ROK-on! South Korea

In a recent speech, ANSTO CEO, Dr. Adi Paterson, suggested the global nuclear industry is passing Australia by, and in permitting it to do so, Australia is missing a significant opportunity.

Based on Ian’s comment in the post immediately below, I began to dig around for information on Korea’s nuclear industry. I stumbled upon an August 2009 report, Nuclear Technology and Economic Development in the Republic of Korea. It details the results of Korea’s investments in nuclear infrastructure and human capacity development. Winning recent bids for US $20 billion (possibly $40 billion) in nuclear power plant contacts in the UAE and a research reactor in Jordan are the latest tangible outcomes of their efforts.

A few quotes:

…Over the past four decades, the Republic of Korea has become one of the world’s leading nuclear power countries, with 20 nuclear power plants in commercial operation at the end of 2005, comprising a total generating capacity of 17.5 GW(e). Increasing national participation in the nuclear industry has meant the steadily increased use of locally produced material and domestic staff resources. Meaningful national participation in nuclear power plant construction requires the existence of a capable construction industry; medium and heavy manufacturing including cement, steel, machinery and equipment and chemicals; as well as competency in other services such as civil engineering, quality assurance control and testing; and specialized manpower training including engineering and managerial skills. Domestic industries gradually became the main suppliers to and main contractors for the nuclear power programme…

The industrial sectors that benefited from nuclear power plant construction changed over time as the commercial nature of the construction evolved from imported turn-key plants to greater technological self-sufficiency. For example, before 1990, only two major industrial sectors received significant value added from nuclear power: electric power plant construction, and finance and insurance. After 1990, as the Republic of Korea approached technological self-sufficiency in nuclear power plant construction, the number of sectors affected increased to include primary metal products, general machinery and equipment, electronic and other electric equipment, and business services. The general machinery and equipment sector was the most affected for the years 1990 and 1995, reflecting large expenditures in this sector for new plants.

There are four nuclear power plant sites in Republic of Korea. Each of the host communities has benefited from the construction and operation of these plants. These benefits include tax revenues, financial contributions in terms of local expenditures by the plant for salaries, social contributions and investments, and infrastructure development.

External benefits, like the more familiarly known external costs, are those that the public incurs but that are not included in the cost of production (in the generation cost in the case of nuclear power) and hence are not in the price of the product (electricity). External benefits of nuclear power are thus in a sense by-products of nuclear power generation. Many external benefits often occur in the form of avoided external or even internalized costs. Nuclear power generation, for example, to the extent that it replaces thermal generation, significantly reduces the external costs of air pollution and GHG emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion.

Similarly, nuclear power generation creates benefits in terms of enhanced security of energy supply, and in terms of electricity price stability. Although private investors will make their decisions based largely on internalized costs, government investors and policy makers may wish to make and to affect decisions based on both internalized and external costs. Government decisions can include both public investment and regulatory decisions. With increasing pressure on the environment and human health, regulatory measures increasingly incorporate these externalities in such a way that the external costs are appropriately internalized, i.e., reflected in the cost of production. Governments can thus indirectly affect private investment choices.

No form of energy production or use is without an environmental impact on a life cycle basis. This is true for all energy chains: from extracting resources, building facilities, and transporting material through the final conversion to useful energy services. The traditional air pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion are principally sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and suspended particulate matter (PM); GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion include most notably CO2 and methane (CH4). Trace elements and heavy metals, like arsenic and mercury are also associated with coal combustion. Nuclear power plants emit virtually none of these air pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion. Hence, a major environmental benefit of nuclear power is a significant avoidance of the costs associated with both air pollution and GHG emissions.

These avoided external costs can be difficult to quantify and convert to monetary values; any valuation process remains subjective, and results vary across countries. Despite the uncertainties and the national differences in valuation of externalities, however, several major studies have sought to estimate the external costs of air pollution associated with different electricity generating technologies. Perhaps best known is the ExternE project (providing global and standardized assessments) sponsored by the European Union and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the USA. A comparison is provided of the external costs estimated by ExternE over time and for different electricity generating technologies. [see report for graphical data]

…nuclear electricity generating costs are less sensitive to changes in fuel prices than are the costs of fossil fired generation. Although the benefits to the economy of the Republic of Korea of the opportunity for lower electricity prices from nuclear power were not estimated, it was noted that insulation from price volatility — another avoided cost — is a positive benefit of nuclear power. The trebling of uranium prices in 2006–2007 resulted in only a 6–8% difference in nuclear power generating costs, while a doubling of international fossil fuel prices translates into generation cost increases of about 35–45% for coal fired electricity and 70–80% for natural gas. Since the competitiveness of nuclear power depends in part on the economics of fossil fuel alternatives, such rising fossil fuel prices tend to improve nuclear power’s competitive standing.

Conversely, Australia opted not to pursue nuclear technologies at about the same time (~1970s). Based on public comments, there seems to be little chance of policy changes in the near future.

How has that decision worked out for us?

Thrust a spade into Terra Australis and you’ll probably be able to sell the contents. This has led to the development of a wombat economy (dig/sell). Our top 25 Exports in the fiscal year 2008/09 are listed below.

Rank, Commodity ($ billion, % growth from 2007/08)

1 Coal ($54.7, 123.9%) – Fossil Fuel
2 Iron ore & concentrates ($34.2, 66.9%)
3 Gold ($17.5, 42.7%)
4 Education-related travel services ($16.6, 22.7%)
5 Personal travel (excl education) services ($11.7, -2.8%)
6 Natural gas ($10.1, 72.3%) – Fossil Fuel
7 Crude petroleum ($8.3, -14.0%) – Fossil Fuel
8 Aluminium ores & conc (incl alumina) ($6.1, 3.3%)
9 Aluminium ($5.3, -3.9%)
10 Beef, f.c.f. ($5.0, 14.4%)
11 Wheat ($4.9, 71.0%)
12 Professional services ($3.7, 12.2%)
13 Passenger transport services ($3.7, -11.3%)
14 Medicaments (incl veterinary) ($3.6, 1.8%)
15 Copper ores & concentrates ($3.6, -13.4%)
16 Technical & other business services (3.4, -2.6%)
17 Copper ($2.8, -13.9%)
18 Refined petroleum (2.8, -23.3%) – Fossil Fuel
19 Business travel services ($2.7, -0.4%)
20 Passenger motor vehicles ($2.7, -20.8%)
21 Alcoholic beverages ($2.6, -6.9%)
22 Other transportation services ($2.4, -5.7%)
23 Meat (excl beef), f.c.f. ($2.3, 14.1%)
24 Telecom, computer & information services ($2.1, 12.1%)
25 Wool & other animal hair (incl tops) ($2.0, -19.2%)

With respect to our technical / industrial capacity, what does Australia manufacture that significantly contributes to our economy via large scale exports? Where is there evidence of sustained technological innovation or engineering excellence (large production volumes at sustained high quality and competitive cost)? Apparently, not much. Removing services, agricultural products, basic and raw materials leaves:

14 Medicaments
18 Refined petroleum
20 Passenger motor vehicles
21 Alcoholic beverages

Looking beyond our wombat like export tendencies, the Australian economy is heavily service oriented. Professional and Technical Services ranks very high in the value added list of Australian business sectors. Examine Australian business data (MS Excel) from the Australian Bureau of Statistics; not much requiring cutting-edge global technology leadership or robust industrial capacity; not much to counter the points made by Adi Paterson.

