Banning the development of a nuclear power industry in Australia on the basis of the Chernobyl disaster, would be like banning PO Cruises on the basis the Titanic sank.
This was one of the many comments I made when I was part of a panel at the ‘Noosa Long Weekend’ Festival discussing Australia’s energy future.
The two hour session has now be cut down to about an hour and can be heard on Radio
National’s Big Ideas program click here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2007/1986711.htm
I’m one of five panelists and described by Robyn Williams as “barracking for technology”.
The broadcast can be heard on radio again next Saturday at 7pm and will be on air during the Radio National Summer programming later in the year.
———————————-
According to the Radio National Website:
Australia 2050: A New Energy Future?
Hydrocarbons, nuclear or renewables? The temperature is rising on this debate. Join five disputants and an erudite ringmaster for a passionate verbal spar. Can coal be truly clean? Will nuclear energy solve our base load problems? Is talk about wind and sun just a lot of hot air? Richard Neville, who has challenged conventional thinking for 40 years, will argue the toss with supporters of coal, nuclear power and renewable energy. Recorded at the Noosa Longweekend Festival.
Guests
Richard Broinowski
Author
John Harries
Australian Nuclear Association
Jennifer Marohasy
Institute of Public Affairs
Chris Reidy
Institute of Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney
Doug Holden
Australian Coal Association
Listen here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2007/1986711.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
But hang on – Richard is described as an ” Author” on the program website – not as an anti-nuclear campaigner?
Full disclosure please ABC.
If he was a nuclear energy advocate we’d have heard about it I’m sure.
It’s like inviting Julian Burnside on for a critique of the Howard Government and not telling us about Julian’s recent track record.
I’m a barracker for technology as well Jen
Many (not all) of the objections to nuclear power disappear if you have a well-resourced fearless watchdog with big teeth, and increase the power of engineers (big on conservative estimates and the precautionary principle) relative to the beancounters (who’ll push for shaving concrete costs rather than less tangible risks every time).
Unfortunately, with the politicization of the public service, the frank and fearless conservatism required for good governance has never been lower in Australia.
Fix this, get good governance (including full life-cycle costing of different energy sources) and we have little to fear from an appropriate proportion of a tightly-regulated nuclear industry in the mix of energy production.
However, there is also a problem with the availability of fuel without getting into breeding cycles that produce things like plutonium (making the weapons/terrorism control problem significantly worse). Known reserves of Uranium, at current world production rates, will last 60 years (lookup Tom Graedel). If world per-capita usage of Uranium was at half of the per-capita 2006 US citizen, known reserves would last 20 years.
There are problems with under-financed reactors as in Chernobyl, and there are problems with the American model of lax governance as in Three-Mile Island. The Swedes (private generators, but a vicious regulator) seem to have the mix about right for management of the risk.
This is where I suspect I’ll disagree markedly with an IPA point-of-view: the IPA is generally against strong government regulation of business activities (calling it heavy-handed interference), and I think that’s asking for disaster in high-stakes games such as the management of nuclear energy.
(Disclosure: In the 1980s I wrote software to help manage information about received radiation doses, and biological student work included assessing risks of radioactive as well as non-radioactive hazards. Ian Hore-Lacy was once my science teacher.)
Jen, your too cute ( desperate?) analogy of Chernobyl and Titanic seems to have nought to do with all the usual criteria used for judging cheapish analogies, for example please would you compare some of the spatial and temporal externalities. Risk management is about real and uncertain risk, not cheap flippancy. Will there be more icebergs and fewer Chernobyls with global warming – just to add more confusion to your logic-free ideology?.
The big question I want answered is who will bear liability in the event of a nuclear accident. Provided private investors are willing to accept total liability for any damage claims resulting from an accident, I support the development of nuclear power.
The big question you should ask is who will bear responsibility for the inability to fuel our lifestyle when NOT IF we come up short on the fossil fuel supply front. Ever seen the movie 28 Days Later or the documentary When the Levies Broke (New Orleans)? Society without energy security is a very ‘unfamiliar’ place.
Melaleuca you want cheap reliable power? Liability issues could be covered if you and the public were willing to pay more for power. You consume, you pay the REAL cost! Grow up its the real world where resources are wearing thin. No free rides.
One of the first things I thought when I heard of GW was “Do we have to go nuclear”. The technology has advanced a lot since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. But have we? There are still regular screw ups in nuclear plants. Active, open, government regulation would be a pre-requisite for me. The cdrive for maximising profits and minimising costs is a big self-contradiction when you are talking about a very dangerous technology when not handled properly.
