Options for Australia's first NPP

Should Australia decide to price carbon emissions at a level where power producers begin to shift significantly away from fossil fuels, nuclear power will become economically competitive in Australia. Assuming this shift begins within the next five years and Australia does opt for nuclear power, we will construct an established Gen-III/III+ design, imported from a long time ally.

Why import?

For the same reason the HIFAR research reactor was imported fifty-some years ago (British DIDO design), the OPAL reactor was imported about ten years ago (INVAP / Argentina) and ANSTO's PETNET design was imported more recently. Australia does not have large-scale nuclear (NSSS, and nuclear A&E) design capability. Such capabilities are developed over decades. It could be done in Australia (or most other countries for that matter), but if energy supply and emissions reductions are the goal - such development is not on the optimised path.

However, Australia has recently and repeatedly demonstrated our ability to manage and implement large-ish nuclear projects with regard to project implementation and independent regulatory oversight. We have also demonstrated our ability to safely, reliably and efficiently operate and maintain nuclear facilities.

Established?

When nuclear power is cost competitive with other generation options, our uniquely Australian political challenges will remain. Opting for a design that has been built and operated several times in different countries provides a necessary degree of assurance against politically motivated claims of unknown costs, safety risks, or questions about operational reliability. Attempting to develop an unproven design here would expose would be investors to the associated unknowns of schedule delays, cost overruns or performance uncertainties. It is for this reason that nuclear design endeavours are usually scaled up through a series of increasingly larger demonstration projects.

An established design also brings with it prior regulatory approvals. This is not to imply a guarantee of Australian approval, but does provide added confidence in the review process.

Why an ally?

Consider the political baggage if Australia selected a Russian reactor design. Add to this the history of Russia using energy security as an instrument of foreign policy (every reactor requires a secure supply of highly technical spare parts for decades).

Furthermore, regulatory review and approval experience with a given design in the USA, Canada, the UK, Japan, Korea, etc. could reassure potential investors of our ability to adequately manage project implementation risks (i.e. schedule and cost control).

Why Gen-III/III+?

First, I've listed it as "III/III+" because the line between the two can be blurred depending on where you look. The designs I refer to include (not meant to be exhaustive and listed alphabetically by company):

• AECL - CANDU-6
• AREVA - EPR
• Atomstroyexport - AES92 (VVER-V392)
• GE-Hitachi-Toshiba - ABWR and ESBWR (without Toshiba)
• KHNP - APR-1400
• MHI - APWR
• Westinghouse - AP-1000.

Some are operating today, others are being built and the rest are being marketed. The list may grow as other companies / countries enter the international nuclear power plant supply market (AECL's ACR-1000, B&W's mPower, China's CAP-1000, etc.); but these GenIII/III+ newcomers will take some time to pass the 'established' test and therefore are beyond the scope of this post.

Next, as I've explained above, the design must be established. I fully support advanced nuclear research and development. I believe Australia should waste no time increasing its involvement in such efforts. However, the scope of this post is directed and the near-term displacement of fossil energy generation. And therefore, established, shovel-ready designs are required.

With respect to fast / Gen-IV reactors; the OECD produced an excellent report - Nuclear Development Strategic and Policy Issues Raised by the Transition from Thermal to Fast Nuclear Systems (88 pages, ISBN 9789264060654). In this report and several others, 2040 is projected as an estimated time frame of fast reactor deployment. The report details other challenges such as prerequisite infrastructure requirements that make Australia seem unlikely as a location for early Gen-IV deployment.

Gen-IV's likely time-line strengthens Australia's case for Gen-III/III+.

4,000 MWe Fossil for NSW

Hat tip to Rising Tide Australia.

Further evidence that saying no to nuclear, results in more fossil fueled power plants. The NSW Planning website contains project concepts for 4,000 MWe of electricity generation capacity in the form of:

2,000 MWe Bayswater B Power Station

2,000 MWe Mount Piper Power Station Extension

The above links will direct you to the online submission web pages. If you've got something to say, submissions close October 26.

Can nuclear power plants be expected to load follow?

