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.

Sane perspective from the media

Today, the Sydney Morning Herald contains a very sane opinion piece from Michael Duffy.

Duffy puts forward many arguments that can be found repeatedly in this blog and several others concerning nuclear power's role as a mitigating technology to address the challenges associated with carbon emission reduction in the context of increasing global energy demand.

The clash between symbolism and substance affects a lot of the environmental debate, none more so than where nuclear power is concerned. The almost blanket rejection of it by most political and environmental leaders in Australia is puzzling. I know nuclear power is risky, but those risks need to be compared with the risks posed by climate change.

And these risks are being objectively compared in numerous countries around the world. Nuclear programs have been taking off for some time now in China. However, the acceleration of the global shift toward nuclear power has been continuously increasing. Projects have been kicked of in the USA, the UK is looking at new build programs, just weeks after announcing a move to 'clean coal' the Netherlands is now also looking to nuclear, and finally just days ago, Italy announced plans to reverse a public referendum against nuclear power on following the high profile nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Meanwhile, in Australia, we are grappling with the conundrum of life where all of Kevin Rudd's [and the Labor party's] environmental related campaign promises have been fulfilled; but still falling well short of meaningful emissions related targets. We've signed up to Kyoto, it looks as if we will achieve a 20% renewables target [although this is not certain] and a carbon trading scheme should be a reality by 2010. BUT, all these together will fall well short of the 60% [now being upped to 80%] cut in global emissions by 2050. There's also been considerable chatter of real-world challenges that could seriously dilute benefits of the aforementioned plans [protection to fossil fuel plants, whether to include petrol emissions in the scheme, etc.]. The magnitude of these challenges in a mutually inclusive, broader context is considerable.

We are making strides in the right direction. If we remain on the current course, we will still fail; albeit not so pitifully. If we are lucky we may be able to achieve 1990 emission levels once again, but any real decrease from those levels - as we are told is required - is a pipe dream - even according to government.

The sane consideration of nuclear power within Australia - as well as dramatically increasing exports of uranium; and even possible domestic enrichment, fuel fabrication and waste management industries - could have a significant impact on global goals to reduce emissions. These are all do-able projects. General Electric's development of Australia's own innovative laser enrichment technology is progressing very positively within the United States. A joint business adventure between GE and an Australian firm here, is not so far-fetched. Nuclear plant licensing times could be shortened in Australia - particularly if our licensing process is linked with other regulatory bodies in nations much further down the nuclear path [UK, USA, France, etc.]. Again, there is precedence within the recent ARPANSA approval of the OPAL restart submission. ARPANSA contracted external expertise to peer-review the technical details of the submission. The fuel and waste management industries could also be developed following objective reviews of the available technologies and risks. While Yucca Mountain looks to be dieing a slow death - other repositories are either in service, or progressing with very favourable public support. The lesson learned with Yucca Mountain being to let the science decide the location as opposed to taking a convenient location and trying to make the science fit. This challenge is described quite well by Cravens.

UK - Discussion on nuclear power

BBC Discovery's Sue Nelson is joined by three experts in the field of nuclear power generation to discuss the reasons for the revival of nuclear power in the UK and elsewhere in the world.

Listen to the full programme here [~26 minutes].

Her guests are:

Malcolm Grimston, Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Development Programme, Chatham House.

Professor Robin Grimes, Imperial College, London, and principle investigator on the Keeping the Nuclear Option Open initiative KNOO.

Dr Paul Norman, Head of Physics & Technology of Nuclear Reactors, University of Birmingham.

Thorium - addressing non-proliferation and waste management

Thorium Power Ltd. has been working for years to develop a solution to what are often sited as the two remaining challenges facing the global nuclear industry, waste management and non-proliferation.

Thorium fuel is interesting for Australian nuclear ambitions. Not only could it help mitigate the issues above, but it could enable India to achieve it's own nuclear ambitions without the pressure on Australia and other Uranium suppliers. Thorium is about three times more abundant and can be used directly without enrichment - India has plenty of its own [estimated at 13% of global thorium resources].

Thorium does have its own challenges to overcome in the short term. For example, the very features that make it so proliferation resistant [a number of highly radioactive, short lived byproducts] also make processing and recovery of the U-233 fuel difficult. Hence a lot of research in being conducted into developing long life, self breeding fuel assembly designs where processing is not required.

A recent press release of interest.

MCLEAN, VA, Dec 31, 2007 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX News Network) -- Thorium Power, Ltd. (OTCBB: THPW), the leading developer of low-waste, non-proliferative nuclear fuel technology for existing and future reactors, today announced that a new formal agreement has been reached with Russia's Kurchatov Institute relating to the irradiation testing program for the Company's fuel designs, which has been ongoing since 2002. The agreement assigns to Thorium Power Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Thorium Power, Ltd., the worldwide rights, title and interest in and to the technical data generated from the ampoule irradiation testing of seed and blanket fuel samples in the Kurchatov research reactor over the past two years.

