that I agree, at least as I’ve said here and here, there is a hell of a lot of work to do in order to even think about constructing a plant. But the three mines policy is finally dead and Australia is seriously considering a long term used fuel store and becoming more involved in the nuclear Fuel Cycle. So from a 'consider what they do as opposed to what they say' point of view – there is reason to be optimistic.

Not being one to feel the need (or, for that matter, justification) to force anything on anyone, I advocate a patient but steady approach for those in support of nuclear power in Australia. Despite all the headline-grabbing, election year crap being tossed out at the moment – in particular by the same old group of anti-nuclear activists we always see muddying the technical waters – I see shortcomings on both sides.

To me, the Liberals are overly sensitive to the economy, but in general I like the idea of looking forward and progressing via a well thought, measured process. However, I think their targets need to be a bit more in line with Labor. Speaking of which, Labor’s unjustified, fear-driven dismissal of nuclear with no credible alternative technology (other than the fantasies that exist only on report pages from the deep dark world of academic theory) is a type of wishful thinking that will draw out and ultimately kill any hopes of achieving anything close to their stated targets.

We have the resources and capability to do so much better than this, but for nothing more than fear and ignorance – we remain, for the moment, a humiliating stain on the world.

To be honest...

I'm not certain whether it was a mistake or (I certainly hope not) deliberate, but in a recent speach reported by the ABC, Dr. Switkowski is quoted as saying the following:

Western Australian Premier Alan Carpenter has previously said the state could become a dumping ground for the world's nuclear waste if uranium mining was permitted in WA.

However, Dr Switkowski has told a forum of business people and academics in Perth the fears are a farce.

"I'm not aware of any country that has accepted that logic, quite the reverse," he said.

"As we've travelled around the world, we tried to find a country that would accept radioactive waste from industries in another country and there is none."

Pssst... excuse me Dr. Switkowski, but didn't ANSTO recently ship some spent fuel from HIFAR back to the UK, France and the USA? I understand the UK and French shipments were for reprocessing (with subsequent intermediate level waste to be returned to Australia - at least of the fuel supplied from the UK), but I believe fuel bound for the USA (without fuel processing capability) is destined for disposal there as part of their fuel take-back programme. Why did it go back to the USA? Again, my understanding is because it was enriched in the USA. Also if one does a search on highly enriched uranium (HEU) take-back programmes you will see that both the US and Russia, through their RRRFR programme are very interested in repatriating both fresh and spent fuel with several shipments completed to date [a VERY good thing].

Anyway, the claim above certainly seems incorrect to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

From the UIC website:

Used Fuel

HIFAR's fuel was fabricated in the USA and the UK. In line with recommendations from several government inquiries, the used fuel has been sent overseas for either disposal or reprocessing, depending on the country of origin of the fuel. In 1963 and 1996, ANSTO shipped a total of 264 used fuel elements to the UK. In 1998, 240 were sent to the USA. A total of 1288 used fuel elements were sent to France for reprocessing in four shipments between 1999 and 2004. In 2006 a second shipment of 330 used fuel elements was sent to the USA. This left some 130 HIFAR used fuel elements destined for the USA.

HIFAR used fuel elements are stored on site and were accumulating at the rate of 38 per year. A sum of $88 million (1997 dollars) has been allocated for reprocessing UK-origin used fuel in Europe and shipping US-origin used fuel to the USA.

UK reprocessing was under a 1967 fuel purchase agreement, and the separated uranium was used in the UK for offsetting against ANSTO fuel purchases. The wastes from the reprocessing of the used fuel sent in the 1996 shipment will be held there for up to 25 years and then returned to Australia. It is classified as intermediate-level waste.

Spent fuel

U-Al fuels can be reprocessed by Cogema in France, and U-Mo fuels may also be reprocessed there. U-Si and TRIGA fuels are not readily reprocessed in conventional facilities. However, at least one commercial operator has confirmed that U-Si fuels may be reprocessed in existing plants if diluted with appropriate quantities of other fuels, such as U-Al.

To answer concerns about interim storage of spent research fuel around the world, the USA launched a program to take back US-origin spent fuel for disposal and nearly half a tonne of U-235 from such HEU fuel has been returned. By the time the program was to end with fuel discharged in 2006, U-Mo fuel was expected to be available. Due to the slippage in target date, the US take-back program has now been extended by ten years.