In the spring / summer of 2003 FirstEnergy, a utility in the US State of Ohio, was supposed to trim trees away from high voltage transmission lines, but failed to do so. In the afternoon of 14-August, demand (or load) began to rise sharply on the electrical grid. The high voltage wires became heated and sagged into the untrimmed trees, initiating a sequence of events that resulted in the shutdown of more than 100 power plants, loss of electrical service for 55 million customers in the US and Canada, and spread so quickly that it took an international investigative panel 6 months to issue a findings report. (before / after satellite photos)

The delicate balance of generation and load on an electricity grid continuously fluctuates, often significantly and on varying timescales as industrial and household demands ebb and flow throughout a day, a week, or a season. Generation must adapt where and when required. Morning and evening demand swings generally occur over a few hours; but there are also significant plant trips to deal with (well over 1000 MWe in a single instance). Without getting into a discussion of ‘operating’ and ‘spinning’ reserve, it is evident that utilities have developed plans to account for a number of potential scenarios - the case above notwithstanding.

Utility operators can vary the electrical output from some power plants quickly to adjust total generation to total demand. Hydro power is an example. In generation mode the water falls through a turbine generating electricity. In nearly all cases, power can be quickly changed by reducing or increasing the amount of water passing through the turbine. Some hydro stations can work in reverse; taking power from the grid to pump the water back up into a reservoir. Demand can be added by increasing the pump speed or total number of pumps in operation. Such facilities give operators the flexibility to manipulate either side of the load / generation balance. This mode of operation is referred to as load following.

A load following generator’s principal attribute is responsiveness. With respect to nuclear power plants (NPPs), responsiveness of currently available light water reactors (LWRs) is challenged by neutron poisons – in particular the isotope xenon-135 (xenon). Xenon is a powerful thermal neutron absorber (poison) and will capture neutrons otherwise available for fission of the reactor fuel. It is produced directly and indirectly from fission in all reactors.

Xenon production and removal in thermal reactors has been well understood for decades [1]. However, nonlinearities related to the xenon equilibrium equation challenge the control of power swings required to support a load following mode of operation. Xenon transients have the negative impact of significant reactivity addition or removal over the time periods required by many load following scenarios (i.e. periods of several hours). The operational challenge of an in-progress xenon transient is further exacerbated by increasing or decreasing reactor power as the terms of the xenon equilibrium equation are each impacted by neutron flux (reactor power level) to varying degree.

Xenon transients

The neutron flux or power level of a reactor determines the production rate of xenon, iodine and tellurium (xenon precursors) as well as the xenon burn up. Xenon decay and tellurium / iodine decay into xenon are purely time dependent but are constrained by different half lives. Xenon concentration will reach equilibrium after a period of steady state operation or shutdown; in the later case following an initial spike in concentration due to the decay of the remaining iodine and zeroing of the xenon burn up term following the shutdown. Xenon equilibrium is not directly proportional to reactor power level. For example, the equilibrium concentration at 25% power is more than half the equilibrium concentration at 100%.

Reactivity is the parameter used to measure and control reactor power changes. As a simple analogy, reactivity to a core is like heat to a kettle full of water. Assuming the core is already critical, adding reactivity increases power (neutron flux) just as adding heat to a kettle increases the water’s temperature inside.

Withdrawing control rods increases core reactivity. As a poison, xenon absorbs neutrons and therefore reduces core reactivity with increasing concentration. Xenon transients challenge reactor operation due to continuously changing reactivity addition or withdrawal depending on the nature of the power history and attempted manoeuvre. For example, consider a reactor start-up about one day after a reactor trip from full power where xenon concentration had been at equilibrium. At the time of start-up, xenon concentration would have already peaked from the decay of iodine in the fuel at the time of the trip. The concentration would be decreasing steadily (adding positive reactivity to the core). This is not a safety concern since the control and safety rods add more than enough negative reactivity to maintain the reactor in a safe shutdown condition.

[In some cases high post-trip xenon concentrations add enough negative reactivity to prevent operators from commencing reactor start-up until adequate xenon decay time has passed.]

