It’s World Environment Day and I woke to hear Australia’s MInister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer talking up the possibility of the Australian Government building a nuclear power station to run a water desalination plant for Adelaide.
Adelaide is the capital of the driest state on this driest of continents. South Australia has plenty of uranium. Nuclear power is greenhouse neutral. Much of the water for Adelaide has been traditionally piped a couple of hundred kilomtres from the Murray River. It would all seem like a rather sensible idea me, but it is radical and of course the very conservative Australian Labor Party has already condemned it (click here for the response from Kevin Rudd on ABC Online).
Interestingly British Labor PM Tony Blair is talking about the possibility of a second generation of nuclear power stations for the UK, when Australia doesn’t yet have a single nuclear power station. And while the USA gets something like 20 percent of its water from desalination, desalination is also a novel idea for Australia.
My friend Phil Sawyer proposed both a desalination plant for Adelaide and a nuclear power station in his documentary ‘In Flinders Wake’ released in 2002 to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the voyage of Matthew Fliners. It was shown on SBS TV about the same time.
[Phil at the launch, photograph from the ABC SA website]
Phil has been a supporter of new environment group the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) which was launched exactly a year ago in Tenterfield. The group has been fairly quiet over the last year, but there will be a big get together for the first Australian Environment Foundation AGM and conference on 23rd and 24th September at Rydges, Southbank in Brisbane. Mark that date in your diaries. Chances are Phil and copies of his video will also be there.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1651377.htm
…..PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I had dinner with a famous gentleman Hans Blix about a year ago and he turned to me and said, “What on earth is all of this fuss about nuclear waste? “There’s hardly any of it, is there?” And this is the truth of it. The quantity of nuclear waste is trivial, tiny. No great problem. It stays where it is and that’s it. You just think of the carbon dioxide waste. Every year we produce in the world enough carbon dioxide that if you froze it solid to dry ice, it would make a mountain 1 mile high and 12 miles around in circumference. Now, that is deadly waste and it will kill nearly all of us if we don’t stop doing it.
TONY JONES: I have heard it said that you think nuclear waste is so containable you actually wouldn’t mind having it buried safely in your own backyard. Is that so?
PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: It is, indeed. I would be very glad to have it because when it is freshly produced, it stays hot for about 10 or 20 years and I’d use it for free home heating. I’d be glad to use it. It would be a waste not to….
rog – and this you are taking as an authority? From:
http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_waste_body.html
“Nuclear waste is divided into several categories. High-level waste consists mostly of spent nuclear reactor fuel from both commerical power plants and military facilities, as well as reprocessed materials which can emit large amounts of radiation for hundreds of thousands of years. Commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S. alone produce 3,000 tons of high-level waste each year. The amount of spent fuel removed annually from the approximately 100 reactors in the U.S. would fill a football field to a depth of one foot. When spent fuel is removed from a reactor core, it still emits millions of rems of radiation. For more information on units of measurement (such as the rem), see the radiation effects page.”
3000 tons per year in not a tiny bit especially as none of it can be stored properly.
Just for confirmation:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/wast.htm
“Whether reprocessed or not, the volume of high-level waste is modest, – about 3 cubic metres per year of vitrified waste or 25-30 tonnes of spent fuel for a typical large nuclear reactor. The relatively small amount involved allows it to be effectively and economically isolated.”
I do not consider 25 or 30 tons of HLW per year trivial. That is without the tons of MLW and LLW.
Anyway why do you care how much CO2 is produced – have you converted?
I am pretty agnostic on nuclear. It does seem to me however that this is a unique fuel that would be better kept for when it is needed to terraform Mars than to help me heat water in a kettle for less.
Surely South Australia is also the sunniest state of the sunniest continent too. If we can’t desalinate, make power, etc by solar means who can? It seems that short-term economics always trumps rational long-term resource allocation. On the other hand why not ship the uranium off to colder, cloudier countries rather than hog it all ourselves? They should be willing to pay more for it. I can imagine the logic of nuclear for the Swedes, Finns, etc, but if those countries were floated over to our position in the world, I think they would be world-beaters in solar energy.
rog!!??! How quickly rog forgets! You & friends intensely DISLIKE Lovelock remember? He’s a crackpot. All that nonsense about the earth as a living organism. You reckon he’s a nutter. Therefore if craxy wacky crackpot lovelock promotes nuclear then you should listen?
No tinks, you should listen – I had already made up my mind a long time ago.
having rediculed him previusly, now you’ll refer to lovelock to support a personal opinion that you’d decided for youself a long time ago. Lovelock is a wacko remember? Some people will jump into bed with anyone. Just be sure to use protection
It would seem from this morning’s SMH that the ideal location for nuclear power stations is nearest to the major electricity grids – the east coast.
This makes sense but desn’t mention the desalination advantage as well.
I’d quite frankly rather have a nuclear power station to create cleaner emissions AND desalinated water than a coal fired facility and a dam across the Mary River.