Australia is a country with many people who 'know', whereas the Koreans are a people who 'do'. Coincidentally, humanity stands at the dawn of a period in our collective history where an unprecedented amount of complex and highly technical work needs to get 'done'. With 40 years of demonstrated nuclear expertise, Korea seems well positioned to take advantage of a sizable opportunity.

Options for Australia's first NPP

Should Australia decide to price carbon emissions at a level where power producers begin to shift significantly away from fossil fuels, nuclear power will become economically competitive in Australia. Assuming this shift begins within the next five years and Australia does opt for nuclear power, we will construct an established Gen-III/III+ design, imported from a long time ally.

Why import?

For the same reason the HIFAR research reactor was imported fifty-some years ago (British DIDO design), the OPAL reactor was imported about ten years ago (INVAP / Argentina) and ANSTO's PETNET design was imported more recently. Australia does not have large-scale nuclear (NSSS, and nuclear A&E) design capability. Such capabilities are developed over decades. It could be done in Australia (or most other countries for that matter), but if energy supply and emissions reductions are the goal - such development is not on the optimised path.

However, Australia has recently and repeatedly demonstrated our ability to manage and implement large-ish nuclear projects with regard to project implementation and independent regulatory oversight. We have also demonstrated our ability to safely, reliably and efficiently operate and maintain nuclear facilities.

Established?

When nuclear power is cost competitive with other generation options, our uniquely Australian political challenges will remain. Opting for a design that has been built and operated several times in different countries provides a necessary degree of assurance against politically motivated claims of unknown costs, safety risks, or questions about operational reliability. Attempting to develop an unproven design here would expose would be investors to the associated unknowns of schedule delays, cost overruns or performance uncertainties. It is for this reason that nuclear design endeavours are usually scaled up through a series of increasingly larger demonstration projects.

An established design also brings with it prior regulatory approvals. This is not to imply a guarantee of Australian approval, but does provide added confidence in the review process.

Why an ally?

Consider the political baggage if Australia selected a Russian reactor design. Add to this the history of Russia using energy security as an instrument of foreign policy (every reactor requires a secure supply of highly technical spare parts for decades).

Furthermore, regulatory review and approval experience with a given design in the USA, Canada, the UK, Japan, Korea, etc. could reassure potential investors of our ability to adequately manage project implementation risks (i.e. schedule and cost control).

Why Gen-III/III+?

First, I've listed it as "III/III+" because the line between the two can be blurred depending on where you look. The designs I refer to include (not meant to be exhaustive and listed alphabetically by company):

• AECL - CANDU-6
• AREVA - EPR
• Atomstroyexport - AES92 (VVER-V392)
• GE-Hitachi-Toshiba - ABWR and ESBWR (without Toshiba)
• KHNP - APR-1400
• MHI - APWR
• Westinghouse - AP-1000.

Some are operating today, others are being built and the rest are being marketed. The list may grow as other companies / countries enter the international nuclear power plant supply market (AECL's ACR-1000, B&W's mPower, China's CAP-1000, etc.); but these GenIII/III+ newcomers will take some time to pass the 'established' test and therefore are beyond the scope of this post.

Next, as I've explained above, the design must be established. I fully support advanced nuclear research and development. I believe Australia should waste no time increasing its involvement in such efforts. However, the scope of this post is directed and the near-term displacement of fossil energy generation. And therefore, established, shovel-ready designs are required.

With respect to fast / Gen-IV reactors; the OECD produced an excellent report - Nuclear Development Strategic and Policy Issues Raised by the Transition from Thermal to Fast Nuclear Systems (88 pages, ISBN 9789264060654). In this report and several others, 2040 is projected as an estimated time frame of fast reactor deployment. The report details other challenges such as prerequisite infrastructure requirements that make Australia seem unlikely as a location for early Gen-IV deployment.

Gen-IV's likely time-line strengthens Australia's case for Gen-III/III+.

Our impressively nuclear neighbours

Last week Reuters reported the start of the 912 megawatt Tomari-3 reactor in Japan's far north. According to the IAEA PRIS database, construction of this reactor began on 18-November-2004. So the duration of this project was roughly 5 years. The reactor went critical back in March and has been in commissioning since that time according to WNN. Different media reports state that this is the first new reactor to come into service in Japan for 3 years, that it will cut Japan's carbon-dioxide emissions by 20% of 1990 levels and that this is the last Gen II reactor planned. All future reactors are to be Gen III or beyond. This plant has received approval to irradiate MOX fuel.

Also in the news is Korea's win of a UAE power reactor project (US $20 bn for 4 reactors, with the possibility for $20 bn more in the future) as well as a US $173 million new research reactor project in Jordan.

Seems as if the nuclear business continues to thrive in Asia - and is quite lucrative at that.

Meanwhile

Australia's total coal exports for 2008-09 were $54.6 bn (~ US $50 bn) according to DFAT. This was an increase of 123.6% from the previous year. [Regarding the politicising of efforts to cut emissions and the impact on Australia's coal industry, I would be thrilled if we could just get to zero growth.]

Our uranium exports totalled $990 million, up 11.6% from the previous year. Ranking number 28 of all Australian exports, uranium sales contribute 0.4% of our total export revenue. [Coal is ranked number 1 and accounts for 23.7% of all exports.]

An endless coal train (~100 tonnes per car)

In 2009, a growing number of high profile media reports highlighted Australia's high per-capita carbon emissions.

Australian emissions were fairly unfazed by the GFC due to increasing demand and the decline in renewables generation with falling Snowy Hydro output (the result of prolonged drought). [The growth in other renewables sectors, efficiency or conservation programmes will have to accelerate to account for the fall in hydro generation before they will displace any emissions from fossil generation.]

4,000 MWe of fossil fuelled generation in being progressed in NSW.

sus·tain·able (sə stān′ə bəl) adjective
1. capable of being sustained
2. a) designating, of, or characterized by a practice that sustains a given condition, as economic growth or a human population, without destroying or depleting natural resources, polluting the environment, etc. sustainable agriculture
2. b) governed or maintained by, or produced as a result of, such practices sustainable growth

OECD - Nuclear Energy in Perspective

The OECD has released an informative nuclear energy summary, Nuclear Energy and Addressing Climate Change. The document is only 8 pages (with figures and tables), but it efficiently addresses the following questions:

• Does nuclear power produce CO2 emissions?


• To what extent is nuclear energy used now?


• Can nuclear power capacity be expanded quickly?


• Are supplies of nuclear fuel adequate?


• What about safety, waste and proliferation concerns?

Action (and nuclear) still required

As reported by the ABC, a typical Australian emits more carbon than any other person in the developed world. We are setting a very dangerous example and worse providing very low hanging fruit for any country or political leader seeking justification to strive for our comfortable lifestyle via increased emissions. We have a moral and ethical obligation to take significant action to reduce our emissions, in addition to the climate signals repeatedly knocking on our door.

From an April 2007 UN meeting (What's happened since then?)