Post trip Xenon-135 transient [1]

As the reactor start-up progresses, the remaining xenon continues to decay but the concentration reduction is accelerated by the increasing reactor power’s impact on the xenon burn-up term of the equilibrium equation. As xenon concentration is reduced, positive reactivity is added to the core (equally accelerated). Operators must closely monitor core reactivity and take any required mitigating action to ensure the reactor is not shutdown automatically by reactor protection systems designed to limit the rate of power increase. Adding to this challenge, many reactor designs and license commitments require discrete hold points during power manoeuvres to calibrate instruments, perform reactor physics checks, synchronise the generator to the grid and perform other tests or surveillances.

Alternatively, if power is quickly reduced from 100 to 50% the resulting xenon spike, due to reduced burn up but continued iodine decay, will add negative reactivity for several hours and then reverse, adding positive reactivity as a new equilibrium is approached. As with the start-up example above, close operator monitoring and adjustment are required to ensure plant control remains within acceptable parameters.

Xenon-135 transients from power changes between 50 - 100% [1]

Returning to load following, the time periods, frequency of adjustment and response time required are in direct conflict with the nature of xenon transients at NPPs. For this reason, most NPP operators choose not to subject their facilities to load following operating modes.

NPP economics

Other economic realities further dissuade NPP operators from subjecting their facilities to load following manoeuvres. The principal financial outlay for an NPP’s lifecycle costs is the initial capital expenditure of construction. NPP operation is typically not sensitive to fuel price. Contrary to hydro plants that are able to store sometimes scarce water for peak periods or fossil stations subject to high fuel costs, NPPs do not benefit from fuel cost savings by reducing power. NPP revenue is typically directly linked to generation. Therefore the economic case for NPPs is strongest as a base-load facility, operated at 100% power.

The designs of core fuel loading for operating cycles are planned well in advance and based on assumed fuel burn-up over several fuel cycles (typically 1 to 2 years per cycle for PWRs and BWRs with any given fuel assembly remaining in the core for 3 or more cycles). Load following operating modes would add another layer of complication and financial risk to this planning.

The reactor suppliers

The economic interests of reactor design and supply organisations favour a marketable, load following design. If a load following NPP can be made available, additional nuclear generation share can be justified for a given electrical distribution grid. However, currently available designs continue to be constrained by xenon transients and the economic business case for nuclear power.

Modern designs have incorporated technology improvements to mitigate many operational challenges, such as the reduction or elimination of the hold points described above, ability to complete anticipated maintenance tasks at full power and core designs with strong neutronic coupling [2]. These improvements simplify operations during power reductions for unplanned maintenance activities and are highly desirable regardless of an operator’s willingness to load follow.

Potential for advanced and fast reactors

Xenon is a poison for thermal (slow) neutrons only. Therefore as fast reactor systems are deployed in the coming decades, the operational challenge from xenon will no longer be relevant.

Economic and other fuel cycle challenges are currently being assessed for fast reactor design concepts [3].

The World Nuclear Association is optimistic in this area. [4][5] The WNA's Ian Hore-Lacy contributed to the Encyclopedia of the Earth. His submission explains in some detail how advanced reactor designs will better accommodate load following.

In practice

Despite the challenges identified above, operators in France - with its high nuclear share of electricity generation - do elect to load follow [6].

References

[1] United States Department of Energy, DOE Fundamentals Handbook: Nuclear Physics And Reactor Theory Volume 2 of 2, website:
http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/standard/hdbk1019/h1019v2.pdf, accessed 12-September 2009.

[2] AREVA, The Path of Greatest Certainty: EPR a Generation III+ Power Plant, website:

http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/Brochure/300709_EPR_52pages.pdf, accessed 12 September 2009.

[3] OECD/NEA, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Transition Scenario Studies, ISBN 978-92-64-99068-5, Paris, France [2009].

[4] World Nuclear Association, website: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html, accessed 13-September 2009.

[5] World Nuclear Association, website: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html#0, accessed 13-September 2009.