Disposal of high-enriched or even 20% enriched fuel needs to address problems of criticality and requires the use of neutron absorbers or diluting or spreading it out in some way.

In Russia, a parallel trilateral program involving IAEA and the USA is intended to move 2 tonnes of HEU and 2.5 tonnes of LEU spent fuel to the Mayak reprocessing complex near Chelyabinsk over the ten years to 2012. This Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return Program (RRR FRT) envisages 38 shipments (of both fresh and spent fuel) from ten countries over 2005-08, then 8+ shipments from six countries to remove all HEU fuel discharged before reactors converted to LEU or shut down. Seventeen countries have Soviet-supplied research reactors, and there are 25 such reactors outside Russia, 15 of them still operational. Since Libya joined the program in 2004, only North Korea objects to it.

In Recent News

Ziggy predicts nuclear power in 20 years - from News.com.au

Dr. Ziggy Switkowski predicts 8 nuclear plants for Victoria by 2050 and speaks of the role carbon trading will play in any attempt to reduce Australia's pitiful emissions.

Sadly, Dr. Switkowski has hopped on the bandwagon of looking at Australia's emissions from a nation-state perspective. To me this makes absolutely no sense. Why shouldn't larger nations, particularly those that are developing such as India and China have the right to as much wealth, as much productivity, as much energy and as much emissions (per person) as we Australians.

Do we really think that a do as I say, not as I do approach will work? Is this global leadership at it's best? I believe we can do better. And better we MUST do, because as I've said before in this post - it's our backside that's going to get burnt first.

Also from this Editorial from The Australian:

The Opposition Leader, and his cheer squad in the media, also show signs of being outfoxed over climate change. This is an issue Labor thought to make its own, by attacking the Government on its supposed lack of interest in global warming. Mr Rudd's call for greenhouse gas emissions to be cut by 60 per cent by 2050 certainly looks like a winner to the Left. But while Labor and the Greens have talked a lot about the evils of coal and the risks of nuclear power, they have never explained how Australians are to heat and cool their houses without cheap electricity, or how the country could ever replace the export earnings - and jobs - generated by uranium and coal exports. While Mr Rudd's supporters have huffed and puffed about wind and solar power, in early 2005 the Prime Minister began a serious debate about why we should contemplate nuclear power at home. That Labor continues to support uranium exports but opposes a domestic nuclear industry makes it a good question. Our vast coal resources mean nuclear power for domestic use will never be economically competitive, but this is not the point. As the Government's nuclear adviser, Ziggy Switkowski, says, if Australian initiatives led to nuclear-generated electricity increasing from 15 per cent to just 16 per cent of the worldwide total, the effect would be the same as a 60per cent reduction in our greenhouse gases. And it could be achieved in a bare decade. As the economic impossibility and environmental folly of relying on inefficient alternative energy becomes ever clearer, the trap Mr Howard prepared for Labor with Dr Switkowski's support is now sprung. Mr Rudd is likely to find it hard to explain in an election campaign why he will not support the clean power generation that is used in all the "Kyoto powers" of Western Europe. A scare campaign about nuclear power plants will fall as flat as the Work Choices scare campaign inevitably will.

Ziggy goes nuclear

Dr. Ziggy Switkowski was recently interviewed by Monica Attard on ABC Radio:

This is a fairly long interview and includes some relevant detail on the justification for nuclear, role of investors and assigning plant locations.

You can access the full text or audio files via the link above.

Some exerpts:

MONICA ATTARD: Can you put up for me the case: why do we need nuclear power stations?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well there are two reasons. Firstly, the demand for electricity in Australia will continue to grow, doubling by the year 2050. So we need to have new sources of energy and particularly of the base load of variety, steady, always on electricity, and there are only a number of alternatives. Coal, gas, perhaps hydro-electric, although that's at risk now with the water issues, and nuclear. There are no other sources of base load electricity.

Secondly, if we are going to provide for continuing growth in electricity demand, and that really goes with prosperity and economic growth, and we are going to do it in an environmentally responsible way, that is moving towards low greenhouse gas emitting technologies, frankly, the only points you can go to is nuclear power.

So that argues for having nuclear in the debate. Then you travel around the world and you find there are 31 countries already that are nuclear powered, another eight in the queue to put in their first reactor. In this part of the world, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, India, all have nuclear reactors. Vietnam and Indonesia are going to be next.

