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

Dr Jim Green's reply

Precisely 30 months and 1 day ago, I published my thoughts about Dr Jim Green and Friends of the Earth. Today, I am very please to have received the below reply.

Jim Green said...

hi, the point about Patrick Moore is that his connections to and payments from the Nuclear Energy Institute are too infrequently acknowledged by Moore, by other nuclear advocates (e.g. Hore-Lacy/UIC) or by the media.

As for pro-nuclear environmentalists, I think you have named most of them. More on that at foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power

I can think of quite a few nuclear advocates turned opponents - indeed there are quite a few in the EnergyScience Coalition alone. energyscience.org.au

As for trends in the industry, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Reports are
useful.

cheers, Jim

I decided to bring the discussion up to the front of the blog to more publicly thank Jim for his comment and in particular his willingness to engage in some type of dialogue. In the time that has passed since I began this blog in early 2007, no anti-nuclear campaigners or even people slightly skeptical of the technology have posted a reply or critique of a single post.

We still don't agree. I won't complain about that so long as we are communicating. Too often, issue based blogs and web pages are visited only by those who endorse the author's opinion. But without some sort of civil dialogue, the blog or site becomes a micro-culture's echo chamber of limited value. Barry Brook's BraveNewClimate blog has done an excellent job of avoiding this pitfall and I note that Jim has commented there as well.

So, on to Jim's comment.

Thanks for not highlighting me for going easy on Patrick Moore. I took what I think was a fairly hard opinion - similar to NNadir at DailyKos - that putting too much emphasis on Moore's current opinion gives unjustified credibility to Greenpeace. Rather than focus on one person, I prefer to note the more recent trend.

As for pro-nuclear environmentalists - several others have come on to my radar since my post in 2007. These include, Australia's Prof Barry Brook [mentioned above]; (UK) Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace; (UK) Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; (UK) Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year; and (UK) Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate. [See this post for details]. Then there are the calls for nuclear from the AWU's Paul Howes and American author and former anti-nuclear campaigner Gwyneth Cravens, who now regrets her support of the anti-nuclear power movement. Ms Cravens describes her 10 year transition from anti-nuclear campaigner to nuclear advocate in a recent book and a related video linked here.

If anyone knows of others, please add them in a comment (with links please) so I may update the list.

I regret that Jim did not list any specific transitions in the other direction in recent years (say, that last 4). The energyscience website was not working (i.e. I was unable to access it).

I read the 2007 World Nuclear Industry Status Report. I was disappointed to see wind discussed with nuclear in terms of 'capacity' as opposed to actual energy generated (pg 6). I believe such discussions contribute negatively (i.e. add confusion rather than clarity) to policy discussions. There have also been a number of plant life extensions granted in the US alone to challenge the discussion of anticipated plant life on pg 9 and in the conclusion. However, I do agree with concerns expressed with respect to financing, human resource needs and supporting infrastructure / construction capability. However, none if these challenges significantly threaten the expansion of nuclear power's use over the coming decades.

I note the the OECD/IEA has just released an excerpt from the 2009 World Energy Outlook. In the excerpt, the IEA forecasts the required contribution from (and investment in) an array of technologies to achieve energy related emission reductions in support of a 450 Scenario. In this report, nuclear plays a significant role globally (obviously, to varying degree within different countries), despite being challenged to maintain the current level of generation in the context of an ageing worldwide operational fleet. This is shown in Figure 3 of the report by comparing the relative change in abatement between 2020 and 2030 (increase by a factor of 2.8) vs the required investment (an increase by a factor of 3.9). This reflects the need to build new plants to replace older facilities that will be shutdown at the end of their design lives. So the investment is necessary to maintain the same abatement level.

WEO 2009 Excerpt - Figure 3 World energy-related CO2 emissions abatement

Recent reports indicate more nuclear phase outs are being reversed. Belgium and Germany are now working to reverse their phase out programmes. Just in Europe, the list now includes these two countries plus Sweden and Italy. In the UK, a more indirect / passive phase out policy has been replaced by the investment of considerable resources into a new build program. Even a small training reactor at the Imperial College of London is being 'un-decommissioned' to support the development of human resources to support that effort. Those who doubt the reemergence of genuine interest in nuclear power are ignoring a constantly increasing amount of data.

I hope that Jim's comment reflects a more forward looking perspective; one that acknowledges an increasing role of nuclear technology over the coming decades as the marginal risks from nuclear power's use are weighed against those of other issues such as climate change, peak oil, and the threat of energy supplies being used as an instrument of foreign policy (e.g. Russia's repeated demonstration of their willingness to cut gas supply to Europe). There is an opportunity for Jim and other anti-nuclear campaigners to remain engaged on a proactive and productive level; contributing real ideas to ensure safety levels continue to improve, non-proliferation measures are made more resilient, acceptable interim and long term waste management programmes are implemented, transparency is enhanced, etc. Maybe I'm dreaming a bit here; but the opportunity is certainly there. Just look at the void Barry Brook as filled.

Scare tactics - effective, but shameful

Wayne Errington, a lecturer in political science and international relations at the ANU submitted this report to the Canberra Times about the role of 'Think Tanks' in Australian policy debate. In it, he explains how the Australian Institute used scare tactics to manipulate public opinion away from nuclear energy during the most recent federal election campaign.

Fear, the Australia Institute research fellow, recounts a very effective public intervention by his organisation when the Howard government was toying with the idea of nuclear power as a way of reducing greenhouse gases.