[6] World Nuclear Association, website: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html, accessed 13-September 2009.

Posts by others

I was able to find a few posts (one, two) by Rod Adams (Atomic Insights) that mention the topic. Also thanks to Edwad Kee below for this post by Joe Romm at The Energy Collective / Climate Progress.

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].

Nuclear Australia and the WEO-2008

The International Energy Agency has published this year's World Energy Outlook. Similar to the 2007 version [which contained a feature section on China], this year's edition includes a dedicated, in-depth analysis of climate policy strategies to achieve both 550 and 450 ppm carbon-dioxide equivalent targets [atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently 388 ppm according to NOAA]. These targets are consistent with those from the recently issued Garnaut review.

The 569 page document is detailed to say the least. The report is divided into three principal sections:

• Global Energy Trends to 2030
• Oil & Gas Production Prospects
• The Role of Energy in Climate Policy

The 550 Policy Scenario equates to an increase in global temperature of approximately 3°C, the 450 Policy Scenario to a rise of around 2°C. The 550 Policy Scenario involves a plateauing of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 and reductions soon after. The 450 Policy Scenarios involves much more substantial reductions after 2020. Even then, emissions overshoot the trajectory needed to meet the 450 ppm CO2-eq target, requiring greater emissions reductions after 2030 [to achieve long term stability at 450 ppm]. In both scenarios, total emissions are significantly lower in 2030 in all major emitting countries. To reach either of these outcomes, hundreds of millions of households and businesses around the world would need to be encouraged to change the way they use energy. This will require innovative policies, an appropriate regulatory framework, the rapid development of a global carbon market and increased investment in energy research, development and demonstration.

The report explains that energy demand was increasing faster than emissions until the recarbonisation of the global energy supply market resumed after nuclear power fell out of favour in many countries in the 1990's.

Looking forward, the report explains how the most significant projected increases in emissions come from developing countries [China, India, etc.] as they strive to satisfy their increasing demand. To meet the goals of either scenario above, emissions from these energy expansion programmes must be pro-actively managed. In addition, the report also shows the bulk of emission cuts - form current levels - coming from OECD countries. Neither task will be easy, but all technologies have a role to play.

The 550 Scenario

The share in the world primary energy mix of low-carbon energy, such as hydropower, nuclear, biomass and renewables, increases from 19% in 2006 to 25% in 2030. Hydropower demand increases in the 550 Policy Scenario to reach 456 Mtoe [metric tonnes oil equivalent] in 2030, compared with 414 Mtoe in the Reference Scenario. Other renewables, such as wind and solar, receive a much bigger boost, rising seven-fold from just 66 Mtoe in 2006 to the same level as hydro in 2030. Modern biomass use also increases — both in power generation and in decentralised heat production for residential, commercial and industry needs — to around 1 200 Mtoe in 2030. Nuclear grows twice as fast as in the Reference Scenario to reach nearly 1 100 Mtoe in 2030.

All have a role to play. Coal miners may be pleased to see the industry continues to grow; albeit at a much slower pace than in the reference scenario. While Luke's analyses [first & second] don't give me a lot of confidence, achieving the relevant emission reduction goals relies heavily on carbon capture and sequestration [CCS]. Those who back renewables will also be busy for some time. Averaging 8.6% growth per year is ambitious, but this is without hydro and biomass which themselves must also expand considerably over the time of interest. One also notes a drop of -9% in world energy demand with respect to the reference scenario. This is due mainly to conservation and efficiency improvements.

Nuclear expansion - beyond the reference scenario - will happen mostly in the OECD. The goals are assumed to be partially achieved through license extensions of existing plants as well as the accelerated construction of new plants. The second figure below reflects a significant nuclear expansion already included in the reference scenario within other major [non-OECD] economies.

The 2006 value of just under 2,500 TWh equates to roughly 370 GWe of installed capacity operated for about 7000 hours - or roughly 80% of the year. A single 1000 MWe plant will add about 7 TWh more to the 2006 data. Therefore the equivalent of 70 new 1000 MWe nuclear power plants are assumed to come into service by 2030 in the above figure - just in the OECD. The equivalent of over 100 more plants are assumed to come on line in non-OECD countries.

