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.

Insuring a nuclear renaissance

By nature insurers take a dispassionate, objective perspective when assessing the convergence of risk and consequence. Insurance related developments can therefore serve as a broad industry touchstone – in this case the future of worldwide commercial nuclear power deployment.

Lloyd’s has included a feature in their current issue of Market Magazine. In this article they begin by acknowledging that “The global nuclear industry’s star is rising”. An example of interest being:

“China, which connected its first commercial reactor to its national grid in 1991, now has 11 working reactors and six under construction. It plans a six-fold increase in nuclear capacity by 2020 and then a further three- to four-fold increase by 2030.”

Michael Dawson, Active Underwriter of Chaucer’s Nuclear Syndicate projects most nuclear new-build will simply replace current facilities nearing the end of their design life and that nuclear’s share of energy in developed countries will remain at about 20% until around 2025. Dawson predicts total ‘nuclear business’ to subsequently increase after 2025.

Interestingly for Australia, fuel security is highlighted as a risk whose management is critical to the global expansion of nuclear power. This is consistent with international efforts and attention being given to fuel supply such as the GNEP and a special topic of the IAEA’s 50th General Conference approximately two years ago.

The article discusses specific areas of risk such as construction, flooding and a hypothetical release of radioactive material as well as more recent additions such as those related to environmental impacts and decommissioning.

Mark Tetley, Managing Director of the British nuclear pool, Nuclear Risks Insurers concludes, “I’m very positive about the UK’s nuclear new build framework, as I believe it will be the most sophisticated globally. The insurance market is already playing a central role in helping the Government develop this model.”

The magazine includes numerous inserts and factoids. A few of interest are included below.

Lloyd’s has been involved in nuclear insurance since the British nuclear pool, Nuclear Risks Insurers (NRI), was founded in 1956.

NRI’s capacity comes from eight insurance companies and 16 Lloyd’s syndicates. NRI represents the largest single block of risk transfer insurance capacity in the world, at more than £400m. It also reinsures other nuclear pools worldwide. It covers risks including property, nuclear fuel and waste plants, construction work on nuclear sites and transport liabilities.

In the UK, the industry is governed by various national laws and international conventions. These set limits of damage beyond which the state is effectively the insurer of last resort.

For details of international nuclear liability conventions from the World Nuclear Association.

Bob Hawke speaks out for nuclear power

Bob Hawke - Australia's longest serving Labor PM [1983 - 1991] believes nuclear power should remain on the table for Australia.

As reported by the ABC.

"Intellectually it's impossible to avoid this position - that you should be prepared to have it open as a possibility - but it just seems to me to be intellectually unsustainable to rule it out as a possibility," he said.

Well put.

If one is genuinely concerned about modern energy strategies in the context of carbon emissions reductions, energy security as well as adaptive responses to climate change [desalination being the principal example in Australia] - nuclear power must be part of the solution. A rational, sensible consideration of the available technologies will come to no other conclusion.

Rudd stands his ground on nuclear power 'capital N - O'

As reported by the ABC.

Kevin Rudd is standing his ground. Not surprising at all. This is one of his core election issues. To back-flip on this item so soon is unthinkable.

But some food for thought:

First, Rudd has begun talking about nuclear in [slightly] more detail than he has in the months since the election. I doubt very much that this is what he or his team wanted, but his hand may have been forced by the Howes-Carr position. He will not be able to speak about nuclear's role [or non-role] for very long without getting into some technical justification and details. When this happens, I do not believe even 120 hour work weeks will be able to defeat rudimentary physics. The science, available technologies and required development do not support Rudd's election promises. He is in a tough spot.

Next, in the report, Rudd says,

"The precise definition of the scope of the [emissions trading] scheme - that'll become clear during the green paper, white paper process," he said.

"We're proceeding on this policy development process, calmly, coolly methodically, responsibly and that's why we've been out there in the last six months consulting industry."