Andrey Mushakov, Thorium Power's Executive Vice President for International Nuclear Operations, stated: "The agreement reconfirms our strategic development relationship with the Kurchatov Institute, one of Russia's premier nuclear research institutes. Ampoule irradiation testing is a critical, long lead-time activity in our comprehensive program of technology testing and demonstration activities and it is a vital process that new fuel designs must perform as part of a fuel qualification and regulatory licensing process. The ampoule irradiation testing work continues as expected at the Kurchatov Institute, and this agreement formalizes our rights to valuable technical data necessary for regulatory licensing of our commercial fuel designs."

Seth Grae, Thorium Power's CEO, added: "This agreement continues the excellent working relationship that we have had with the Kurchatov Institute and the Russian government for over a decade. The work under this agreement is an important step towards the demonstration of our fuel designs in a full scale commercial reactor."

About Thorium Power, Ltd.

Based in McLean, VA, Thorium Power, Ltd. is a nuclear energy pioneer and the leading provider of low-waste, non-proliferative nuclear fuel technology for existing and future reactors. The Company's technologies include nuclear fuel designs optimized to address key concerns about traditional nuclear power, including nuclear proliferation and nuclear waste. Thorium Power plans to license its technologies to commercial and government owned reactor operators and nuclear fuel fabricators aiming to benefit from thorium-based fuels. The Company is targeting new reactors in countries without a nuclear industry today, as well as currently operating and new reactors in countries with an established industry. Thorium Power is also leveraging its nuclear technology, business and regulatory expertise and relationships by offering services to commercial entities and governments looking to establish or expand nuclear industry capabilities and infrastructure. In addition to leveraging its International and Technical Advisory Boards comprised of key national and international leaders in the fields of nuclear energy, finance, government affairs, non-proliferation and diplomacy, the Company maintains long-standing relationships with leading Russian nuclear entities, providing expert resources and facilities for its nuclear fuel development activities. To support the implementation of its business model, Thorium Power has plans to form partnerships with various types of participants in the nuclear industry, allowing the Company to address multiple nuclear reactor types internationally.

DISCLAIMER

This press release may include certain statements that are not descriptions of historical facts, but are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements may include the description of our plans and objectives for future operations, assumptions underlying such plans and objectives, statements regarding benefits of the new agreement with Kurchatov and other statements identified by forward-looking terminology such as "may," "expects," "believes," "anticipates," "intends," "expects," "projects" or similar terms, variations of such terms or the negative of such terms. There are a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements made herein. Such information is based upon various assumptions made by, and expectations of, our management that were reasonable when made but may prove to be incorrect. All of such assumptions are inherently subject to significant economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies beyond our control and upon assumptions with respect to the future business decisions which are subject to change. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that actual results will meet expectations and actual results may vary (perhaps materially) from certain of the results anticipated herein. Reference is made to the risk factors contained in our latest annual report as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These factors may cause actual results to vary from the forward-looking statements contained in this release.

Further Information:

ANA / UIC - Thorium briefing paper

WNA - Thorium

Energy from thorium

My Q&A with Blake

With his permission, here are the questions and my crack at the answers. Any feedback, corrections, omissions etc. from others out there would be most welcome.

Hi Blake,

I take it from your hypothesis that you may arrive at a different conclusion from my own. However, it appears you are attempting to complete a fact-based assessment, which is fundamental [on a broader scale] to addressing the many energy related issues facing different countries today.

And to that end, my answers are below. I hope you find the information helpful. If you have any further questions please let me know. I've changed the order a bit, but they should all be there.

On 9/14/07, blake [surname & Email address removed] wrote:

Hey, sorry for the wait, have been swamped with work in other subjects falling this week. Okay, back into the swing of things.

I am going for a subjective definition of 'environmentally safe', as it will allow more room for discussion in my opinion. I am using alternate power sources as a focus question in my assignment (as you suggested) as i believe it is important to consider why Nuclear power is a more attractive option and will shape a better understanding to why nuclear power is being used and its benefits also.

Okay here it goes, feel free to elaborate or disregard any questions. Ill just be quoting you on various lines. If there’s anything you think I should know or that I’ve missed, let me know (I have found it surprisingly difficult to get a clear understanding of the current power situation in Australia as information is scattered and not readily available).

The hypothesis of my essay is:

"The implementation of Nuclear Power stations in Australia will have a negative impact on the environment due to an increase in environmental pollution"

Qs

What is wrong with the current power systems in place?

Power systems [to me] includes all systems involved in the generation and distribution of energy [including transport, electricity, home heating, etc.]. It's important to keep the definitions clear or a lot of confusion can enter into energy related discussions. Some people seem to muddy these waters intentionally [not very helpful to achieving a genuine solution in my mind]. For the remainder of this discussion - let's focus on electricity generation.