The big picture from the report:

In order to reduce CO2 emissions by 7.6 Gt [7,600,000,000 tonnes], the 550 Policy Scenario requires development — on a significant scale — of less CO2-intensive technologies (Figure 18.4). In 2030, 4.8 Gt of avoided CO2 emissions — 63% of total CO2 emissions reductions compared to the Reference Scenario — stem from efficiency improvements in the end-use sector and in power generation. A further 0.6 Gt of CO2 savings come from the operation of an additional 86 GW of nuclear capacity, beyond that built in the Reference Scenario. The large-scale deployment of renewable and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies in the power sector gives rise to 1.2 and 0.8 Gt of CO2 savings, respectively. The decarbonisation of the power sector alone involves notably the construction every year to 2030 of an additional 7 [800 MWe] coal-fired plants and 3 [500 MWe] gasfired plants with CCS, 11 new [1000 MWe] nuclear plants and almost 12 000 [3 MWe] wind turbines, while hydropower is expanded every two years by 64 GW — the equivalent of three dams of the capacity of China’s Three Gorges Dam.

The 450 Scenario

Although the reduction in global electricity demand in 2030 is only 4% compared with the 550 Policy Scenario, the fuel mix changes significantly as a result of the wider use of nuclear and renewables. The share of coal and gas as fuel for power and heat plants in the 450 Policy Scenario in 2030 declines to 47%. This contributes to the security of the electricity sector, making the sector in many countries less import-dependent.

In the more-stringent 450 Policy Scenario, a deeper transformation of energy supply and an even wider adoption of CO2-mitigation options occurs (Figure 18.4). In order to achieve the necessary additional reduction between the 550 and 450 Policy Scenarios, further end-use efficiency improvements are assumed. Renewable energy is developed considerably further, to realise a further 25% CO2-emissions reduction compared to the 550 Policy Scenario. CCS technologies are applied more widely in power generation, but are also introduced in the industry sector. Thirteen additional nuclear power plants have to be built yearly, compared to the 550 Policy Scenario. Biofuels penetrate the transportation sector more deeply.

The data is impressively cross-cut and impossible to capture in one blog post. The economic impacts of different technologies are discussed - nuclear is the cheapest option in the EU with carbon pricing via an emissions trading scheme. It is second only to on-shore wind in the USA under the same conditions. There are detailed breakdowns of specific renewable technologies [on-shore wind, biomass, solar PV, solar thermal, off-shore wind, geothermal, tidal, etc.]...

This is an excellent reference. Anyone arguing that reasonable emissions reduction goals can be achieved without the expansion of nuclear energy production is clearly refuted by this report. Similarly, nuclear advocates who criticise other low-carbon options such as wind or solar should consider the information in this report. All technologies have a significant role to play. Champions of different technologies should welcome objective and constructive critiques. However, the more pedantic arguments, usually accompanied by not-so-hidden agendas, between those who otherwise agree on the requirement to reduce emissions, undercut the very milestones they are all working to progress.

The irresistible force vs. the immovable object

Australia's role in future energy policies and economies is complicated. The economy is closely linked to fuel exports and domestic energy supply is almost entirely carbon based. These dependencies will complicate the transition to a low carbon economy in a country significantly threatened by the impacts of climate change and ironically one the world's highest per-capita carbon emitters.

Nearly two years ago, the UMPNER report analysed the potential role for nuclear power in Australia. A growing community of concerned individuals, companies and organisations - including UMPNER chief, Dr. Ziggy Switkowski, are working to resume a discussion regarding nuclear technology's role in Australia's energy future. Meanwhile nations around the world are expanding existing nuclear programmes or initiating new ones.

