FutureGen - the fizzle heard round the world

After Washington Pulls Plug on FutureGen, Clean Coal Hopes Flicker.

Full story from The Wall Street Journal

The crippling blow dealt this week to FutureGen, the U.S. government's marquee effort to develop a "clean coal" power plant, will make it harder for the utility sector to slash carbon-dioxide emissions and keep coal in the mix over time as a cheap electricity source. It could also help push the nation toward greater reliance on nuclear power.

On Wednesday, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the Bush administration was yanking its support for the project, whose price tag had ballooned to $1.8 billion, nearly double original estimates. Energy Department officials said it was time to confront the cost issue, before equipment was ordered. Clay Sell, deputy energy secretary, said the easier, less-responsible path would have been to pretend everything was fine "and then when the thing went south, I could have blamed the next administration for failing to bring this good idea to fruition."

FutureGen may not be dead; at best it has been significantly delayed. If this ups the pressure for nuclear power in the United States, Australia - being even more dependant on coal as an energy source - will naturally endure the same as will other big coal burners such as India, China and the energy beleaguered South Africa to name a few.

It's either nuclear, economic ruin, or continued emissions increases [in a somewhat dire context for emissions reductions according to many experts]. I never thought of FutureGen, clean coal, etc. as a competitor to a nuclear Australia, but merely one of many technologies that might be deployed [once the technology was actually developed] in parallel to achieve the aggressive emission reduction goals being pushed by different scientific bodies.

We are constantly told that we must achieve emissions reduction goals that are becoming more aggressive with each passing year [Is it 80% of 1990 levels now?], while our tangible progress grinds to a continuously slowing dribble. What tangible emission reduction action there has been - particularly here in Australia - is great, but mostly symbolic. We need MUCH more, on a scale that will matter.

Garnaut is predicted to weigh in on the side of clean-coal and longer reduction goals. At the same time, promises of clean-coal are accepted as justification for new power stations around the country. We have a lot riding on the 'hope' of this technology in the midst of a no-confidence vote from the US Department of Energy.

And nuclear power is the white elephant in the room?

More information

FutureGen Alliance

FutureGen US DOE

Speaking out for nuclear

A few words from recent news articles.

April-4 Herald-Sun

"I am not talking about next year or in five years but long-term energy policy. We have got to think about all these sources of energy and that includes coal and that must include nuclear,'' he [recently-appointed chairman of Qantas, Leigh Clifford] said.

And in an April-3 issue of the Daily Telegraph (no link) Malcolm Farr penned a report titled, 'Please ignore the nuclear elephant in the room'.

OUR two major political parties are in coy agreement over the benefits of nuclear energy. At the same time, however, they both refuse to say it would help Australia.

They recommend that other countries use uranium, preferably the stuff we produce, to fuel power stations which otherwise would be pumping out harmful carbon emissions from incinerated fossils. But, for purely political reasons, they won't say the same for their own country.

This two-faced approach to nuclear energy is one of the starkest instances of policy hypocrisy we have seen.

The logical conflict is increasingly uncomfortable for some senior figures in Labor and the Liberal Party as they contort themselves to avoid saying what they really believe. The strain is starting to tell. Bouts of nuclear frankness may be ahead.

"Around the world nuclear power today reduces global emissions by more than 2 billion tonnes a year.''

Love that metaphor!

And from The Age on April 2 - Labor resurrects Howard's uranium plan

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, an enthusiastic industry advocate, has reconvened the Uranium Industry Framework, a hand-picked advisory group appointed by the previous government.

But Mr Ferguson says the Government will not pursue an idea the previous government flirted with — over-riding state bans in Western Australia and Queensland that prevent new uranium mines or other nuclear activities.

Mr Ferguson says Canberra will not override those states, but says it is only a matter of time before mining developments occur in those states, which have large uranium deposits.

He predicts substantial growth in nuclear power outside Australia.

