A Nuclear Future for Australia?
Posted on the campaign blog ,
March 21st, 2007
Most Australians realise that significant action must be taken to arrest the climate change that is already taking place. Only a lonely handful of stubborn politicians and sponsored scientists cling to the idea that humans are not having a serious and dangerous impact on the world's climate, with alarming consequences for us and future generations.
The solution, however, is a point of much disagreement. One of the greatest bones of contention in Australia is the role nuclear power could play in replacing our energy needs. Proponents say our abundance of coal is matched only by our abundance of uranium, critics say any benefits are far outweighed by the costs.
That is why the nuclear debate is so divisive - parties on both sides of the divide are split over what is a deeply emotional issue. So GetUp has compiled a list of ten reasonable questions that our decision makers need to answer before any nuclear commitment is decided on. What is the real value of nuclear power as a response to the climate crisis in Australia now?
Q1. Can nuclear power solve the climate crisis in time? How many nuclear reactors and how long would it take to make an appreciable difference to the atmosphere?
This is one of the biggest arguments against nuclear power as a ready solution in Australia. Coal-fired plants could not be replaced fast enough to make any real difference. A 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant would generate between 2 and 3 per cent of Australia's current electricity consumption, so around 30 to 40 such plants would be required to replace coal-fired generation. These would take decades to build, making nuclear power anything but an immediate solution to cutting Australia's emissions. Constructing these plants would emit so much carbon that it would take 40 years just to break even - by that time it could be too late to reverse the damage already done.
If nuclear power output was doubled by 2050, that would only result in a 5% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Experts say that a 50% reduction by 2050 is necessary to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses.
Q2. How do the costs involved in nuclear power compare to other power sources, ie. the costs of construction, operation, maintenance, fuel and subsidies? Is nuclear power really 'too cheap to meter'?
Experts say the costs of developing a domestic nuclear power industry would be prohibitively expensive - much too expensive to attract private investment without massive government subsidies. Between 1956 and 2000, Canada's state-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) received subsidies totalling about $18 billion.
The last 20 reactors built in the US had an average cost of US$5,000 per kilowatt of capacity. This is comparable to current solar technology. New plants will probably be cheaper, but compare the current prices for large-scale wind power and natural gas plants - $1,200 and $1,000 per kilowatt respectively.
A study in Canada compared the cost of power from its latest nuclear reactor with existing natural gas and renewable plants. It found the cents/kWh cost for nuclear was three times greater than natural gas and 2.5 times greater than renewable power. The cost of renewables will significantly reduce with proper investment in new technology. Nuclear will never be cheap, because of the safety costs in using a complicated and dangerous technology.
Q3. The operation of a nuclear power station itself does not directly produce greenhouse gas emissions, but what emissions are produced by the mining, milling and enrichment of uranium; the fabrication of the fuel rods; the construction of the power station; management of nuclear wastes and dismantling of the station at the end of its operating life? Does this outweigh the benefits of not directly emitting CO2?
Mining uranium for nuclear power is extremely energy-intensive, so nuclear power is in fact a considerable source of greenhouse gases, despite not emitting them directly when generating power. Nuclear energy life-cycle emissions include emissions associated with the construction of the plant, processing of the fuel, routine operation of the plant, the disposal of used fuel and other waste by-products, and the decommissioning of the plant. Significant emissions are produced at every stage of the nuclear cycle.
For low-grade uranium ore, the total nuclear fuel cycle emits more carbon dioxide than a gas fired power station. High-grade uranium emissions are less than gas-fired power, but the world only has enough reserves to last a few decades (if nuclear energy use does not expand), so emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle will increase.
All power sources generate greenhouse gas emissions at some stage of their life cycle, whether it be in their construction or operation. Nuclear power also uses an incredible amount of water. The Olympic Dam uranium mine in South Australia extracts over 30 million litres of water from the Great Artesian Basin daily.
Q4. How safe is nuclear power? What are the chances of another accident like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are only the best-known nuclear accidents. There have been at least eight accidents involving damage to or malfunction of the core of nuclear power or research reactors, and many minor accidents. At least five nuclear research reactor accidents have resulted in fatalities. There have been other serious reactor accidents which did not involve core damage or malfunction, and a number of power reactors have been found to be in a serious state of disrepair - such as the American Davis-Besse reactor in 2002. Accidents occur at other stages of nuclear life cycle also, including in reprocessing plants, waste stores and other facilities. Radioactive emissions are routinely generated throughout the nuclear life cycle.
