ANSTO CEO Announcement

Dr. Adrian (Adi) Paterson

ANSTO Press Release

Dr Ziggy Switkowski, Chairman of the Board, today announced the appointment of Dr Adrian (Adi) Paterson as the next ANSTO Chief Executive. He will commence at ANSTO on March 1, 2009.

Dr Paterson is currently general manager, Business Development and Operations, at the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Company in South Africa. He has a BSc in Chemistry and a PhD in Engineering from the University of Cape Town.

Dr Paterson brings strong scientific credentials, especially in the field of materials science, wide experience in working with government and contributing to national policy development, attractive partnering and commercialisation skills, and a successful history of technical leadership and organisational change.

Dr Paterson has developed the processes underpinning the building of successful relationships between universities, national research institutes and government. He is a past Chair of the South Africa Innovation Fund and a member of the National Advisory Council on Innovation.

Since 2006, his responsibilities at the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Company focused upon the development of a passively safe, high temperature gas reactor for process heat and international commercialisation.

From 2001 to 2006, Dr Paterson worked at the Department of Science and Technology in various science policy roles including the development of national innovation instruments and Research and Development strategy.

From 1984 to 2001, Dr Paterson worked at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (South Africa’s equivalent to CSIRO), rising through a number of assignments to the position of Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer.

“The Board is looking to Dr Paterson to lead ANSTO to the next level in its continuous improvement journey when the benefits of nuclear science and technology are enjoying increased recognition. His technical and organisational leadership will enable ANSTO to develop stronger partnerships with industry research establishments and nuclear medicine centres capitalising on Australia’s new research reactor, excellence in accelerator-based sciences and its radiopharmaceuticals manufacturing capability.” Dr Switkowski said today.

Dr Paterson is 52 and married with two sons who are presently studying at university. He will relocate with his wife to Sydney.

Dr Switkowski also thanked ANSTO’s acting Chief Executive Dr Ron Cameron who has filled the role since May 2008. “Dr Ron Cameron has professionally managed ANSTO’s activities through a period of organisational restructure combined with budget and operational challenges. ANSTO has been well served by Dr Cameron stepping into this role.”

Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, has welcomed Dr Paterson's appointment.

Senator Carr said Dr Paterson's strong public science and senior management background, combined with his experience in commercialisation of scientific research, will be of tremendous value to ANSTO.

“The ANSTO CEO position is among the most important in the national science administration framework. The CEO is responsible for the overall conduct of ANSTO's activities. Dr Paterson was selected from a very strong field of candidates," Senator Carr said.

“I am very grateful for Dr Cameron's leadership of ANSTO since the departure of ANSTO's former CEO, Dr Ian Smith, and I congratulate Dr Paterson on his appointment. This is an exciting time to become involved in the management of ANSTO, Australia’s only research organisation devoted solely to nuclear science and technology," Senator Carr said.

Dr. Paterson's Bio from the South African National Advisory Council on Innovation [link to NACI]

Dr Adi Paterson is the General Manager: Business Development and Operations at the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Company. The PBMR is the South African Generation IV high temperature gas reactor programme. Adi joined the CSIR in 1984 and undertook and led research on ceramic materials securing two US Patents. He was Division Director of the Division of Materials Science and Technology at the CSIR from 1990 – 1994. Appointed to the CSIR Executive in 1995: with roles in HR, science and technology policy, strategic funding of research and innovation, CIO, organizational development and intellectual capital. Served on the CSIR and University of Pretoria Executive 2000–2001 (joint appointment). In the domain of public policy he was a co-author of the South African Green Paper on Science and Technology prior to his secondment to the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology as Head of the Science and Technology Branch in 2001. He co-authored National R&D Strategy and appointed COO when the Department of Science and Technology was formed in 2002. He joined PBMR in 2006. Currently he is a Member of South African Qualifications Authority, Member of the National Advisory Council on Innovation, Member of the Licensing Executives Society of South Africa, and Institute of Directors. He is a Board Member of the Sugar Milling Research Institute, a Member of the Academy of Science of South Africa and the South African Academy of Engineering. Previously he was a Member of the National Research and Technology Foresight Board, President of AS&TS (2000), Chair of the South African Excellence Foundation (1998), Chair of the Innovation Fund Trust, and the UNESCO Chief International Expert for the Science Reform in Nigeria. He was a Board Member of PBMR and the Cradle of Humankind Trust. He has a B.Sc. in Chemistry and a PhD in Engineering from the University of Cape Town.