The World Energy Outlook report concludes:

For all the uncertainties highlighted in this report, we can be certain that the energy world will look a lot different in 2030 than it does today. The world energy system will be transformed, but not necessarily in the way we would like to see. We can be confident of some of the trends highlighted in this report: the growing weight of China, India, the Middle East and other non-OECD regions in energy markets and in CO2 emissions; the rapidly increasing dominance of national oil companies; and the emergence of low-carbon energy technologies. And while market imbalances could temporarily cause prices to fall back, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the era of cheap oil is over. But many of the key policy drivers (not to mention other, external factors) remain in doubt. It is within the power of all governments, of producing and consuming countries alike, acting alone or together, to steer the world towards a cleaner, cleverer and more competitive energy system. Time is running out and the time to act is now.

Australian Emissions Trends

A collection of images from the 2008 report from the Australian Department of Climate Change. I put them here for us all to study.

"With Measures" includes the new Rudd Labor Government measures, in particular the 20% Renewable Energy Target, and yet it continues to show an increase.

These show that not only is the stationary energy sector (e.g. electricity generation, etc.) the greatest contributor, it is also by far the fastest growing in absolute terms.

... and here we see that despite the 'measures', stationary energy related emissions are to continue to - in the best case - remain the same.

Above we see the impact of ongoing efficiency and conservation programmes. The economy remains strong, but it's taking less emissions to achieve the related outputs. Those who promote efficiency and conservation as if it were something new are either misled or misleading.

I admit that significant scope remains to be tapped in this area. But we will be lucky if the results are enough to compensate for projected demand/population growth.

Here above, we see that stationary energy is projected to increase by 56% from 1990 to the Kyoto measuring period of 2008-2012. And worse, below they project emissions will further increase 64% beyond 1990 levels by 2020.

Also during this time period the report projects our per-person emissions will decrease from 33 tonnes per person down to 28 in 2008-2012, but then climb back to 29 tonnes per person by 2020.

Realising that these projections include fairly aggressive renewable targets and the 'Australian clause' regarding land use [a one-off perk for us]. I remain convinced that Australia has no hope of achieving anything near 60% reduction without significant nuclear power deployment in parallel with other measures well beyond those currently planned.

The data supports no other path.

Australia's uniqueness

Why am I always going on about climate, when this is supposed to be a discussion about nuclear power in Australia?

Simply put, I see no reason for Australia to adopt nuclear power except as part of a broader set of solutions to address high emissions linked to climate change.

I was reminded of this once again as I perused the slides that will frame the upcoming 2020 summit, of particular relevance to this blog is that of Population, Sustainability, Climate Change, Water And The Future Of Our Cities. Our coal reserves are 9% of the world total (pg.6, slide 5). My understanding is that this coal - particularly for domestic, mouth-of-the-mine applications - is dirt-cheap and enough to last us for quite some time. With the possible exception of some limited hydro applications that have already been exploited, there hasn't been nor isn't now, much economic justification for the deployment of any other power source.

Enter an emissions restrained world.

Now, if we are to meet the emissions targets being discussed, some significant change is required and in all likelihood that change looks to be expensive.

While many technologies are being promoted as such, I see no silver bullet - but I see a role for each.

Solar hot water, home/building insulation, CFLs/natural lighting, improved automobile fuel economy, improved efficiency for major appliances and industry are the no-brainers as far as I am concerned.

Wind has been demonstrated as a credible energy option, but there are related intermittency and overbuild requirements [If you want to generate 100MWe on average over a year, you must construct about 300MWe capacity] that must be factored in to any consideration. I believe many more wind generators will be commissioned in Australia and around the world where it makes economic sense to do so and where locals don't become upset over view obstruction or other impact such as that on birds - arguments that I do not comprehend. Windmills have existed for ages in the Netherlands. Tourists flock there to photograph them with the tulips in the foreground and they still have birds there...

Solar thermal plant construction and operating and maintenance experience is being accumulated and - I understand - looks positive for future applications. However, I do not believe this is certain and again there are the intermittency and overbuild constraints shared with wind. These again will be deployed where it makes sense to do so. However, this technology is behind the curve with respect to wind.

Bio-mass is there, especially for transport, but must be weighed against any possible impact on the global food supply-chain as well as any land use constraints which could partially negate some of the derived value.