I am perplexed at how technologies can be selected [or ruled out] even before a review is completed. Also, how could any credible non-nuclear emissions reduction plan be developed and promoted during the election campaign process if the consultation process only began six months ago? It may be quite possible that a 'popular' promise has been made to win an election and now the technologies, techniques and timelines to achieve it must be identified and defined.

An increasing number of Australians are coming to believe that not only will this effort prove impossible, but that there are some serious downsides.

Finally, Rudd - sounding much like George Bush a few years ago - is pushing clean coal.

Mr Rudd has also maintained that the coal industry must remain part of a long-term solution and that clean coal technologies must be further developed, but he is optimistic about its future.

Clean coal will be needed and much investment is warranted to develop the technology ASAP. But it can't do the job alone and the technology will not be capable of significantly impacting emissions anytime soon - certainly not by 2020.

Legal team points to French nuclear and asks, 'What if...'

Guillaume De Rubercy and Prue Harvey of Claton UTZ penned a general review of Austrailia's energy options in Mondaq's Environmental and Energy readership.

In the article the authors point to the often sited French nuclear power programme. As I say here, we can not carbon-copy the French programme for a number of reasons. But De Rubercy and Harvey are spot on; generally speaking, there is much Australia can learn from French experiences.

From the text:

As however our current reliance on fossil fuels is not sustainable in terms of both supply and greenhouse gas emissions, Australia may soon have to face the unavoidable prospect of nuclear power. As we possess 40 percent of the world's uranium reserves, it is not surprising that the Switkowski report recommended the construction of Australia's first nuclear reactor by 2020, and a total of 25 nuclear reactors by 2050.

and they conclude:

Use of nuclear power in Australia remains highly controversial. Our heavy reliance on fossil fuels is not, however, a feasible long term solution. Nuclear power, as one potential alternative, may therefore become an unavoidable prospect in the future. While this may seem daunting, the regulations employed to ensure the successful exploitation of nuclear power in France will be a valuable tool when the time comes.

More nuclear deployment - we're getting closer

The expected launch of a new wave of UK nuclear power plant deployment is sparking acts of desperation from anti-nuclear critics and activists.

Dan at Idaho Shamizdat has an informative post on the anticipated UK announcement regarding a renewed nuclear energy programme.

Almost just as fast, over at the Oil Drum: Europe, Chris Vernon submitted this post about anti-nuke David Fleming's 'concerns' about 'peak uranium'. I gather from this post and the subsequent comments that Fleming is referencing 'Storm and Smith', a uranium / energy balance analysis that has been discredited by, among others Australian, Professor Martin Sevior. There's plenty of economically recoverable uranium out there. For details, see the links below.

These posts and this argument are more good news for nuclear power for a variety of reasons:

• First, the world is progressing still further through anti-nuclear rhetoric and what I see as pretty much 'junk' science (or at least poor quality / biased science) by, for example Storm Smith. First it was safety. Then following decades of operational excellence, that was grudgingly conceded. Then it was cost and construction time, but now with the true capabilities of renewables becoming better understood, the undefinable lead time of 'clean coal' and the ever increasing costs of gas and oil; nuclear plants on a 10 to 15 year horizon are looking more desirable. So now we have the 'peak uranium' argument. Recall my 'stages of grief' post? This is bargaining, simply a stage in the process.
• Next, I note the quick rebuttals from the scientific and engineering community. I'm not so certain this would have been as swift or thorough in previous decades. Maybe the Internet has provided a medium where scientific information can be presented fully, without interruption, to a broad and interested audience. If so, this change seems to have liberated individuals who would have previously shared their ideas in papers buried in scientific journals, to close fiends over dinner or via brief chats at cocktail parties. In any case, this is another tick in the 'good' column.
• Finally, I note the interest level in general. For good or bad, a rapidly growing number of people are interested in nuclear power again and are seeing fit to actually discuss different issues. I look forward to a day [I don't think we're quite there yet] where indignation, and arrogant, dismissive attitudes are, themselves, no longer considered valid anti-nuclear arguments by the general public.