The answer to this question differs from one country to another. Some countries, Korea and Japan are two examples, have limited domestic energy resources and are therefore very dependent on imports [i.e. energy security concerns]. Others are struggling to control emissions linked to climate change. Some are wrangling with both [China, the USA and most of Europe are good examples]. Nearly all are facing these challenges within the context of significant projected demand increases over the coming decades.

Also, additional energy generation capacity is a critical prerequisite to addressing much of the world's severe poverty. If this deployment is not done in a sustainable way - the above challenges could become more difficult. Conversely, as the developed world wrangles with its own energy problems, countries in the developing world may just get ignored, leading to worsening poverty and greater conflict in the affected regions [some of which are not too far away from Australia or Australian interests]. I recommend a read of this blog. It may be a bit long - but I think the author makes some very good points that you don't hear too often from either side of the nuclear debate. To read more from the same author, follow this link.

Finally, some countries lack modern electric infrastructure [transmission lines, etc.] to adequately and reliably distribute energy as required. Even in the USA, several high profile brown-outs and black-outs over the past decade or so [2003, 1996, etc.] are indications of this challenge.

What are the current environmental dangers / benefits of current coal power plants?

The benefits are fairly easy to list [but none are environmental]; for countries with rich coal reserves it's cheap, reliable power. There is little economic justification for Australia to use anything but coal to power the country into the foreseeable future. Some type of carbon surcharge, tax or other abatement programme could change this in years to come.

Also, large coal generation stations have high and predictable reliability, giving more weight to the economic benefit [maximum, reliable output for minimum financial input]. It’s not rocket science. Hence, power hungry China’s current deployment of about two large coal stations a week. [This was a shock to me as my understanding before I did the search was that it was only one plant per week. So the rate is increasing – not good!]

The dangers of coal are numerous. There are many links, references and resources in this blog and many others highlighting the reality of climate change – and most experts and environmentalists alike are pointing at coal/fossil plant emissions as one of the principal contributors. Furthermore, the emissions from coal/fossil stations today, will be impacting the environment for millennia as the Earth works to restore balance – according to the IPCC.

Mining coal is dangerous and responsible for the death of roughly 7,000 miners a year in China alone. Coal emissions contain fine particulates and other pollutants resulting in the premature death of 15,000 people a year, just in the United States.

What are the environmental Dangers/Benefits of the introduction of Nuclear power ? which of these are specific +/-'s to Australia?

Water consumption is pretty much a break even with any other type of power plant that employs a thermal steam cycle [and most do, except, for example combustion turbines, wind turbines and photovoltaic cells]. Some hype has been made about French reactors having to reduce power in hot weather due to thermal discharge limits on their effluents. This has nothing to do with the fact that they are nuclear, but rather where they are located. Had similarly sized coal plants been in their place, the same result would have occurred. Had these nuclear plants been sited on the coast, the high temperature would not have been an issue. So if Australia decides to construct a nuclear plant near the coast – no issue.

Nuclear waste is a challenge, but more a political issue than technical. The deep repositories being developed, for example in Sweden and the USA, are – in my opinion – technically sound, but also a waste of a valuable resource, the potential energy remaining in the fuel. The recently rekindled interest in spent fuel reprocessing using the UREX process looks to recover significant energy from this ‘pre-irradiated’ or ‘used’ fuel, significantly reduce the volume of residual waste and dramatically reduce the time that waste must be stored to decay to the activity level of the uranium originally mined from the ground.

Interim storage of irradiated fuel as well as all aspects of fuel handling through the second half of the fuel cycle must be respected due to the activity of the material involved. Again, in my professional opinion, the robust engineering that has gone into developing multiple protective barriers to address public safety has worked well to minimise this risk. Have a look at the testing of a fuel shipping cask as an example.

Physical security [theft, sabotage and acts of terrorism] must also be addressed when considering nuclear power‘s environmental impact. In modern plant designs robust measures have been engineered into the design to minimise these risks. Beyond the design, plants maintain hardened perimeters and employ highly trained security teams – all further reducing the risk.

Some environmental groups point to the entire fuel cycle including mining, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, decommissioning, final fuel processing and disposal etc. as nuclear power’s Achilles heal with respect to lifecycle emissions. But this does not make sense from even – I think – a everyday bloke perspective. Consider that one 10-gram nuclear fuel pellet produces as much energy as 20 tonnes of coal or 20,000 litres of oil [even more if the nuclear fuel is reprocessed]. Yes, [assuming the power comes from coal plants] the processes to make that pellet consume energy and result in emissions. However, if say 20% of the electricity involved in those processes is nuclear generated, even those emissions begin to fall. What about the mining, processing and transport of all that coal [have you ever seen a coal train?], or similarly drilling, refining and transport of all that oil, the decommissioning and waste processing of those facilities, etc.? What are the emissions associated with those processes? Formal comparisons have been completed – repeatedly it seems – consistently arriving at the same results. [University of Sydney, Oko Inst., University of Wisconsin/NEI to quickly site just a few]. From an emissions perspective, nuclear looks very attractive and is the principal environmental benefit for the technology – at a competitive cost to other options.

