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.

On wealth and waste...

As reported by Wendy Frew in the Sydney Morning Herald the largest ecological footprints may be found in the most affluent neighborhoods. This should come as no great surprise to most green-minded folk.

What I like in particular are the comparisons between efforts to save energy at home using rainwater storage tanks, solar hot water, compact florescent lighting, public transport, etc. and the impact of industrial consumption manifested through the goods Australians purchase to maintain our standard of living.

New data shows the electricity and water used to produce everything people buy - from food and clothing to CDs and electrical appliances - far outweighs any efforts to save water and power in the home, according to an extensive analysis by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the [Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis] University of Sydney.

The analysis from the Australian Conservation Foundation may be found here. Among other information, it includes a Consumption Atlas tool and reports:

The Consumption Atlas shows households in areas straddling the harbour in inner Sydney and the banks of the Brisbane River in Queensland are the country’s biggest greenhouse polluters. These areas are closely followed by: inner-suburban Canberra; Woollahra and Mosman in Sydney; Southbank and Docklands in Melbourne; and Fortitude Valley and Newstead in Brisbane. The lowest greenhouse polluting Australian households are in Tasmania – in the Derwent Valley, Kentish and Brighton areas.

This perspective seems to highlight two potential futures for Australia [and most likely beyond]. One in which people cling to their standard of living, fail to make the daily sacrifices and suffer the predicted effects of climate change. Or another in which people adopt broad lifestyle changes (including substantial sacrifices) for the environment and live simpler albeit cooler lives. Furthermore the authors appear to be admitting that the foreseeable deployment of renewables without nuclear will fail to adequately sustain the current Australian standard of living AND achieve aggressive environmental targets.

I have to wonder; if people fail to make those broad sacrifices, would Australians accept Nuclear Power (as some are proposing we do) or steadfastly refuse it in lieu of the projected environmental challenges. Sooner or later - this very well could be the ultimate decision we will all be faced with.

Running some numbers

Prof. Ian Lowe

Photo from ABC

In a piece for the Courier Mail, Ian Lowe vilifies nuclear power; but offers in it’s place the same hollow promises for a totally sustainable and purely renewable utopia.

Professor Lowe, doesn’t include many numbers in his essay, but what sort of message is delivered if we remove all the rhetoric and focus on the data that he – as “emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University and president of the Australian Conservation Foundation” – has laboured to compile?

Here’s what we get:

“We have known for more than 20 years that burning coal, oil and gas is changing the global climate.” [What?! - you mean some other administration was involved??]

“…it would take about 15 years to build one nuclear power station if we started today.”

“…dotting 25 nuclear power stations all over the landscape, would only slow the growth in greenhouse pollution by less than 20 per cent. The science shows we need to make serious cuts, 60-90 per cent by 2050…”

The report A Bright Future showed we could get 25 per cent of our power from a mix of renewables by 2020

He is also critical of uranium mining’s economical benefit, but sadly ignores the volume of emissions displace by that uranium (which is enormous even after mining, processing and transport are factored in).

So, what have we here? Look closely how the article and even the numbers are spun.

Per the EIA’s International Energy Outlook – 2007 [reference case, Table 1A], the total primary energy consumed by Australia and New Zealand in 2004 was 6.2 Quadrillion BTU. In 2010 it is supposed to be 6.8. So that puts us and the Kiwis at about 6.5 in 2007. About 85% of that lies in Australia – so that leaves us at about 5.5 Quadrillion BTU (a bit over 1.6 million GWh or 5.8 million terajoules if my maths are correct).

In 2030 – the maximum projection available in the report – primary energy consumption is projected to be 8.4 Quadrillion BTU for Australia and New Zealand. But we can make it out to 2050 by continuing with the trend. Note that 400 Trillion BTU is added at each 5 year increment. So for Australia that leaves 0.85(8.4 + 0.4(4)) = 8.5 Quadrillion BTU in 2050

While it’s probably reasonable to assume the population will increase, efficiency improvements and conservation may work to stabilize the growth [although this is probably a bad assumption based on recent experience i.e. our consumption will probably be higher and I am being overly optimistic with respect to efficiency and conservation, but let’s go with it for now].