With the parliamentary opposition looking flat-footed, the Australia Institute quickly released a list of the federal electorates containing the locations most suitable for a nuclear reactor. This well-aimed missile killed political debate over nuclear energy stone dead as backbencher after government backbencher publicly assured constituents there would be no nuclear plant in their backyard.

I will interpret the 'well aimed missile' comment to imply that the AI custom developed that report specifically [and solely] to kill the nuclear debate at the time. Heaven forbid we engage the public in an informed, civil, objective discussion on the subject.

Has the AI ever claimed to be objective or unbias? Well, almost. From their website:

"The Australia Institute is an independent public policy research centre..."

"...the Institute reasserts the place of ethics in making public and private decisions."

I wouldn't consider a political "missile strike" built on a foundation of fear mongering exactly ethical.

Reports, critiques and expertise

Over the past few days, I noticed another article from Leslie Kemeny in the Canberra Times. It was filled with more arguments in favour of Australia considering the introduction of nuclear power. While I agree with the article, I didn't notice too many new arguments and would not have normally mentioned it here.

Not long thereafter, Geoff Davies submitted a reply in the Canberra Times as well as in his recently initiated Blog, Better Nature. I posted comments to both, but in addition to those, I'd like to take an opportunity to look at the McKinsey Australia report referenced by Davies.

First, I'd like to point out the McKinsey Global report: The carbon productivity challenge, Curbing climate change and sustaining economic growth. It was a precursor to the McKiney Australia report and seems to be considerably more robust - albeit not specific to Australia's chellenges and options. It is interesting to compare the two together as well as with the comments of Davies.

Davies points to the Australia study as reason for why nuclear is [economically] unnecessary. He also blasts Kemeny's claims about nuclear's economics stating, "Most energy experts agree nuclear power will be Expensive."

Davies also references nuclear power's timeline, "We may have only a few years in which to get our emissions down."

Finally, he summarises nuclear's potential impact, "Nuclear power would be Insufficient because it generates electricity only, which accounts for around a third of energy use."

First some general comments on the Australian McKinsey report.

Unlike the Global report [which specifically states two goals of reducing emissions as well as sustaining economic growth] the Australian report does not appear to encompass the same scope. For example, abatement technologies are deployed by cost only, without regard to supply reliability or energy quality. This seems to ignor the intermitancy of wind and solar which will impact grid stability as their contributions continue to increase. This is stated on page 19 where the authors clarify

"Note that we have not investigated whether the resulting power mix match energy demand profiles, nor the question of whether the location of renewable sources can be aligned with energy demands of the different states."

Next, regarding the scope of the Australian McKinsey report:

"The scope of the measures considered were those requiring deployment of present-day technologies. Speculative technologies or those requiring significant future breakthroughs were not included in the scope..."

Interesting how CCS has been included, but advanced nuclear fuel cycles, including a closed fuel cycle - which eliminates deep geological repository stability for hundreds of thousands of years, but instead require storage for several hundreds of years - have been excluded. Multiple fast reactors and fuel reprocessing facilities exist. Even as I type, a shipment of MOX fuel is being prepared to ship to Japan where a power reactor [or reactors] will relieve the world of some of its plutonium - forever. The introduction of fast reactors, with integrated fuel processing facilities will further improve waste issues and - by breeding fuel - massively extend the viability of nuclear power technologies. The use of alternative fuels such as thorium could achieve similar results. The point being that many of these alternative nuclear options are significantly further developed than CCS and are yet [unfortunately] out of scope. I understand why CCS is in scope, just not why advanced nuclear fuel cycles are out.

On page 17, the report speaks of nuclear power's environmental viability. I am unable to comprehend this concern. Fuel from existing power reactors is either being safely reprocessed or stored on existing reactor sites. No industry has a footprint of zero, but I do not see the evidence of nuclear power's impact. Regarding the need for a geologic repository for the storage of processing products for a few hundred years - my understanding is that few geologies are superior to Australia. Australia's low population density only strengthens this argument.

The costs presented for participation in the UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism [CDM] - allowing Australia to claim an equivalent emission reduction credit in exchange for money we provide to developing countries to deploy their own low emission technologies - appear so low, I can't understand why Australia would consider any other option. I have assumed [and will continue to assume] that Australians are serious about cutting Australia's emissions - above and beyond any 'good' we do via the CDM.

The report analyses various alternative scenarios: first, adding nuclear; next, unlimited CDM credits and finally no CCS [all replaced by renewables]. It would have been interesting to analyse the scenario where the absence of CCS was replaced with nuclear or perhaps a mix of nuclear and additional renewables.

Back to Davies' claims.

Regarding the economics of nuclear, in both the Australian [nuclear scenario] and Global reports, nuclear is among the cheapest energy production technologies to deploy. Nuclear is even cheaper than Australia's least expensive renewable, onshore wind [Australia report, Exhibit 7 - you have to compare closely with Exhibit 5]. Globally, nuclear is the only cost neutral abatement technology [Global report, Exhibits 5 and 10].

Regarding the timeline to reduce emissions, the goals and scenarios reported and studied are out to 2020 and 2030 as well as out to 2050 for the two reports. It is unreasonable to claim that Australia is not capable of deploying nuclear power plants over a 21 to 41 year period. Even the Australia report considers nuclear in only the 2030 scenario. I have no argument with that based on my own personal experience [meaning I would not suggest nuclear be included in the 2020 study].