The ABC report does contain some seemingly good news; that emissions have dipped slightly due to the financial crisis. However, this may provide a false sense of security and is certainly no cause for celebration for anyone expecting serious cuts by 2020, 2030 and/or 2050.

Emissions per unit GDP (carbon intensity) is another relevant metric. According to the US Government, Energy Information Administration, Australia / New Zealand’s carbon intensity ranks third in the OECD (behind Canada and South Korea). One wonders how Australia’s ranking would move if we were judged on our own. Carbon intensity is dropping, but if tangible action is not completed to reduce it further along with emission cuts per capita (i.e. if ‘real’ emissions are not cut considerably), any economic recovery will stress the climate via emissions increases.

If one reviews the two tables within the EIA page linked above, it can be seen that emissions per unit GDP continue to decrease – China and India are the best performers, as one would hope. However, emissions per person actually increase out to 2030 – here China is the worst performer and Australia/New Zealand only drops by 0.2%. However, both GDP and population increase over that time. Therefore, real emissions will increase in Australia and around the world; which in turn will lead to climate disaster according to Hansen, Brook and many, many others.

And there is tangible evidence that our real emissions will indeed rise. It can’t be any clearer than the two large fossil energy projects currently proposed in NSW. If these plants go forward, it will mark a significant failure to seriously cut Australian emissions. Their mere proposal should be a wake up call to anyone genuinely interested in climate change, emission cuts or Australian leadership in the upcoming climate negotiations. Australian energy policy falls short of delivering the energy security our economy requires and emission reductions we are obligated to achieve; for Australians at home and the world at large.

A serious national debate on holistic approaches to significantly cut our emissions is desperately needed. The debate must go beyond the fulfilment of campaign promises and it must recognise and address the risks posed from climate change – particularly for Australia. These risks must be compared in an objective and balanced context against those of nuclear power.

For example, climate scientist and blogger Prof Barry Brook is linking recent weather events to climate change. Consider that just one Australian bushfire resulted in over 3 times the fatalities than the immediate impact of the worst ever nuclear accident at Chernobyl (a flawed design that would never be built today). Furthermore, within a typical 5 year period, deaths from coal mining accidents in China alone exceed the projected long term death count from Chernobyl. One must question the true aim of modern anti-nuclear campaigners who seemingly care about public safety at home or abroad.

Nuclear waste issues are indeed a challenge that must be addressed, but the world has repeatedly demonstrated the ease of storing high level spent waste in interim facilities until permanent solutions can be implemented. The good news here is that there is really no rush, unlike action to curb emissions which is becoming more urgent with the passage of time. There is also the very real possibility that spent nuclear fuel could be consumed as a fuel source in fourth generation reactors.

Certainly, proliferation must be managed. This need has been recognised by both the Rudd and Obama administrations, among others. Collaborative efforts have been stepped up in recent years as has the IAEA budget in line with calls for enhanced nuclear security by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Again, fourth generation reactors include a prerequisite design criteria to mitigate proliferation risk through either the consumption of plutonium or the blending of high radiation fission products into the fuel to make physical protection an inherent property of the fuel.

Economic anti-nuclear arguments (too expensive, too long) often conviently assume nuclear as a stand-alone emissions reduction technology as opposed to one of a suite of technologies deployed in parallel between now and 2050. In Australia, we have been led to believe we are ‘blessed’ with renewable, conservation and efficiency options that are more rapidly and more cost effectively deployed. Great! Then deploy them and let’s get those two fossil projects in NSW cancelled.

Without tangible evidence that non-nuclear actions will achieve the necessary cuts, the allocation of additional resources to the problem is justified. There is evidence from, say large renewable deployment efforts in Europe, to suggest a non-nuclear strategy challenges the ability of a nation to achieve significant emissions cuts (see this story on anti-nuclear Austria’s Kyoto target performance vs. its EU peers).

With respect to the timing, there is additional evidence that nuclear project implementation performance improves with experience. Citing the current projects in Finland and France is counterproductive since they are early implementations of a First-of-a-kind third generation design. As experience is gained, the implementation of this design will improve just as second generation design project performance has over the past few decades, particularly in Korea and Japan. For more details on modern nuclear plant construction – refer to this post.

The justification to keep nuclear power off the table in Australia is simply not there. In fact there is considerable, objective evidence to the contrary.

Fossil fuel waste vs nuclear waste

Joseph Romm's recent post at the Energy Collective references this report from the National Research Council on the impact of fossil fuel use. The report works to monetise the impact and Romm quotes US $120 Billion annual cost from the use of fossil fuel in America. And that does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize.

US $120 Billion annual impact - just in the USA. And it's supposed to get much worse by 2030.

Comparing this to - say - the cost of the Yucca Mountain project, or other back-end fuel cycle management options such as the Integral Fast Reactor or other Gen-IV designs being developed to consume rather than sacrifice the energy remaining in nuclear waste - the cost of nuclear waste management appears to be a much easier pill to swallow. This NY Times article quotes the current cost of Yucca Mountain at just over US $10 Billion and the entire nuclear waste fund at US $22 Billion (after 40 years of commercial nuclear power in the USA).

One can imagine the thought of 100% internalisation of waste costs to the fossil fuel energy industry is just a bit unsettling to a fair few boardrooms around Australia and around the World. Perhaps some corporate attention will be (is being?) invested to resist calls to internalise such costs.

Reports, critiques and expertise

Over the past few days, I noticed another article from Leslie Kemeny in the Canberra Times. It was filled with more arguments in favour of Australia considering the introduction of nuclear power. While I agree with the article, I didn't notice too many new arguments and would not have normally mentioned it here.

Not long thereafter, Geoff Davies submitted a reply in the Canberra Times as well as in his recently initiated Blog, Better Nature. I posted comments to both, but in addition to those, I'd like to take an opportunity to look at the McKinsey Australia report referenced by Davies.

First, I'd like to point out the McKinsey Global report: The carbon productivity challenge, Curbing climate change and sustaining economic growth. It was a precursor to the McKiney Australia report and seems to be considerably more robust - albeit not specific to Australia's chellenges and options. It is interesting to compare the two together as well as with the comments of Davies.

Davies points to the Australia study as reason for why nuclear is [economically] unnecessary. He also blasts Kemeny's claims about nuclear's economics stating, "Most energy experts agree nuclear power will be Expensive."

Davies also references nuclear power's timeline, "We may have only a few years in which to get our emissions down."

Finally, he summarises nuclear's potential impact, "Nuclear power would be Insufficient because it generates electricity only, which accounts for around a third of energy use."

First some general comments on the Australian McKinsey report.

Unlike the Global report [which specifically states two goals of reducing emissions as well as sustaining economic growth] the Australian report does not appear to encompass the same scope. For example, abatement technologies are deployed by cost only, without regard to supply reliability or energy quality. This seems to ignor the intermitancy of wind and solar which will impact grid stability as their contributions continue to increase. This is stated on page 19 where the authors clarify

"Note that we have not investigated whether the resulting power mix match energy demand profiles, nor the question of whether the location of renewable sources can be aligned with energy demands of the different states."

Next, regarding the scope of the Australian McKinsey report:

"The scope of the measures considered were those requiring deployment of present-day technologies. Speculative technologies or those requiring significant future breakthroughs were not included in the scope..."