So, the 25 nuclear plants can address 20% of the growth in emissions? So that would then equate to 25% of 3 Quadrillion BTU or 750 Trillion BTU per year. This works out to be about 220,000 GWh per year.

To check my assumptions, let’s multiply 25 GWe (about 25 nuclear plants at 1000 MWe each) times 365 days a year, 24 hours a day and apply a reasonable capacity factor of say 90%. That works out to be a tad over 197,000 GWh – so it looks as if my logic and assumptions are along the lines of the professor’s argument.

Now the statement on renewables in 2020.

In 2020, ANZ primary energy consumption is projected to be 7.6 Quadrillion BTU. Repeating the above, that means the Aussie share is about 6.5 Quadrillion BTU or about 1.9 million GWh. So 25% of this equates to 475,000 GWh – or about 60 nuclear plants working year round with a capacity factor of 90% (~60 GWe with 1GWh = 1 GWe generated for 1 hour).

According to the International Energy Agency, in 2004 Australia’s renewable energy generation was as follows:

Biomass: 790 GWh
Biogas: 715 GWh
Hydro: 16,480 GWh
Solar: 5 GWh
Wind: 700 GWh
All others: 0

Total: 18,690 GWh (Equivalent to about 2.5 nuclear plants operating year round at 90%)

So within 16 years [from 2004] we ‘could’ install the missing 57.5 GWe of renewable capacity? That’s the equivalent of… you guessed it, 57.5 large nuclear or coal power plants. Keep in mind that within Australia, hydro is all but fully exploited.

Going back to the IEA [Renewables Factsheet], by 2030:

Global solar capacity is projected to increase by a factor of 60
Biofuels are to increase by a factor of 4
Wind is to increase by a factor of 18

Applying these factors within Australia [and being very kind in assuming we can get the job done here 10 years ahead of schedule] by multiplying them with the 2004 values above and holding hydro constant, gives a new total of 35400 GWh (about to 4.5 nuke plants operating as above). This falls well short of the 60 GWe necessary to arrive at the 25% of Australian power. In fact renewables look to be providing less than 2% of all Australian primary power by that time.

What a lot of people are saying is that the 25 nuclear plants could – by 2050 – do quite a job, maybe a bit less than a third of what is required to effectively manage emissions. Hopefully by then the renewables can pick up the rest with an installed and reliable capacity of perhaps another 50 GWe or so. But looking at the projections for renewables as well as their current contribution – I’m not confident in their ability.

But I fully support giving it one hell of a try – with a much needed helping hand from nuclear energy.

ANU - Solar Thermal Prototype

I've said before that I favour solar power.

The ABC is reporting on a demonstration project at the ANU in Canberra.

While I wish the involved scientists, engineers and technicians only the best of luck, my principal concern is that the technology is in its infancy (in technical terms, the prototype/demonstration phase). Issues remain to be address such as how much capacity (vs. a given unit/facility's rated power) can be reliably provided? How will energy be stored for cloudy days and/or nighttime?

It's unfortunate the writer ends the article with a quote setting up a comparison between solar and nuclear (on cost). Personally I look forward to cost competitive and reliable solar technologies that will work WITH nuclear and other sources of no/low emissions energy to help Australia achieve our energy goals.

Solar powered billionaire backs... [wait for it...] Solar Power!!

SHI Zhengrong

(Shi sells Shi-cells, down by the sea shore?? - sorry couldn't resist)

To the bewildered amazement of this blogger – and I’m sure many readers out there – Dr. SHI Zhengrong, a Chinese billionaire and founder – and currently in possession of 40% of the shares of – the Nasdaq-listed Suntech Power, capitalised at $US5.5 billion ($6.5 billion) has come to Australia to ‘talk some sense into us’ about the justification for solar ‘over’ nuclear. [Oh, and then lure 300 of our best and brightest out to work in a probably much more lucrative Chinese energy market - but we're not supposed to focus on that. Remember my infrastructure post on resources?... ah-hem!].