On nuclear's potential impact, the Australian McKinsey report [p.11] states that the power sector is Australia's greatest opportunity for future abatement [39% of the total]. Therefore any technology to help achieve this, would seem to be very attractive. Also in both reports, nuclear power's impact is among the most significant [the bar is among the widest on the graphs].

Finally, the Global McKinsey report contains some information and recommendations which I believe are relevant. Their descriptions of the magnitude of the effort are worth consideration [comparison of 10 fold increase of carbon productivity now to the 10 fold increase in labour productivity during the industrial revolution - in one third the time: 41 vs 125 years [Exhibits 2, and 4]].

But, the world has done it before [see Exhibit 7 and related discussion on CFCs and SO-2].

Lowe's appointment - a bad thing?

A friend recently forwarded a link to Andrew Bolt's blog on Prof. Ian Lowe's appointment to the ARPANSA Safety Advisory Council as the "representative of the public interest".

Very interesting. But why?

Bolt and many others [via comments] have expressed concerns from disappointment to downright conspiracy accusations. But I don't necessarily think this is a bad development; challenging, but not bad.

Nearly two years ago, I drafted a post on Prof. Lowe titled Running some numbers. In the post I allowed myself to go 'prompt technical' - grabbing [seemingly] every credible reference and number available to cast an objective light on the professor's claims. I stand by that post and - nearly two years later - Australia's reliance on renewables remains totally inadequate to address our emission reduction targets.

Moving on

As I've posted in the past; if Australia is to embrace nuclear power, it will only happen with the support of a broad political base. The most direct path to that end is through the engagement of those with opposing views. It does little good for nuclear advocates [for or against] to discuss their arguments in the echo chambers of closed communities.

So Prof. Lowe's appointment may be a challenge in the short term; but could prove to be a tremendous opportunity. It may take more work than otherwise expected to convince Prof. Lowe on any given proposal, but if you consider this effort as an investment in building Prof. Lowe's confidence, the potential dividends could be well worth the effort further down the track.

I'd like to give the guy a chance; objectively appeal to his intelligence and sense of reason, provide him the data, patiently explain the technical bases, and let him come to his own terms with what has been presented.

You can not 'spin' physics. I am not worried.

James Hansen sends the Obamas a personal appeal

Back in March 2008, Professor [and chief NASA scientist] James Hansen sent a letter to Kevin Rudd asking for Australia's leadership in the fight against climate change. The June 5 reply may be found here.

The below correspondence is being transmitted to Barack and Michelle Obama. Much of its contents are relevant to Australia, our economy and our own struggles with respect to emissions control and climate change.

Everything has been copied below. The relevant links are here and here. [The enclosure may be found at the second link.]

Note to Jim Hansen's peers who commented on his draft letter

Thanks to the people on my e-mail list for all the suggestions (more than 100!) about my draft “Tell Barack Obama the Truth – the Whole Truth”. Most frequent criticism: the need for an executive summary. Two people suggested: put a summary in the form of a letter to Michelle and Barack Obama. I like that idea. They are equally smart lawyers, and if we can get either of them to really focus on the actions that are needed, the planet has a chance.

The letter turned out to be four pages. Sorry. But I wrote a note to John Holdren, which can serve as an executive summary. John has promised to deliver the letter, but cannot do so prior to the inauguration. That delay is a problem for one of the three recommendations: tax and dividend. Thus I am making the letter available at
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf
and the revised “Tell Barack Obama the Truth” at
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
in hopes of getting the information to people who continue to push for “goals” and “caps”.

“Goals” for percentage CO₂ emission reductions and “cap & trade & dividend” are a threat to the planet, weak tea, not commensurate with the task of getting CO₂ back to 350 ppm and less. Note:

(1) There must be a tax at the mine or port of entry, the first sale of oil, gas and coal, so every direct and indirect use of the fuel is affected. Anything less means that the reduction of demand for the fuel will make it cheaper for some uses; e.g., people will start burning coal in their stoves. Peter Barnes’ idea to push the cap upstream to the extent possible is not adequate nor is a ‘gas tax’ suggested by NY Times and others. A comprehensive approach is needed.

(2) “Cap & trade & dividend” creates Wall Street millionaires and complex bureaucracy. The public is fed up with that – rightly so. A single carbon tax rate can be adjusted upward affecting all activities appropriately. With 100% dividend the public will allow a carbon price adequate to the job, i.e., helping us move to the postfossil-fuel world.

(3) Supply ‘caps’ cannot yield a really big reduction because of the weapon: ‘shortages’. All a utility has to say is ‘blackout coming’ and politicians and public have to cave in – we are not going to have the lights turned out. Will the public allow a high enough tax rate? Yes, dividends will exceed tax for most people concerned about their bills.

(4) A tax is not sufficient. All other measures, such as building codes, are needed. But with millions of buildings, all construction codes and operations cannot be enforced. A rising carbon price provides effective enforcement.

(5) Wouldn’t it be cheaper to let people burn the dirtiest fuel? No. The clean future that we aim for, including more efficient energy use, is not more expensive. For example, you may have read about passively heated homes that require little energy and increase construction costs only several percent. Such possibilities remain the oddball (with high price tag), not the standard construction, unless the government adopts policies that make things happen.

