Neither entertaining, nor helpful

Typical.

Subsidies for nuclear are bad, but support for renewable energy generation technologies is fine; even if instances of certain renewable technology deployment result in less generation, less reliability, more lifecycle carbon emissions and greater cost per megawatt of GENERATION than nuclear. Is that the point being made here?

Funding? Nonsense! In Germany, nuclear plant operators will enjoy a completely bogus ‘tax’ as a price for their newly approved life extensions (reversal of phase-out policy). Why don’t they just shutdown??? Can’t be that they have a winning economic model that can endure such malarkey and still turn a carbon-free profit…

Oyster Creek?? Spend a few years living in the area and you will discover the local communities fear few things more than the plant’s closure; the loss of many local jobs; the shuttering of many spin-off business that support the plant; and not least of all, the tax revenue supporting local public services. A heavily outnumbered minority of outspoken opponents do not represent the views of the community and it is a farce to represent them as such.

…and that’s just the first paragraph. I can’t bear to continue.

I keep reading Greenpeace articles, looking forward to the day they stop pandering to their quasi-fundamentalist base and produce a contribution to energy/climate issues worthy of serious consideration.

in reference to: Nuclear News: Nuclear Energy Suffers Another Big Blow Greenpeace International (view on Google Sidewiki)

Renewables AND Nuclear

At its beginning, I found this report frustrating. “Yet another example of a renewables VS. nuclear report,” I thought. But that’s not quite the impression I had at the article’s conclusion. Yes, the two are compared in a tit-for-tat way throughout the past few decades; and yes, there is no mention that most of the ‘renewable’ generation comes from hydro.

However, carbon emissions – and in particular coal – are justifiably portrayed as the bad guys and the report focuses on electricity generated as opposed to the very misleading metric: installed capacity.

The report also mentions the expansion of non-carbon generation in US States with ‘…favorable policies such as renewable energy portfolio standards.’ This highlights the need for responsible and pragmatic policy action and supports the notion that policy action resulting in a price on carbon emissions will accelerate the transition of generation away from carbon intense technologies.

There is no reason to suspect the same is untrue for Australia. And there is certainly no reason to exacerbate a nuclear vs. renewables debate. Considering the amount of carbon-based generation that is to be replaced, as well as the time within which this transition must occur; renewables AND nuclear must both expand considerably.

A price on carbon is the prerequisite mechanism to achieve any credible target.

in reference to: Renewables Share of Energy Rises, Almost Catching up with Nuclear Power (Energy Priorities) (view on Google Sidewiki)

Diesendorf's Dichotomy

Diesendorf claims that, “talk about the benefits and cost effectiveness of future generation nuclear reactors is still just talk” should be considered when this paper so willingly prints his unfounded praise of renewable power as near-gospel.

Over 30 countries worldwide rely on over 440 operating reactors, while 65 reactors are being built in 15 countries in North and South America, Europe and Asia.

Nuclear energy has provided these countries with affordable energy without the carbon emissions currently challenging Australia’s embarrassingly high per-capita emission record.

Germany tried hard – arguably the best effort worldwide – to rid their economy of carbon emitting energy generation technologies with renewables (while at the same time initiating a phase-out of their nuclear energy stations). With their demonstrated technical ability – they failed. The nuclear phase-out legislation was recently reversed.

Ditto for Denmark and their allegiance to wind. An objective investigation of the facts will show that – on an annual basis – the Danes still rely heavily on fossil fuel compared to their nuclear neighbors in Europe.

Shame on this paper for permitting such unchecked liberty on just one side of the story.

SOURCES:
http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/
https://www.entsoe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/_library/publications/ce/Statistical_Yearbook_2008.pdf

in reference to:

"...while talk about the benefits and cost effectiveness of future generation nuclear reactors is still just talk"
- Nuclear Debate on the Agenda for 2011 Australia Epoch Times (view on Google Sidewiki)

Regional Update: Korea to displace coal with nuclear and renewables

SEOUL, Tuesday 7 December 2010 (AFP) - South Korea said Tuesday it plans to build 14 new nuclear reactors by 2024 to help meet growing energy needs and cut dependence on fossil fuel.

South Korea, which currently has 20 operational nuclear reactors, will build 14 new facilities to make atomic power the biggest source of energy by 2024, state-run Korea Power Exchange said.

As a result, nuclear energy will provide 48.5% of the nation's energy consumption by the target year from the current 32%, KPE said in a long-term national energy development plan.

Coal is currently the biggest source of energy in South Korea that meets 42% of the nation's energy needs.

Renewable energy sources like solar and wind power will also provide 8.9% of the nation's energy needs by 2024 compared with the current 1.3%, it said.

Asia's fourth-largest economy imports 97% of its energy needs from overseas and has moved to cut dependence on fossil fuels and to diversify energy sources.