What a shock!!

Mind you, I support solar – but I think we should all acknowledge two things. First the demonstrated capabilities of the technology; despite the claims of many solar advocates, solar is not displacing baseload power anywhere. It’s great for hot water heaters etc. but the heavy lifting will have to come from some other technologies – as international and domestic reports have repeatedly concluded.

Second, let’s get real about these pie in the sky claims regarding solar R&D. I can remember claims from solar enthusiasts back when I was at university – a long time ago indeed – stating that the ‘big breakthroughs’ were just around the corner.

I suggest we all take a deep breath, maybe even a step back, and look at the colossal problem that greenhouse gas emissions – carbon dioxide in particular – pose to us ALL in the coming decades.

Is it reasonable to assume the bulk of people around the globe will drastically alter their lifestyles? Take just a moment to consider what this means. Will even 10% of Sydneysiders be bicycling to work in 10 years time? Further afield, will residents of the developing regions of Africa be burning carbon depleted cow dung to cook their dinner?? [An example: I was dumbfounded when a former director of mine used to leave his office window open while his air-conditioner purred away [he was not a nuclear man by the way]. When I challenged him on it, he – being of an earlier generation – simply shrugged it off and made some comment about air-conditioned air being stuffy and his small impact would not kill the world [think again, mate]].

Is it acceptable to just continue to allow our electrical infrastructure to degrade to the point where brown-/black-outs are a periodic occurrence? This is happening as utilities wait for the manifestation of any carbon pricing and/or balk at new plant construction due to protests of the myriad environmental groups opposed to coal/gas [greenhouse gases], nuclear [? you got me], hydro [fish killers], wind [bird/view killers] as well as the others that I am sure are out there on the fringe. Will this or future generations accept less reliability than they have come to take for granted throughout their lifetimes? Without power, how long will it take for society to degrade into utter chaos? Think I’m being dramatic? Have a look back at the news reports following the 2005 Katrina hurricane in the USA. Not to mention that degraded electrical infrastructure makes any country more vulnerable to security threats.

But I’m not a total pessimist; in fact I have always considered myself more on the positive side. I do believe society in general can be counted on to make modest lifestyle changes. Maybe forgo the gas guzzling Ute for something more fuel efficient, getting in the habit of switching off the lights, or moving the A/C temperature up a few degrees, buying local produce, etc.

But if you look at the numbers, and the absolutely massive shift in energy generation technology required [or so say the experts at – for example – the IPCC]; it becomes painfully obvious that we will need – must have, in fact – an array of technologies and lifestyle changes to get the job done.

Simply put, this means: Solar AND nuclear AND hydro AND wind AND geothermal AND tidal AND biofuels AND lifestyle changes AND improved efficiency AND any bloody thing else that can be economically and safely thrown at this problem.

Of this list, nuclear – and only nuclear – can displace carbon based generation with existing, demonstrated and reliable capacity. Take nuclear out of the equation – and a credible solution is simply not technically conceivable.

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???

Report of the Task Group on Emissions Trading

Get the entire report in Rich Text Format, MS Word or as a PDF image. Or see this page for specific sections.

In [extreme] summary, the report endorses a 'cap and trade' scheme to be started sooner rather than later. In such a scheme, government sets the cap and issues some sort of emissions certificates. Issuing fewer certificates over time has the desired effect of reducing emissions. The price for the certificates is set by the market leading to competition by all technologies. The least cost abatement technologies would then be deployed and thrive in a sort of economic Darwinism.

I am pleased to see an objective consideration of nuclear as well as a discussion of renewable technologies within the context of their development status and capabilities. A few quotes:

Low-emissions technologies – such as clean coal, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal – should compete on an equal basis.

...displacement of Australian production could result in lower global emissions if the additional production were to occur in jurisdictions with lower emissions profiles (for example, because they use electricity generated by hydro, gas or nuclear power).

Large-scale emissions abatement will be dependent on the wider use of existing low-emissions technologies (such as nuclear and wind), the development and diffusion of new and currently immature technologies (such as carbon capture and storage, geothermal and large-scale solar), and widespread take up of energy efficiency and demand reduction opportunities.