Interesting how CCS has been included, but advanced nuclear fuel cycles, including a closed fuel cycle - which eliminates deep geological repository stability for hundreds of thousands of years, but instead require storage for several hundreds of years - have been excluded. Multiple fast reactors and fuel reprocessing facilities exist. Even as I type, a shipment of MOX fuel is being prepared to ship to Japan where a power reactor [or reactors] will relieve the world of some of its plutonium - forever. The introduction of fast reactors, with integrated fuel processing facilities will further improve waste issues and - by breeding fuel - massively extend the viability of nuclear power technologies. The use of alternative fuels such as thorium could achieve similar results. The point being that many of these alternative nuclear options are significantly further developed than CCS and are yet [unfortunately] out of scope. I understand why CCS is in scope, just not why advanced nuclear fuel cycles are out.

On page 17, the report speaks of nuclear power's environmental viability. I am unable to comprehend this concern. Fuel from existing power reactors is either being safely reprocessed or stored on existing reactor sites. No industry has a footprint of zero, but I do not see the evidence of nuclear power's impact. Regarding the need for a geologic repository for the storage of processing products for a few hundred years - my understanding is that few geologies are superior to Australia. Australia's low population density only strengthens this argument.

The costs presented for participation in the UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism [CDM] - allowing Australia to claim an equivalent emission reduction credit in exchange for money we provide to developing countries to deploy their own low emission technologies - appear so low, I can't understand why Australia would consider any other option. I have assumed [and will continue to assume] that Australians are serious about cutting Australia's emissions - above and beyond any 'good' we do via the CDM.

The report analyses various alternative scenarios: first, adding nuclear; next, unlimited CDM credits and finally no CCS [all replaced by renewables]. It would have been interesting to analyse the scenario where the absence of CCS was replaced with nuclear or perhaps a mix of nuclear and additional renewables.

Back to Davies' claims.

Regarding the economics of nuclear, in both the Australian [nuclear scenario] and Global reports, nuclear is among the cheapest energy production technologies to deploy. Nuclear is even cheaper than Australia's least expensive renewable, onshore wind [Australia report, Exhibit 7 - you have to compare closely with Exhibit 5]. Globally, nuclear is the only cost neutral abatement technology [Global report, Exhibits 5 and 10].

Regarding the timeline to reduce emissions, the goals and scenarios reported and studied are out to 2020 and 2030 as well as out to 2050 for the two reports. It is unreasonable to claim that Australia is not capable of deploying nuclear power plants over a 21 to 41 year period. Even the Australia report considers nuclear in only the 2030 scenario. I have no argument with that based on my own personal experience [meaning I would not suggest nuclear be included in the 2020 study].

On nuclear's potential impact, the Australian McKinsey report [p.11] states that the power sector is Australia's greatest opportunity for future abatement [39% of the total]. Therefore any technology to help achieve this, would seem to be very attractive. Also in both reports, nuclear power's impact is among the most significant [the bar is among the widest on the graphs].

Finally, the Global McKinsey report contains some information and recommendations which I believe are relevant. Their descriptions of the magnitude of the effort are worth consideration [comparison of 10 fold increase of carbon productivity now to the 10 fold increase in labour productivity during the industrial revolution - in one third the time: 41 vs 125 years [Exhibits 2, and 4]].

But, the world has done it before [see Exhibit 7 and related discussion on CFCs and SO-2].

Nuclear Australia and the WEO-2008

The International Energy Agency has published this year's World Energy Outlook. Similar to the 2007 version [which contained a feature section on China], this year's edition includes a dedicated, in-depth analysis of climate policy strategies to achieve both 550 and 450 ppm carbon-dioxide equivalent targets [atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently 388 ppm according to NOAA]. These targets are consistent with those from the recently issued Garnaut review.

The 569 page document is detailed to say the least. The report is divided into three principal sections:

• Global Energy Trends to 2030
• Oil & Gas Production Prospects
• The Role of Energy in Climate Policy

The 550 Policy Scenario equates to an increase in global temperature of approximately 3°C, the 450 Policy Scenario to a rise of around 2°C. The 550 Policy Scenario involves a plateauing of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 and reductions soon after. The 450 Policy Scenarios involves much more substantial reductions after 2020. Even then, emissions overshoot the trajectory needed to meet the 450 ppm CO2-eq target, requiring greater emissions reductions after 2030 [to achieve long term stability at 450 ppm]. In both scenarios, total emissions are significantly lower in 2030 in all major emitting countries. To reach either of these outcomes, hundreds of millions of households and businesses around the world would need to be encouraged to change the way they use energy. This will require innovative policies, an appropriate regulatory framework, the rapid development of a global carbon market and increased investment in energy research, development and demonstration.

The report explains that energy demand was increasing faster than emissions until the recarbonisation of the global energy supply market resumed after nuclear power fell out of favour in many countries in the 1990's.

Looking forward, the report explains how the most significant projected increases in emissions come from developing countries [China, India, etc.] as they strive to satisfy their increasing demand. To meet the goals of either scenario above, emissions from these energy expansion programmes must be pro-actively managed. In addition, the report also shows the bulk of emission cuts - form current levels - coming from OECD countries. Neither task will be easy, but all technologies have a role to play.

The 550 Scenario

The share in the world primary energy mix of low-carbon energy, such as hydropower, nuclear, biomass and renewables, increases from 19% in 2006 to 25% in 2030. Hydropower demand increases in the 550 Policy Scenario to reach 456 Mtoe [metric tonnes oil equivalent] in 2030, compared with 414 Mtoe in the Reference Scenario. Other renewables, such as wind and solar, receive a much bigger boost, rising seven-fold from just 66 Mtoe in 2006 to the same level as hydro in 2030. Modern biomass use also increases — both in power generation and in decentralised heat production for residential, commercial and industry needs — to around 1 200 Mtoe in 2030. Nuclear grows twice as fast as in the Reference Scenario to reach nearly 1 100 Mtoe in 2030.

All have a role to play. Coal miners may be pleased to see the industry continues to grow; albeit at a much slower pace than in the reference scenario. While Luke's analyses [first & second] don't give me a lot of confidence, achieving the relevant emission reduction goals relies heavily on carbon capture and sequestration [CCS]. Those who back renewables will also be busy for some time. Averaging 8.6% growth per year is ambitious, but this is without hydro and biomass which themselves must also expand considerably over the time of interest. One also notes a drop of -9% in world energy demand with respect to the reference scenario. This is due mainly to conservation and efficiency improvements.

Nuclear expansion - beyond the reference scenario - will happen mostly in the OECD. The goals are assumed to be partially achieved through license extensions of existing plants as well as the accelerated construction of new plants. The second figure below reflects a significant nuclear expansion already included in the reference scenario within other major [non-OECD] economies.

The 2006 value of just under 2,500 TWh equates to roughly 370 GWe of installed capacity operated for about 7000 hours - or roughly 80% of the year. A single 1000 MWe plant will add about 7 TWh more to the 2006 data. Therefore the equivalent of 70 new 1000 MWe nuclear power plants are assumed to come into service by 2030 in the above figure - just in the OECD. The equivalent of over 100 more plants are assumed to come on line in non-OECD countries.