Downers comments about opponents are also entertaining to say the least ( and to some extent borne out by some exchanges here lately)
“The problem with the whole of the nuclear debate in Australia, over a very long period of time, is that it’s been driven too much by people who are opposed just for emotional reasons and they sort of descend to abusive and hysterical arguments very quickly”
No trinks, I refer to Lovelock so that you may reflect on your opinion.
Ross Gittins sums up the current ‘debate’ well:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/howard-sees-the-light-and-its-a-nuclear-one/2006/06/04/1149359606953.html
is the complete mining process considered? all the mining, preparing, transporting to and from, storage activities apparently can/do/might/could(??) release as much CO2 for nuclear as for coal-fired plants
what’s the informed opinion on clean coal v’s nuclear?
from steve’s link SMH:
“the report finds that a privately owned nuclear power plant could make money only if the government contributed 14 per cent of the cost of building it and then paid 21 per cent of the electricity bills for the first 12 years.”
Hands up who wants to foot that bill? Who’s against subsidised renewables but for subsidised nuclear?
The nuclear business case is incomplete and muddied. Anyone who states with certainty that nuclear is clearly the best option is ignorant or lying. eg rog doesn’t believe in global warming but argues for nuclear on the basis of CO2 emissions. (I’m not set against nuclear, would just like to see an independent, comprehensive review of the options – unlikely to come from Howard’s guvinmint)
As well as he can. Gittins goes from one hysterical point to another, it was only last year he was banging on endlessly about the collapse of the economy bought on by the real estate “bubble” – I suppose it sells newsprint and keeps the doctors wives chattering.
Listen stinkerbell, you said “anyone who states with certainty that nuclear is clearly the best option is ignorant or lying..” Isnt that what your mate Lovelock said, or have you abandoned him? – there’s no loyalty amongst your bretheren.
ANSTO have produced a report that says Nuclear power is viable in Australia, they might know a bit more about it as they are scientists and I have been told that we should accept the concensus of expert opinion on the matter.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1655121.htm
But I thought listening to the consensus is dangerous. Should we not be listening to outsiders and mavericks as we do on other issues? Surely ANSTO being a large science bureaucracy would not earn this blog’s trust. Or is this an exception.
I am not sure what you mean Capt Con, when you say “outsiders” and “mavericks” are you saying those that have abandoned the scientific argument?
Irrespective of the source if the argument can be properly substantiated then it is an argument worthy of consideration.
ANSTO is hardly a consensus rog, or a non-partisan opinion.
By the way, if you look hard at their report you will see that:
* The are comparing nuclear to the cost of coal/gas, with the inclusion of an imaginary ‘cost of carbon’ added to the price of coal and gas to make these more expensive. With those added costs, wind and solar thermal are also competitive with coal/gas.
* They say that we need 5+ reactors for a viable local industry.
* They have the ===LUDICROUS=== point that nuclear is cost competitive if it its construction, and 12 years worth of electricity bills are subsidised. Work it out yourself, but i figure their subsidies to be several hundred million for construction, and about $200 million per year for electricity bill subsidies.
For another report that is at least equally as unbiased as the ANSTO report, you can read the McClennan Megasanik report commissioned by the Renewable Energy Generators Association that says that nuclear is not competitive.
http://www.rega.com.au/Documents/Publications/REGA%20MMA%20Stage%201%20Final%20Report.pdf
Gee, I wonder who Tinkerbell and Captain Convenience are? How can they argue about the importance of who rog’s friends are/are not, when they are not prepared to declare their own affiliations or even their own names! Fair go.
If you want to be anonymous/use a pen name then stick to the issue and the evidence.
I didnt say ANSTO was a consensus Steve, or that they have a non-partisan opinion. Like I didnt say that they had a partisan opinion or that I was against GW or for nuclear power based on CO2 emissions or said that Lovelock was a wacko or….whatever
All I did say is that ANSTO opinion would be more expert (than Gittins, Capt Courageous, Lulubell and all the other so called “experts”).
All I have to do is lift my little finger and you guys go running around in circles yelping “FIRE”
I wonder who a “rog” is too for that matter?
So you are admitting that you are a troll then rog?
Its very easy to make insinuations, and then plead innocence when you are called on it. It’s also very cowardly, and an unhelpful contribution to discussion. So go away huh?
ANSTO paper, for the terminally anxious
http://www.ansto.gov.au/ansto/nuclear_options_paper.pdf
CO2 emissions from coal-fired power stations (whole life cycle) are about 0.79 to 1.0 kg CO2/kWh and from nuclear (whole life cycle) about 0.009 to 0.02 kg CO2/kWh. More global warming potential comes from methane released from coal as it is mined (methane has 21 times the GWP of CO2) than the whole nuclear cycle (mining, enrichment, generation etc). Electricity from gas yields about half the GWP of electricity from coal. For large base-load power sources, nuclear is clearly far superior in terms of being greenhouse friendly.