All very well but we are running out of time and the luxury to actually debate. You can’t build these plants overnight, yet fossil fuel supplies could easily be disrupted overnight in the unfolding world. I really don’t think people understand just how precariously placed mankind is at the moment. Oil, food, water, weather … we are in uncharted territory where the CORRECT path forward must be chosen not the most politically expediant! The question you gotta ask yourself, are the risks of going nuclear less than the risks of not adopting this technology? For my mind the answer is yes …
I suppose SJT that the risk and cost of nuclear ( it does seem to be much reduced and statistically it’s safety record is very good ) has to be weighed against the risk of AGW.
If the risk of disaster from AGW is fair dinkum , then we can’t really afford the indulgence of dabbling with anything other than nuclear.
IMO it meets the 5 major tests;
1. existing , proven and safe technology
2. can meet current and future peak and baseload
3. CO2 free
4. affordable at least compared with renewables
5. can create a very significant reduction in emissions in a relatively short time
For the public it is a radical and confronting challenge but we’re told that “we” can no longer sit back and ignore AGW , the debate is over , the risk is too great etc.
I’m amazed that more AGW proponents aren’t pushing for nuclear as soon as possible.
But that’s where the politics comes in of course and many in the the ballsy , rationalist , science-based crowd suddenly revert to the fearful, irrational and superstitious.
We also have to make a big investment in renewable research – particularly hot rocks which seems the most promising – and clean coal.
Cripes Aaron, if you think mankind is precariously placed now, how would you have felt in 1942, when the Japs were sweeping through South East Asia and seemed unstoppable, or the 14th century, when a third of Europe’s population died of the plague?
Oil – every man and his dog can afford to run a car these days.
Food – never been cheaper or safer, they even put the nutritional content on the packet.
Water – yes the politicians have let us down by pandering to the doomsayers (greenies), but we’ve let them get away with it. Potable water still gushes from the tap whenever I turn it on, though.
Weather – If we hadn’t heard from Flim Flam Flannery and his fellow travellers, we’d think the weather was great.
For mine, forget nuclear, let’s go full steam ahead with cheap, plentiful coal.
Oil – trading near record highs, supply relative to demand likely to further inflate. Inflationary on all goods so less money in Paul’s pocket.
Food – global grain reserves are now down to 47 days, the lowest since records began to be kept in 1960. Another 4.5 billion extra human mouths to feed today also, their cars, and maybe another hundred million cattle. All food commodities have doubled in the last 2 years so more money out of Paul’s pocket.
Water – you don’t feel it in the city, ask any producer in the Murray Darling system about water or WA’s south west. You might still be able to turn your tap on but your’e also paying $5 for a single lettuce at the moment! More money out of Paul’s pocket.
Weather – if you’re enjoying the winter weather, fair chance there are farmers somewhere who are not. More inflationary pressure on food prices and more money out of Paul’s pocket.
So Paul ignorance might be bliss but it sure is going to cost more in the future, whether you realise or not might be another issue. For your sake I hope you have deep pockets LOL
No, in real terms, oil is cheap. That’s why so many people can afford it (hint, we’re all wealthier).
Haven’t noticed spring starvation in my lifetime (that used to be common 1,000 years ago, so I’ve read), and bread is still pretty cheap.
Lettuce? $2.49 last time I bought one. If they get too expensive, people won’t buy them. That’ll save a lot of water.
Of course we’re still waiting for the climate catastrophes we’ve been promised. I’m sure you’ll tell me they’re just around the corner.
I feel a bit depressed after reading your post, though. I hadn’t realised things were so bad. What should we do?
I cannot understand why nuclear power generation remains a controversial issue in this country.
For crying out loud, it has been used throughout Europe for at least 40 years and currently supplies France with 78% of its electricity.
My only problem with it is that it would be far more expensive than our cheap and abundant coal.
Why shoot ourselves in the foot?
Jennifer,
During the discussion on Australia’s Energy Future there was a small segment related to accidents in the nuclear industry. In order to place accidents in to perspective IAEA has published an International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). The scale goes from trivial to most severe, that is from 0 to 7.
The 1986 accident at Chernobyl with major and wide spread radionuclide release and environmental and Health consequences is the only event meriting a category 7 classification. Even so according to the Chernobyl Forum there were 134 cases of acute radiation syndrome with 28 deaths. Two other immediate deaths not radiation related. In the period 1987-2004 there have been 19 further deaths from various causes in this group. Of the 4000 cases of thyroid cancer diagnosed between 1992-2202 fifteen deaths have been related to the progression of disease.
Chernobyl deaths rate should be compared to the Bhopal disaster where the mortality was approximately, 20,000 and approximately 120,000 suffered some permanent disability (Wikipedia).
Another comparison that can be made is in the period 1972-92 there were 6400 deaths from coal generation;1200 deaths from Natural Gas generation; 4000 deaths from hydroelectric generation (See UIC Briefing Paper 14).