Safety concerns are not limited to the ex-Soviet states. For example, the Japanese nuclear power industry has been in turmoil since the August 2002 revelations of 29 cases of false reporting on the inspections of cracks in numerous reactors. There have also been a number of serious accidents, including fatal accidents, at nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities in Japan in the past decade.
A major accident in a light-water reactor - the large majority of the reactors - can lead to radioactive releases equivalent to several times the release at Chernobyl and about 1000 times that released by a fission weapon.
Q5. What is the truth on the storage of nuclear waste? Can it be safely transported and stored? Can we rely on distant future generations to continue its safe storage?
A by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle is radioactive wastes, the most hazardous of which is 'high-level waste', which accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the process of nuclear electricity generation. Currently, about 14,000 tonnes of spent fuel are produced annually. Each new reactor in Australia would produce about 40 tonnes annually. Not a single repository exists anywhere in the world for the disposal of high-level waste.
About 1% of nuclear waste needs to be stored for hundreds of thousands of years. New technology is being feted that would reduce this to about 300 years by 2030, but even then we would be relying on several future generations to continue to store and protect these repositories. Many countries view Australia as an ideal location for waste repositories.
The transportation of nuclear waste has a very safe record, but as nuclear power expanded, so too would the frequency of transports. The spent fuel of a typical nuclear power station contains 200kg of plutonium per year, which can be used to create nuclear weapons, and you only need 10kg to make a bomb. Scavenging of abandoned radioactive material has also been a problem in developing countries where people are unaware of the risks.
Q6. What are the risks and implications of sabotage and attack for nuclear reactors? Can we ever really completely ensure the security of these facilities?
Nuclear power plants are potentially attractive targets for attacks because of the importance of the electricity supply system in many societies, the large radioactive inventories in many facilities and the potential or actual use of civil nuclear facilities for weapons research or production. Nuclear facilities have been targeted in the past leading to their destruction - such as the attack by Israel on the Osirak reactor in Iraq. Reactors cannot be sufficiently protected against a terrorist threat.
Attacks are also conceivable on storage facilities, reprocessing plants and during transportation of radioactive material. The radioactive release would be smaller, but in unforeseen areas and unsecured places. There are several scenarios that could lead to a major accident at a reactor.
Q7. Once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, is it possible to restrict its use to "peaceful" purposes? How can we ensure the enriched uranium and plutonium used for power generation is not used to construct nuclear weapons?
There are 60 countries that have built nuclear power or research reactors. 20 of these are known to have used their 'peaceful' facilities for the research and/or production of weapons. In most of these cases the covert military uses were limited or brief, and there are dual-use technologies with military and non-military capabilities, but in India, Pakistan, Israel and South Africa (and possibly North Korea and Iran) nuclear weapons have been produced under the guise of a civil nuclear program.
Research reactors are potentially useful for the production of radioactive materials for a 'dirty' bomb (in which radioactive materials are dispersed by conventional explosives), as well as for the production of conventional nuclear weapons. The materials, knowledge, and expertise required to produce nuclear weapons are often indistinguishable from those needed to generate nuclear power and conduct nuclear research. This is also an issue for Australia's uranium exports, which without proper safeguards may fuel the fires of future nuclear weapons in our region.
Q8. How reliable are nuclear plants in terms of producing energy? How prone are they to breakdowns that would interrupt the supply of power?
The nuclear industry has always predicted very high reliability for nuclear plants of around 90%, but this has seldom been realised. 15 years ago the average reliability worldwide was about 70%. Now it is at over 80%, but even new plants are having some reliability problems. High water temperatures can be an issue for nuclear power generation, and plants have in the past been susceptible to storms and flooding.
After the massive blackout in North America in 2003, nuclear power plants automatically went into 'safe mode'. This power remained offline until those plants could be slowly taken out of 'safe mode', while coal and oil fired plants were brought back online. Ontario's nuclear power generation, 40% of their power, has been plagued by problems that result in the plants being taken off the electricity stream, and having to be put back on it at considerable expense - driving up the price of electricity and government subsidies.
Q9. What are the health effects on local populations and what environmental damage is done, especially as reactors age, from the leaking of radioactive material and other hazardous materials?