The demonstrated high [and consistently improving] capacity factor of nuclear plants and high reliability also play a key role in this positive impact.

I would say that all of the above apply to any country considering or currently using nuclear power – perhaps to different degrees depending on how much of the nuclear fuel cycle is employed in their countries. Australia, for example may decide not to enrich fuel, but deploy nuclear plants and purchase fuel from other countries. I have tried to sum up Australia’s options here and again here.

Why is nuclear power needed?

Nuclear power can address – again depending on the country – energy security and environmental challenges faced by many nations around the world. Significantly lower fuel costs can reduce a country’s dependence on fuel imports in an increasingly [energy] competitive world. Also full lifecycle analyses consistently show nuclear’s advantages to address present day environmental challenges through very low emissions [none in fact through energy generation], high capacity and high reliability.

Examples of countries looking to nuclear to minimise their exposure to energy security risks associated with imports may be found in Europe – specifically Eastern Europe where over the past several winters, Russia has used their energy supply lines as a tool of economic foreign policy. I believe in each case the ‘customer’ countries had no choice but to pay what was being asked. Many of these countries are looking to nuclear to increase their options, subsequently reducing their exposure to this risk in the future.

Nuclear power is capable of significant bulk power generation with demonstrated reliability. This energy is generated with minimal emissions over the entire nuclear lifecycle as demonstrated in study after study [see above].

From Australia’s perspective, I believe nuclear power is needed to address our embarrassingly high emissions. Yes, China and the USA contribute significantly to the problem and therefore must be part of the solution, but I like to look at this from three perspectives, the country whose emission are increasing the fastest in absolute terms [China], the most emissions under the control of one government [USA – soon to be passed by China if not already] and the highest per-capita emissions [Australia]. I think that any policy that does not try to address the problem from these three perspectives is going to produce some very unbalanced outcomes. The argument that ‘Australia only produces 1.5% of global emissions and is therefore only a minor player’ is not sustainable as I say here.

There are those that claim we can get there with renewables, but the ‘full throttle’ deployment of renewables – massive subsidies or not – will not be enough to achieve what is necessary in Australia. Hydro is by far the only renewable energy source with demonstrated capacity around the globe in sufficient quantities to displace big-coal and Australia is just too flat and dry to expect that much more hydro to be added any time soon. That leaves us with solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear and a few fringe technologies like tidal. Furthermore if you look around the world, you will find individual solar thermal plants coming up, new wind farms here and there, etc. However, read for example this post about a wind project in Poland. Note in the section titled ‘The Good Energies coming’ the total price will be Euro 350 million [AU $575 million] and the combined ‘capacity’ will be 240 Megawatts. Consider though that typical wind projects achieve only about 30% of that capacity or about 80 Megawatts on average annually. Spend about four times as much money and you could end up with about 320 Megawatts from wind, or one 1000 Megawatt nuclear reactor. Using this example, it may be easier to understand the lifecycle analyses linked above. The bottom line is that nowhere – not a single country on the planet – are renewables [other than hydro] being used to displace fossil fuel electricity generation capacity to the extent required to meet emissions targets. Denmark is one example of a country that is trying, and failing despite huge subsidies to renewable technologies.

So that leaves nuclear. If Australia is serious about reducing emissions we must keep nuclear on the table. If you’re OK with a calculator, pen and pad, check this post.

How will nuclear power stations affect Australians?

Nuclear operations and stations typically bring with them highly skilled jobs [including a significant number of trade jobs during construction as well as periodic maintenance outages], boosts to the local economies through tax revenues, boosts to local business [several hundred staff have to eat lunch, buy their groceries, get their cars serviced somewhere, correct?] and help sustain local industries such as machine shops that typically support plant maintenance activities, etc.

In addition to the local effects, operating nuclear power stations will of course help Australia meet our energy needs without adversely impacting the environment.

Nuclear plants make good neighbors. I have lived near them in the past and would gladly do so again in the future.

What are your personal views on Nuclear Power / why?

In addition to what I have said above, I don’t really think it’s a matter of ‘will’ Australia go nuclear, but when. It is noble to promote significant and broad lifestyle changes to reduce emissions and to deploy renewables where it makes sense to do so. While these efforts certainly do help – the impact falls well short of what is required to make a real difference.

My own approach is similar to what is recommended in the wedge analysis completed by Princeton University. It’s not so much a nuclear vs. renewables discussion [although such debates work well to distract the attention of environmentally minded people away form the coal industry to – I would imagine – their extreme delight], but rather what will it take to reduce global emissions in absolute terms. In other words, it’s no good to displace one 1000 MWe coal plant in the USA if China commences operations at three of them the next month.

I support the deployment of all no/low emissions technologies that have a demonstrated capacity to displace emissions linked to climate change, in a sustainable way, while improving global energy security. I do not believe we will achieve the relevant goals without considerable nuclear technology deployment in many countries around the world. Certainly the relevant risks will have to be carefully managed – but that challenge pales in comparison to the very real projected impacts from climate change – for which Australia’s portion appears to be severe.