Only one level 6 incident has been recorded namely release from the plant Kyshtym in the old Soviet Union. On the 29th September 1957 there was a violent explosion in a waste tank releasing 40PBq (1) Of fission products [Ce-144, Zr-95, Sr-90, Cs-137. (Wikipedia or http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/ural.htm)
The Windscale fire of 1957 and Three Mile Island both scored a level 5. That is an accident with severe damage to the installation and/or significant release of radioactivity.
Talbott et al(2)from the University of Pittsburgh studied a cohort of 32135 persons living in the TMI accident area between 1979-1998. Previous papers are reviewed by the authors. The authors concluded that after a 20 year follow up there was no consistent evidence that radioactivity released during the TNI accident had a significant impact on mortality. They do state that certain dose-response relationships cannot be definitely excluded.
The Talbot paper does not have dosimetric data for individuals. The estimated average maximum gamma dose was estimated as 0.25mSv and approximately 18% of the cohort was exposed to 0.4Sv. The average likely dose was 0.1mSv. Potential confounders considered were natural background variation, smoking history and education level.
It should also be noted that 10 plaintiffs with various cancers failed to convince the United States Court of Appeals that the power companies were responsible for their illness. (Argued before District Judge Sylvia H Rambo, Middle District of Pennsylvania June7 1996. Court of Appeal October 31, 2002. No 02-1520).
To the best of my knowledge all other incidents have been classified as level 3 or less.
Level 3 serious incident Very small public exposure. Severe site contamination and acute health effects to workers only.
Level 2 Incident. Significant on site spread of contamination and over exposure of workers only.
Level I- Anomaly. Operation beyond authorised operating regime.
Level 0 Deviation. No safety significance.
__________________________________
1 Peta is 10^15. PBq = 10^15 disintegrations per second.
2 Long-Term Follow-Up of the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident
Area: 1979–1998
Evelyn O. Talbott, Ada O. Youk, Kathleen P. McHugh-Pemu, and Jeanne V. Zborowski. Environmental Health Perspectives 2003, 111:341-8.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5662/5662.pdf
Paul Williams,
Are you still a Lyndon LaRouche devotee?
Ask any Italian how handy that surplus French nuclear baseload was when the Russians cut off natural gas supplies to the Ukraine in 2005 (which then meant the Ukraine turned off the spur lines to Italy) and when it was the middle of winter. France’s contribution to western European baseload security cannot be appreciated until the complexity of the fossil fuel paradigm is accepted.
Energy security, its also generally pretty handy when trying to maintain the rule of law …
melaleuca, I never was a “Lyndon LaRouche devotee”. I don’t even know what they are. I presume you have a purpose in asking that question?
Jim – “IMO it meets the 5 major tests;
1. existing , proven and safe technology”
While reactors are relatively safe nothing is proven about about waste disposal. The current methods are ignoring the problem and externalising it to future generations.
“2. can meet current and future peak and baseload”
Can’t meet peak load because muclear power is ONLY baseload.
“3. CO2 free”
Only if enrichment which uses massive amounts of electricity is nuclear as well which is not the case at present.
“4. affordable at least compared with renewables”
Not really. Wind is now just a bit more expensive than coal. The real cost of nuclear has never been established as there is no nuclear program in existence that is totally private sector and has no subsidies. Even wind/solar with storage is about the same as nuclear without the storage of waste problems.
“5. can create a very significant reduction in emissions in a relatively short time”
This is the worst one as nuclear power plants are very slow to build. If a crash program to build nuclear reactors was started it would immediately falter due to critical skill shortages in areas such as welding and fabrication. Vastly greater reductions in CO2 can be achieved first from efficiency gains and then renewables which are quick to deploy and can be starting to generate power even before the nuclear plant gets out of planning stage.
Nuclear energy encourages a business as usual sort of mentality where there is no need for efficiency gains. There is no way we can just nuke our way out of our present problems. We need to first use energy far more wisely before getting our electricity from the only really safe nuclear reactor – the sun.
Jim: I also noticed your five points above and thought you must work somewhere in support of government energy policy like I once worked in support of communications restructure ie three competitive carriers to replace one tired backbone and a failed aussat etc. All that after right sizing a few kingdoms hey
As Ender probably knows, Governments luv the sound of their own policy rhetoric in the face of practical engineering difficulties. The local Telstra boss was on talkback batting a barrage of raw calk cricket balls from all angles over their Next G coverage in RL after CDMA in the bush. The fact that he has to build an extra fifty towers before the end of the “old” CDMA service should tell us something about expectations in general. He blamed poor G type handsets for our problems. Oddly Ziggy never got a mention.