OPAL's minor flaw

OPAL Reactor

A recent article quoted Greens Senator Scott Ludlum as calling for the 20 MW OPAL research reactor to be shutdown until the reflector leakage can be repaired.

Ludlum has called ANSTO's comments on the technical nature of the leak, "spin" and links today's technical concerns to potential safety concerns in the future.

The facts are that the OPAL core sits in the centre of the reflector vessel - but not within it. The fuel is not cooled by the reflector's heavy water, but instead by the significantly more massive quantity of regular [light] water sitting in the reactor pool. In the photo above the reflector is the circular tank in the centre [in a way resembling a large wheel of Swiss cheese]. The box in the centre of the reflector is the array of 16 fuel assemblies. The axial penetrations in the reflector [large and small holes that pass through the entire height in the vertical direction] support the generation of products such as neutron doped silicon or medical and industrial isotopes as well as the completion of irradiation experiments. Neutron beams [or rather their massive shutters] can be seen exiting the pool at the periphery of the reflector.

Power reactors are economic/business machines that receive compensation directly proportional to the electrons their turbines pump out onto the grid. Unlike a power reactor, a research reactor's lifeblood is neutron production. Heat in most cases is typically an unused byproduct [occasionally it is used for district heating]. The purpose of the reflector is to improve neutron economy.

As neutrons burst onto the scene from a 'split' U-235 atom [average is about 2.5 neutrons per thermal fission], they typically have too much energy to be useful. They must be 'slowed' or moderated. Think of a billiard ball flying down the table. Unless you're very brave, you would not try to catch it unless it was travelling relatively slow. It's similar with neutrons. They must be slowed so target material [U-235 atoms, silicon, neutron beam lines, etc.] can better use them. Also, if the neutrons are slowed within a minimum distance from the core there are increased odds that this neutron will travel back into the core to be used for the fission of fuel [i.e. they are reflected].

Heavy material [such as lead, steel or concrete] is used to shield radiation . But other materials such as graphite and water are much better neutron moderators. Heavy water is a better moderator than light water. With one more neutron in its neucleus the heavy water deuterium atom absorbes slightly more energy than a normal hydrogen atom per collission. [From above analogy, imagine slowing down our billiard ball with impacts from ping-pong balls or slightly heavier golf balls]. So to maximise the neutron economy in OPAL [provide the most usable neutrons per fission], heavy water is used to moderate the neutrons in the reflector. However, heavy water is very expensive.

The reflector is kept at a lower pressure than the reactor pool. Any leakage path will allow light water into the reflector. When this happens to a significant extent, some fraction of available neutrons will not be slowed enough to be used in the target material. Neutron efficiency will have decreased. As a research or isotope production machine - OPAL will become slightly less effective.

Therefore leakage into the reflector vessel has no safety consequence. There appears to be no grounds for Ludlum's "spin" accusation.

I believe OPAL staff are planning to construct a heavy water purification system to process a slip stream of the reflector circulation loop. This slip stream will then be purified to remove light water [this is possible, for example, because heavy water has a boiling point slightly above light water: 101.4 C].

The ANSTO response to Ludlum's claim may be found here.

Australian Nuclear Association - Expanding to Queensland

The Australian Nuclear Association has announced the formation of Australian Nuclear Association Queensland Inc due to the initiative of a group of persons in Queensland interested in promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology in that state.

Dr Ziggy Switkowski, chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) will address the official launch of ANA Queensland on August 21 in Brisbane. Dr Switkowski's topic: Is the climate right for nuclear power?

With Australians' demand for electricity, and energy in general, expected to double by 2050, Dr Switkowski says he believes the safest, cleanest and lowest cost form of electricity in a carbon-constrained world will be nuclear power.

The ANA is urging supporters of nuclear science and technology in other states to form similar branch organisations.

For further information on the activities of the group please contact the organisation via Email at info@anaq.org.au.

Reactor tours - Get yourself informed

The winter school holidays are nearly upon us. If you live anywhere near Sydney and petrol prices have put the kibosh on your annual trip up to the Gold Coast; why not take the kids on a tour of Australia's only operational nuclear reactor?

It's informative.

It showcases Australian science and innovation.

It's free.

For detailed information including how to book a tour, different tour options and relevant security requirements; please refer to this link.

ANSTO Chief Executive to leave the organisation

Dr. Ian Smith - ANSTO

In a statement released today by ANSTO, Dr. Ian Smith announced that he has not accepted an extension to his four year contract and will instead return to New Zealand to pursue a non-executive career.