The big picture from the report:

In order to reduce CO2 emissions by 7.6 Gt [7,600,000,000 tonnes], the 550 Policy Scenario requires development — on a significant scale — of less CO2-intensive technologies (Figure 18.4). In 2030, 4.8 Gt of avoided CO2 emissions — 63% of total CO2 emissions reductions compared to the Reference Scenario — stem from efficiency improvements in the end-use sector and in power generation. A further 0.6 Gt of CO2 savings come from the operation of an additional 86 GW of nuclear capacity, beyond that built in the Reference Scenario. The large-scale deployment of renewable and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies in the power sector gives rise to 1.2 and 0.8 Gt of CO2 savings, respectively. The decarbonisation of the power sector alone involves notably the construction every year to 2030 of an additional 7 [800 MWe] coal-fired plants and 3 [500 MWe] gasfired plants with CCS, 11 new [1000 MWe] nuclear plants and almost 12 000 [3 MWe] wind turbines, while hydropower is expanded every two years by 64 GW — the equivalent of three dams of the capacity of China’s Three Gorges Dam.

The 450 Scenario

Although the reduction in global electricity demand in 2030 is only 4% compared with the 550 Policy Scenario, the fuel mix changes significantly as a result of the wider use of nuclear and renewables. The share of coal and gas as fuel for power and heat plants in the 450 Policy Scenario in 2030 declines to 47%. This contributes to the security of the electricity sector, making the sector in many countries less import-dependent.

In the more-stringent 450 Policy Scenario, a deeper transformation of energy supply and an even wider adoption of CO2-mitigation options occurs (Figure 18.4). In order to achieve the necessary additional reduction between the 550 and 450 Policy Scenarios, further end-use efficiency improvements are assumed. Renewable energy is developed considerably further, to realise a further 25% CO2-emissions reduction compared to the 550 Policy Scenario. CCS technologies are applied more widely in power generation, but are also introduced in the industry sector. Thirteen additional nuclear power plants have to be built yearly, compared to the 550 Policy Scenario. Biofuels penetrate the transportation sector more deeply.

The data is impressively cross-cut and impossible to capture in one blog post. The economic impacts of different technologies are discussed - nuclear is the cheapest option in the EU with carbon pricing via an emissions trading scheme. It is second only to on-shore wind in the USA under the same conditions. There are detailed breakdowns of specific renewable technologies [on-shore wind, biomass, solar PV, solar thermal, off-shore wind, geothermal, tidal, etc.]...

This is an excellent reference. Anyone arguing that reasonable emissions reduction goals can be achieved without the expansion of nuclear energy production is clearly refuted by this report. Similarly, nuclear advocates who criticise other low-carbon options such as wind or solar should consider the information in this report. All technologies have a significant role to play. Champions of different technologies should welcome objective and constructive critiques. However, the more pedantic arguments, usually accompanied by not-so-hidden agendas, between those who otherwise agree on the requirement to reduce emissions, undercut the very milestones they are all working to progress.

The irresistible force vs. the immovable object

Australia's role in future energy policies and economies is complicated. The economy is closely linked to fuel exports and domestic energy supply is almost entirely carbon based. These dependencies will complicate the transition to a low carbon economy in a country significantly threatened by the impacts of climate change and ironically one the world's highest per-capita carbon emitters.

Nearly two years ago, the UMPNER report analysed the potential role for nuclear power in Australia. A growing community of concerned individuals, companies and organisations - including UMPNER chief, Dr. Ziggy Switkowski, are working to resume a discussion regarding nuclear technology's role in Australia's energy future. Meanwhile nations around the world are expanding existing nuclear programmes or initiating new ones.

The World Energy Outlook report concludes:

For all the uncertainties highlighted in this report, we can be certain that the energy world will look a lot different in 2030 than it does today. The world energy system will be transformed, but not necessarily in the way we would like to see. We can be confident of some of the trends highlighted in this report: the growing weight of China, India, the Middle East and other non-OECD regions in energy markets and in CO2 emissions; the rapidly increasing dominance of national oil companies; and the emergence of low-carbon energy technologies. And while market imbalances could temporarily cause prices to fall back, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the era of cheap oil is over. But many of the key policy drivers (not to mention other, external factors) remain in doubt. It is within the power of all governments, of producing and consuming countries alike, acting alone or together, to steer the world towards a cleaner, cleverer and more competitive energy system. Time is running out and the time to act is now.

Business group calls for nuclear

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in a recent submission to the government's green paper on climate change.

The report in the Australian notes Australia's high per-capita emissions, our elevated reliance on coal and the role nuclear power can play to address both in the context anticipated emission reduction goals.

Many of the 350,000 businesses represented by the ACCI are small to medium sized enterprises. They will not be able to relocate off-shore, are not able to invest in low carbon technologies, can not pass on higher prices to consumers, but face the simple threat of going bust.

In the report, the opposition's position is that they would like nuclear power to be considered, but add any consideration must be bipartisan.

Support for nuclear grows

Paul Howes of the Australian Workers' Union [Australia's largest blue collar union], is still promoting nuclear as a means to achieve carbon emission reductions without the expense of significant Australian job loss and industrial exportation.

Howes is joined by Commonwealth Bank chairman John Schubert, who also chairs the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Schubert agrees in the need for nuclear power.

Howes is to release a report from Per Capita consulting on the effects of the emissoins trading scheme [ETS] impacts in Australian industryt - in this case aluminium.

Howes rejects claims that displaced employees can be easily retrained in Green industries and technologies.

Instead, workers could be "left on the scrapheap of history" and enter the ranks of the long-term unemployed.

"These guys aren't going to be automatically re-employed as eco-tourism operators," Mr Howes said.

Also, in Canberra today, Professor and economist Jeffrey Sachs is promoting nuclear power as a means to help address global poverty in a carbon constrained world. Formerly anti-nuclear leanding, Sachs sees nuclear as safe and cost-effective.

New not-so-clean-coal build for Victoria.

Just two days before the Garnaut report on climate change is handed down, the Victorian Government has given the go-ahead to a new brown-coal power station in Latrobe Valley.

Environmental campaigners said it was "complete madness" to approve the $750 million plant, but the Government said the station would use new technology that would slash greenhouse gas emissions.

The project is a joint venture between consortium HRL and Chinese power giant Harbin Power, and will receive funding of $100 million from the Federal Government and $50 million from the Victorian Government.

"The $750 million HRL plant will use technology which has been developed right here in Victoria and is part of the new generation of clean coal power stations designed to slash greenhouse gas emissions," said the Energy Minister, Peter Batchelor.

"The project uses a process called integrated drying gasification combined cycle (IDGCC) which can reduce emissions of CO2 from brown coal-fired power generation by 30 per cent and reduce water consumption by 50 per cent, compared to current best practice for brown coal power generation in the Latrobe Valley."

Robert over at Larvatus Prodeo actually reported on this at length last year, when the project was first announced, and there's a good body of details of the project and discussion to refer to there.

Typical generators burning Victorian brown coal generate about 1175 g CO2e per kWh of electricity generated.

The IDGCC plant will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30% - so, that's about 823 g CO2e/kWh.