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)

What does this mean for Australia, the United States, and other developing and developed ‘partners’? That’s a tough question to address in one post – but I’m getting a bit busy and new posts may be scarce for a while. So I’ll do my best.

During the recent 48th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management conference in Tucson Arizona, there was considerable attention given to the GNEP. Both the first speaker in the opening plenary [Dr. Paul Lisowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fuel Cycle Management, Office of Nuclear Energy, US Dept. of Energy [DoE]] as well as the last speaker of the final plenary [Adam Scheinman, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Non-proliferation and International Security, US DoE, National Nuclear Security Administration] emphasised the role of GNEP including progress with countries including Russia, China, Japan, France, etc. Additionally, three technical sessions were devoted to GNEP. These included 6 panels and about 20 individual presentations from both government and industry.

As one looks beyond the marketing of GNEP it becomes obvious that the programme faces some significant challenges [beyond the funding problems being imposed by the US congress]. Few people have much to say about the strategic goals of the programme: to promote global energy security and reduce dependence on climate killing fossil fuels through the dramatic expansion of no/low emission nuclear technology. Furthermore that nuclear technology will be expanded in a way that minimises proliferation risk and drastically reduces the long-term repository burden from high level waste.

However, with respect to tactical implementation, the waters begin to muddy. My understanding is:

1. Non-proliferation goals of the US [as well as just about any other country in charge of its mental faculties] would be achieved through the voluntary agreement of ‘recipient’ or ‘partner’ countries to forego nuclear fuel enrichment based on long-term fuel supply assurances from a collective group of fuel supplier [aka fuel cycle] states [mostly those who already have nuclear weapon capabilities, with possibly a few others].

2. Fuel supplier states would become involved in fuel reprocessing to generate fuel for fast burner reactors. These reactors would digest the minor actinides and transuranics. The remaining residual waste will decay to the level of naturally background uranium in about 300 years [as opposed to about 350,000 years for high level wast coming out of today’s nuclear reactors]. Since humans have demonstrated our ability to design and build civil structures capable of lasting well beyond 300 years for several millennia now; confidence is very high in our ability to keep this waste ‘tight’ for 3 centuries.

Also during the conference, there were several scientific presentations explaining the PUREX flow-sheets – plutonium is never separated.

3. Partnering nations, those who are not enriching but receiving fuel from supplier states would benefit through security of fuel supply and an agreement that the supplier states would take back the fuel for reprocessing.

A point made by many is that the real challenge rests at the back end of the fuel cycle [waste]. If GNEP can’t offer anything new there, then it really isn’t offering much at all. For example, provided a country remains within the good graces of the UN Security Council, they currently have no problem getting a reactor and fuel through the industrial partners in existence today [Westinghouse, AREVA, GE, etc.]. GNEP doesn’t offer much new in this regard. However, through GNEP as it is defined today, some of the old significant challenges still remain. Unless something novel is proposed for the back end, states will still have to develop a long-term, high-level waste solution for the residual waste post-reprocessing. [The US has no policy to keep all this waste.] Individual, high level nuclear waste repositories are simply not an option for small, developing states.

Some opportunities for Australia.

Get back into enrichment

Presentations involving enrichment at this conference show expected demand increasing dramatically over the coming years together with some older enrichment capacity that must be upgraded or replaced in the near future. Several companies are already expanding their enrichment services to meet projected demand. Presentations included the status of the new National Enrichment Facility in New Mexico being constructed by Louisiana Enrichment Services. But there appears to be scope for more.

However, while Australia has proven our scientific ability relating to enrichment, we lack any demonstrated industrial capacity in this regard. Is it reasonable to think we can fast-track our related scientific achievements to an industrial capacity in time to meet the demand [and with competing countries and companies already moving in this area]? Partnering with existing companies to host facilities of their design and technology may be more reasonable.

There may also be advantages to becoming an enrichment state, eventually supplying our own fuel for example.

Reprocess & Burn

With enrichment, Australia may also then get into reprocessing and fast burner industries. Again, to me this seems a HUGE industrial leap, especially when the high level schedule/implementation ambitions of the GNEP programme are considered. Australia has no technology base with respect to the design of nuclear reactor facilities [ even OPAL was Argentinean design]. I doubt countries/companies in possession of such technology would be eager to export it. This is probably the least likely activity to be seen domestically in Australia.

Long Term Waste Management

Here, Australia could take advantage of the starkest features of our country – vast emptiness, extreme isolation and geologic stability. If there was ever an opportunity to see emptiness and isolation as a resource, the nuclear fuel cycle is it.

Compact to begin with, spent nuclear fuel is rarely seen as waste any longer. Trends are definitely moving toward reprocessing, with new reactor designs aiming to burn recycled fuel – supported by research in Japan for example as well as ongoing recycling/reprocessing activities in many countries around the world [several of these countries are in the midst of expanding their capabilities in this regard]. But the final waste from reprocessing activities still needs a home. As I mentioned above, this final waste will be of significantly lower volume, lower activity and generate less heat. In a few hundred years it will achieve the same activity as the uranium under our feet at this very moment.