The permitted levels of radiation exposure for workers and the public are dropping as new research consistently finds harmful effects at lower levels of radiation. Radioactive emissions are routinely generated across the nuclear fuel cycle, especially as reactors age, but the fear of widespread population contamination is generally overstated. That said, routine releases and accidental spills of contaminated water from mining operations have poisoned major fisheries and threatened the health of local communities. A Canadian reactor had a heavy water leak in April 1996 that released radioactive tritium into Lake Ontario, contaminating drinking water supplies.
The mining of uranium results in a considerable amount of environmental damage. A 2003 Senate Inquiry into the regulation of uranium mining in Australia reported "a pattern of under-performance and non-compliance", and recommended changes "in order to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage".
Q10. Given these questions, why should we use nuclear power over renewable energy?
Many of the fears regarding nuclear power have often been overstated, creating an irrational level of concern in the population. In several facets, nuclear power is comparable to other forms of electricity generation, including many renewables. The fact remains, however, that nuclear power poses problems that other means of power generation simply do not have. There may be very good safeguards in place that reduce the chances of nuclear misadventure, but these small risks would be eliminated entirely with the use of alternative sources. There is also a large volume of evidence suggesting that nuclear power would be more expensive than alternative forms of energy.
Nuclear power may cut emissions, but it only reduces greenhouse gas emissions in comparison with fossil fuels, rather than renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. Given the time it would take to make Australia nuclear, and the ongoing costs involved in doing so, many suggest that it would make more sense to develop safer and more immediate solutions. With a national energy efficiency target, for example, experts project a reduction in the need for new power stations - energy efficiency investments would pay for themselves in reduced bills before a nuclear power station could generate a single unit of electricity.
This debate must be framed in terms of a comparison with other sources of energy, not just on the merits of nuclear power in itself. Nuclear power is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which is responsible for less than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Experts have already modelled a pragmatic economic evaluation of how to achieve emission reductions in the Australian electricity sector without using nuclear power - their argument is that it would make more sense to start implementing these measures, rather than embarking down the long nuclear road.
Before any decision is made involving nuclear power as the way forward for Australia, our decision makers must satisfactorily address the nuclear concerns raised above. Rather than an emotional debate fuelled by vested interests and old prejudices, we need the legitimate issues regarding the role of nuclear power in Australia's future to be adequately answered, and we need them answered before it is too late.
105 comments
|
Featured Articles
|
Join Getup
Whether it is signing a petition, engaging with the media, attending an event or helping to get a television ad on the air, you'll only ever asked to take targeted, coordinated and strategic action. Taking action is optional, convenient and proven to work!
Join Now.
 Subscribe!
|
|
March 22nd, 2007
Nuclear Power is a very minor player.
For those who wish to meet global warming head on, the mind-set change will be much more daunting than that being canvassed in the present debate. For example, organising our energy requirements to reduce carbon emissions, is is a very small part of counteracting the effects of climate change.
Meeting Global Warming head on will cause a global headache, simply because Homo sapiens is not accustomed to making decisions for future generations. This challenge is far, far greater than any since the last Ice Age and that was made by efficient gene transfer only, because Homo sapiens had no influence whatsoever on the outcome.
This time the actions of Homo sapiens will influence the outcome. Activities, not in order of magnitude, which will affect how much the planet heats up during the next century include:- Burning fossil fuels; War; Growth; Tourism; Free Trade and International trade; Space Exploration; Mono Culture; Oil products; Airline amalgamations*; Deforestation; Transport; Privatisation of National utilities; Cattle husbandry; Energy consumption^; Global sporting and other events; Consumer goods; Packaging; Construction (including infrastructure, dams, levee banks, deviating rivers, highways, power plants, pipe lines, buildings etc.).
Coupled with decision making with respect to the above Warming activities, must be the following Essential Sociological Activities which must be addressed if any consensus is to be reached. Theses include:- Consultation with and acceptance by the members of the United Nations; A comprehensive plan for accommodating refugees from future inundated and draught areas; Development of alternative energy sources^, particularly for the majority world; A time framework for relocating towns, villages and cities situated below 20 metres above sea level; Preventing untreated sewage and waste of any kind entering the sea; Species protection; Promoting energy efficiency; Fast tracking health and employment in the majority world.
Perhaps this is the Head Ache we have to have
* Three million people board planes every day, and that is set to increase, which is what amalgamations are all about.
^ Nuclear energy is not a separate issue deserving of special attention except to say that it is the least attractive and not considered an alternative source