Charles Barton at Nuclear Green shared some information about the further debunking of Storm and Smith [not on his blog - yet. I received it semi-directly]. The below links are courtesy of his research.

For more information:

Storm and Smith debated by Prof Servior and Dr. A. Flintly

Another Oil Drum Post - M. Sevior

U of Melbourn article

Lifecycle of Nuclear Power

Yet still more on GNEP - recommended reading

Steve Kidd has prepared another fine article for Nuclear Engineering International.

This one is on GNEP - in the global context of many ongoing, techno-political activities.

I agree strongly with the articles points and conclusions.

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.

Addressing the more serious critics

Steve Kidd

photo courtesy Nuclear Engineering International

Steve Kidd recently prepared a comment piece for Nuclear Engineering International that acknowledges the long time, emotive opposition to nuclear by the more high profile environmental groups, but then quickly moves on to discuss more serious opposition to nuclear by critics that have - until recently - remained mostly dormant, happy to let the more vocal environmental groups do the job.

But with the resurgence of nuclear power due to the serious environmental challenges associated with fossil fuels as well as energy security issues around the world; these opponents are reemerging. In his piece Steve does well to describe these critics and more importantly the issues at hand. He looks to historical evidence from both the nuclear as well as other industries to demonstrate that the nuclear renaissance is indeed a credible source of reliable energy for the foreseeable future.

Much of the debate about nuclear at this more sophisticated level comes down to values and interpretations rather than facts. Even when it is possible to agree on the facts, different people have alternative perceptions of risk and this lies at the heart of everything to do with nuclear. It is a complex technology and brings forward a wide range of issues which act like a thick fog in people’s minds. Yet the financier of a new plant is in much the same position as someone who lives just down the road from a proposed site for a new reactor or a voter much further away who is presented with nuclear as a serious energy option. The financier has a long list of risks, which must be competently allocated amongst the stakeholders in the plant to give him sufficient comfort to proceed, and without imposing a damaging risk premium on his money. Some are the responsibility of national governments, some will be taken up by the plant vendor and contractors, while others will lodge with the power company itself. The local resident faces different risks, but needs satisfaction on safety, radiation emissions, plant security and eventual decommissioning of the site. The national voter, however, is maybe more concerned by possible proliferation, terrorism and waste management issues. There are clearly different issues for different groups, but each requires a great deal of industry attention to give them comfort. There is little alternative to increasing knowledge and understanding of the complexities of nuclear, in the hope that the essential audiences will be patient listeners and not feel overwhelmed. It is clear from everyday life that attitudes to risk vary considerably, so even the best industry explanations are unlikely to satisfy everyone.

More comments from Steve Kidd

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?

Feasibility of Enrichment (in Queensland??)

The World Nuclear Association is reporting a planed Uranium Enrichment feasibility study about to be launched by Nuclear Fuel Australia Limited.

Plans by the new company, Nuclear Fuel Australia Limited, which is headed by Clarence Hardy, envisage a 3 million separative work unit (SWU) per year plant using Urenco 6th-generation centrifuge technology. Hardy told World Nuclear News that Urenco's National Enrichment Facility (NEF) under construction in New Mexico, USA, made a "very good reference model" for the potential future plant.

Valued at around A$2.5 billion ($2.1 billion), the project could see a A$2.0 billion enrichment plant and a A$500 million conversion plant, which would transform uranium oxide into the uranium hexafluoride (UF6) feed required for gas centrifuge enrichment. Construction is envisaged in the report as starting in 2010 with full capacity being reached in 2015.

Hardy emphasized that NFAL as a company was solely concerned with the feasibility study, and had made no agreements with Urenco or any domestic uranium producer. He said the NFAL preliminary study does not discuss potential sites for the plants.

