One take on the Renaissance

Another pragmatic view from The Economist. (The cover story, no less).

Be sure to check out the linked articles within the main article above.

Australian interest & support of advanced nuclear research

Have a look at the scope and participating countries in this year's GLOBAL conference.

My guess, as a premier uranium supplier, our participation is nothing new. With any luck, we'll be sending someone in addition to an ANSTO Inc., ASNO and / or ASIO representative. Maybe even submit a paper or poster on innovative research??

One can hope.

APEC - and so it begins

It's all happening now.

The announcements have come pretty much as anticipated.

The Age
The Sydney Morning Herald [Small business section in a tourism article? A bit buried maybe?]

Australia is moving to join both initiatives [yes, there are two things to discuss here].

First comes the Generation IV International Forum [Gen-IV]. This partnership has existed for some time now. Originating in the west, slightly behind the Russian lead INPRO initiative onging within the IAEA, Gen-IV is principally technically oriented. The work involves applied science and engineering projects to develop advanced reactor designs with vastly improved fuel cycles, lower waste generation, still further improved safety and security features, shorter build times and lower cost. The participation in Gen-IV and INPRO involves considerable overlap and the two are working well together in a fairly complimentary way. INPRO has developed assessment criteria for potential Gen-IV designs for example that could be applied to the concepts currently being further developed within Gen-IV.

I imagine ANSTO will be the principal point of contact for this work - but OPAL was not designed for some of the most exciting of this research [testing of advanced fuel designs etc.] and may require some modifications to fully support the needs of the various programmes. This is why, for example the USA has NIST, ORNL and others for the heavy duty neutron scattering / materials science as well as the ATR - which exists principally to test advanced fuel and core materials. The commencement of relevant OPAL modifications will please me immensely. How exciting will it be that the world's newest research reactor initiates such a significant modification? Evidence of rapidly changing [and expanding] nuclear interest here in Australia and abroad!

Next is the much less technically exciting GNEP, which I have recently posted about here and here. I say less technical because the advanced plants [burner reactors] will most likely come out of the Gen-IV programme. Unless GNEP grows to eventually swallow Gen-IV as it very well may do. GNEP is now at least the third iteration of 'bigger and better' nuclear initiatives involving the USA. Previously initiated and ongoing in parallel with the aforementioned Gen-IV, there are the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, Nuclear Power 2010, the nuclear hydrogen initiative and probably a programme or two more.

My guess is that GNEP and Gen-IV are being bundled to focus on the research activities that come with Gen-IV and the US can put another run on the board as far as GNEP participation is concerned [i.e. about as much of a win-win that each could expect from such an announcement].

All I can add to the previous GNEP posts is that, as reported above, we are 'reserving the right to enrich' and proceeding with the process to join the partnership on the condition that Australia accept no waste from foreign states. Also, the 'meeting in Vienna' that is mentioned in some of the media reports will occur around [immediately prior to, I think] the IAEA General Conference. Within the international nuclear world, this is the time of the year for BIG announcements - so let's all brace ourselves and hope for the best.

GNEP - Nuclear grade clubbing

According to recent news, Australia may be either entering directly into a bilateral agreement with the US (and other countries), formally enlisting in GNEP, or both.

The United States is claiming that Australia's role wold be research oriented. I have no problem with this claim. I believe all the chatter about waste is purely political - and being fanned heavily by Labor for their own gains.

Unless Canberra is full of complete idiots on both sides of the political aisle, the Coalition and Labour both clearly understand that 1) if Australia did accept high level waste from other countries, they could virtually name their price (and subsequently reprocess it and sell it on as reactor fuel - but I digress), but 2) agreeing to this without a lengthy public outreach programme including some very broad education of the general public - would be political suicide.

If you have a look around, you will discover that the US is signing bilateral nuclear agreements with just about every country with a research reactor. Others are dong it as well - including Australia. I believe, with respect to research, the US appears to be playing catch-up following several decades of little support for nuclear power technologies. Australia has a demonstrated research capability, very relevant capability in fact. Just consider how General Electric is capitalising on Australian ingenuity. Personally, one of the most disappointing lines on the page is:

GE has the exclusive rights to develop, commercialize and launch this third-generation uranium enrichment technology on a global basis.