Dr. Ron Cameron, currently Chief of Operations, has been appointed interim Chief Executive Officer while the board conducts a worldwide search for Dr. Smith's replacement. That process is expected to take some months to complete.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPAL submission approved by ARPANSA

Australia's OPAL reactor

After a reactor shutdown of just over 9 months, ARPANSA, the nuclear regulatory body within Australia, has issued a press release announcing the approval of the submissions package provided by ANSTO the operator of the recently constructed and commissioned OPAL research reactor near Sydney.

The approval is only for fuel supplied by the French fuel supplier CERCA - a subsidiary of the nuclear behemoth AREVA.

ANSTO staff will be required to perform additional tests and inspections on the fuel. They have six months to develop a program of work to characterise more fully the vibrational and other forces acting on the fuel plates and other structures in the core. This program is to be submitted to the regulatory body for approval.

ANSTO shall complete a detailed design review of the fuel within two years.

ANSTO has to amend the fuel specification to include a test of 1 in 20 fuel assemblies for longitudinal strength.

Additional information

The ARPANSA press release is here.

A significantly more detailed ARPANSA document - their official reply to ANSTO may be found here.

Govt expects nuclear reactor to restart this month

Federal Science Minister Kim Carr has told the operator of Australia's only nuclear reactor he expects them to meet a timetable for restarting it.

Full report from ABC.

Mr Carr has made it clear he expects ANSTO to fulfil the plan to restart the reactor this month.

The report goes on to say ARPANSA (Australia's nuclear regulatory body) is in the process of reviewing OPAL's safety submission for the redesigned fuel. ARPANSA did not provide any indication of an expected completion date for their review.

ANSTO's OPAL reactor - up in January

After a 6 month shutdown to diagnose and correct fuel design issues, OPAL is expected to be operational again in January according to this Sydney Morning Herald report.

The article speaks of losses due to radiopharmaceutical production. It should be noted that these losses are due principally to Mo-99 production, the very same isotope responsible for the recent issues between the government of Canada, the Canadian regulator and AECL.


In the report, ANSTO predicts it will take another 3 months before radiopharmaceutical production will begin. Recall it took AECL about a week to resume production following their restart. ANSTO must still fully commission and receive proper regulatory approvals for their new radiopharmaceutical plant [also CNEA technology purchased through INVAP] - hence the additional time.

GNEP and the Vienna gathering

The originally proposed GNEP Fuel Cycle

By now, most interested parties should be well aware of the GNEP meeting that took place in Vienna last month and the 11 nations [including Australia] who subsequently came onboard with the previous 'big-5' [France, Japan, Russia, China and the United States]. See the signed Statement of Principals document here.

in the 20-September issue of Nucleonics Week [subscription required] Ann MacLachlan and Mark Hibbs provide an interesting overview of the programme's status from a more global perspective than I've seen since the Vienna meeting. One sentence in particular caught my eye:

Faced with broad resistance to that stance last year, the US stepped back from seeking commitments from non-fuel cycle countries never to develop enrichment and reprocessing.

The entire article is worth a read.

It seems that now, the emphasis is on a more consensus based approach to hammering out a nuclear future - 'together'. The article quotes several ranking officials in the US and elsewhere saying the programme is only roughly defined on purpose so that members are not constrained into a predefined path which may conflict with national interest, it's one of several programmes, etc. - fair enough. Additionally, membership is voluntary and - as political endeavours tend to be these days - totally non-binding.

Also interesting to me is the list of old and new members - or even more interesting, who's not yet in the club. The 'big-5' are arguably the world's nuclear heavyweights. Of the new members:

Australia - No power reactors, and in need of considerable infrastructure upgrades to begin to consider any. We host 1 operational research reactor [OPAL 20MW], two shutdown research reactors [HIFAR 10MW and MOATA 100 KW] and one shutdown critical facility [0 power]. We are a nuclear power featherweight, but 40% of the worlds currently identified uranium reserves us a seat at the adults' table [for example on the IAEA board of governors].

Bulgaria - With 2 operational power reactors, 2 under construction [however construction began in 1987] and 4 shutdown power reactors and 1 shutdown research reactor; let's call Bulgaria a nuclear lightweight.