This work picks up where a previous effort in the early 1980's left off. Some media outlets are reporting that work as some sort of clandestine activity [I wasn't in Australia at the time, so I can't comment]. But I doubt that was the case. If you read the entire WNA article linked above you will see that the 1980's work had government support. Also, let's not forget SILEX [domestic Australian technology recently licensed to GE/America]. So enrichment technology is nothing new to Australia.

Considering the size and scope of the facility being considered... I'd say this is but another example of high end employment opportunities involved within the nuclear fuel cycle.

As one would expect. Kevin Rudd is denigrating this announcement and those behind it. At his side, I am not surprised to see Queensland Premier Peter Beattie. Between the two of them - you will hear the same tired anti-nuclear political rhetoric as I've already posted way too many times in this blog. Digging up the waste discussions while Australia's numerous coal plants continue to indiscriminately spew toxic, climate killing wastes into the air we all fill our lungs with - on average - 13 times a minute.

But the article linked just above also gives some airtime to Dr. Bruce Flegg, Member for Moggill. Dr. Felgg is accusing Peter Beattie of generating hysteria for purely political gains.

"I'm not sure Australians are so simple as Mr Beattie and others would like to portray them," Dr Flegg said.

"Why not at least look at whether this could be a future valuable industry for Queensland?"

Dr Flegg accused the premier of "selling short the future of the state". "We want to look at the science of it and make sure that if uranium enrichment were to be contemplated for Queensland that it can be delivered safely."

"Uranium enrichment is not an activity that should be tolerated in any of the residential or urban areas in the state of Queensland," Dr Flegg said.

I'd say Dr. Flegg is right. Especially when Mr. Beattie speaks of 'other options to address climate change' while his fingers quietly stroke the pen that approved new fossil fueled facilities like this one to be located near Braemar, Queensland.

Further information

WNA's Uranium Enrichment information paper

WNN: Australian uranium policy moves on
WNN: "Nuclear power is part of Australia's future"
WNN: Taskforce supports consideration of nuclear

Australia and the nuclear fuel cycle

We have a considerable number of nuclear related decisions to make in the near future.

First, we can remain - quite simply - a uranium supplier. With their recent decision to kill the antiquated and irrelevant 3-mines policy, Labor has pretty much assured this will be Australia's minimum involvement in the global nuclear fuel cycle.

Or, we could supply the world [or rather those parts of it that we get on well with] with uranium and construct some nuclear power plants ourselves. Others would complete the enrichment and fuel fabrication for us. As we so often allow to happen, we would be purchasing back a finished product principally derived from resources shipped from our shores.

In taking on these options, we would have to develop a high-level [i.e. used fuel] strategy. Several countries, including Japan, the UK, France and Russia reprocess their waste. There are also talks of advanced 'burner' reactors to consume the worst fission byproducts - but these are still in the development stage. Research, however is accelerating. Nevertheless, while recycling/reprocessing technologies greatly reduce the activity and heat burden of the waste, they do not - currently - eliminate it entirely requiring some sort of final repository.

Next, we could develop enrichment technology. As is currently being at least contemplated if not whole heartedly pursued. This decision is a complicated one as it involves due consideration for Australia's domestic and global responsibilities.

As the world shifts its support in favour of nuclear power, concerns over nuclear non-proliferation as well as technology and fuel access by all interested countries must be addressed equitably and in a mutual context. I believe this is the principal selling point for both the GNEP as well as Valdimir Putin's equivalent initiative from within the Russian Federation. A main aspect of these programmes is a multilateral fuel cycle where enrichment, fuel fabrication, fuel utilization, and final disposal may or may not occur within the same country. The multilateral programme advocates and potential participants [sensitive to, for example, Russia's apparent willingness to use fuel as an instrument of economic policy] seek a nuclear fuel bank to ensure the security of fuel availability from multiple participants. If such a programme is not developed, then crises similar to those in North Korea and Iran will continue to occur as countries justify their pursuit of enrichment as a means to energy security. With possible results similar to the [thankfully mostly botched] nuclear detonation in North Korea in late 2006.