Yet another example of others gaining from Australian innovation. Sure it's great to proudly proclaim "... that's Australian!". But to be blunt - proclamations don't pay the mortgage. It is not too difficult to imagine a day when Australian uranium is shipped to the US, enriched at a GE facility and then shipped back to Australia in the form of fresh fuel [and we don't need power reactors to savor this technological embarrassment, it's quite possible the OPAL reactor fuel could one day take this route. I am fairly certain Argentina gets its enriched fuel from the USA].

I mentioned other agreements. Canada is on the [nuclear] move. Comparisons between Australia and Canada can be quite entertaining. Similar size [33-Million to our 21-Million], loyal servants of Her Majesty, loving and hating America simultaneously, etc. Oh, and I almost forgot - a considerable quantity of the world's Uranium. One notable difference is that Canada not only embraced the nuclear fuel cycle over 5 decades ago, but Canadian engineers designed a unique breed of reactor [the CANDU] that has helped power Canada and more than a few other countries for quite some time now.

This past week the Canadian Province of Ontario announced a bold initiative [find even more here] that appears to be quite serious about mitigating Canada's contribution to climate change - which in case you are wondering is [on a per capita basis] about equal to the US and a little more than 90% of what we spew into the atmosphere here in Australia. Note the plan involves a blended array of strategies, including Nuclear, that will eliminate coal by 2014, not long after Australia plans to have developed our carbon trading strategy [just a bit embarrassing, no?].

And there's more. Canada, with not only a demonstrated research background, but a damn respectable industrial track record to boot, has also been 'invited' to join the GNEP. Here's what The Times Colonist had to say,

The initiative came to light in Canada in May 2006, when Prime Minister John Howard of Australia -- like Canada, a major world supplier of uranium -- visited Ottawa and voiced interest in the U.S. proposal, but also concerns about its possible effect on the mining and export industries.

At the time, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said: "Australia and Canada, as the two major uranium producers in the world, have considerable interest in whatever the United States and the international community have in mind in terms of future uranium development, production and marketing."

He added that he and Howard had "agreed we're going to collaborate very closely together to make sure Australian and Canadian interests are closely protected while the Americans and others discuss the future of that industry."

At least they're being pragmatic about it. No sugar-coating speeches about research. They want to ensure their interests as a supplier of Uranium are protected. And I am confident that Australia's interest in GNEP are the same - as reported in Canada, if not here in Australia. Because, let's face it, mining jobs and healthy exports do pay the mortgage.

As you can probably tell, I have a great deal of respect for the Canadian nuclear programme. They are lean and mean, excellent planners [with the versatile NRU still fully utilised at 50 years old] and even better decision makers. With about 10% of the US population they have managed to essentially equal their technical capability with respect to nuclear power and surpassed them in closely related fields. The USA, for example imports 100% of their Molybdenum-99 [used to make Technetium-99m, the most utilised diagnostic radiopharmaceutical on the planet] and a LOT of that comes from Canada. And before you click that comment link to tell us all about their Maple reactors, take a look around your own glass house.

Canadians also have an interesting approach to increasing enrolment in nuclear engineering programmes.

Energy, Climate, the Environment and the Ballot Box

The idea for this post was kicked off when I read a recent article in Neucleonics Week (subscription required). The article reported on an analysis conducted by Murray Goot, a social scientist at Macquarie University in Sydney, of nuclear related public opinion polls [more than 40 since 2005]. His findings were first released at a seminar on Australia's nuclear energy policy held at Flinders University in Adelaide in June.

After analysing more than 80 questions it should come as no great surprise that the outcome of the polls was dependent on how the questions were framed. Where the questions preceded by information on global warming or the complexities of high level nuclear waste? France's cheap, reliable power or North Korea's recent weapons test? Etc.

While the analysis confirmed a significant concern within Australia about Climate Change [consistently increasing from the 1990s], the overall conclusion is as follows:

Contrary to assertions of some nuclear advocates that Australians are dropping their opposition to nuclear power out of concern for climate change, Goot said, additional opinion research may indicate instead that public opinion on this issue "may not be changing." And despite evidence of widespread concern about climate change, he said, there is no conclusive evidence "that this new and potentially compelling way of framing the [nuclear energy] issue is making it easier for public opinion in favour of nuclear power to be mobilized."