Geothermal is in use elsewhere around the world, but some development work remains to be completed for its large/industrial scale use in Australia.

There are other technologies that are very early in the development stage or otherwise have limited deployment in Australia [algae based bio-mass, tidal]. Carbon-capture is the great hope, but there are no assurances the technology will work or most importantly be economically justifiable.

Photovoltaic solar involves toxic heavy metals and is - to date - prohibitively expensive.

Nuclear power is demonstrated around the world. It is safe, reliable and continuous. But it involves an enormous infrastructure, resource and time commitment.

How do 21 million [and increasing] people justify such a commitment?

On this same slide I reference above, the summit topic is framed as follows:

Australia's creativity, strong science base, agile economy and renewable resources, including sunshine, "hot rocks", wind and bio-resources, provide enormous capacity for a shift towards a lower greenhouse footprint.

Clean coal technology could have a profound impact on Australia's emissions and economy. Further development of carbon, capture and storage (CCS) technology will enable us to reduce our carbon footprint and to maintain our significant coal exports in a carbon constrained world.

Many countries are re-thinking the acceptability of nuclear power in light of climate change. Australia has a large share of the world's uranium and a role to play within appropriate safeguards.

I note with some reserved delight that the nuclear related comments are fairly lukewarm. I believe there could be a role for nuclear power in Australia. But many challenges with respect to the resource and infrastructure development prerequisites are uniquely Australian.

Many other countries can back each other up on a regional basis. So when the wind in one country ebbs; nuclear, hydro and unfortunately fossil fuels from neighbours can [and do] back them up. Conversely, when demand drops the nuclear plants can 'dump' power to their neighbours at next-to-nothing prices to avoid shutting down. See the transmission flows from the EU below. The EU has the highest nuclear density [NuclearMWe/squar km] of any region in the world. [Fat arrows mean greater energy flow]

European annual electricity flow (imports and exports)

UCTE - 2006 Annual Statistics Report

Australia however must be fully self-sufficient. The references made to France [at least from within Australia] are not completely relevant. While French references do make several good cases for nuclear power in general [safety, closed fuel cycle, more standardised design, etc.] - and France does well with respect to per-capita emissions compared to their peers, Australia would be quite challenged to approach the 80% nuclear electric capacity enjoyed by France.

Nuclear plants are designed to operate at 100%. They are not load following facilities but are suited for baseload applications. They should be started and operated continuously for about 2 years and then shutdown for a month or two for maintenance. There are sometimes unplanned maintenance outages or plant trips during such a cycle that can have a plant down for a few days to a couple of weeks - but these are typical of any generating facility anywhere.

A related danger is that if one country [in the European case above] fails to develop their electricity generation infrastructure, again they have neighbours to come to the rescue [consider Italy above - all the big arrows point IN]. South Africa would be a much better case study for Australia in this regard. They are lacking this backstop option and - having failed to ensure adequate capacity reserves are undergoing considerable strife.

I do not see us achieving France's level of nuclear commitment, but several reactors around each of the major urban centres is feasible. I also believe our elected and industry leaders are fully aware of the events in South Africa and seeking feasible options to avoid an Australian repeat of the situation. So, after all this; is there a role for nuclear in Australia? I still come to yes - provided we are serious about reducing emissions.

I am confident that the discussion above [and much more] was investigated to a significantly more detailed level in the 2007 UPNER report. The results seem fairly consistent. It seems as if similar discussion may take place during the upcoming Summit. I certainly see more uranium mining in Australia's future - but I suspect that's just the start.

FutureGen - the fizzle heard round the world

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

Full story from The Wall Street Journal

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

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

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

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

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

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

And nuclear power is the white elephant in the room?

More information

FutureGen Alliance

FutureGen US DOE

UK - Discussion on nuclear power

BBC Discovery's Sue Nelson is joined by three experts in the field of nuclear power generation to discuss the reasons for the revival of nuclear power in the UK and elsewhere in the world.

Listen to the full programme here [~26 minutes].