Ideally I would love to keep the enrichment process confined to existing nuclear weapons states. But considering all states with demonstrated or suspected nuclear weapons capability USA, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel [not admitted], North Korea [? debatable], I am not convinced they represent a completely desirable set of contributors to an international nuclear fuel suppliers network - at least from the perspectives from many nations around the world. There are some countries without weapons, but capable of enrichment that may also be considered. These include South Africa who had weapons but gave them up as well as Brazil and possibly others. But still I believe many nations are looking for any international fuel centre to acquire further capacity without sacrificing security. I've already discussed Russia above. France can be economically fickle and the UK - while looking to build more nuclear power plants - has been recently working to back out of the nuclear, commercial infrastructure game.

To provide more confidence, the programmes are looking to broaden their bank of suppliers, while keeping the list of weapons states to a minimum. This is probably why Australia has been invited to join the GNEP and a principal reason our representatives are taking trips to Russia.

All this leads us ultimately back to waste. Countries who supply enriched uranium may [yes I said may] be asked to take the high level waste back. But further than this, we must consider Australia itself - vast, geologically stable with huge, uninhabited stretches of land. This continent is a resource that - if properly managed - could serve a significantly greater good.

Therefore if we wish to engage further in the nuclear fuel cycle, a high level waste repository is one of several desirable prerequisites. Hence the government's pursuit of it.

Keep in mind though that these options/decisions are not firmly tied to each other. For example, Australia could embrace nuclear power without enrichment or, possibly, the need for a final waste repository [if one argues that we may have to accept the waste of others, they must therefore concede that our waste may be accepted elsewhere]. We could enrich without generating nuclear electricity or we could become an international, high level waste repository state without generating power or the pursuit of enrichment.

Because of Australia's positive relationship with the IAEA, history of smooth and compliant inspections etc. We have gained a broad and positive international reputation. I believe this is why we are getting nods from a variety of stakeholders as we go around the world dipping our feet in the proverbial nuclear pool. The key players know us and consider us trustworthy.

Australia's options are - for the moment - completely open.

Nuclear power a must, says PM's report

As reported at news.com.au:

Nothing too surprising... the carbon trading scheme is to start moderately (nothing to rash before 2012) and build to become much more intense over time. Any other approach would damage the economy and Australia's energy-intensive [carbon-intensive] industries.

The article doesn't quote anything as definitive as its headline with respect to nuclear power, merely that it - along with the other usual suspects - be kept as an option.

I look forward to reading the report. As of this posting there is no link yet. But eventually readers may be able to find the full report here.

US / Bush Proposal: A New International Climate Change Framework

You can find the Fact Sheet from the White House web page here. NEI's post on this topic is here.

I found some news stories quoting there are to be 15 major greenhouse gas emitting nations involved, but not much more detail on the related participation criteria.

I am very interested - and I think we all should be - on how a 'major emitter' is defined. 'Emissions per person' [i.e. per-capita] and/or possibly 'per unit of gross domestic product' (GDP) seem much more reasonable than country 'A' compared with country 'B' [despite the rhetoric of some politicians to that effect].

Comparing, for example, Australia with China is ridiculous in the nation-to-nation sense. But look at the two from a per-capita or per unit GDP perspective and the comparison paints a more relevant picture [referred to as the carbon-intensity]. I recommend a read of this report from from the EIA, and in particular Table 12 and Figures 85 and 86 along with the surrounding text. Note that some of the 'bad actors' frequently bashed by politicos [China, India and Brazil for example] not only have low per-capita emissions, but are also 'on or below the trend line' and projected to remain there or shift further below in the coming decades [i.e. they have low carbon-intensities]. This trend line is described as follows within the report:

In the figures, countries and regions that are plotted on the trend line produce roughly the average amount of carbon dioxide emissions per-capita relative to income per-capita. Countries and regions that appear above the trend line are more carbon-intensive than average, and those below the trend line are less carbon-intensive than average.