Then later in the week I read about the rift within the Coalition. At least one of the Nationals candidates stated her disagreement with the PM's openness to consider a Nuclear Australia. But such political 'rifts' are not confined to the Coalition. Consider the comments of Labor MP Tom Kenyon. Kenyon more than impiles that provided nuclear power can be demonstrated to be an economical choice, it should at least be considered. Not quite in line with many recent comments from Mr. Rudd.

Now toward the end of the week I'm reading of the PM's support for local plebiscites on nuclear power. While this may be interesting, I'm not sure how relevant it is. And as we see above, it may weigh heavily on framing - with those pulling up short on votes crying foul in the end [if such plebiscites ever happen].

One may think that some will show their true opinions with respect to energy, nuclear power, climate change and the environment during the upcoming election [assuming these issues are enough to sway some voters]. However, if one is 'voting in consideration of the environment', or 'in support of tangible action to mitigate the predicted impact of climate change' to whom should their precious vote be given?

Considerable effort has been devoted to nuclear during this campaign by both Howard and now Rudd. Not long ago, Labor was decrying the Coalition for considering an expensive ad campaign about nuclear, but read this article from the Sydney Morning Herald:

Labor's anti-nuke campaign is simple, based on six words: "Where do the nuclear reactors go?" Its polling has shown the potency of the scare, which it is not letting up on. It is currently running a TV ad in Queensland exploiting local fears: "[Howard] refuses to talk about a list of possible sites for reactors that includes Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Mackay, Townsville, the Sunshine Coast, even Bribie Island."

Labor will continue to go on the front foot by putting the frighteners into everyone. But Sue Page is less concerned than she was, after making what she describes as her "pre-emptive strike".

But, if elected, what is Labor proposing to do about climate change? About Australia's consumption and supply of HUGE amounts of coal - significantly contributing to a global environmental quagmire [and - need I repeat - a genuine concern of a consistent and growing number of Australians]?

The answer is, "Not all that much". The Coalition is accused of proposing nuclear power, and backing that up now with plebiscites - both of which, as the Herald points out - coming to fruition long after Howard is retired. Labor, however, is tossing up some targets and spicing that up with catchy, populist lingo such as 'renewables', 'distributed power systems' and technical irrelevance such as how many years Australia could be powered if we could just capture the sunshine that falls on the country for one day. Let's face it; if Labor had confidence in a credible nuke-free solution 'Rudd et. al' would be promoting it in detail. I suspect if Labor is elected, they will proceed to generate, as their time in office progresses, a list of actions and accomplishments. Each will sound impressive [incentives for solar hot water, the death of the incandescent bulb, etc.] but the overall impact on emissions will be far from anything required to achieve those targets; which could, themselves, get pushed further and further to the horizon as we wait with baited breath for the salvation of 'research'.

If I were in the fossil fuel business, I don't think I could dream of better strategies - from both Labor and the Coalition; who, together, are shifting the debate away from very tough issues related to coal and fossil emissions in general.

Ironically, a lot of the research dollars seem destined for coal - as scientists work to 'green it up'. We should admit that there is considerable capital investment in coal related infrastructure within Australia [and many other countries]. Industries as well as governments can't really be expected to redirect all that capital on the spot. But the experts say tangible progress on emissions reductions is needed - and SOON. To put too much faith in the eventual payoff of some type of clean coal technology [as an ever increasing number of plants burn away] carries with it considerable risk.

With respect to the vote [at least on the subject at hand]. I look for an answer about 'how and when' the emissions would be reduced - energy security not being an issue here as it is in other countries. With nuclear, I can see how it will happen. The technology is proven. Examples exist all around the world. In Europe, for instance, every country meeting their Kyoto targets has adopted nuclear power. ALL countries without nuclear power have FAILED to meet these targets [see also this post from Ruth at We Support Lee].

Without the objective consideration of nuclear, I see only politics and a lot of eventual finger pointing.