Some of you suggested that I should only explain the urgency of the climate crisis, the need to get back to 350 ppm CO₂ and less. Politicians are happy if scientists provide information and then go away and shut up. But science and policy cannot be divorced. What I learned in the past few years is that politicians often adopt convenient policies that can be shown to be inconsistent with long-term success, given readily available scientific data and empirical information on policy impacts.

Jim Hansen

The referenced note to John Holdren

Dear John,

A few weeks ago in London, where Anniek was running after me from one meeting to another, she had a heart attack (fortunately we were near a very good hospital -- the problem should be permanently fixed via the stent they inserted plus a better diet). As we waited a week for her to be able to fly I wrote the attached letter to the Obamas. Could you possibly forward this letter to them?

I realize that it is a long letter (4 pages + a page of footnotes). But global warming likely will be, eventually, the problem of their lifetime. His presidency may be judged in good part on whether he was able to turn the tide -- more important, the futures of young people and other life will depend on that. So four pages may not be intolerably long.

My hope is that he (even better they) will want to understand the matter, not just rely on advisers. I refer not to the details of climate science, but rather what needs to be done. The danger is that the compromises and special interests inherent in Kyoto-style targets and cap-and-trade will be accepted because of bureaucratic momentum. Other intolerable aspects of current approaches are the escape hatches (plant a tree somewhere, reduce some other gas, etc.). Carbon dioxide is special because of its strange lifetime (eventually exceedingly long) and the fact that it acidifies the ocean. Also it needs to be recognized that forestation can not be traded for more fossil fuels because the forests are needed to help bring down the current amount of CO₂.

The three points that I raise concern: (1) coal, (2) carbon tax, and (3) nuclear power.

(1) The critical need to cut off the coal source soon must be recognized. I was surprised that in 90 minutes I could not get the German Environmental Minister to understand that their proposed "carbon cap" would not allow them to build 20 more coal-fired power plants. I kept saying "if you burn more coal you must convince Russia to leave its oil in the ground" and he would say "we will tighten the carbon cap". Japan thinks that it did fine in meeting its Kyoto obligations, even though its coal use and CO₂ emissions increased. [Japan used Kyoto allowed escape hatches. The Earth has no escape hatch.]

(2) A carbon tax (across all fossil fuels at their source) is essential, I believe, for effectiveness. Any less comprehensive cap will reduce the price of the fuel for any other uses.

A rising tax (with all the other needed measures such as building codes, vehicle efficiencies, renewable energies...) will help constrain demand for the fuel. When gasoline hits $4 - 5/gallon again, most of that should be tax staying in the country and returned as dividend, providing the consumer the means to purchase more efficient products and incentive for entrepreneurs to develop them. A rising tax will help keep the price paid for the oil itself (or other fossil fuel) lower, thus making it unprofitable to go to the most extreme places on the planet to extract the last drop of oil. Instead we can move on sooner to the energies of the post-fossil-fuel-era.

A carbon cap that makes one more stinking millionaire on the backs of the public is going to infuriate the public. Me too. There is no need to support lobbyists, traders, and special interests. The tax should be proportional to the carbon amount and the dividend calculation will only require long division, which even a civil servant can do.

100% of the tax should go into the dividends. However, if some countries do not apply an equivalent tax, a duty should be collected on fossil-fuel dependent products imported from that country. Such import duties might be used, in part, to finance reforestation, climate adaptation, or other climate or energy related needs.

(3) Nuclear power: it would be great if energy efficiency, renewable energies, and an improved ("smart") electric grid could satisfy all energy needs. However, the future of our children should not rest on that gamble. The danger is that the minority of vehement antinuclear "environmentalists" could cause development of advanced safe nuclear power to be slowed such that utilities are forced to continue coal-burning in order to keep the lights on. That is a prescription for disaster.

There is no need for a decision to deploy nuclear power on a large scale. What is needed is rapid development of the potential, including prototypes, so that options are available. We have to avoid a "FutureGen" sort of drag-out. It seems to me that it is time to get fed-up with those people who think they can impose their will on everybody, and all the consequences that might imply for the planet, by putting this R&D on a slow boat to nowhere instead of on the fast-track that it deserves.

I hope that you will be willing to forward this to the Obamas. Wishing you the best for the holiday season, and especially success in your new job!

Best regards,
Jim Hansen

Letter to Michelle and Barack Obama

29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America

Dear Michelle and Barack,

We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.

Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.

We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these ‘details’ could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times.

Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal. Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth.

Yet the information that most needs to be communicated to you concerns the failure of policy approaches employed by nations most sincere and concerned about stabilizing climate. Policies being discussed in national and international circles now, which focus on ‘goals’ for emission reduction and ‘cap and trade’, have the same basic approach as the Kyoto Protocol. This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity.

The enclosure, “Tell Barack Obama the Truth – the Whole Truth” was sent to colleagues for comments as we left for a trip to Europe. Their main suggestion was to add a summary of the specific recommendations, preferably in a cover letter sent to both of you.

There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential requestⁱ. NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required. Our three recommendations derive from the science, including logical inferences based on empirical information about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of specific past policy approaches.

(1) Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO₂.

This is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem. Coal emissions must be phased out rapidly. Yes, it is a great challenge, but one with enormous side benefits.

Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run. Oil, the second greatest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide, is already substantially depleted, and it is impractical to capture carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles. But if coal emissions are phased out promptly, a range of actions including improved agricultural and forestry practices could bring the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide back down, out of the dangerous range.