Who is above the trend line? Russia appears to be furthest away, then South Korea, 'Middle East', Australia/New Zealand [a gift from the US DOE to be combined with the Kiwis as they improve our average], followed by 'Other non-OECD in Europe and Eurasia' and finally Canada. We'll say the US is on the line - to be expected since they drew it.

So any way you slice the table and figures referenced above Australia is definitely one of the 15 major greenhouse gas emitters. In fact the only way to make our contribution appear irrelevant is to revert back to the simplistic [and to this blogger completely unjustified] nation-to-nation analysis.

As an international outlier on trends of this nature, one hopes there is even more incentive for some tangible action within Australia in the near future.

One word of warning about using carbon-intensity; I believe there is a risk that by focusing on individual intensities, one may lose the big picture - that, in absolute terms, global emissions must be stabilised and then subsequently reduced. Looking at carbon-intensities only helps identify which countries to focus on first.

Finally... note the data point furthest below the trend line [as well as very low with respect to per-capita emissions] - OECD Europe [with the highest installed and operational nuclear capacity of the group]. Is it any wonder?

Rudd's fast move on PM's plan for climate

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Getting in under the wire, just before John Howard receives the report from the emissions trading task force, Kevin Rudd has announced some plans/ideas to address climate change within Australia. Principally these consist of:

$50 million to upgrade the CSIRO's National Solar Energy Centre

$50 million to further the development of geothermal energy

He [Rudd] also promised that a Labor government would lead by example by making Parliament House and all electorate offices reliant on renewable or clean energy. Government offices would be made to turn lights off at night, all Commonwealth buildings would have to have a five-star greenhouse rating, and all computers, fridges and other appliances in such buildings would have high-efficiency ratings.

He also discusses an emissions trading scheme (cap and trade) that would be in place by 2010.

Just one more quote:

Mr Rudd maintained that the Government's latent approach to climate change was driven by the polls rather than conviction.

Hmmm, let's ponder this plan.

I like the idea of supporting solar and geothermal as I've said from the start. But considering the state of the world, this blogger/voter would prefer to hear discussions detailing the deployment of the technology rather than support for further research.

Emissions trading - YES! (Government mandated/regulated preferred over voluntary industry 'target setting').

Also the plans to 'green up' Government - to lead by example - are noteworthy and admirable. They would no doubt have some positive impact (not sure how much it would cost to make this transformation, but I'll assume for the moment that the environmental impact is the 'greater good').

But the sum total of these efforts will fall well short of the massive shift in energy production technology necessary to reach Kevin Rudd's 60% reduction target. Have a look at this report to get some idea of the greenhouse gas contribution of Australian heavy industry as well as the related energy consumption. I invite all to take a careful look at Figure 4. This normalization of energy supply technologies clearly shows nuclear power's ability to displace coal generation.

To this blogger, Mr. Rudd's / Labor's plans also seem "poll driven". And while there appears to be conviction, I don't see much evidence of a firm grasp of maths, science, engineering or energy production technology in general.

Green nuclear power coming to Norway

As reported by Cosmos Magazine:

Image courtesy of Cosmos Magazine & Justin Randall

Norway remains quite active in the areas (among others) of nuclear non-proliferation, energy security, and global environmental stewardship. Norwegians - specifically - are looking to Thorium based nuclear power technology to solve the overlapping problems of all three after Norway's state-owned energy company, Statkraft, this week announced plans to investigate building a thorium-fuelled nuclear reactor.