Australia, having nearly 40 per cent of the world's uranium and making a substantial business out of that, not being part of the nuclear fuel cycle, while being concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, appears to be inconsistent.

.

.

.
MONICA ATTARD: And they [Chernobyl type accidents, acts of terror and proliferation] are all valid concerns, aren't they?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: They are all valid concerns, and they are still there, but they have actually been overtaken in the last few months, I think reflecting the nature of the debate.

And now, when people challenge me in forums about the validity of nuclear power in Australia, they say things like, "well it's going to cost too much". Secondly, they say, "well if the first reactor is 15 years away, that's too far away to make a difference to our climate change challenges". And the third concern is, "well if we are going to have 20, 30 or 40 reactors, where will you put them"?

MONICA ATTARD: Exactly, where would you put them?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well, here are the criteria. You need to have, nuclear powers are big reactors, they are like big coal-fired power stations, you need to have them near the electricity grid, you need to have them near the markets they are going to serve, big population centres, and because they have to be water-cooled, as does coal, they need to near water. But it can be seawater. That points you to up and down the eastern seaboard.

MONICA ATTARD: Gee, that'll be popular.

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: And, what other countries have done is to collocate their nuclear power stations with the coal power stations.

MONICA ATTARD: Right.

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: That becomes less controversial.

MONICA ATTARD: So that means we're talking about, in Sydney terms, for example?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Oh, I don't know where the first reactor might go, partly because the questions are not appropriately directed to me or the Government, because the first or the early reactors will be the reactors that the energy utilities have built a business case for and decided that this is the best location for them in terms of their greater electricity generation strategy...

MONICA ATTARD: So they're the people who should make the decisions, ultimately, as to where they should be located?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: They will be the people that will present the business cases that will then be reviewed by whatever regulatory bodies are in place in terms of environmental impact and other considerations that will be put in place to oversee the industry, if we go that way.

MONICA ATTARD: Right. What about the community? Should the community have a voice?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Oh absolutely.

MONICA ATTARD: But in what form, if there are determinants other than what the community wishes, in relation to where these reactors should be?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: What the experience around the world has been is that, once a country or community has a nuclear power station in their environment, that their acceptance to nuclear power progressively improves, and quite quickly.

And so it is that first nuclear reactor which is quite the big challenge, because the experience of the industry, which is now 50 years old, is that nuclear power is clean, it's efficient, it's not intrusive. In fact, when you tour a modern nuclear power facility, it feels like you are going to a semi-conductor fabrication plant - highly automated, very clean, relatively few people running it and with a small physical footprint into the landscape. So when people see that, in history or examples from overseas, suggest that they become comfortable with nuclear power.

Reporting Nuclear Power

The World Conference of Science Journalists is to be held in Melbourne next week.

From a breakout session on Tuesday April 16, Reporting Nuclear Power.

In the past year, there has been a resurgence of interest in nuclear power in Australia and many other parts of the world, mainly as a response to climate change. This session explores how the media from different countries with diverse governments, climates, economies and power industries approach the topic of nuclear power. What drives individual nations to embrace nuclear power or reject it?

While some countries are still discussing whether they will ever need nuclear power, others are planning their first plant, and still others are shutting down existing plants. Then there are questions of getting involved in or opting out of uranium enrichment and/or nuclear fuel reprocessing. And everyone is still grappling with how to deal with high-level nuclear waste.

Traditionally, the debate over nuclear power in Australia has revolved around issues of safety i.e. potential contamination and waste disposal. Following the release of a recent government inquiry, those issues have been joined by argument over the speed and cost of development of a nuclear energy industry, and whether pursuing the nuclear option would preclude alternative sources of power.

But the issues and concerns are different in other parts of the world, particularly where nuclear power has become part of the fabric of society. This session brings the chair of a recent Australian inquiry (and now of the Australia’s nuclear research organisation) together with a long-term critic of nuclear power and a panel of non-Australian journalists to discuss how nuclear issues are viewed and reported around the world.

I'll show you mine, if...

From an IBN article:

Federal Adelaide Labor MP Kate Ellis has demanded the prime minister reveal his plans for the location of nuclear power plants in South Australia.

"Mr Howard’s own 'Nuclear Tzar' Ziggy Switkowski has detailed the federal government construct 25 nuclear reactor plants - to be located within kilometres of major centres of population - by 2050."