As an example of coal’s impact consider this: continued construction of coal-fired power plants will raise atmospheric carbon dioxide to a level at least approaching 500 ppm (parts per million). At that level, a conservative estimate for the number of species that would be exterminated (committed to extinction) is one million. The proportionate contribution of a single power plant operating 50 years and burning ~100 rail cars of coal per day (100 tons of coal per rail car) would be about 400 species! Coal plants are factories of death. It is no wonder that young people (and some not so young) are beginning to block new construction.

(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”.

A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.

A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.

The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.

The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.

A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.

The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.

“Cap and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security.

(3) Urgent R&D on 4th generation nuclear power with international cooperation.

Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and a “smart grid” deserve first priority in our effort to reduce carbon emissions. With a rising carbon price, renewable energy can perhaps handle all of our needs. However, most experts believe that making such presumption probably would leave us in 25 years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide. Such a result would be disastrous for the planet, humanity, and nature.

4th generation nuclear power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do the entire job). Predictable criticism of 4th GNP (and CCS) is: “it cannot be ready before 2030.” However, the time needed could be much abbreviated with a Presidential initiative and Congressional support. Moreover, improved (3rd generation) light water reactors are available for near-term needs.

In our opinion, 4th GNPⁱⁱ deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive materialⁱⁱⁱ. Potential proliferation of nuclear material will always demand vigilance, but that will be true in any case, and our safety is best secured if the United States is involved in the technologies and helps define standards.

Existing nuclear reactors use less than 1% of the energy in uranium, leaving more than 99% in long-lived nuclear waste. 4th GNP can “burn” that waste, leaving a small volume of waste with a half-life of decades rather than thousands of years. Thus 4th GNP could help solve the nuclear waste problem, which must be dealt with in any case. Because of this, a portion of the $25B that has been collected from utilities to deal with nuclear waste justifiably could be used to develop 4th generation reactors.

The principal issue with nuclear power, and other energy sources, is cost. Thus an R&D objective must be a modularized reactor design that is cost competitive with coal. Without such capability, it may be difficult to wean China and India from coal. But all developing countries have great incentives for clean energy and stable climate, and they will welcome technical cooperation aimed at rapid development of a reproducible safe nuclear reactor.

Potential for cooperation with developing countries is implied by interest South Korea has expressed in General Electric’s design for a small scale 4th GNP reactor. I do not have the expertise to advocate any specific project, and there are alternative approaches for 4th GNP (see enclosure). I am only suggesting that the assertion that 4th GNP technology cannot be ready until 2030 is not necessarily valid. Indeed, with a Presidential directive for the Nuclear Regulator Commission to give priority to the review process, it is possible that a prototype reactor could be constructed rapidly in the United States.

CCS also deserves R&D support. There is no such thing as clean coal at this time, and it is doubtful that we will ever be able to fully eliminate emissions of mercury, other heavy metals, and radioactive material in the mining and burning of coal. However, because of the enormous number of dirty coal-fired power plants in existence, the abundance of the fuel, and the fact that CCS technology could be used at biofuel-fired power plants to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide, the technology deserves strong R&D support.

Summary

An urgent^iv geophysical fact has become clear. Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in which civilization developed.

Of course it is unfair that everyone is looking to Barack to solve this problem (and other problems!), but they are. He alone has a fleeting opportunity to instigate fundamental change, and the ability to explain the need for it to the public.

Geophysical limits dictate the outline for what must be done^v. Because of the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air, slowing the emissions cannot solve the problem. Instead a large part of the total fossil fuels must be left in the ground. In practice, that means coal.

The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the need for a carbon tax. Alternatives such as emission reduction targets, cap and trade, cap and dividend, do not work, as proven by honest efforts of the ‘greenest’ countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol:

(1) Japan: accepted the strongest emission reduction targets, appropriately prides itself on having the most energy-efficient industry, and yet its use of coal has sharply increased, as have its total CO₂ emissions. Japan offset its increases with purchases of credits through the clean development mechanism in China, intended to reduce emissions there, but Chinese emissions increased rapidly.

(2) Germany: subsidizes renewable energies heavily and accepts strong emission reduction targets, yet plans to build a large number of coal-fired power plants. They assert that they will have cap-and-trade, with a cap that reduces emissions by whatever amount is needed. But the physics tells us that if they continue to burn coal, no cap can solve the problem, because of the long carbon dioxide lifetime.

(3) Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

Indeed, ‘goals’ and ‘caps’ on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).

Coal phase-out and transition to the post-fossil fuel era requires an increasing carbon price. A carbon tax at the wellhead or port of entry reduces all uses of a fuel. In contrast, a less comprehensive cap has the perverse effect of lowering the price of the fuel for other uses, undercutting clean energy sources.^vi In contrast to the impracticality of all nations agreeing to caps, and the impossibility of enforcement, a carbon tax can readily be made near-global.^vii

A Presidential directive for prompt investigation and proto-typing of advanced safe nuclear power is needed to cover the possibility that renewable energies cannot satisfy global energy needs. One of the greatest dangers the world faces is the possibility that a vocal minority of anti-nuclear activists could prevent phase-out of coal emissions.

The challenges today, including climate change, are great and urgent. Barack’s leadership is essential to explain to the world what is needed. The public, young and old, recognize the difficulties and will support the actions needed for a fundamental change of direction.