For a good supercritical black coal burning plant you've got about 863 gCO2e, and 751 g for natural gas, or 577 g for combined cycle natural gas - which is about the absolute lowest you'll get for a fossil fuel.

The carbon dioxide emissions are still high as all hell. It's basically the same as a black coal fired power plant - in absolutely no way is it low in greenhouse gas emissions. All that the IDGCC technology is really accomplishing is to turn a plant powered by brown coal - the most especially inefficient and carbon dioxide intensive form of coal - into the emissions equivalent of a more conventional black coal fired plant. Make no mistake - the entirety of that dangerous fossil fuel waste is being discharged straight into the environment, as per business as usual.

But there's one aspect to this which I find interesting, in particular.

This plant is slated to cost 750 million (Australian) dollars, and will have a nameplate capacity of 400 MW.
That is; $1875 per kilowatt of nameplate capacity.

The US nuclear energy industry is aiming to build new nuclear power plants for a cost of $1500 to $2000 per kW capacity.

The General Electric ABWR was the first third generation power plant approved. The first two ABWR's were commissioned in Japan in 1996 and 1997. These took just over 3 years to construct and were completed on budget. Their construction costs were around $2000 per KW.

Westinghouse claims that the AP1000 power reactor will cost $1400 per KW for the first reactor and fall to as low as $1000 per KW for subsequent reactors.

I don't know what kind of capacity factor is to be expected from an IDGCC plant - but at best, it's comparable to that of nuclear power. If the capacity factor is significantly less, then this decreases the economic competitiveness of the coal plant relative to nuclear power still further.

We're looking at the construction of a coal-fired power station that is not mitigating its carbon dioxide emissions in any meaningful way, emitting about 823 g CO2e/kWh straight into the atmosphere, along with all kinds of other dangerous coal byproducts, where the construction of a new nuclear power plant is already likely to be directly competitive, if not superior, on construction cost terms, even in the absence of any kind of emissions trading scheme, carbon dioxide 'price', carbon dioxide capture and storage or carbon dioxide sequestration.

What's up with that?

More discussion re: Australian nuclear power

This time it comes from the editorial staff of the Geelong Advertiser (sorry no web link to the story - this one is only in the print version).

[emphases added]

The pro-nuke stance of two such heavyweights [Howes and Carr] -- the AWU is the country's biggest blue-collar union -- marks a watershed in traditional Labor thinking. Exorcising the old ghosts, however, won't be an easy task. While greenhouse concerns mighty be high, angst about disposing of nuclear waste remains front and centre in the thinking of many Labor supporters.

But industry and job concerns are running high within Labor also, linked intrinsically as they are to the rising costs of greenhouse emission cuts. Who wants to lose jobs and mangle the nation's economy on an altar of self-sacrifice that achieves little, if anything, to help the planet? Especially while greenhouse villains such as China continue their economic growth and assault on our domestic manufacturing. And this, driven by the Australian mining sector China is hell-bent on buying up to cut out the middle-man and assume greater economic independence?

For all the strife brewing within the ALP over nuclear power, time may well show that Kevin Rudd is inclined toward the thinking of Carr and Howe[s]. Industry and jobs hold powerful sway over any government, as do consumer prices. Anyone who thinks the cost of turning green, without nuclear power, is going to be affordable simply hasn't even attempted to do their sums.

On the same day as the above editorial, Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong discussed the results of a recent poll where 61% of Australians are in favour of an emissions trading scheme and 56% say they are willing to pay higher energy prices to achieve it. I was happy to read that Wong said any scheme will not be designed around polls.

Wong then refers to ongoing discussions following Garnaut's report. Assuming this report becomes the first of its kind that is not dismissed as an underestimate within 12 to 18 months of its issue date, it remains unclear when Australia can expect to see the results of some policy action [e.g. emissions begin to level off - let alone begin to decrease].

Based on Wong's prediction of ongoing 'discussions' and Rudd's statement that government is "...proceeding on this policy development process, calmly, coolly methodically, responsibly..." I would not be surprised if the implementation date for an emissions trading scheme conveniently slipped to after the next election. I hope I am very wrong and election politics take a backseat to emissions cuts. Considering the projected economic pain of the scheme's implementation, I doubt I will be.

As the GA editorial staff has outlined above, keeping nuclear power off the table will undoubtedly complicate any discussions and challenge progress on real emission cuts [as the Greens push for the techno-economically unachievable cuts of 40% of 1990 levels by 2020]. If the strategy is indeed to defer the release of the detailed emissions trading scheme let alone its implementation until after the next election - holding back discussions of nuclear would help in this regard.

Similar sentiments are laid out in a report by Janet Albrechtsen for The Australian.

Howes says that the support for an emissions trading system is not as strong as many people think. "Once you educate the public about the costs they will have to wear, voter support will drop away. We need to be realistic about the subsidies that will be required for business. Handing out wads of cash to working families is not going to alleviate the pain of a loss of jobs. If we are going to reduce emissions and have jobs in society, we need to secure baseload power, and until the technology for that is available we need a genuine bipartisan approach to developing nuclear power in Australia."

The report is centred on a comparison of the upcoming American and recent Australian elections and the complexities of implementing a genuinely effective emissions trading scheme.

Without nuclear, there is no credible, technically defendable solution for Australia.

Pro-nuclear push from within Labor

As reported in The Australian.

Paul Howes, the head of Australia's biggest blue-collar union, and former NSW Labor premier Bob Carr have called for Australia and the Rudd Government to purge its prejudices and embrace a nuclear power industry.

The two are promoting the potential of nuclear power to generate large quantities of no/low carbon energy at economically competitive prices to address Australia's near- to interim-term climate, energy and industrial needs.

Howes is convinced that without nuclear any credible Australian effort to reduce emissions will result in the export of jobs if not entire industries.

"I've told ministers in the Rudd Government this is my view and the view of my union."

Kevin Rudd insists Australia can meet its carbon emission reduction targets without resorting to nuclear power. However the government has not put forward convincing explanations of what technologies will be used [and to what extent], how energy and grid reliability will be assured, when technologies will be deployed or where the relevant facilities will be located. Recent government reports appear to contradict Kevin Rudd's position - noting the optimistic deployment of all measures currently on the table will at best keep emission levels stable.

Carr's position is that only nuclear power can provide a credible bridge to help secure significant emissions reductions while the country works to develop and deploy sufficiently advanced renewable technologies. Carr notes that most younger Australians do not share the emotional objections to nuclear energy of their elders.

"We all want to get there. But it's decades off and we need a bridge. The best thing the Western world can do to stop the melting of the polar ice caps is to sponsor the production of the most modern nuclear power plants."

Previous post on Paul Howes from February 2008.

Expanding interest in laser enrichment

General Electric and Hitachi have now been joined by Cameco to develop and deploy Australian laser enrichment technology. Cameco has invested US$123.8 million (AU$129.8) to become the minority partner with a 24% stake in the joint venture. GE will maintain a 51% share and Hitachi 25%.

It's always interesting to hear of Australian innovative success, but in general news such as this is disappointing for me personally. I hope Silex is bringing home some well deserved royalties for their efforts on the technology [judging by the below stock trend, this appears to be the case]. However, I still consider it [another] lost opportunity via the export of innovative technology as well as [most likely] a few key human resources.