In October Seoul unveiled a five-year plan to spend 36 billion dollars developing renewable energy as its next economic growth engine, with a goal to become one of the world's five top players in the sector.

source: Mysinchew.com http://www.mysinchew.com/node/49145

Regional Update - Vietnam

The December 2010 issue of Nuclear Engineering International [NEI] includes a brief update on nuclear energy infrastructure developments in Vietnam. In May and June 2008, I blogged about Vietnam's nuclear ambitions and legislative activities [an early prerequisite to the introduction of nuclear energy within any country]. These posts included some early timeline forecasts and capacity projects for the related projects. Well, what's happened in the past two and one-half years?

Quite a bit.

According to NEI, Vietnam has penned agreements with Atomstroyexport of Russia and a Japanese consortium. Atomstroyexport has been awarded a four-unit, 4,000 MWe site - Ninh Thuan 1. Reactors there are planned to commence operation in 2020, 2021, 2023, and 2024. The Japan won Ninh Thuan 2, similarly four units totalling 4,000 MWe to commence operation in 2021, 2022, 2024 and 2025.

Also reported by NEI is the use of the Vietnam project as a test case within a feasibility study of a new Vietnam-Japan, bi-lateral carbon credit system for nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy projects are not currently recognised for inclusion within the Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism.

Labor to debate nuclear? I smell a rat.

Recent news stories have been highlighting some calls from within Labor to debate Australia's potential adoption of nuclear energy.

While this may appear to be delightful news to those who are keen for a nuclear debate. I am reluctant to let my hopes soar.

Nuclear energy lends itself to be a very effective tool of the coal industry when it comes to defending itself from climate change related threats. A price on carbon will - by design - threaten the use of fossil fuels in Australia. Since Australians fear nuclear power even more then escalating electricity prices (something the coal industry would not mind by the way), it's introduction into the national narrative just after government begins making noise about a price on carbon is, to me, too coincidental to be overlooked.

It is too easy for the coal industry and/or the politicians who represent them to stoke national nuclear fears by linking a price on carbon to the deployment of nuclear energy stations 'in your backyard'. But in the end, if there is no price on carbon, all no/low carbon energy sources will continue to suffer deployment delays or significant limitations compared with action required to achieve the emissions reductions deemed necessary by global experts.

Then there's potential political benefits, such as getting the Greens to snuggle up to those in Labor who are 'not quite convinced' of the benefits of nuclear energy.

Whether Labor discusses nuclear energy or not is unimportant. It's being discussed already, albeit not openly. What is critical for Australia's future; including our economic as well as environmental security, is a price on carbon to shift energy production away from the use of carbon emitting energy sources.

Australia's penultimate carbon emissions

It's been over three years and two elections since John Howard pushed for a Nuclear Australia. Since then, we've listened to myriad high profile Australians tell us 'other means' exist to reduce our emissions that are, among other things, every bit as effective and faster than nuclear energy.

A Maplecroft report just released pegs Australia's CO2 emissions due to energy use as an 'Extreme Risk', in the next-to-worst position behind only the UAE. The UAE's recent emission spike due to desalination put them on top; foreshadowing a dire, negative feedback link between climate change and energy demand. Australia's growing reliance on desalination could similarly result in emissions increases from increasing demand.

The UAE is in the process of constructing its first four nuclear energy stations.

Australia, last year’s worst performing nation, remains ahead of USA on per capita emissions with 20.82 tCO2 per person against 19.18 tCO2 per person for the USA. A vast majority of Australia’s electricity is sourced from coal (44.5%), which is a key factor in Australia’s per capita emissions and the carbon intensity of energy in the country, which is 20% higher than the global average. USA (3) and Canada (4) both achieved decreases in emissions per capita of 3.13% and 8.92% respectively, as well as reductions of 1.2% and 7.12% in their annual emissions from energy use. However, both countries remain extreme risk in the index.

Consider nuclear energy.

Green Opposition To Nuclear Has Led To More CO2, Say Environmentalists

4 Nov (NucNet): Green opposition to nuclear energy has led to one billion extra tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) being pumped into the atmosphere, according to environmentalists who have changed their minds over nuclear power.

In a documentary being broadcast on UK television network Channel 4 tonight, a number of high-profile activists have spoken out in favour of nuclear energy.

Like other green campaigners including James Lovelock, author of ‘The Gaia Theory’, Mark Lynas said the necessity for a constant supply of clean energy has led him to “come out” as a supporter of nuclear technology.

He said in the past the conservationist movement “blindly opposed” nuclear because of the link to nuclear weapons, meaning that the world has continued to rely on dirty fossil fuels.

“Green anti-nuclear campaigning has already added to the atmospheric stock of carbon dioxide, probably to the tune of more than a billion tonnes,” he said. “Why? Because nuclear plants, which were opposed by greens in the 1970s and 1980s, were replaced by coal plants.

“In hindsight that was obviously a mistake, but it is one that today’s environmental lobby groups seem determined to repeat.”