On wealth and waste...

As reported by Wendy Frew in the Sydney Morning Herald the largest ecological footprints may be found in the most affluent neighborhoods. This should come as no great surprise to most green-minded folk.

What I like in particular are the comparisons between efforts to save energy at home using rainwater storage tanks, solar hot water, compact florescent lighting, public transport, etc. and the impact of industrial consumption manifested through the goods Australians purchase to maintain our standard of living.

New data shows the electricity and water used to produce everything people buy - from food and clothing to CDs and electrical appliances - far outweighs any efforts to save water and power in the home, according to an extensive analysis by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the [Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis] University of Sydney.

The analysis from the Australian Conservation Foundation may be found here. Among other information, it includes a Consumption Atlas tool and reports:

The Consumption Atlas shows households in areas straddling the harbour in inner Sydney and the banks of the Brisbane River in Queensland are the country’s biggest greenhouse polluters. These areas are closely followed by: inner-suburban Canberra; Woollahra and Mosman in Sydney; Southbank and Docklands in Melbourne; and Fortitude Valley and Newstead in Brisbane. The lowest greenhouse polluting Australian households are in Tasmania – in the Derwent Valley, Kentish and Brighton areas.

This perspective seems to highlight two potential futures for Australia [and most likely beyond]. One in which people cling to their standard of living, fail to make the daily sacrifices and suffer the predicted effects of climate change. Or another in which people adopt broad lifestyle changes (including substantial sacrifices) for the environment and live simpler albeit cooler lives. Furthermore the authors appear to be admitting that the foreseeable deployment of renewables without nuclear will fail to adequately sustain the current Australian standard of living AND achieve aggressive environmental targets.

I have to wonder; if people fail to make those broad sacrifices, would Australians accept Nuclear Power (as some are proposing we do) or steadfastly refuse it in lieu of the projected environmental challenges. Sooner or later - this very well could be the ultimate decision we will all be faced with.

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.

New Market Report on Nuclear's Future

Research & Markets has published (for the bargan price of 882 Euros or about $1,400 AUD) a report on the Nuclear Power Market Potential.

From their summary (and to the copywrite police out there - I doubt these guys will mind the plug): [all emphasis is mine]

This 355-page report on the Nuclear Power Market Potential suggests that nuclear power has the potential to help reduce dependence on fossil fuels and curb CO2 emissions in a cost-effective way, since its uranium fuel is abundant. However governments must take a more active role in facilitating private investment, especially in liberalized electricity markets where the trade-off between security and low price has been a disincentive to investment in new plant and grid infrastructure.

Investment of $20.2 trillion will be required by 2030 under the IEA alternative energy scenario, increasing nuclear capacity by 41% to 519 GWe and reducing energy demand by 10% and CO2 emissions by 16% compared with projections on present basis. Of this amount, $11.3 trillion will go for electricity: $5.2 trillion for generation, and the rest for transmission and distribution.

Today, the world produces as much electricity from nuclear energy as it did from all sources combined in 1960. Civil nuclear power can now boast more than 12,400 reactor years of experience. Nuclear energy supplies 16% of global needs in 30 countries.

Nuclear technology uses energy released by splitting the atoms of certain elements. Its applications range from bomb production to power generation. It was first developed in the 1940s, and during World War II research focused on producing bombs by splitting atoms of uranium or plutonium. In the 1950s attention turned to peaceful applications for nuclear fission, notably power generation.

Nuclear power generation is an established part of the world's electricity mix providing over 16% of the worlds electricity (cf. coal 40%, oil 10%, natural gas 15%, and hydro & other 19%). It is particularly suitable for large-scale, base-load electricity demand.

Although fewer nuclear power plants are being built now than during the 1970s and 1980s, those that are operating produce more electricity. In 2005, production was 2626 billion kWh. The increase over the last five years (218 TWh) is equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear plants. Yet between 1999 and 2005 there was a net increase of only two reactors (and 15 GWe). The rest of the increase is due to better performance from existing units.