"Some countries see nuclear as part of their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Mr Ferguson said.

"Uranium mining has got a bright future and it's going to lead to increased export earnings for Australia and jobs."

If there is a future for nuclear power in Australia, I can't see it coming to fruition without strong bi-partisan support from the beginning. But this is not unique to nuclear power. Serious carbon emissions reductions will require the same collaboration. If one party attempts to milk political capital from rising energy prices, increasing blackout frequencies or perceived threats to the coal industry - that effort will be seriously challenged.

Being the 'lucky country' won't save us from climate change

The Rudd Government must resist pressure to delay action on emissions.

Nice report from Kenneth Davidson in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Based on the most recent science, this [feasible time scale for clean coal] is too late. A report by the Australian Climate Group released this week, which was sponsored by the Insurance Australia Group, concluded immediate government action is needed. The situation is so grim that the Rudd Government should adopt measures to "stabilise national emissions by 2010".

The actuary of the group, Tony Coleman, is quoted as saying: "Insurers are familiar with managing risks to our community that are often quite uncertain and sometimes potentially catastrophic. Yet Australia is tolerating a level of climate change risk that would be unthinkable if the nation was held to the same standards that we apply to safeguard the survival of the insurers, banks and superannuation funds that we all depend upon in our daily lives. These levels of risk — 0.5% p.a. or less — are completely dwarfed by the risk levels to our way of life that are now reliably attributable to potentially catastrophic climate change impacts, unless we act with urgency to rapidly reduce greenhouse emissions."

Australia must face up to phasing out coal-fired generators. Geosequestration will be too late, [15 to 20 years reported] even if it can be done. Two proposed plants in North America have been scrapped before construction started, which suggests it can't.

Risk is something the nuclear industry knows a lot about. It's in the safety submissions, licensing documents, design documents, factored into transient analysis and cross-cut in more ways than I care to get into. In the late 1990's for example, the American nuclear industry and regulator implemented 'The Maintenance Rule'; a risk-informed approach to maintenance that did not treat all maintenance issues equally - but rather assessed them according to their impact on overall facility risk. This is just one example.

One other note on risk; the level of risk quoted above 0.5% per year [or 5 failures, losses, claims, etc. in every one-thousand years] would be totally unacceptable for a nuclear safety system. From my own experience, acceptable risk levels [core damage frequency] were on the order of 10^-6 per year [or one in a million years]. If 0.5% per year is "dwarfed" by climate change related risks, the math regarding nuclear - at around 0.0005% per year - is not too difficult.

As I've said before, once these issues [climate change, energy security, sustainability, etc.] get the serious attention of insurance companies and their actuaries, another advantage of nuclear energy will be put into perspective - risk awareness, assessment and management.

Look at the recent news; 'reliable baseload must be assured', 'price escalation foreseen', 'emissions must be cut', but how, how to get there? They are dancing all around it.

White elephant indeed.

"Nothing is more terrible than active ignorance."
- Goethe

Expanding support for a Nuclear Australia

Industry
Last week the Sydney Morning Herald reported a call for a "rational and sensible debate" on "the energy option that dares not speak its name: nuclear". This call came from Western Australia's principal business lobby group, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Politics
Not to be outdone by calls for the rational consideration of nuclear power from Australia's political left [Hawke, Howes and Carr], Ian Macfarlane joined Julie Bishop this week calling for the sane consideration of nuclear power in Australia - quoting the comments of Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

"I have never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions that did not include nuclear energy."

Energy
Bloomberg is reporting that Macarthur Coal Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Nicole Hollows told the Australian Financial Review Australia would use nuclear power within the next 10 years.

Nuclear power will be 'inevitable'' in the next decade because solar and wind power wouldn't be able to replace coal-fired power, the Review said, citing Hollows. She said it was the 'elephant in the room' in the current debate on emissions trading and reducing carbon pollution, the newspaper reported.