Her guests are:

Malcolm Grimston, Associate Fellow, Energy, Environment and Development Programme, Chatham House.

Professor Robin Grimes, Imperial College, London, and principle investigator on the Keeping the Nuclear Option Open initiative KNOO.

Dr Paul Norman, Head of Physics & Technology of Nuclear Reactors, University of Birmingham.

Environmental Performance Index

International criticism of Australia continues in a high profile report released at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Media Report at The Age

The report is the Environmental Performance Index, completed by Yale and Colombia Universities in collaboration with the World Economic Forum and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.

Some quotes [emphasis is mine]:

From the main report

Perhaps one of the biggest changes in the 2008 EPI is the weight placed on the new Climate Change category, which absorbs the 2006 EPI’s Sustainable Energy category, and the additional data included in its calculation: Emissions Per Capita, CO2 Emissions Per Electricity generated, and Industrial Carbon Intensity. Because of the greater recognition of climate change as one of the most pressing environmental challenges, the 2008 EPI weights climate change much more heavily in the ecosystem vitality objective. As a result, countries with otherwise advanced environmental regulatory and enforcement systems such as the United States and Australia, dropped in this year’s EPI in part because of this expanded category.

From the web page on climate change scoring

"The laggards on climate change are typically countries with particularly carbon-intensive industry and electricity generation sectors, such as United Arab Emirates and Australia..."

Among wealthy nations, the US and Australia rank lowest with regards to climate change performance. They have very high emissions per capita due to relatively high fossil fuel energy consumption and their failure to implement ambitious GHG emissions reduction policies.

Provided one agrees with anthropologic climate change theory and subscribes to emission reduction targets recommended by many scientific bodies; clearly Australia must do more to achieve our fair share of global reductions.

One way - a demonstrated, safe and reliable way - to sustain Australian economic growth and prosperity through no/low carbon emission electricity generation is the deployment of nuclear power generating stations in low population coastal regions of Australia over the coming decades. Nuclear power plants - as part of a diverse energy policy including efficiency improvements; conservation; and a considerable deployment of credible, demonstrated and available renewable technologies - is the only way Australia can conceivably achieve the targets being discussed at, for example next week's conference in the US state of Hawaii mentioned in the Age report above, without significant negative impact to our industry and economy.

Australia's complete EPI Score

Emissions per capita scores

Emissions per unit electricity generation

Fatih Birol Presents the IEA World Energy Outlook 2007

A very informative post at The Oil Drum [link below].

Fatih Birol Presents the IEA World Energy Outlook 2007

Emphasis on conservation and efficiency having an effect

Albeit not the effect hoped for by many.

In a previous post I included a link about the paradox of efficiency etc.

In practical terms, when an uninformed and misled public protests the construction of new generation facilities - while maintaining or increasing state/national energy demand - something has got to give.

This phenomenon would seem to be manifesting itself in another recent post on energy price increases in South Australia and Victoria as well as this article from the Australian on the current energy squeeze in Queensland.

This time it's not just higher prices, but decreasing reserve capacity [meaning the energy being generated beyond the 100% needed by all of us to run our AC units, not to mention all the heavy industry loads, etc.]. Per the report, the reserve dropped to record lows and the wholesale price for electricity reached the maximum of $10,000 per megawatt hour for supplies into the national electricity grid from Queensland. This, despite the recent start-up of our latest coal munching, carbon spewer, Kogan Creek.

Look for ongoing pressure for added electrical capacity and further utility pressure on the government to get decisive on climate change related regulations. This of course will be running parallel with ongoing international and domestic pressure for Australian emissions cuts.

Yet another perspective on the modern energy crisis where doing nothing / waiting involves considerable risk.

Have I mentioned that one AREVA EPR can reliably generate 1650 MWe, with one of the lowest lifecycle carbon emissions around?

Oh, and AREVA has just initiated construction of their second EPR - this one in France. Italy - buying a 12.5% stake in this project has found an innovative way to get around a 1987 anti-nuclear referendum.

AREVA's also sold a couple more EPRs to China in the largest nuclear sale ever.