Watching the Tour de France overnight on TV brings home one big truth about the French nuk infrastructure, its massive at the RnD level and quite beyond our imagination.
I was reading a long opinion piece in the Canberra Times today by Jim Douglas – “Coal could pay to say forests” stuff about our industry buying forestry credits in Indonesia with a little bit of Fed Gov high tech Sat spying thrown in, all marvellous in the short term. It could take our eyes of the John Paul coalition down south for a while but 4 Corners reminds us of that fuss.
It’s obvious to me at least; none of the above threads and hardly any comments following are coming from practical project people. Targets are one thing leaks are another as our CSIRO pulp mill expert said tonight. World’s best practice is only an illusion for those who have never turned off a large valve controlling the superheated steam in a power station or handled a dirty isotope.
It’s a while back since I first read up on Windscale and learned about the cover-ups in Britain but it probably stopped me getting a job at any time later at say Woomera where several associates spent considerable time during the most exciting periods at that establishment. Another chap from the Rum Jungle mine however did teach me all he knew about handling dangerous goods during the 70’s after his experience with yellow cake in production. Note; the mining side is typically low pressure.
Until that time I was mostly involved with commissioning mechanical or electrical power and high pressure in line processes. All of us knew then we had no chance of moving into a major nuclear industry overnight based solely on a total lack of a suitable talent pool. Since then much of our traditional manufacturing base has declined with secondary processing the biggest casualty. Governments have abandoned the engineering maintenance role particularly in the power industry.
4 Corners tonight outlined another problem in the regulation of a damned pulp mill project. Governments must now be seen but not heard in the science as well. But let’s offer another practical observation; it takes as long to properly get rid of a collection of bits and as it does to build it.
See if can apply this loosely to Windscale?
http://www.ukaea.org.uk/sites/windscale_quick_facts.htm
I’m confused by gavins “World’s best practice is only an illusion for those who have never turned off a large valve controlling the superheated steam in a power station or handled a dirty isotope.”
Iff he’s saying World’s best practice is but a pipe dream and can’t be achieved (which is one possible reading)
1. Nope, never turned off superheated steam.
2.Have worked with sources (Cobalt 60 dirty enough?)
3. Have cut and spliced E.coli genes making them resistant to just about every antibiotic: that’s a containment problem worse than leaking radioactive material because leaked radiation doesn’t breed.
But two and three weren’t subject to the profit motive: no incentive to veer away from world’s best practice.
Three Mile Island apparently happened because of the economic incentive for short-cuts. Regulations required three cooling systems, two were operational when it went on-line to achieve a “performance bonus”. One system had a faulty light (giving a false positive) in the “Homer Simpson” room. A string and bit of cardboard with “don’t worry about this light” put on the panel obscured the flashing light from the sole remaining cooling system.
That said, I totally agree with Ivor that the safety record of the coal industry is absolutely shocking: and needs much more intervention from governments.
Dave Bath; re “confused” I only wish to point out the vast gulf between having concepts on paper and practice in the factory after working round a variety of Australian industry with a lot of man made hazards.
In anticipation of preliminary reports on the Chernobyl disaster I guessed the engineers had an out of phase response to rapidly increasing reaction peaks based on a whole lot of dumb instruments we had in process control at the time. Real time handling of process conditions anywhere was an “illusion” when as I observed most engineers ignored the rate of change knob up front in our automation of remote valves. Analysing a series of oscillations after they settled was always much easier particularly when you don’t believe the accuracy of a remote sensor or two.
Many brand new installations get swamped with spills before design standards are met but there were some odd exceptions. One cryovac natural gas rig we constructed was completely cut up and rebuilt under our electrical gang before it was passed into its high pressure operation for liquid mass storage. Another plant eventually blew up at Sale in Victoria.
Dave; the technical considerations must start at ground level. My dad and his mate once had a biz that specialized in concrete foundations for major commercial projects. My mate is up with the same sort of industry here and is often concerned with our technical standards in a wide range of applications in the building game. There is reason to worry about everything we make when we are so short on practical experience.
What has the Haneff case got in common with the Gunn’s Pulp Mill Project apart from big questions on ethics? There are very few independent technical experts in all crucial areas when it comes to good advice for the general population.
When a plasterer at our common room dining table recalled leaving his battered leather Gladstone bag containing a big pay packet under the public bar in a pub by way down the avenue by a busy intersection we saw a sudden reaction to a need to shower and change followed by a mad dash. Little did he know it was already in hand as the astute barmaid had heard his ticking travel clock. The whole area was cordoned off and the bomb disposal team had a double barrelled shot gun ready to blast that menacing object off the pavement.
The big question is who do you believe the barmaid, the expert system or the harassed looking bloke in splattered boots and shorts?