Ghana - 1 operational research reactor - featherweight

Hungary - 4 operational power reactors, 2 operational research reactors and 1 decommissioned research reactor - lightweight

Jordan - no reactors of any kind - flyweight

Kazakhstan - 1 power reactor permanently shutdown in 1973, 3 operational research reactors - featherweight

Lithuania - 1 operational and 1 shutdown power reactors, no research reactors - lightweight

Poland - no power reactors, 1 operating and 4 shutdown research reactors - featherweight

Romania - 2 operational power reactors, 2 operational and 2 shutdown research reactors - lightweight

Slovenia - 1 operational power reactor and 1 operating research reactor - lightweight

Ukraine - 15 operational, 4 shutdown [all at Chernobyl and of the same design] power reactors and 2 under construction power reactors; 1 operational and 2 shutdown research reactors - middleweight

[All information from the IAEA PRIS and RRDB databases]

Most are relatively minor players in the world of nuclear power - but players nonetheless.

Let's contrast GNEP membership with that of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and particularly which members of the NSG are not yet on-board the GNEP.

Not yet participating in GNEP
Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom.

I believe Ms MacLachlan and Mr Hibbs took a similar look and noticed as I do that some significant nuclear middleweights are taking a very cautious approach to GNEP. I like to keep a close eye on countries in this category [particularly those in red above]. Due to their size, available resources and demonstrated success in the nuclear power field, as a group their actions reflect the direction of the global industry and technology without a lot of political smoke and mirrors.

I said recently that the Canadian nukes were lean and good decision makers. This goes for most other countries in the group. Korea is developing its own domestic nuclear technology [building their own research reactor and - as pointed out in the referenced article - looking to get into pyroprocessing on the ground floor]. Argentina is also doing well. Don't give me guff about the fuel issue with OPAL. Yes it was significant, but it was identified early without any credible threat to any sort of release. Basically it was a unfortunate event that has been and continues to be handled very well. And when the Argentineans emerge from it they will have gained some valuable expertise in their reactor/fuel design and manufacturing groups.

Ditto the other countries highlighted above. Their nuclear industries are lean but successful.

By not jumping onto GNEP, they are also signaling that they are not desperate, but want to protect the future opportunities they see on their doorstep.

I suspect this is why the US is changing [the authors say 'stepped back'] the GNEP programme. They are faced with their own dramas. Energy security and climate change issues loom. Nuclear power can play a role in addressing both [at least - as a nation - they seem to have figured that much out which is more than I can say for about half of Australia]. But what they need now is participation. They have their own big election in about a year and GNEP has to appear to be the Global Partnership that it's proponents are touting. It's had funding issues within the US and unless it takes off on its own accord, may suffer following the election.

I may sound like a bit of a nuclear heretic, but I can't just blindly throw my support behind GNEP. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I oppose it either. It could do some good, but I don't read about it and think 'Panacea' - particularly for Australia. It may help us sell a bit more uranium.

I've talked in other posts about my reluctance toward GNEP and the US's political tendency to invent a 'bigger and better' programme to satisfy political objectives and/or provide a bit of time / pressure release when existing programmes fail to get runs on the board at a rate which pleases their political overlords. Quotes from the article mention pulling GNEP back to avoid duplication of work with, for example the IAEA's infrastructure programme, or GEN-IV's technology development. This is good news. From a technology perspective, maybe GNEP can focus on reprocessing and waste treatment [finally a role for Australia]. It's difficult to understand what is going on in the USA however. I used to have a link to a DOE website explaining Gen-IV technology - it no longer works. Today, I can't even find any planned activities for this year or accomplishments for 2006. Has the 'bigger, better, super-deluxe model' GNEP already overshadowed Gen-IV? [That was quick.] I hope Gen-IV is encouraged to return to the DOE's radar and the US/DOE continues its support for the relevant technology development. Since Australia is said to have joined the Gen-IV along with GNEP, I remain hopeful.

Just take a look at the membership of the Gen-IV international forum [GIF]. There you will find those 'middleweights' I discuss above -and therein lies the future of nuclear power.

ANSTO / OPAL - Good Neighbor

OPAL Core - ANSTO

As reported in the full press release:

A recent community survey indicated increased local appreciation of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and in particular the world's newest research reactor OPAL (Open Pool Australian Light-water).

Significantly 90% see the presence of an Australian nuclear science and technology facilityas important.

Southern Sydney residents feel the new OPAL nuclear reactor, which commenced operation almost a year ago, is safer than the old reactor. Perceptions that it is safe have risen 12% to 77% over the past three years and public feeling that is unsafe is down 13% to 19%.

Quantum Market Research, an independent research organisation, conducted the telephone survey of 550 residents of Sutherland, Bankstown and Illawarra as well as 150 from Adelaide.

