Australia's bad CARMA

It's finally starting to get orgainsed... the effort to make emitters accountable, to point fingers at them, and hopefully shame those responsible into action.

In this article from the AP, an online database has been launched. The CARMA database link is here.

And a relevant corresponding quote may hit home to some of us:

Australians produce 11 tons of CO2 for each of its people from their power plants — the highest anywhere — compared to 9 tons per person in the United States and 2 tons per person in China.

But the United States has the most CO2 emissions (2.79 billion tons), followed by China (2.66 billion tons). China, which soon is expected to pass the United States, is home to three of the world's five most CO2-polluting
utilities.

Such information provides a "a vivid illustration that rich countries and developing countries must work together to overcome the challenge of climate change," said Wheeler, an expert on environmental economics.

The site/database is excellent. For example, compare the nuclear poster-country France to say Australia, New Zealand, the USA or China; or dig deeper to your local area.

A GREAT information tool. Thanks to David Wheeler, Kevin Ummel and the rest of the team at CARMA.

FYI... the five worst Australian emitters are...

1. ERARING, Dora Creek, New South Wales, 20,200,000 tons CO2 per year

2. BAYSWATER, Muswellbrook, New South Wales, 20,200,000 tons CO2 per year

3. LOY YANG A, Traralgon South, Victoria, 14,700,000 tons CO2 per year

4. LIDDELL, Muswellbrook, New South Wales, 14,500,000 tons CO2 per year

5. GLADSTONE, Gladstone, Queensland, 11,800,000 tons CO2 per year

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.

Energy, Climate, the Environment and the Ballot Box

The idea for this post was kicked off when I read a recent article in Neucleonics Week (subscription required). The article reported on an analysis conducted by Murray Goot, a social scientist at Macquarie University in Sydney, of nuclear related public opinion polls [more than 40 since 2005]. His findings were first released at a seminar on Australia's nuclear energy policy held at Flinders University in Adelaide in June.

After analysing more than 80 questions it should come as no great surprise that the outcome of the polls was dependent on how the questions were framed. Where the questions preceded by information on global warming or the complexities of high level nuclear waste? France's cheap, reliable power or North Korea's recent weapons test? Etc.

While the analysis confirmed a significant concern within Australia about Climate Change [consistently increasing from the 1990s], the overall conclusion is as follows:

Contrary to assertions of some nuclear advocates that Australians are dropping their opposition to nuclear power out of concern for climate change, Goot said, additional opinion research may indicate instead that public opinion on this issue "may not be changing." And despite evidence of widespread concern about climate change, he said, there is no conclusive evidence "that this new and potentially compelling way of framing the [nuclear energy] issue is making it easier for public opinion in favour of nuclear power to be mobilized."

Then later in the week I read about the rift within the Coalition. At least one of the Nationals candidates stated her disagreement with the PM's openness to consider a Nuclear Australia. But such political 'rifts' are not confined to the Coalition. Consider the comments of Labor MP Tom Kenyon. Kenyon more than impiles that provided nuclear power can be demonstrated to be an economical choice, it should at least be considered. Not quite in line with many recent comments from Mr. Rudd.

Now toward the end of the week I'm reading of the PM's support for local plebiscites on nuclear power. While this may be interesting, I'm not sure how relevant it is. And as we see above, it may weigh heavily on framing - with those pulling up short on votes crying foul in the end [if such plebiscites ever happen].

One may think that some will show their true opinions with respect to energy, nuclear power, climate change and the environment during the upcoming election [assuming these issues are enough to sway some voters]. However, if one is 'voting in consideration of the environment', or 'in support of tangible action to mitigate the predicted impact of climate change' to whom should their precious vote be given?

Considerable effort has been devoted to nuclear during this campaign by both Howard and now Rudd. Not long ago, Labor was decrying the Coalition for considering an expensive ad campaign about nuclear, but read this article from the Sydney Morning Herald:

Labor's anti-nuke campaign is simple, based on six words: "Where do the nuclear reactors go?" Its polling has shown the potency of the scare, which it is not letting up on. It is currently running a TV ad in Queensland exploiting local fears: "[Howard] refuses to talk about a list of possible sites for reactors that includes Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Mackay, Townsville, the Sunshine Coast, even Bribie Island."