Some relevant highlights of the technology:

• The reaction is 'driven' by a nuclear accelerator (called an Accelerator Driven Sub-critical (ADS) system, and therefore can not maintain a self-sustained nuclear reaction [improved safety].
• ADS technology can be used to 'burn' waste products from existing nuclear reactors. Relevant studies were completed for example as part of the US Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative [waste management and proliferation avoidance].
• The technology produces significantly less high level waste.(see 'New age nuclear', Cosmos, issue 8) [waste minimisation and management].
• Byproducts of the Thorium reaction do not include materials that pose increased weapons proliferation risks (Plutonium and Uranium) [non-proliferation].
• Thorium is significantly more abundant than Uranium and does not require high-tech enrichment technologies [sustainability, energy security and non-proliferation]. [Enrichment being the central issue responsible for the dramas in Iran at the moment, for example.]

The article also discusses an amazing flop in Norwegian public opinion in less than a year, with 80% now favouring Thorium nuclear technology development. [All emphasis is mine]

"It would be a sin of omission not to consider it," said Bård Mikkelsen, CEO of Statkraft, in an interview with the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.

"Norway has taken the lead on this. We are an energy nation; we have large supplies of thorium – not as much as Australia of course – but we have a very advanced energy industry, and we have a responsibility to the world," said Lillestøl [a nuclear physicist at the University of Bergen, Norway]. "Without nuclear energy we will destroy the world, we will spend all the coal, oil and gas, and we will be left with an energy desert."

As with other things nuclear, there are industrial opportunities and interest within Australia. But one quoted Sydney nuclear scientist expressed his doubts about Australian political will and research resource commitment, claiming Australia is 'lagging behind' while European Union, India, the US, Japan and Russia all work to develop thorium energy technologies.

For further information, including identified reserves per country, see Also:

Thorium Power Limited

World Nuclear Association - Thorium

UIC - Thorium

US Geological Survey (USGS) - Thorium

A few recent news stories...

First - as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald, AGL CEO Paul Anthony is identifying a principal challenge to nuclear in Australia. Since he - or others like him - represent potential investors in nuclear power, I believe nuclear proponents should listen closely.

"Nuclear power stations are uninsurable so the insurer of last resort in all countries has to be the government. The government has to say we're going to underpin the uninsurable risk of the nuclear sector," he said.

He added that nuclear power stations worked on a much larger scale of economy.

"We're talking of thousands of megawatts of generation. It's a long-term investment and nobody really has effectively sorted out the long-term trailing costs of holding redundant nuclear stations for the next 300 years," he said.

So he is seeking bi-partisan political support (for long-term insurability), as well as other long-term assurances. I believe these represent the critical, relevant issue. Long term business security.

Next, Dr. Ziggy Switkowski predicts a decision on nuclear power in Australia by the end of the year in this Sky News report.

Lastly, a fairly generic story from UPI where John Howard and Werner Burkart of the IAEA promote nuclear power, but add no real substantive details (of 'how', 'when', or 'who' is to do 'what' etc.). I wouldn't really recommend it if it weren't so short.

Country of Nuclear Strategic Concern - Australia

Good background reading about potential opportunities for Australia with respect to the nuclear fuel cycle in an international context.

From the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)

Hugh Morgan shares his vision...

As reported in the The Age:

(Hugh Morgan recently formed the company 'Australian Nuclear Energy' (ASIC) (ABR) with Fairfax chairman Ron Walker and fellow mining executive Robert Champion de Crespigny.)

Mr Morgan said the industry faced considerable practical and political hurdles, but he believed it was "just" possible to see nuclear power in Australia within 10 years, if there was the will to embrace more expensive energy sources.

But Mr Morgan conceded nuclear energy faced significant hurdles, the most important of which was a lack of bipartisan political support.

He said for Australia to embrace nuclear energy, consumers would have to accept that energy prices would rise as part of any policy change to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

He said governments might have to review regulations governing Australia's electricity industry because there was no functional national electricity market and energy companies were reluctant to invest.

Mr Morgan endorsed the Switkowski review, which he said had started to focus the energy debate.