Should Australia consider and eventually agree to host such a site for, as an example, participating GNEP countries [a ‘supranational repository’]; the boost to that endeavour would be considerable. The international demand for such services could result in tremendous benefits for Australia. This is worthy of serious consideration – particularly when you consider that we will need a waste storage facility [or certainly access to such services] to handle the output from our use of lifesaving radio-pharmaceuticals as well as other non-power nuclear industrial products.

This is not a new topic to Australia, as discussed in this radio interview from 1999. But with reprocessing, we are speaking of a different breed of horse altogether.

So in conclusion, GNEP is not a ‘gate’ between countries and nuclear power, but rather one of several paths to obtain it. As it is being promoted at the moment, choosing this path will be 100% voluntary. Therefore, if it is to achieve the ambitious strategic goals mentioned above [as well as at the conference], GNEP MUST become the path of least resistance as perceived by non-nuclear states with nuclear power ambitions. This certainly seems improbable without a long term solution to the final waste streams, and in particular, highly active waste.

Anvil Hill Mine Approved

Centennial Coal recently announced the NSW approval of their newest open cut mine in the Hunter. The Anvil Hill Mine will produce up to 10.5 million tonnes of coal per year [that's 1,200 tonnes an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week] for both export and domestic use, create an estimated 1,500 direct and indirect jobs and generate over $400 million in wages and royalties over the next 21 years of operation.

And then there's the recent announcement from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, clearing the large queue of ships [sometimes reaching 70 vessels] waiting to relieve the area of their coal deposits. Demurrage costs were reaching $1 Million a day for heaven's sake.

No mention of the environmental impact of all that coal. But hey, we must feed the beast, right?

I decided to make this post - not so much because I am opposed to coal. In fact I understand significant quantities of coal generated energy will be around for centuries. My point here is to express concern regarding the reality of coal derived energy expansion while environmental fundamentalists preach renewables from a staunchly anti-nuclear position.

If nuclear takes too long to develop; then where are the windmills, solar cells, tidal turbines, geothermal plants, efficiency campaigns, etc. that should have made the above expansion unnecessary?

If nuclear is too expensive; then why has Western Australia found it necessary to introduce legislation making the deployment of nuclear power plants illegal? If there is in fact no credible business case, wouldn't the plans just wither on the drawing board? The hackneyed action by the WA government is - in a sense - acknowledgement that nuclear power is indeed an economically competitive source of no/low emissions energy.

If the risk of nuclear proliferation is too great; I'd like to know how many people have to die in Iraq, Nigeria and elsewhere before the strife inherent to the fossil fuel supply chain is properly addressed.

If nuclear waste [safely reprocessed in several countries, safely stored for decades in the others] posses too great a risk; please tell me why society offers little more than lip service and a few catchy slogans on popular beaches while fossil wastes are indiscriminately dumped, by the millions of tonnes, throughout the globe - resulting in broadly distributed adverse habitats, death and increasing cases of extinction; realities that will remain for future generations to manage for centuries - if they're lucky.

Australia and the nuclear fuel cycle

We have a considerable number of nuclear related decisions to make in the near future.

First, we can remain - quite simply - a uranium supplier. With their recent decision to kill the antiquated and irrelevant 3-mines policy, Labor has pretty much assured this will be Australia's minimum involvement in the global nuclear fuel cycle.

Or, we could supply the world [or rather those parts of it that we get on well with] with uranium and construct some nuclear power plants ourselves. Others would complete the enrichment and fuel fabrication for us. As we so often allow to happen, we would be purchasing back a finished product principally derived from resources shipped from our shores.

In taking on these options, we would have to develop a high-level [i.e. used fuel] strategy. Several countries, including Japan, the UK, France and Russia reprocess their waste. There are also talks of advanced 'burner' reactors to consume the worst fission byproducts - but these are still in the development stage. Research, however is accelerating. Nevertheless, while recycling/reprocessing technologies greatly reduce the activity and heat burden of the waste, they do not - currently - eliminate it entirely requiring some sort of final repository.

Next, we could develop enrichment technology. As is currently being at least contemplated if not whole heartedly pursued. This decision is a complicated one as it involves due consideration for Australia's domestic and global responsibilities.

As the world shifts its support in favour of nuclear power, concerns over nuclear non-proliferation as well as technology and fuel access by all interested countries must be addressed equitably and in a mutual context. I believe this is the principal selling point for both the GNEP as well as Valdimir Putin's equivalent initiative from within the Russian Federation. A main aspect of these programmes is a multilateral fuel cycle where enrichment, fuel fabrication, fuel utilization, and final disposal may or may not occur within the same country. The multilateral programme advocates and potential participants [sensitive to, for example, Russia's apparent willingness to use fuel as an instrument of economic policy] seek a nuclear fuel bank to ensure the security of fuel availability from multiple participants. If such a programme is not developed, then crises similar to those in North Korea and Iran will continue to occur as countries justify their pursuit of enrichment as a means to energy security. With possible results similar to the [thankfully mostly botched] nuclear detonation in North Korea in late 2006.