Steve, are you innocent of making insinuations?
Even if you believe CO2 is heating up the planet (and Adelaide just had its lowest May average minimum for more than 100 years), the amount of CO2 emitted by Australia, about 1.6% of global emissions, is negligible.
If we ceased emitting CO2 tomorrow, China would make up the shortfall in about six months. So why don’t we just go for the cheapest option for power? What are we actually achieving, other than a warm inner glow, by penalising our economy?
At last year’s Timber Communities Australia National Conference, Prime Minister, the Honourable John Howard, described his offense to the idea that the extreme greens have a mortgage on concern and compassion for the forests or for the environment of this country. He told of his long belief that it is never fair to ask a small section of the Australian people to carry the burden and the cost of implementing something that the overwhelming majority of the wider community wants. He also affirmed his unshakable belief (and that of his government) that in achieving the goals of a better environment we shouldn’t throw on the scrapheap vulnerable, isolated, regional communities, their families and the people who owe their livelihoods to the activities of those communities.
The great challenge for the AEF will be to side-step the relentless tide of environmental injustice and bring the full weight of disenfranchised interests to bear upon the Commonwealth Government for the enactment of environmental anti-corruption legislation.
Australia will be well represented by strong opponents of corruption; whether environmental or otherwise and even fanatics would be hard-pressed to publicly fight for corruption.
The AEF should campaign to bring the injustice of yesterday’s environmentalism to an unequivocal end. It should stand up for Australia’s vulnerable communities and condemn the perverse belief that Australia condones the removal of its people and communities as a condition of caring for the natural environment. It should champion the enactment of environmental anti-corruption legislation and force the perpetrators to argue that corruption and injustice are environmental necessities.
In doing so, it mikght truly redefine Australia’s environmentalism and reclaim the concern and compassion for the natural environment … for all Australians.
Can Howard be seen as serious. He doesn’t sign up to Kyoto but he’s advocating nuclear power.
Why worry – just keep burning the adbundant supplies of coal. Surely all the CO2 won’t hurt from either a contrarian global warming is bunkum viewpoint or a size of the national CO2 output perspective.
Queensland Government under Beattie bans tree clearing but the Commonwealth walks away from discussions without providing any money in the compensation package for rural landholders. So much for the masses forcing their will on the small.
Commonwealth then takes the credit for carbon in trees and claims their “greenhouse gas management” has made them comply “in absentia” with Kyoto anyway.
First pass salinity risk assessment maps (as per Dr Beale’s discourse in salinity thread)then used as a definitive “scare” to justify an immediate ban on remnant clearing when landholders had spent years in meeting udertaking regional vegetation plans.
Opportunism is far from dead on all sides – State, Commonwealth or green. The Commonwealth full well know all this.
I’d like to believe you Neil Hewett, but having problems focusing.
Paul Williams – “Even if you believe CO2 is heating up the planet (and Adelaide just had its lowest May average minimum for more than 100 years), the amount of CO2 emitted by Australia, about 1.6% of global emissions, is negligible.”
Sure lets just emit as much as we like so the Chinese can look at us and use us as an excuse to emit more and more. We should be the example to other nations that if we can reduce emissions 70%, they can too – not one of the world’s per capita emitters.
If I commit a murder then is it justified to say well it only one and that is less than 1.6% of Australia’s murders so why worry about it.
Ender, do you really think the Chinese are affected by our example? They have their own priorities.
Your analogy with murder is quite offensive. Get a grip.
Rog: Steve, are you innocent of making insinuations?
Ahh…. errrr.. hmm.
What are you insinuating? 🙂
Steve makes a number of points about the ANSTO report, essentially constructing a strawman argument against the report’s conclusion.
However report does *not* make the claim that the nuclear option is cost competitive if it is subsidised. It is simply identifying the level of subsidy that would be required to reduce the cost of electricity from the first of kind plant to the level of the nth of kind plant. The cost of the nth of kind plant is a little less than the *generating* cost from a coal fired plant (ie, *without* any loading for CO2 etc).
Another way of looking at the subsididy is that is the amount of subsidy required before private industry will build the first nuclear plant instead of a coal fired plant, in the absence of any loading for CO2 on a coal fired plant.
The subsidy required for subsequent plants would be lower.
Neither wind power nor solar thermal power is competetive with an nth of kind nuclear plant, and indeed when all of their costs are included (including power storage and/or backup fossil fuel plants, which are usually left out) I doubt that they are competitive with a first of kind nuclear plant either.
Sylvia.
Luke
Would you now be suprised that the research showing no connection between tree clearing and dryland salinity in <600mm was ignored too?
Ian Beale – no I would not. Should not have been used politically in the first place. Interim work that was presented as “finished” work.
But the Commonwealth haven’t said anything either. Brickbats all round?
Luke
Interim? Would you perhaps then believe this was a lay-down misere 30+ years ago?
Ian – of course. A flakey GIS analysis that shouldn’t have been let go for a walk.