James and Anniek Hansen
Pennsylvania
United States of America

ⁱ Given the brilliant scientists Barack has appointed to his team, is there need for a National Academy of Sciences meeting? Yes, his team surely would welcome not only clarification of the urgency of the climate situation, but also interdisciplinary (economics, engineering, physics, biology…) discussion and evaluation of policy options. Barack’s first year or two in office is almost surely our last best chance to get the climate and energy strategy right in time to save the future of our children and grandchildren.

ⁱⁱ I am not referring to the DOE’s “Generation-4” nuclear program, which is a diffuse program that will not yield rapid payoff. Instead, as discussed below, there would need to be a Presidential directive to pursue a path(s) with the potential to contribute to decarbonization of global energy systems as rapidly as practical.

ⁱⁱⁱ 4th generation reactors can include automatic shutdown in case of an earthquake or other interruption. It is noteworthy that, even with the presence of poorly designed nuclear power plants in the past, and in some cases demonstrably sloppy operations, the waste from coal-fired power plants has done far more damage, and even spread more radioactive material around the world than all nuclear power plants combined, including Chernobyl.

^iv Urgency derives from the nearness of climate tipping points, beyond which climate dynamics will cause rapid changes out of humanity’s control. Concern about such behavior derives not from theory or speculation, but from improving knowledge of how the Earth responded to past changes of atmospheric composition and from observations of ongoing changes.

Tipping points occur because of amplifying feedbacks. Feedbacks include loss of Arctic sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, release of ‘frozen’ methane as tundra melts, and growth of vegetation on previously frozen land. The surface changes increase the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth. Added methane reduces heat radiation to space, amplifying the warming effect of carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.

Analysis of Earth’s history helps reveal the level of greenhouse gases needed to maintain a climate resembling the Holocene, Creation, the period of reasonably stable climate in which civilization developed. That carbon dioxide level, unsurprisingly in retrospect, is less than the current 385 ppm (parts per million). The safe amount for the long-term is no more than 350 ppm, probably less. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 ppm. Precise definition of a safe range requires better knowledge of all climate forcing mechanisms.

What is clear is that continuing fossil fuel emissions will put Earth on an inexorable course toward an icefree state, a course punctuated by increasingly extreme disasters with hundreds of millions of climate refugees. A large fraction of species on Earth face certain extinction, if we burn most fossil fuels without capturing and storing the carbon dioxide. New species may come into being over many thousands of years, but all generations of our descendants that we can imagine will live on a far more desolate planet than the one we knew.

^v Total carbon in conventional fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal), if released to the air, is enough to initiate a dynamic transition to an ice-free climate state, a transition that would be out of humanity’s control. A large fraction of the carbon dioxide emitted in burning fossil fuels stays in the air many centuries. Thus the climate problem cannot be solved by only slowing the rate at which we burn the fossil fuels.

Solution requires that a large part of total fossil fuels is left in the ground, or the carbon dioxide captured and stored. In addition, the unconventional fossil fuels (oil shale, tar sands, methane hydrates) must be left largely untouched or the carbon dioxide captured and stored.

^vi Now, with oil prices down, is when a hefty carbon tax should be added. In the future, when the price of gasoline again reaches and passes $4/gallon, most of this cost will be tax, staying in the country, spread among consumers, and driving our economy to a clean future. The public can understand this, if Barack explains it, and they will accept it, if there is 100% dividend.

^vii A carbon tax requires agreement of only several major nations. If any given nation does not apply the tax, an equivalent duty can be applied to their products at ports of entry.

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and the anti-nuclear movement

As world temperatures continue to rise and available resources [other than coal of course] continue to spur discussions of exactly when we will reach supply peaks [or when exactly that milestone was passed], attitudes are changing.

I began thinking about my own opinion - that the anti-nuclear movement will, over time, essentially die out. It has to, unless some magic technology is developed or humanity is willing to return to the dark ages - as frightening as that bad pun may be.

So what does this mean? How will it be manifested? Will there be a 'point' at which all will become informed and enlightened energy custodians? Na, it will be more analog than that, in fact it has begun already.

But how can this be? Can't we claim the anti- movement is as strong as ever and it's simply a case of governments being twisted by the industry, utilities taking advantage of subsidies, etc.? After all, many prominent anti-nukes have invested their lives into killing the atom. For their movement to die, a significant piece of them would also have to give up the ghost.

Then I thought of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. Surely if something is dying out - the signs of Kübler-Ross' popular process or 'Stages of Grief' would be there. Specifically they are:

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

Obviously, the anti-nuclear movement, even within Australia, does not move as one block or entity. Some - search enviro-conversions - have moved all the way through Acceptance and are now supporters of nuclear power. Many remain in Denial claiming, for example, nuclear takes too long, while defending the construction of more coal power stations because carbon-capture technology will eventually be there to save the day.

Anger? [Er, need I say it... 'election']

Even Bargaining has been around. Recall the pre-election films opposed to nuclear 'we don't need nuclear, we can get all we need from 'this' technology or 'that' energy reduction/saving program. I also see the elimination of the three mines policy as a form of Bargaining. Australia will support further nuclear power expansion elsewhere. But here? "No thanks mate." Eliminating 3-mines was a wise and helpful move indeed - but it only allows for partial implementation of a viable solution technology [just one of many that humanity needs].

I see other stages on the horizon. There will be Depression and - I expect - significant blame flying about as Australian emissions continue to rise, domestic coal stations continue to be built and/or climactic chaos intensifies; all despite the claims of complete fulfillment of all related election promises [i.e. significant government investment in reduction / mitigation programs].