“This... plan will litter Australia’s major cities with nuclear reactors.”

Ms Ellis said the prime minister had to immediately tell South Australians where the nuclear power plants would be built.

“Mr Howard cannot keep tripping around the country telling all and sundry about the benefits of nuclear power – yet at the same time fobbing off questions about just where these 25 plants will be,” she said.

Whoa, now where are all the details from those advocating other methods to reduce carbon emissions??? Where – exactly – will all these wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and biomass plants be constructed? Where are the polls with people demanding these be built in their backyards? Where are the miles and miles of cable to be laid to connect all these little distributed power stations around the country? Where is the alternative… plan Madam MP (and I beg you not to mention research… my head may explode)?

This to and fro political shadow boxing would be embarrassing if it weren’t so disappointing; each side pointing out the flaws of the other, but neither demonstrating any tangible progress.

But don't take my word for it. Read what James Lovelock had to say recetly in Adelaide (or a more passionate article from February).

Again… lead or please step out of the way.

Switkowski talks up nuclear benefits

Some information from Dr. Switkowski's interview with the ABC:

"... there are already 31 countries that are nuclear powered. The industry is 50-years-old. It's had one serious accident, but in the last couple of decades it has been a very high-performing, cost-effective, and very clean from an environmental point of view.

So the presumption is, that given the importance of a strategy for clean electricity generation, that nuclear must be in the mix.

The issue confronting Australia is that there's been a pause in investment in the next generation of electricity production. And utilities have to make those commitments. And those commitments, once made, will survive for 30, 40 and 50 years.

So there's a tension… it's one of the reason why Australian business wants clarity around the rules for the future cost of pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.

On siting of reactors...

[A] reactor needs to be close to the energy grid, the transmission grid. It needs to be close to its markets, population. And the current generation of reactors needs access to water; seawater is preferred, so probably near the coast.

Most of the Eastern Seaboard qualifies, and therefore I expect that the early reactors will be found up and down our Eastern Seaboard. On the other hand, you can be 100 kilometres away, and in Australia 100 kilometres away from any population centre puts you in a pretty isolated area.

On decommissioning costs...

What are often publicised costs are the remediation and rehabilitation costs associated with the earlier… the earliest reactors, that were designed largely for weapons-grade productions, and often designed without any attention to the environment. And so you see these costs mount to be monumental numbers in the US and in the UK. In Australia, we'd be deploying new reactors that are designed to be environmentally friendly, and that are designed to be able to be decommissioned in a very cost-effective way.

French minister plants nuclear hope

As reported in The Australian:

French Trade Minister Christine Lagarde

"In France, the people were originally somewhat resistant (to nuclear power), but they became convinced it was the right path," she told The Australian yesterday on the sidelines of the Global Foundation's Australia Unlimited Roundtable.

"The reason was that the debate in France and the process to nuclear power was open, it was transparent, and the people came along."

Asked how quickly the Australian public might be persuaded away from its negative views about nuclear power, she said itcould happen rapidly if the casefor nuclear power proved compelling.

"I think Australians are quick to adapt to changing circumstances. They have proven that in the past, they are proving it at present with their attitudes to climate change," she said.

Dr. Ziggy Switkowski

Dr Switkowski told a sustainable energy conference in Canberra that while the initial serious concerns - such as how to deal with nuclear waste, the possibility of a catastrophic Chernobyl-style accident, and terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material - were still held by the public, other considerations were becoming more prevalent.

He said the biggest concern he now heard was about nuclear power being too expensive.

"Second is the challenge that 15 years out is too long.

"The third is: if you are going to go to nuclear energy, where are you going to put the reactors? To me that's an interesting shift."

Dr Switkowski said commercial concerns moved the issue in the realm of business, which either would or would not proceed on the basis of profitability. "They're frankly the sort of issues that most business cases confront, and therefore are amenable to rational resolution."

Switkowski to chair ANSTO

The Australian is reporting that

"Dr. Ziggy Switkowski, who headed the prime minister's inquiry into the viability of nuclear reactors in Australia, has been appointed chairman of ANSTO, the national body in charge of nuclear research and development."

An ongoing mission of ANSTO will now receive greater emphasis under Dr. Switkowski's charge: to develop the skills base necessary to deploy nuclear energy technology within Australia.