This is consistent with similar polling elsewhere which show high levels of acceptance in the immediate vicinity of nuclear facilities, concluding once again that nuclear plants make good neighbors.

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.

Domestic Opportunities

Following the successful launch of the world's newest research reactor OPAL, ANSTO is taking up the task of developing the supporting human resources for the facility's ongoing operation and/or domestic nuclear industry needs in general.

ANSTO recently launched a Graduate Development Programme for engineering and science graduates. The programme includes a total of four years work experience/training. Two at ANSTO and the last two either at ANSTO or overseas within an international nuclear organisation.

According to the web page, applications close 29-June.

Ziggy goes nuclear

Dr. Ziggy Switkowski was recently interviewed by Monica Attard on ABC Radio:

This is a fairly long interview and includes some relevant detail on the justification for nuclear, role of investors and assigning plant locations.

You can access the full text or audio files via the link above.

Some exerpts:

MONICA ATTARD: Can you put up for me the case: why do we need nuclear power stations?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well there are two reasons. Firstly, the demand for electricity in Australia will continue to grow, doubling by the year 2050. So we need to have new sources of energy and particularly of the base load of variety, steady, always on electricity, and there are only a number of alternatives. Coal, gas, perhaps hydro-electric, although that's at risk now with the water issues, and nuclear. There are no other sources of base load electricity.

Secondly, if we are going to provide for continuing growth in electricity demand, and that really goes with prosperity and economic growth, and we are going to do it in an environmentally responsible way, that is moving towards low greenhouse gas emitting technologies, frankly, the only points you can go to is nuclear power.

So that argues for having nuclear in the debate. Then you travel around the world and you find there are 31 countries already that are nuclear powered, another eight in the queue to put in their first reactor. In this part of the world, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, India, all have nuclear reactors. Vietnam and Indonesia are going to be next.

Australia, having nearly 40 per cent of the world's uranium and making a substantial business out of that, not being part of the nuclear fuel cycle, while being concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, appears to be inconsistent.

.

.

.
MONICA ATTARD: And they [Chernobyl type accidents, acts of terror and proliferation] are all valid concerns, aren't they?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: They are all valid concerns, and they are still there, but they have actually been overtaken in the last few months, I think reflecting the nature of the debate.

And now, when people challenge me in forums about the validity of nuclear power in Australia, they say things like, "well it's going to cost too much". Secondly, they say, "well if the first reactor is 15 years away, that's too far away to make a difference to our climate change challenges". And the third concern is, "well if we are going to have 20, 30 or 40 reactors, where will you put them"?

MONICA ATTARD: Exactly, where would you put them?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well, here are the criteria. You need to have, nuclear powers are big reactors, they are like big coal-fired power stations, you need to have them near the electricity grid, you need to have them near the markets they are going to serve, big population centres, and because they have to be water-cooled, as does coal, they need to near water. But it can be seawater. That points you to up and down the eastern seaboard.

MONICA ATTARD: Gee, that'll be popular.

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: And, what other countries have done is to collocate their nuclear power stations with the coal power stations.

MONICA ATTARD: Right.

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: That becomes less controversial.

MONICA ATTARD: So that means we're talking about, in Sydney terms, for example?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Oh, I don't know where the first reactor might go, partly because the questions are not appropriately directed to me or the Government, because the first or the early reactors will be the reactors that the energy utilities have built a business case for and decided that this is the best location for them in terms of their greater electricity generation strategy...

MONICA ATTARD: So they're the people who should make the decisions, ultimately, as to where they should be located?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: They will be the people that will present the business cases that will then be reviewed by whatever regulatory bodies are in place in terms of environmental impact and other considerations that will be put in place to oversee the industry, if we go that way.

MONICA ATTARD: Right. What about the community? Should the community have a voice?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Oh absolutely.

MONICA ATTARD: But in what form, if there are determinants other than what the community wishes, in relation to where these reactors should be?

ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: What the experience around the world has been is that, once a country or community has a nuclear power station in their environment, that their acceptance to nuclear power progressively improves, and quite quickly.

And so it is that first nuclear reactor which is quite the big challenge, because the experience of the industry, which is now 50 years old, is that nuclear power is clean, it's efficient, it's not intrusive. In fact, when you tour a modern nuclear power facility, it feels like you are going to a semi-conductor fabrication plant - highly automated, very clean, relatively few people running it and with a small physical footprint into the landscape. So when people see that, in history or examples from overseas, suggest that they become comfortable with nuclear power.