Eventually there will be growing Acceptance and I'd like to add a 6th in this case.

Advocacy!

Holier than thou - Aussie Catholics join the debate

Two Australian Catholic social services and justice groups [not generally known for their technical insight, but I'm in a forgiving mood] have put out a report opposed to nuclear power. Nothing new - the same unjustified [from the perspective of risk, among others] 'concerns' about safety and waste management are there [despite no data on any impact on real people in recent history] as are the false claims of high cost etc. In fact, I'd swear I've read some of the paragraphs before - verbatim. My guess is that this 'report' was to come out about a week or more ago to influence voters, but got stalled in the review process. Since they put in all the work, why not issue it now?

However, Prof. Camilleri and friends had better be careful, because the Pope has fully endorsed nuclear power in the name of the Church. And just last month the Church affirmed this view by issuing comments about nuclear power's global expansion. I'm assuming that, as one of the wealthiest institutions on earth, the Holy See has access to considerably more resources than our friends above. However, I'm also confident that the former are within earshot of considerably more nonsensical anti-nuclear babble.

Any Catholics out there care to comment? What's in store for a Catholic who contradicts the Pope in open literature? Are we talking eternal damnation, a few millennia in purgatory or perhaps just a stern look and a slap on the wrist from Sister Mary-Margaret?

Garrett backs renewable energy sources

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald

To no surprise to me, Peter Garrett is promoting pretty much every form of renewable energy that is even remotely feasible; wind, solar, geothermal, waves and tidal. Interestingly he does not mention hydro. I have no problems with these forms of energy generation - they do indeed have their place.

Most interesting is what Mr. Garrett says about nuclear:

Mr Garrett told the Our Planet - Leaving a Legacy sustainability forum on Friday that Labor was opposed to nuclear power as a source of energy but was enthusiastic about the prospects for a range of renewable sources.

"In particular, we're not saying we should pick winners.

He said Labor did not support nuclear energy because it was expensive and there was a significant time lag between building and generating the energy.

Significant to me is that nuclear is both the first and last energy generation source mentioned in the article. Of particular interest are the reasons Mr. Garrett gives for his/Labor's negative view of nuclear power - cost and schedule. [So glad to see we've gotten over those other unjustified hangups].

Nuclear must be [and, truth be told already is] competitive with other no/low emissions energy sources.

Just more pre-election political spin.

If you take what he is saying literally [and note that Peter Garrett holds degrees in Arts and Law]; what it translates to in hard, technical terms is large subsidies and steadily increasing fossil fueled plant deployment - with the associated emissions increases, because even the maximum feasible deployment of renewables will not enable Australia to achieve the 60% or more reductions Labor is currently dangling in front of voters AND satisfy Australia's increasing demand for energy.

Believe me... don't believe me... it's up to you. Many people will simply see what they want to see. But you can't politic, cheat, swindle or cajole the laws of physics.

My Q&A with Blake

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

Hi Blake,

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hypothesis of my essay is:

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

Qs

What is wrong with the current power systems in place?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is nuclear power needed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How will nuclear power stations affect Australians?

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

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

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

What are your personal views on Nuclear Power / why?

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

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

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

Another convert

Gwyneth Cravens

Just in case you don't already read the Atomic Insights or NEI blogs (and I strongly recommend you do), Rod Adams has commented on a new book, "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens.

As Rod says, Cravens was a passionate anti-nuclear activist who, unlike many anti-nukes, invested the time - a considerable amount of time it would appear - to embark on a literal journey to discover the facts amidst the rhetoric.

Just one more example of an ever increasing trend.

See a related Cravens article for the Brookings Institute Review (2002) - Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks.

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

Anvil Hill Mine Approved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WA Political Move to Block Nuclear

The Western Australia State Government has introduced legislation to block the development in nuclear power there.

Penalties include a $500,000 fine and a state referendum should the federal government try to override the state's wishes.

Support for Nuclear

Ziggy Switkowski is providing some detail about government's ongoing role with respect to developing a domestic nuclear power programme. Basically, the government will have to develop some prerequisite infrastructure as I've mentioned in this post before. This includes a suitable regulatory regime, technically capable electrical grids and legal frameworks including indemnity [see the US's Price Andersen Act as an example]] as well as how to deal with differences in opinion between federal, state and local officials, etc.

"Government will need to be involved in some form, at a minimum in terms of setting up a credible, enduring regulatory regime, but it might go beyond that, in terms of some form of assurance around the cost of capital because this is the most capital-intensive form of energy generation."

However, over in la-la-land; the Australian Institute conducted a survey which seems a bit ridiculous to this blogger. Apparently - to whose surprise I do not know - most people in Australia would prefer to get their energy from the sun [50%] as opposed to nuclear [8%] or clean coal[1%]. This 'poll', as reported in the link above [the full report is in the second link], completely avoided including the demonstrated technical capabilities of the various options, real world costs, lifecycle analysis, etc. and by doing so results in complete farce. In addition, of the two [yes, two] whole questions in the survey, nuclear was lumped in with clean coal as a selection. Why not ask people if they would prefer to get their energy from that little 'Mr. Fusion' machine from the film 'Back to the Future'? If 90% of Australians favour such an approach - shouldn't government then pursue it?

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth:

Dr Switkowski was confident community support would start to emerge once a reactor was built.