This phenomenon is not unique to the nuclear fuel cycle either. Australian solar technology continues to suffer a similar plight. Considering the global energy [r]evolution unfolding before us - I do not believe it wise to allow similar opportunities to slide so easily from our grasp.

Legal team points to French nuclear and asks, 'What if...'

Guillaume De Rubercy and Prue Harvey of Claton UTZ penned a general review of Austrailia's energy options in Mondaq's Environmental and Energy readership.

In the article the authors point to the often sited French nuclear power programme. As I say here, we can not carbon-copy the French programme for a number of reasons. But De Rubercy and Harvey are spot on; generally speaking, there is much Australia can learn from French experiences.

From the text:

As however our current reliance on fossil fuels is not sustainable in terms of both supply and greenhouse gas emissions, Australia may soon have to face the unavoidable prospect of nuclear power. As we possess 40 percent of the world's uranium reserves, it is not surprising that the Switkowski report recommended the construction of Australia's first nuclear reactor by 2020, and a total of 25 nuclear reactors by 2050.

and they conclude:

Use of nuclear power in Australia remains highly controversial. Our heavy reliance on fossil fuels is not, however, a feasible long term solution. Nuclear power, as one potential alternative, may therefore become an unavoidable prospect in the future. While this may seem daunting, the regulations employed to ensure the successful exploitation of nuclear power in France will be a valuable tool when the time comes.

World Enviroment Day

Australia continues to work through our environmental issues on a day that was probably conceived to inspire optimistic vision, highlight action and celebrate results.

A relevant post at Larvatus Prodeo highlights some differences between the optimistic pre-election Kevin Rudd and his current accomplishments and ongoing challenges. Ross Garnaut also sited numerous challenges, uncertainties and risks. Meanwhile, the ABC mentions a call for nuclear power from the business community of anti-nuclear Western Australia.

Australia isn't ready to swallow the nuclear pill yet, but I stand by my earlier statement. Through their total rejection of a domestic nuclear power programme, Kevin Rudd and the majority of the Labor party are helping Australia work through the relevant issues faster than if they had lost last year.

More Australians must come to understand that other efforts to reduce our per-capita emissions - while noble and effective - will not be effective enough to reach the cuts deemed necessary by global scientific consensus.

Players and prophets - where are coal and nuclear headed in Australia

Over the past weeks there has been much ado about the future of carbon capture/clear coal in Australia; recently a world nuclear strategist made predictions about Australia's nuclear future; and despite domestic and international efforts to prevent it, coal exports are set for a massive increase.

First, some thoughts on the many recent articles about domestic carbon capture technologies and projects here and abroad. Please don't get me wrong. I hope they succeed; hope they bring much deserved accolades and even some profits to the Aussie researchers labouring on the technologies; hope they permit the continuation of massive profits for the Australian coal industry and in particular those relying on it for their daily sustenance; hope they result in massive worldwide carbon emission reductions while facilitating improved living conditions for many developing countries around the world.

But - to me - actions speak volumes over words. When I consider ongoing claims of economic ruin and pleas for exemptions or some other type of mitigating action, I realise my hope is not manifested in the general economic confidence of the Australian energy industry. The entire point of an emissions trading scheme is to put financial pressures on these facilities to either clean up their act or shut down.

With respect to political policy. I note the public promotion of carbon capture/clean coal by many public officials. However, I don't hear anyone proposing a moratorium on new fossil stations that do not bring carbon capture technologies online with them, as suggested by NASA chief, James Hansen, in a recent letter to Kevin Rudd.

So, let's focus on the problem. Provided one accepts the science that strongly [and getting stronger as time passes] suggests human generated emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, must be dramatically cut; considerable action is required. We must also achieve significant progress related to the contributing challenges of optimising the removal of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere today as well as developing and implementing climate change mitigation strategies on an international scale, put particularly in Australia.

So what are we doing to address these issues? We're building some wind farms. We're building some solar plants and smaller scale household hot water heaters. We're looking into geothermal power and as discussed above we are working to develop carbon capture/clean coal. But there are also new fossil stations on the books. With all these plans our emissions, in the best case scenario, will not decrease by any percentage from 1990 levels, but will remain flat at 108% of 1990 levels to 2020.

The intentions seem noble and the efforts considerable. But they are simply not enough to address the problem.

Can nuclear play a role? I think so. Should nuclear play a role? I think so. However, looking at the facts [unfortunately the most relevant of which are subjective/political] - I must concede the opinion of Steve Kidd, Head of Strategy and Research at the World Nuclear Association. Considering all the constraints, Kidd notes a 'less promising' future for nuclear in the near term under Labor, but hedges, saying the true policies remain to be seen.

Kidd does see a favourable environment for expanded uranium mining [OK, that's an easy one], but also conversion and enrichment in Australia. One route suggested in the article could be for an Australian joint venture employing ANSTO developed laser enrichment technology with General Electric and an Australian company or companies. This makes sense on many levels, not least significant of which will be the dramatic reduction in handling and transportation energy inputs to the fuel supply chain through conversion and enrichment facilities located relatively close to the uranium source.

Finally, one last look at Australian coal. Where is it headed? The below line from the Courier Mail says it all.

RIO Tinto Coal Australia believes it can double its Queensland coal production to 40 million tonnes a year within seven years, thanks to booming demand and planned new rail and port capacity.

I doubt this will solve any problems. Again, looking at actions [or, in this case proposed actions] it seems clear to me; we are not doing enough to address the relevant technical issues.

Australia's uniqueness

Why am I always going on about climate, when this is supposed to be a discussion about nuclear power in Australia?

Simply put, I see no reason for Australia to adopt nuclear power except as part of a broader set of solutions to address high emissions linked to climate change.

I was reminded of this once again as I perused the slides that will frame the upcoming 2020 summit, of particular relevance to this blog is that of Population, Sustainability, Climate Change, Water And The Future Of Our Cities. Our coal reserves are 9% of the world total (pg.6, slide 5). My understanding is that this coal - particularly for domestic, mouth-of-the-mine applications - is dirt-cheap and enough to last us for quite some time. With the possible exception of some limited hydro applications that have already been exploited, there hasn't been nor isn't now, much economic justification for the deployment of any other power source.

Enter an emissions restrained world.

Now, if we are to meet the emissions targets being discussed, some significant change is required and in all likelihood that change looks to be expensive.

While many technologies are being promoted as such, I see no silver bullet - but I see a role for each.

Solar hot water, home/building insulation, CFLs/natural lighting, improved automobile fuel economy, improved efficiency for major appliances and industry are the no-brainers as far as I am concerned.

Wind has been demonstrated as a credible energy option, but there are related intermittency and overbuild requirements [If you want to generate 100MWe on average over a year, you must construct about 300MWe capacity] that must be factored in to any consideration. I believe many more wind generators will be commissioned in Australia and around the world where it makes economic sense to do so and where locals don't become upset over view obstruction or other impact such as that on birds - arguments that I do not comprehend. Windmills have existed for ages in the Netherlands. Tourists flock there to photograph them with the tulips in the foreground and they still have birds there...