...the ‘take off’ of the Clean Development Mechanism has not met the expectations of many [due to] the exclusion of some activities from eligibility, notably nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage projects

The Energy Supply Association of Australia (2006) found that to achieve a reduction of 30 per cent of electricity-related emissions from 2000 levels without nuclear and carbon capture and storage technologies would approximately double total electricity production costs compared with the scenario where these technologies were available.

And there are numerous references to our 'vast reserves of uranium'.

If one considers just the above statements... 'nuclear and wind are mature', 'nuclear and carbon capture required to achieve a cost effective 30% emissions reduction' [let alone anything larger - say 60%], 'excluding nuclear and carbon capture is why current emission reduction progress has been disappointing', etc; the conclusion appears to be that nuclear is the only available, mature technology capable of significant and cost effective emissions reductions. I would certainly say that we can't get 'there' without it.

Nuclear energy now our only option

As reported by David Barnett in the Canberra Times:

Selected paragraphs (I wonder, sometimes, if writers mind me editing them this way...)

Alternative energy can only be peripheral. We do not face up to our real choice because the Greens are watermelon green on the outside and deep Trotskyite red on the inside. Their prime concern is the evil of capitalism, and they command the media. Our politicians are just not game to take them on.

Australia, which has vast reserves of both fossil fuel and uranium, faces a simple choice between failing to meet the political expectations held for the nation in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and developing a nuclear power industry.

The great drawback in staying with fossil fuel is that we will become an increasingly backward nation. Some 30 countries in Europe, Asia and North America produce nuclear energy. Our scientific expertise was deliberately downgraded to the production of medical isotopes under the ALP government.

When it came time to replace the submarine fleet, we had no option but to look backwards to conventional power, instead of to the larger, faster and far more effective nuclear powered submarines because we do not have the infrastructure to support such vessels.

We have dithered over nuclear power for 50 years, while the world has moved on. Newcastle, which once produced the world's cheapest steel, and Wollongong have both become industrial wastelands. We produce cafe lattes as good as any in the world, but our manufacturing has moved north, and so, increasingly are our service industries also relocating.

The International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook for last year observed that the world faced the twin threats of not having adequate and secure supplies of energy together with the environmental harm caused by consuming too much of it.

Switkowski expects demand for electricity to more than double by 2050, while at the same time pollution and emission levels must be brought down on today's levels.

The solution as he sees it is a fast deployment of 25 nuclear reactors by 2050, so that about one third of electricity generation is nuclear, with greenhouse gas emissions down by 18 per cent. The first of them could be operating by 2016 and certainly by 2020.

They appear to be safe. Switkowski's commission visited Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which led to new safety standards and new reactor designs. Nuclear power plants now have very low incident and accident rates. Radiation risks are very low.

Britain, the United States, Japan and Korea are all increasing their production of power from nuclear plants, having concluded that the risks association with nuclear power generation could be managed. We agreed, Switkowski said.

Staff will be needed for the nuclear stations. Australia would need to invest in research and development, and in education and training across a range of fields.

Australia can only benefit from the great impetus this must give to our knowledge and to the development of new institutions. Concerted effort around the world to abandon the use of chlorofluorocarbons has led to a shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer during the past four years.

We have been held back by fear of the unknown an unknown that incidentally is thoroughly known elsewhere by green activism, by ignorance and by the media that exploits issues for their emotional or political implications, rather than on their merits.

It is time to put it behind us.

Solar & Nuclear

As I've said before, I like solar - in fact prefer it to just about any other form of energy production. However, the data I've seen suggests it can not produce the sustained capacity to 'economically and efficiently power a nation', etc. Even if solar and nuclear are deployed together - each receiving the exact subsidy (in cents per unit of net energy production) as Dr. Switkowski has suggested will be needed; I still see nuclear coming out on top or at least being justified as a significant base-load option.

I enjoyed this editorial from the Geelong Advertiser. It contains some frank statements - that if properly considered and addressed by a variety of stakeholders could really progress some action on the issues involved.