Mr Lynas said: “The documentary follows me as I visit Chernobyl, site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster, and discover that wildlife in the area is thriving, and that the effects of the radioactive contamination on people are much less serious than previously thought.

“That is what the science says, yet many green groups continue to spread myths about tens of thousands of people dying because of Chernobyl when the actual death toll so far – according to a major UN report published in 2006 – has likely been only around 65.

”He added: “My view, as one of the contributors to the film, is simple: the greens can dish it out, but they can’t take it. This is a real debate and the environment movement needs to tackle it head-on rather than asserting that all challenges must be part of some imagined evil conspiracy.”

According to Channel 4, the main protagonists argue in the film that the advantages to nuclear energy of it being a low-carbon or zero-carbon technology now outweigh the disadvantages, that the risk from nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl have been overstated and that greens should accept nuclear power as part of the UK’s energy mix.

Mark Lynas’ blog is at http://www.marklynas.org/

Source: NucNet

I believe the episode will be viewable on the web after it broadcasts via the below linked page.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/what-the-green-movement-got-wrong/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

Comparing emissions performance

I found a detailed statistical report [data up through 2007] that some may find interesting.

Without going too deep into statistics [a topic I enjoy, but understand if others do not]; lets just compare Australia to the USA with respect to emission performance. The report contains data going back to the 1970's; but is framed to compare data from 1990 through 2007 as a measurement against the Kyoto Protocol.

So, where to start? "How can a nation of just over 20 million be compared to another with a population 15 times greater?" One way is to level the data. Comparing emissions per unit GDP [per $ made in our economy], per unit of energy supplied, or per capita [per person] are fair means to level the pitch.

So, just looking at total emissions; how did both nations perform?

In 2007, the USA released 5,769 million tonnes of CO2 to Australia's 396 million tonnes. This doesn't sound too bad for Australia, right? But compared to 1990 data, the USA's emissions increased 18.6% while Australia's leapt by 52.5%; not so respectable.

"But, Australia's economy was booming then, population was growing and, while we were building coal and gas stations during that time, the energy industry told us they were super efficient, designed to reduce emissions, right?" Let's see.

The USA's total primary energy supply in 2007 was 97,969 petajoules, up 22% from 1990. Data for Australia is 5,194 petajoules, up 43.9% from 1990. "So what? Australia's energy demand grew faster, but this was necessary to keep pace with the economy, etc." We must compare emissions per unit of energy supplied to determine if this growth was managed responsibly.

So, the USA cranked out 59 tonnes CO2 per each terajoule of energy supplied in 2007. Australia produced 76 tonnes CO2 per terajoule; not good at all. Looking at performance since 1990, Australia's emissions per unit energy supplied grew by 6%,. The USA beat us here as well, cutting their emissions per unit energy supplied by 3%. This means the USA is installing new capacity that generates less emissions to make the same amount of energy, while Australia headed in the opposite direction, actually getting worse. In my opinion, Australia fails the responsibility test.

"Okay, we've lost the efficiency battle, but what about the growth of our economy?"

The USA's 2007 gross domestic product [GDP] was $11,468 billion while Australia's was $667 billion [US dollars equivalent to the value in 2000 - for data of both countries]. Growth from 1990 was 63% for the USA and 81% for Australia. Looking at emissions per unit GDP is a measure of enviro-economic efficiency, i.e. "Can we make money without generating emissions?" The good news is that both nations improved in this area, the bad news is the USA's emissions per unit GDP fell by 27% while Australia's came down only 16%. Bested again.

The final metric for this post is a simple, man-to-man, toe-to-toe size up. Divided into equal shares for each man, woman and child; what is your share of emissions? Sitting in the USA, you were responsible for 19.1 tonnes of CO2 in 2007 [a large number] - down 1.8% from 1990 [but headed in the right direction at least]. Watching the footy in Australia, you cranked out 18.8 tonnes in 2007, up a whopping 23.9% from 1990. Shameful.

I could have cherry-picked a comparison between heavily nuclear France or Sweden. Had I done so, the results would have been even more embarrassing.

Complete details may be found in the OECD/IEA report - CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion.

Political Party - Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy Australia

Reportage has posted a very balanced report on a non-aligned, pro-environment, pro-nuclear and pro-renewables Australian political party. Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy - Australia is linked to the international environmental organisation - Environmentalists for Nuclear (or EFN-International).

Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy - Australia

If you have your doubts about Australia's current tack with respect to emissions, you may wish to have a read of the Reportage page and then the EFNE-Australia web page.

Any real chance to significantly deploy (or accelerate the deployment of) no / low carbon emission technologies in Australia will be driven by a continuing shift of public attitudes to the point where they impact the actions of policy makers. Based in the information linked above, EFNE-Australia seems committed to taking tangible, pragmatic action to achieve that end.

If not us, who? If not now, when?