Ideally I would love to keep the enrichment process confined to existing nuclear weapons states. But considering all states with demonstrated or suspected nuclear weapons capability USA, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel [not admitted], North Korea [? debatable], I am not convinced they represent a completely desirable set of contributors to an international nuclear fuel suppliers network - at least from the perspectives from many nations around the world. There are some countries without weapons, but capable of enrichment that may also be considered. These include South Africa who had weapons but gave them up as well as Brazil and possibly others. But still I believe many nations are looking for any international fuel centre to acquire further capacity without sacrificing security. I've already discussed Russia above. France can be economically fickle and the UK - while looking to build more nuclear power plants - has been recently working to back out of the nuclear, commercial infrastructure game.

To provide more confidence, the programmes are looking to broaden their bank of suppliers, while keeping the list of weapons states to a minimum. This is probably why Australia has been invited to join the GNEP and a principal reason our representatives are taking trips to Russia.

All this leads us ultimately back to waste. Countries who supply enriched uranium may [yes I said may] be asked to take the high level waste back. But further than this, we must consider Australia itself - vast, geologically stable with huge, uninhabited stretches of land. This continent is a resource that - if properly managed - could serve a significantly greater good.

Therefore if we wish to engage further in the nuclear fuel cycle, a high level waste repository is one of several desirable prerequisites. Hence the government's pursuit of it.

Keep in mind though that these options/decisions are not firmly tied to each other. For example, Australia could embrace nuclear power without enrichment or, possibly, the need for a final waste repository [if one argues that we may have to accept the waste of others, they must therefore concede that our waste may be accepted elsewhere]. We could enrich without generating nuclear electricity or we could become an international, high level waste repository state without generating power or the pursuit of enrichment.

Because of Australia's positive relationship with the IAEA, history of smooth and compliant inspections etc. We have gained a broad and positive international reputation. I believe this is why we are getting nods from a variety of stakeholders as we go around the world dipping our feet in the proverbial nuclear pool. The key players know us and consider us trustworthy.

Australia's options are - for the moment - completely open.

Green nuclear power coming to Norway

As reported by Cosmos Magazine:

Image courtesy of Cosmos Magazine & Justin Randall

Norway remains quite active in the areas (among others) of nuclear non-proliferation, energy security, and global environmental stewardship. Norwegians - specifically - are looking to Thorium based nuclear power technology to solve the overlapping problems of all three after Norway's state-owned energy company, Statkraft, this week announced plans to investigate building a thorium-fuelled nuclear reactor.

Some relevant highlights of the technology:

• The reaction is 'driven' by a nuclear accelerator (called an Accelerator Driven Sub-critical (ADS) system, and therefore can not maintain a self-sustained nuclear reaction [improved safety].
• ADS technology can be used to 'burn' waste products from existing nuclear reactors. Relevant studies were completed for example as part of the US Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative [waste management and proliferation avoidance].
• The technology produces significantly less high level waste.(see 'New age nuclear', Cosmos, issue 8) [waste minimisation and management].
• Byproducts of the Thorium reaction do not include materials that pose increased weapons proliferation risks (Plutonium and Uranium) [non-proliferation].
• Thorium is significantly more abundant than Uranium and does not require high-tech enrichment technologies [sustainability, energy security and non-proliferation]. [Enrichment being the central issue responsible for the dramas in Iran at the moment, for example.]

The article also discusses an amazing flop in Norwegian public opinion in less than a year, with 80% now favouring Thorium nuclear technology development. [All emphasis is mine]

"It would be a sin of omission not to consider it," said Bård Mikkelsen, CEO of Statkraft, in an interview with the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.

"Norway has taken the lead on this. We are an energy nation; we have large supplies of thorium – not as much as Australia of course – but we have a very advanced energy industry, and we have a responsibility to the world," said Lillestøl [a nuclear physicist at the University of Bergen, Norway]. "Without nuclear energy we will destroy the world, we will spend all the coal, oil and gas, and we will be left with an energy desert."

As with other things nuclear, there are industrial opportunities and interest within Australia. But one quoted Sydney nuclear scientist expressed his doubts about Australian political will and research resource commitment, claiming Australia is 'lagging behind' while European Union, India, the US, Japan and Russia all work to develop thorium energy technologies.

For further information, including identified reserves per country, see Also:

Thorium Power Limited

World Nuclear Association - Thorium

UIC - Thorium

US Geological Survey (USGS) - Thorium

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.

Europe wants to buy WA uranium

As reported in The West Australian:

In his first official WA visit, EU ambassador Bruno Julien will argue that nuclear energy offers the EU a way to slash its greenhouse gas emissions while meeting its future energy needs.