With the United Nations predicting the worlds population to increase from 6.4 billion in 2004 to 8.1 billion by 2030, demand for energy will inevitably increase substantially. Both population growth and increasing standards of living for many people in developing countries will create strong growth in energy demand, expected to be 1.6% per year or 53% from 2004 to 2030.

The report addresses major issues affecting the nuclear power industry, including:
- Technologies for New Nuclear Facilities
- Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Nuclear Waste Disposal
- Nuclear Regulation
- Non Proliferation Goals
- Energy Security
- Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
- Nuclear Weapons

Same ol' spiel

While attending a recent social 'function' - one of those painfully dreadful events one must endure, more for professional than personal reasons - I was introduced to, and got to chatting with, a fairly high ranking member of Australia's diplomatic corps. The conversation went almost immediately to the [possible] future of nuclear power in Australia where he stated what I consider to be the 'politically obvious'. I'm not going to quote - but most readers of this blog could guess what my conversational counterpart had to say. 'Depends on the outcome of the election... etc'. As if it were a political issue - only.

But I contend - and for the sake of us all I really hope there are others who agree - that this is also a technical issue [to nuke or not to nuke]; and that in fact the technical aspects of the problem will - in due time - dominate the debate over the political, emotional and/or 'fundamental'. For the technophiles out there, see my previous entry on the numbers.


I also had to endure the painful explanation of Australia's minuscule contribution to emissions [1.5% of the global total??] while our per-capita emissions are so obscenely high. To me the nation-to-nation comparisons are so ridiculously irrelevant it is almost pathetic. This is not a sustainable argument. Why not simply extend this logic further? For example, as an individual Australian I am responsible for about 1 20-millionth of 1.5% of global emissions [that's 0.000000075%] . What I do will obviously have no noticeable impact on global climate regardless of which 'scenario' you consider. Why then should I do anything? Ditto for individual industrial facilities, or industries in general. [Never mind this is about 10 times what the average Chinaman emits...] Do you understand how ridiculous this is????

This 'logic' is moving people away from the very perspective necessary for serious reductions in emissions - that being that we must all work to achieve whatever reductions are within our reasonable abilities.


Will we marginalise ourselves to oblivion?

Addressing the more serious critics

Steve Kidd

photo courtesy Nuclear Engineering International

Steve Kidd recently prepared a comment piece for Nuclear Engineering International that acknowledges the long time, emotive opposition to nuclear by the more high profile environmental groups, but then quickly moves on to discuss more serious opposition to nuclear by critics that have - until recently - remained mostly dormant, happy to let the more vocal environmental groups do the job.

But with the resurgence of nuclear power due to the serious environmental challenges associated with fossil fuels as well as energy security issues around the world; these opponents are reemerging. In his piece Steve does well to describe these critics and more importantly the issues at hand. He looks to historical evidence from both the nuclear as well as other industries to demonstrate that the nuclear renaissance is indeed a credible source of reliable energy for the foreseeable future.

Much of the debate about nuclear at this more sophisticated level comes down to values and interpretations rather than facts. Even when it is possible to agree on the facts, different people have alternative perceptions of risk and this lies at the heart of everything to do with nuclear. It is a complex technology and brings forward a wide range of issues which act like a thick fog in people’s minds. Yet the financier of a new plant is in much the same position as someone who lives just down the road from a proposed site for a new reactor or a voter much further away who is presented with nuclear as a serious energy option. The financier has a long list of risks, which must be competently allocated amongst the stakeholders in the plant to give him sufficient comfort to proceed, and without imposing a damaging risk premium on his money. Some are the responsibility of national governments, some will be taken up by the plant vendor and contractors, while others will lodge with the power company itself. The local resident faces different risks, but needs satisfaction on safety, radiation emissions, plant security and eventual decommissioning of the site. The national voter, however, is maybe more concerned by possible proliferation, terrorism and waste management issues. There are clearly different issues for different groups, but each requires a great deal of industry attention to give them comfort. There is little alternative to increasing knowledge and understanding of the complexities of nuclear, in the hope that the essential audiences will be patient listeners and not feel overwhelmed. It is clear from everyday life that attitudes to risk vary considerably, so even the best industry explanations are unlikely to satisfy everyone.

More comments from Steve Kidd