Labor will continue to go on the front foot by putting the frighteners into everyone. But Sue Page is less concerned than she was, after making what she describes as her "pre-emptive strike".

But, if elected, what is Labor proposing to do about climate change? About Australia's consumption and supply of HUGE amounts of coal - significantly contributing to a global environmental quagmire [and - need I repeat - a genuine concern of a consistent and growing number of Australians]?

The answer is, "Not all that much". The Coalition is accused of proposing nuclear power, and backing that up now with plebiscites - both of which, as the Herald points out - coming to fruition long after Howard is retired. Labor, however, is tossing up some targets and spicing that up with catchy, populist lingo such as 'renewables', 'distributed power systems' and technical irrelevance such as how many years Australia could be powered if we could just capture the sunshine that falls on the country for one day. Let's face it; if Labor had confidence in a credible nuke-free solution 'Rudd et. al' would be promoting it in detail. I suspect if Labor is elected, they will proceed to generate, as their time in office progresses, a list of actions and accomplishments. Each will sound impressive [incentives for solar hot water, the death of the incandescent bulb, etc.] but the overall impact on emissions will be far from anything required to achieve those targets; which could, themselves, get pushed further and further to the horizon as we wait with baited breath for the salvation of 'research'.

If I were in the fossil fuel business, I don't think I could dream of better strategies - from both Labor and the Coalition; who, together, are shifting the debate away from very tough issues related to coal and fossil emissions in general.

Ironically, a lot of the research dollars seem destined for coal - as scientists work to 'green it up'. We should admit that there is considerable capital investment in coal related infrastructure within Australia [and many other countries]. Industries as well as governments can't really be expected to redirect all that capital on the spot. But the experts say tangible progress on emissions reductions is needed - and SOON. To put too much faith in the eventual payoff of some type of clean coal technology [as an ever increasing number of plants burn away] carries with it considerable risk.

With respect to the vote [at least on the subject at hand]. I look for an answer about 'how and when' the emissions would be reduced - energy security not being an issue here as it is in other countries. With nuclear, I can see how it will happen. The technology is proven. Examples exist all around the world. In Europe, for instance, every country meeting their Kyoto targets has adopted nuclear power. ALL countries without nuclear power have FAILED to meet these targets [see also this post from Ruth at We Support Lee].

Without the objective consideration of nuclear, I see only politics and a lot of eventual finger pointing.

Leaders’ Inaction

In Newport, the leadership (the most powerful, according to the Williamstown, Altona, Laverton Star) is speaking up and speaking out against Nuclear.

Gellibrand MP Nicola Roxon

“It is too expensive, too dangerous and not the right solution,” Ms Roxon said.

I'm assuming she's talking about a solution to emissions linked to climate change. But too expensive? According to whom? As compared to what? And finally dangerous? Certainly not for the past few decades and again compared to what?

Williamstown MP and Premier Steve Bracks said he was extremely concerned at the thought of nuclear power in the area.

“Victorians do not want nuclear power,” he said. “I’m sure the people of Newport do not want nuclear power and Canberra should not be forcing this on anyone.”

Sorry, but I didn't think Canberra is forcing anything on anyone. In fact I believe those supporting nuclear power are saying any thought of siting a facility now would be premature and unwarranted.

Hobsons Bay mayor Leigh Hardinge said it did not make sense to build a large baseload power station in a residential area.

“I would be very surprised if it was ever built in a metropolitan area,” Cr Hardinge said.

I agree with mayor Hardinge. Nuclear Power stations aren't typically constructed near metropolitan areas. Such locations tend to become significantly more populous over a plant's 40+ year design lifetime, complicating emergency planning etc. Therefore most utilities have the foresight to build the plants a bit further out.