“We need more uranium because we are trying to green our energy supplies, to reduce our CO2 emissions, and it’s our view that we can work with WA.”

[WA Premier Alan] Carpenter has long cited environmental reasons for the ban and says WA would come under immense pressure to take nuclear waste if it sold uranium.

But last month he changed his stance, saying he was opposed to uranium mining because WA may need it to meet domestic energy needs in the future.

Mr Julien acknowledged that uranium mining and nuclear energy were as controversial in Europe as they were in Australia.

But he said it had to be considered as a solution to climate change.

Kevin Kamps – Honing of man and message

As reported at News.com.au:

Maybe word of the scrutiny has gotten out, or perhaps a different media outlet makes a difference, but Kevin Kamps’ tour of Australia is being covered a bit differently since he last popped up on the Nuclear Australia radar.

Mr. Kamps is no longer referred to as an expert, but a title I am much more comfortable with

“…a US anti-nuclear campaigner…”

That settled, let’s move on to what the man is reported to have said.

“…the public's primary concern should be where the governments planned to store nuclear waste.”

I agree. The disposition of waste (high, intermediate and low level) should be a principal focus area of any review. But let’s acknowledge these have been settled in other countries such, for example, as France, the UK, Japan, and Russia who are all involved in spent fuel recycling (reprocessing). Even within the USA, the GNEP initiative of early 2006 is working to similar ends with added goals of further minimising proliferation risk.

“US experience showed reactors, generally located near cities, had been forced to store toxic waste while the argument of where to build a national dump continued.”

American nuclear reactors produced up to 30 metric tonnes of waste each year, which posed serious health and environmental risks.

Nuclear power is still a very contentious issue in the US with most people asking where do we put the waste.

If reactors are built, they will serve as waste storage sites for many years in the future and there is a massive risk for accidents.”

Again, I agree that many reactors have commenced interim spent fuel storage. But these sites must undergo rigorous regulatory approval processes, design scrutiny and evaluations, tests, etc. See my post on cask testing. The interim casks undergo similar tests. Furthermore, from the perspective of security, Nuclear sites already have hardened security and physical protection programmes and infrastructure allowing for some economies of scale (even more so for multi-unit sites). Therefore I can see no justification for the statement on ‘massive risk for accidents’ based on interim, on-site spent fuel storage.

Mr Kamps pointed to the Yucca Mountain proposed dump in Nevada that had now been delayed as a groundswell of opposition grew.

He said nearby residents and environmentalists did not want the dump because of the site's location on a fault line, near drinking water supplies and on volcanic land.

He argued that the same problem would happen in Australia if nuclear energy was developed.

Many lessons are being learned from efforts to develop geologic repositories around the world. Just like any other technology, these lessons will be folded into future programmes. It is reasonable to believe that future endeavours will be significantly more streamlined compared to those that came before.

Mr Kamps dismissed the argument put by Prime Minister John Howard that nuclear energy was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions produced by coal.

“The creation of a nuclear power industry to decrease emissions trades one ecological disaster for another.

Where is the ecological disaster from nuclear power? I can’t put it much better than SA Labour MP - Tom Kenyon.

Kamps goes on to say

The government should concentrate on improving energy efficiency and renewable energies to solve global warning.”

Again, I agree. But a participating role from nuclear power should be given a fair go.

Inside an operating reactor

A narrated video of Columbia Generating Station, produced by Energy Northwest - USA, showing:
- The nuclear power plant reactor core,
- The plant control room,
- Electricity generating turbines,
- Plant cooling system,
- Nuclear power plant refueling process,
- Used nuclear fuel dry cask storage and
- A review of the range of jobs at the nuclear power plant.

I am adding this to give an idea of what goes on inside a typical plant. Yes, it is produced from within the industry and should be viewed as such. But I thought there may be some interest in seeing the actual systems, hearing about the jobs, etc.

Spent Nuclear Fuel Cask Crash Testing

Spent nuclear fuel cask tests were performed by Sandia National Laboratories in 1977. Although older casks were used, they meet the same regulatory standards as modern casks.

(In) the first test, a truck carrying a 22-ton spent fuel cask impacted a 690-ton concrete block at 60 miles per hour. It was cleaned up and impacted a second time, but at 84 miles per hour.

The cask also survived this more violent crash with only minor damage.

In the third test, a diesel locomotive crashed into a truck at 81 miles per hour. The stalled truck carried a 25-ton shipping cask. Cask deformation was minimal and the ability of the cask to contain and shield its radioactive contents was not compromised.

The final impact test had a 74-ton shipping cask, carried by a cask rail car, crash into the concrete block at 81 miles per hour. The same cask and rail car were then positioned over a pool of jet fuel and subjected to an engulfing fire, much more severe than the fire that might occur in a train wreck. After 90 minutes – three times the duration of current qualification test criteria – surface temperatures exceeded 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit. But inside the cask, where the spent fuel rods would be contained, temperatures were below 300 degrees – not enough to melt the spent fuel rods.