Solar thermal plant construction and operating and maintenance experience is being accumulated and - I understand - looks positive for future applications. However, I do not believe this is certain and again there are the intermittency and overbuild constraints shared with wind. These again will be deployed where it makes sense to do so. However, this technology is behind the curve with respect to wind.

Bio-mass is there, especially for transport, but must be weighed against any possible impact on the global food supply-chain as well as any land use constraints which could partially negate some of the derived value.

Geothermal is in use elsewhere around the world, but some development work remains to be completed for its large/industrial scale use in Australia.

There are other technologies that are very early in the development stage or otherwise have limited deployment in Australia [algae based bio-mass, tidal]. Carbon-capture is the great hope, but there are no assurances the technology will work or most importantly be economically justifiable.

Photovoltaic solar involves toxic heavy metals and is - to date - prohibitively expensive.

Nuclear power is demonstrated around the world. It is safe, reliable and continuous. But it involves an enormous infrastructure, resource and time commitment.

How do 21 million [and increasing] people justify such a commitment?

On this same slide I reference above, the summit topic is framed as follows:

Australia's creativity, strong science base, agile economy and renewable resources, including sunshine, "hot rocks", wind and bio-resources, provide enormous capacity for a shift towards a lower greenhouse footprint.

Clean coal technology could have a profound impact on Australia's emissions and economy. Further development of carbon, capture and storage (CCS) technology will enable us to reduce our carbon footprint and to maintain our significant coal exports in a carbon constrained world.

Many countries are re-thinking the acceptability of nuclear power in light of climate change. Australia has a large share of the world's uranium and a role to play within appropriate safeguards.

I note with some reserved delight that the nuclear related comments are fairly lukewarm. I believe there could be a role for nuclear power in Australia. But many challenges with respect to the resource and infrastructure development prerequisites are uniquely Australian.

Many other countries can back each other up on a regional basis. So when the wind in one country ebbs; nuclear, hydro and unfortunately fossil fuels from neighbours can [and do] back them up. Conversely, when demand drops the nuclear plants can 'dump' power to their neighbours at next-to-nothing prices to avoid shutting down. See the transmission flows from the EU below. The EU has the highest nuclear density [NuclearMWe/squar km] of any region in the world. [Fat arrows mean greater energy flow]

European annual electricity flow (imports and exports)

UCTE - 2006 Annual Statistics Report

Australia however must be fully self-sufficient. The references made to France [at least from within Australia] are not completely relevant. While French references do make several good cases for nuclear power in general [safety, closed fuel cycle, more standardised design, etc.] - and France does well with respect to per-capita emissions compared to their peers, Australia would be quite challenged to approach the 80% nuclear electric capacity enjoyed by France.

Nuclear plants are designed to operate at 100%. They are not load following facilities but are suited for baseload applications. They should be started and operated continuously for about 2 years and then shutdown for a month or two for maintenance. There are sometimes unplanned maintenance outages or plant trips during such a cycle that can have a plant down for a few days to a couple of weeks - but these are typical of any generating facility anywhere.

A related danger is that if one country [in the European case above] fails to develop their electricity generation infrastructure, again they have neighbours to come to the rescue [consider Italy above - all the big arrows point IN]. South Africa would be a much better case study for Australia in this regard. They are lacking this backstop option and - having failed to ensure adequate capacity reserves are undergoing considerable strife.

I do not see us achieving France's level of nuclear commitment, but several reactors around each of the major urban centres is feasible. I also believe our elected and industry leaders are fully aware of the events in South Africa and seeking feasible options to avoid an Australian repeat of the situation. So, after all this; is there a role for nuclear in Australia? I still come to yes - provided we are serious about reducing emissions.

I am confident that the discussion above [and much more] was investigated to a significantly more detailed level in the 2007 UPNER report. The results seem fairly consistent. It seems as if similar discussion may take place during the upcoming Summit. I certainly see more uranium mining in Australia's future - but I suspect that's just the start.

South Africa - we can't say we weren't warned

Robert Gottliebsen spent his Easter holiday in South Africa. Could Australia suffer a similar fate with respect to electricity availability?

Keeping the lights on

Full report from the Business Spectator.

While we celebrate Earth hour once a year [and yes, I meant to use the term celebrate - with our kids and picnic gear in tow]; South Africa enjoys unpredictable and unavoidable Earth hours as they are forced to come to terms with inadequate energy policies sustained over several years.

Kevin Rudd and his climate change minister Penny Wong are playing a dangerous game. I have just returned from spending Easter in Johannesburg and have experienced first hand the damage that can be caused to the community when governments don't understand the consequences of their power generation actions.

Australian coal fired power stations believe they should be compensated for the potential destruction of their value caused by the effective carbon tax, but their arguments are not gaining traction. The government argues that the environmental damage they have been doing has been well documented and should have been incorporated into their value. Australia has rejected the nuclear power generation option. While there will be considerable investment in solar and wind, Australia will need major investment in large base load stations. So in the absence of nuclear, we will need to rely on gas including coal gas, perhaps enhanced by solar. It is likely to be more expensive than coal, although coal is really the most expensive power source of all once you include the cost the carbon emissions.

But gas prices are anything but historically stable.

Climate and Nuclear to test Rudd and Labor

Some tough decisions coming in the near future related to actions to address concerns about climate change as well as current government's stand on the NPT and Additional Protocols.

First Tim Colebatch filed a report in The Age noting government's tough decisions related to climate change. The report includes some interesting facts, such as arguments of the coal based generators for free emissions permits and why such 'give-aways' would do much more harm than good. Colebatch explains a bit of the obvious - that clean coal is in Australia's [and the world's] best interest. But Colebatch is an economics editor, and, sadly, no matter how much economic sense something may make, there has to be further consideration; such as previous technology performance, current state of development, realistic development horizon and the subsequent overriding risk to any reasonable deployment schedule.

Colebatch also mentions renewables, but fails to go the extra distance and mention their performance as currently deployed in Australia and overseas and how [as in required resources] that performance may be further expanded to address the greater issues of power quality, reliability and availability.

The report is a step in the right direction, but the discussion must be taken further. I am confident those in office are considering all options and agree with Colebatch's main theme - the upcoming decisions will be tough.

Another tough decision lies in government's stand on nuclear non-proliferation. In the Sydney Morning Herald, Anne Davies reports the USA may be asking Australia to provide assurances that it will not block potential nuclear power deals with India.

[T]he Bush Administration is expected to seek a promise from Australia that it will not vote against the Indian agreement in the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, in which it is one of 45 member states.

Given that the Indian Parliament has stalled signing the agreement for internal political reasons, Mr Rudd may stop short of giving a firm undertaking now.

I suspect this would be a particularly touchy subject for government at the moment; particularly if one examines Chapter 5 of the Labor party's National Platform and Constitution, 2007. Specifically, in clause 95 it states:

Labor will work towards:

• tightening controls over the export of nuclear material and technology;
• universalising of the IAEA additional protocol making it mandatory for all states and members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to make adherence to the additional protocol a condition of supply to all their transfers;

Perhaps if someone can convince government to ignore or amend clause 95, some type of similar revision could be considered for clause 97 - just the second bullet only; a simple swap of the word 'prohibit' for 'facilitate'.