"The experience overseas is that once you get the first reactor in place working well, community support follows quite quickly," he said.

Still, community attitudes towards nuclear energy had already shifted, he said.

"The attitudes we heard a year ago were shaped by the experiences of the '60s and '70s — Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Cold War, upper atmospheric testing — deeply held but largely emotional."

"Today the objections are almost the elements of a business case."

Said Dr Switkowski: "Frankly, if a business case for any sort of energy, including nuclear, can't overcome those reservations, then we shouldn't make the investment."

In other news, Haydon Manning of Flinders University has posted a very interesting opinion about the 'Dogma and delusion over renewables'. In this opinion Manning provides a detailed critique of Mark Diesendorf’s new book on renewable energy, Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy as well as some discussions from last week's conference on nuclear matters hosted by Flinders University. I'll only post a few paragraphs, but highly recommend the whole article.

My problem with Diesendorf’s book, and for that matter with an organisation I’ve long been a member - the Australian Conservation Foundation - is that a very hackneyed 1970s style anti-nuclear rhetoric is employed in the vain hope that this will help bolster the case for renewable energies such as, solar, wind, bio-mass and geo-thermal.

On the 'nuclear lobby':

The nuclear lobby, last time I looked, was hard to find. It certainly pales alongside the power environmental NGOs (Friends of the Earth, Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, Wilderness Society, World Wildlife Fund, and so on). There is no nuclear lobby of consequence because there is no nuclear industry. All there is, is a rational case for considering nuclear power here and in countries where lower carbon options for energy security are difficult to come by.

And finally in Politics this day, LABOR'S candidate for Corangamite Darren Cheeseman is stumping up fears and playing the 'N' card to get ahead. Bringing in none other than Helen Caldicott herself to project mass local extinction within days of a nuclear power plants commissioning.

I wonder if Darren Cheeseman supports Labor's emissions reduction target - and more importantly the elusive and unspecific means to achieve this... Just as I asked another left leaning politico in this post - where are your detailed plans Mr. Cheeseman?

Solar Thermal Plant startup

Rod at the Atomic Insights blog has some information on Nevada Solar One, a 64 MWe solar thermal plant that commenced operation in the American southwest this week.

See the post for the full story.


Meanwhile, NEI found an interesting Wall Street Journal article asking if Environmentalists are really in favour of anything???

Antinukes

I came across this 'definition' - if I may call it that - from blogger NNadir at the DailyKos blog.

The "antinukes" are a subset of people who believe that nuclear power operations are worse than climate change - which is driven by the indiscriminate dumping of dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere - worse than fossil fuel wars, worse than the acidification of the oceans and worse than the impoverishment of billions of people. Since I am hard pressed to find a single instance of a person killed by normal (or even accidental) operations of nuclear power in this country [the USA] - and there aren't that many people so killed on the entire planet - I am somewhat mystified by the existence of this devoted cadre of Helen Caldicott devotees and acolytes.

Blogger NNadir is a very articulate pro-nuclear blogger. By clicking on his direct link above you will be directed to his diary. I plan to stop by regularly and am adding a permanent link in the margin to the right.

Dr. Jim Green & Friends of the Earth

I hear that Dr. Green and/or some of his colleagues are looking for a review of the above on this site, so here goes:

Dr. Green's site may be found here, that of Friends of the Earth, Melbourne is here.

As I interpret the two websites:

- Dr. Green received his PhD. from the University of Wollongong in 1998. Copies of his full thesis on "Reactors, Radioisotopes & the HIFAR Controversy” can be requested via his Email address and/or phone number, listed in the site linked above.

- There's no disputed words; Dr. Green is listed in several linked references on those pages as an anti-nuclear campaigner. He appears to have dedicated his life (or at least his professional life) to the defeat of the nuclear industry in any form. I was unable to find a single positive word about nuclear technology on the sites or links that I followed (but I admit that I have not been able to check them all).

- I did notice that some of the claims mentioned on the sites/links are no longer valid though. This is particularly true with respect to international trends. For example, in a linked 2005 summary report you will find the following passage under the section on solutions to climate change:

Worldwide, there were only 26 nuclear reactors under construction at the end of 2004, with only one in Western Europe and none in the USA. Nuclear power capacity in Europe is falling and is expected to drop 25% over the next 15 years. The projected growth of nuclear power in a small number of countries, such as China and India, will not substantially change the global picture of stagnation and decline.

Media reports of the past 12 months tend to contradict the above for many countries and regions around the world. As an example, see this link or just recently (and if you prefer video) try here.

Also with respect to trends, we should not disregard the trends of high profile environmentalists reconsidering their position on nuclear power. Not just those like Dr. Patrick More, Co-Founder, Former Leader of Greenpeace (often dismissed, because he is now advocating nuclear energy for a living. But apparently it is perfectly acceptable to be compensated for opposing nuclear power... but I digress), but also about Friends of the Earth's own Hugh Montefiore, environmental guru James Lovelock, James Martin, and Stewart Brand to name a few.

I am not aware of any recent trends in the opposite direction (e.g. pro-nuclear advocates moving to firm, anti-nuclear positions) but I am willing to read about any should they be made known to me.

I respect Dr. Green's passion and his considerable effort. However, I have to wonder if this work has been based on an objective quest for truth and knowledge, or if it began with one basic foregone conclusion... that all things nuclear are bad? I can find no evidence to support the former, but again, I'm willing to consider any should it be made known to me.