Spotswood Ward councillor Bill Baarini said he would fight any nuclear proposal for Newport like “(Anthony) Mundine in a championship fight”.

“If Newport qualifies for a reactor by the (Australia Institute) criteria then I can’t understand why the rest of Australia doesn’t,” Cr Baarini said.

Again, I don't think anyone is advocating site qualification processes. It's way too early for that. But I think Cr. Baarini should dig a bit deeper. His comment suggests (to me at least) a very limited understanding of power infrastructure requirements of any kind - let alone nuclear.

Hobsons Bay Community First co-convenor Tony Briffa has urged residents to speak out early in opposition of any proposals.

“Silence implies consent,” Mr Briffa said.

“I fear if we are not concerned or active about this it will end up being here.”

Mr Briffa said he was concerned about siting a nuclear plant so close to a highly populated residential area as well as the effects of dispersing nuclear waste.

“And I guarantee 100 per cent of
residents would feel the same way about it,” Mr Briffa said.

Where to start. What about those who favour the idea? Shouldn't they speak out as well? (I certainly hope so.) Why not advocate a well informed discussion? And on the dispersing of waste...? What does this mean? Nuclear plants are designed to contain the waste and - I might add - do a surpurb job at meeting this design criteria in numerous countries around the world. Finally, the 100% number is baseless. Just have a look at poll results on this Blog alone. This then begs the question, "What of that guarantee?" These statements are pure rhetoric, designed to scare rather than inform.

If not nuclear, then what? Inaction is certainly no solution. Instead of rallying around what we are NOT going to do (or so say the most powerful leaders above); why not chart a course to some feasible end-game?

To put it another way; please lead, or get out of the way.

Australia Institute deputy director Andrew Macintosh

“Politics is the only thing that will write it off.”

And finally...

Cr Baarini said he would seek more information on Newport’s potential as a nuclear power site from the Australia Institute and contact the Federal Government.

Mr Briffa said he would consider holding a community forum on the issue to get the full story from policy makers and environmental groups.

Ok this last bit is encouraging. More communication and information is a good thing. I only hope they move away from the rhetoric.

I encourage all to seek objective facts about these issues. The comments above - for the most part - are certainly neither objective nor factual. Considering what is at stake, cooler heads MUST prevail.

So please, seek better information, stay cool and just chew on it for a while. We will make the right choices, but only if we are well informed.

One big happy nuclear family

As reported in The Australian:

I give this report 4 (of 5) Fuel Assemblies...



Some excerpts of interest:

... It's like a perfect storm building in disparate Atlantic nations. Nations with inimpeachable social progressive agendas, such as Sweden and Finland, are choosing to expand nuclear power; the British Labour Party, under greenhouse zealot Tony Blair, is considering renewing its nuclear power stations; neutral organisations such as the European Union are promoting safety in the former Soviet states; long-term nuclear nations such as France are providing waste treatment; and nuclear holocaust threats such as Russia and the US are moving towards recycling nuclear waste. ...

... In France, where 80 per cent of the domestic electricity comes from nuclear plants, there is now a PIMBY effect - Put It In My Back Yard. One of the key reasons to build a new, third nuclear plant at Flamanville in Normandy was positive lobbying from local councils, business and people wanting to add to the more than 10,000 direct jobs in the area dependent on the nuclear industry. ...

... If you accept the need for immediate action to reduce greenhouse gases a lot by 2050, you have to consider the options of expanding renewable energy sources, taking advantage of "low-hanging fruit" by lifting energy efficiency, developing clean-coal technologies, using more natural gas and using more nuclear energy. ...

... but there's so much more. Worth the read.

Impact on Home Insurance

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting:

Greens senator Christine Milne has raised the issue of future nuclear power plants, home insurance policies and general risk.

She links this risk (risk of loss due to some type of operational accident) with corporate reluctance to build new plants (which is principally due to business schedule and regulatory approval risks during planning, construction and commissioning). I think that's a bit of a stretch on her part, but the general point is an interesting one.