OPAL - Open for business

I am not certain how relevant it is to nuclear power in Australia - but the project is complete (at least the construction and commissioning phases). That is worthy of a tip of the hat to all involved. No matter how small, an operating nuclear facility where nothing stood just a few years before is a tremendous achievement.

Congratulations to all.

Brisbane Times article

The Age article (with some words about local protest activities - note the small number... only 20).

Objective Reporting

As reported in COSMOS:

Ms. Heather Catchpole has done some respectable homework, taken the time to visit the site and produced a report on Australia's OPAL research reactor that I am pleased to spread around.

Bio of Ms. Catchpole from this site.

Heather Catchpole is an artist and a poet, but her favourite occupation is writing about science because it involves learning about the amazing way the world works. She is a science journalist for the ABC and has several years experience at the helm of a popular children’s science magazine produced by the CSIRO.

Dr. Smith weighs in...

As reported in the Border Mail.

In the linked article, ANSTO Executive Director, Dr. Ian Smith, does a good job of refuting a letter from a fellow reader.

To supplement these statements, I’ve done some quick searches to find additional detail.

Information on the Belgian Report, and a quote:

The study concludes that to maintain the current policy of phasing out nuclear energy by 2025 would effectively undermine the Belgian economy and significantly increase carbon emissions, “Therefore, Belgium is advised to keep the nuclear option open and should reconsider the nuclear phase out,” the study says.

The Netherlands plan a new reactor by 2016.

Italy’s investment in the French plant.

The 1,600-megawatt reactor will be built by Areva, France’s state-owned manufacturer and cost euros 3.3 billion – euros 300 million more than initially estimated. EDF will have a partner in the venture: the Italian utility, Enel. It will provide 12.5 percent of the investment and get 12.5 percent of the reactor’s output. Italy, which has closed its nuclear reactors, has one of Europe’s highest energy costs and imports electricity from France.

An article on interest in the Philippines

Sweden’s poll.

03-April UPDATE: Info on the phase-out programme

Information on the plant upgrade may be found here [scroll down to Sweden].

And finally, the plans of Switzerland. [scroll down to Energy Policy.]

This is a fine example of how fear and conjecture tend to fill in voids resulting from a lack of information. I doubt Ms. Roberta Pollard intended to misstate so many claims in her letter. She probably trusted the people or sites where she received this information – at face value.

But again, we must look for the references… seek the truth, verify such claims objectively and then fill in those voids with factual, verifiable information.

Cooler heads must prevail.

Talks on nuclear power

An article from the Courier Mail:

THE Westinghouse Electric Company, a manufacturer of nuclear power stations, has had talks with the Federal Government on "near-term opportunities".

The company also revealed it has been approached by Australian groups looking to establish nuclear power facilities.

Westinghouse communications consultant for nuclear power plants Scott Shaw:

"Westinghouse recently visited Australia to discuss near-term opportunities with the Government and regulatory authorities.

"We have also had inquiries from individuals and/or groups within Australia pursuing the establishment and development of commercial nuclear power plants for electricity generation.

The article goes on to mention discussions with General Electric and AREVA.

UPDATE : 15-03-2007

The Herald Sun has provided some detail on discussions between ANSTO and General Electric.

ANSTO's corporate communications manager, Craig Pearce, said GE " did visit ANSTO last year and made a presentation on their technology.

Dr. Ziggy Switkowski

"We initiated contact with a number of suppliers of nuclear technology including General Electric and General Atomics."

On other options:

Opponents of nuclear power generation have cited emerging carbon capture technologies as likely to enhance the viability of coal-fired stations in coming decades.

However, Dr Switkowski believes that nuclear power would still be viable because of the costs associated with capturing coal emissions.

"Just about any attempt to clean up coal will not compromise the case for nuclear," he said.

Courses made to measure

As reported in The Australian:

As debate rages over a nuclear energy industry for Australia, the University of Sydney is putting on a postgraduate diploma and a masters program for nuclear scientists from next year. It is the latest swift sector reaction to the demand for specialists in emerging and contemporary fields.

Sydney's new courses will teach nuclear physics and its applications, nuclear instrumentation, radiation physics and reactor physics among others, according to medical physicist Clive Baldock.

"It is in response to the current political situation in Australia," Professor Baldock said.

"We realised early on, before the Government released its uranium review, that there was going to be a need for more nuclear-educated engineers and scientists."

Professor Baldock expected 10 to 15 students would graduate in the first year, which would fit well with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's aim to employ 15 graduate nuclear scientists each year from next year.