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.

BP Charting Tool

For all the armchair engineers out there - BP has developed and released an Energy Charting Tool. It's an effective communication tool and helps portray the magnitude of the challenge faced by people intent on reducing global emissions from fossil based energy sources.

(Thanks to NEI for finding this page/link)

I worked to generate a trend of the available fossil fuelled energy sources along with electrical energy demand. Notice the distinct course adjustment around 2001-02. This reflects concerns raised by science / climate monitoring groups that I (and others) mentioned before. One thing's for certain - there is no evidence to suggest conservation efforts are bearing significant fruit (i.e. helping emissions achieve 1990 levels). But conservation and efficiency have most probably helped keep the trends from looking even more dire (i.e. heading north at a faster rate).

Total World Consumption: Orange-Coal, Red-Gas, Blue-Oil
Total World Electricity Consumption - Green line

Clearly - if you are serious about emissions reduction - not enough is being done. I'll say it again - it is not all that productive to insist another country reduce 'their' emissions. The displacement of a large fossil emitter has the same impact on global emissions whether it is in China, India, Brazil, New Zealand or Australia. Since we are each most able to control our own destiny, the easiest place to begin is here at home. And because we are such an emissions outlier - we have an obligation to lead the effort.

Here's the nuclear trend (purple) for the same period - as you would expect in this blog. I've also included Hydro (red). It's the only other no/low carbon emissions energy source significant enough to make the BP web page.

We can do better, but we need large quantities of bulk, reliable no/low emissions power. And for that - there is only nuclear.

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.

Adelaide Now is reporting some recent statements from the South Australian Minister for Energy, Patrick Conlon. Basically Mr. Conlon is saying he will be long dead before Australia sees a nuclear power plant.

Patric Conlon

"I can give you an iron-clad guarantee that no-one is going to come to me to build a nuclear power plant in this state if there is a price put on carbon (emissions)," he said.

Asked why he supported the nuclear option in China, he said the Chinese coal industry was killing 7000 workers a year and was a major emitter of greenhouse gasses.

While there were "risks" associated with nuclear energy in China, Mr Conlon pointed out that there were also dangers of explosions in conventional power plants.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking??? That being, 'So Mr. Conlon... what exactly is your point?' I began to understand after looking at Mr. Conlon's web page / bio. He as an Arts degree and law background. Seems like the perfect man for the Energy Minister post. He, like too many others, is comparing nuclear's price to coal. WE KNOW coal is the cheapest. That's not the point. Nuclear must be considered - not in a vacuum side by side with coal - but alongside other no/low greenhouse gas emitters if one is serious about reducing Australia's embarrassingly high per capita emissions - which just happens to be far higher than, for example, those of China.

More Polling

Adelaide Now is reporting feelings of confidence within South Australia - this is extending to nuclear were they report the following:

South Australian business owners appear much more supportive of the prospect of building a nuclear power plant in the state, with 70 per cent agreeing the State Government should consider the feasibility of building such a plant, and 38 per cent strongly agreeing. This compares with a May Newspoll which showed 47 per cent of about 200 surveyed people in SA supported the establishment of a nuclear power station in Australia, compared to the national figure of 36 per cent.

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.

Anvil Hill Mine Approved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tips and Ash

The World Nuclear News is reporting that Sparton Resources of Canada has entered into an agreement with Akanani Investment Corp (AIC) to evaluate uranium extraction possibilities from waste coal ash in South Africa.

Rod at the Atomic Insights blog has gone into this issue in a bit more detail.

100's of tonnes of Uranium??? Crikey Rod - will this ash become a proliferation issue?? [Anyone with even a cursory understanding of nuclear technology should get the joke.] Everyone else... be afraid... very, very afraid! Just one more reason why the indiscriminate dumping of fossil power station waste will eventually lead to our demise.

On a more serious note, this is further evidence in support of Haydon Manning's paper where he discusses all the places one finds uranium [i.e. mixed in with other materials that are already being mined].

Further information

Sparton Resources
WNA's Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) information paper
WNN: Sparton raises share in China program
WNN: WildHorse and Sparton study coal ash
WNN: Project to extract uranium from coal ash

Climate chief: "No credible scenario without nuclear"

World Nuclear News is reporting what Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), had to say about nuclear's role in the battle against climate change. Specifically that he had never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions that did not include nuclear energy.

Some other quotes:

Kurt Yeager, chair of the WEC [World Energy Council] Study Group and President Emeritus of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) said that there was no way the world would combat climate change without "a strong dose of nuclear power." He said that the technologies were available to address issues concerning waste management and proliferation and governments must get on with the job of developing nuclear power so that future generations can make use it.

The WEC Energy and Climate Change report concluded that "all governments should give serious consideration to the potential of nuclear power for reducing greenhouse gas emissions." The study showed that countries that have high proportions of nuclear in their energy systems had greenhouse gas emissions significantly lower than that of comparable nations with less or no nuclear contribution.

The report assessed the contribution of eight technologies for addressing climate change: nuclear energy; renewables; distributed power; energy efficiency; clean coal; combined heat and power; smart electricity control; and carbon capture and storage.

Further information
World Energy Council's Energy and Climate Change report
UNFCCC profile of Yvo de Boer
G8 Summit Heiligendamm: Growth and responsibility in the world economy
WNA's Global Warming - Policy Responses information paper
WNN: G8 reach agreement on climate and energy

WA Political Move to Block Nuclear

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

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