What an interesting conclusion ! - "nuclear power is by far the safest way to produce energy"
There might be a few people in Fukushima who might disagree with this.

And - an even more worrying thought for all those Australian companies exploring and for and mining uranium. What will happen to our wonderful uranium industry when the world turns to thorium nuclear reactors? (Thorium reactors need only a little bit of plutonium and/or enriched uranium to get them started)

Well no matter - because it's not going to happen. A bit of creative accounting went on in this article - neglecting the economics of Thorium and all small nuclear reactors. They'd be economic only if sold on a mass scale. Very unlikely to be able to market them in large quantities.

The nuclear industry, world-wide is stagnating. In the leading nuclear power country, USA, the industry is paralysed, as the waste problem becomes more critical. In Europe similarly - division and distrust in public attitudes to nuclear.

In the "Third World" much hype - no doubt because countries like the idea of nuclear weapons capability.

Meanwhile, renewable energy, safe,clean, no wastes, is globally popular and getting cheaper all the time. Also - setting up solar panels and wind turbines is a pretty quick operation - compared to the years , indeed decades, taken to set up any kind of nuclear power.
This article is just one more desperate plea to stave off the death of the nuclear industry.

Though they may be familiar to many, it is good to see in this review a restatement of simple facts, or at least ‘near-certainties’: That burning fossil fuels represents a potential major threat to global climate (though of uncertain magnitude); that the world will keep needing more energy to satisfy human aspirations; that universal economic prosperity is a necessary condition for an approach to the ideal of a steady-state, or better, declining, global population; and that only nuclear energy can satisfy these requirements.

Just as certain will be the response from readers: That extra atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot affect climate, so why worry; that nuclear energy is just too dangerous; that renewable energy will eventually replace present fuels; that energy storage will defy the odds and new technology make it available at the scale needed; that human inventiveness will rise to the challenge; and so on.

The evidence is that opinions on such matters are rusted on and nothing will change them. Or almost nothing. There will eventually be environmental or economic pressures that do force a change and books like the two reviewed will then provide valuable support.

Great article. High time Australia's energy policy was evidence based and not on fear. No mention of hot rock technology which also has some promise. Interesting also in connection with global warming, there is some fascinating research which indicates that it is the policy prescription which is crucial in getting agreement to a solution. For those who tend to be doubters, if the prescription is nuclear it is more likely to be accepted and vice versa for those who are convinced that it is man made,
One final point and one of usage, In the first sentence "in regards to" is grating. I was always taught "In respect of and with regard to" But then I am an old fart.

“Is nuclear the only way forward?”

Realistically, Yes. That is to say, nuclear power will be required to do most of the ‘heavy lifting’ if we want to cut emissions substantially by 2050. We realistically cannot do without nuclear power being the main component of decarbonising energy. It has to do most of the replacing of fossil fuels. There is no other realistic option.

We need to decarbonise energy at the rate of around 5% to 6% per year if we are to reach any of the advocated targets by mid century.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/decelerating-decarbonization-of-global.html

I also think Hargraves’ book “Thorium: Energy cheaper than coal” is excellent - although I do not support ‘picking winners’ of one nuclear power technology over another. Thorium and the other Gen IV technologies are decades from being a realistically viable option for large amounts of electricity generation. They are at the R&D stage and a long way from commercially viable. This UK NNL report for the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change explains the situation very well: http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/nuclear/6300-comparison-fuel-cycles.pdf)

The world could replace most coal fired electricity generation by 2050 if we wanted to. The cost of nuclear generation could be about 1/3 the cost of coal fired generation by then.

Replacing coal with nuclear would deliver many other benefits as well (h/t Hargraves book for some of this):

• Avoid increasing the cost of energy through taxes and regulations (e.g. ETS)
• Avoid the compliance cost of carbon tax and ETS schemes (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13578 )
• Avoid cost premium caused by partial participation in such schemes (http://skepticalscience.com//news.php?f=nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money#82373 )
• Avoid the inevitable and ongoing domestic political interference, international cheating and dragging the chain.

• Faster GDP growth due to lower energy prices
• People rise out of poverty faster
• Reduce population growth rate and lower the peak population
• Reduce toxic pollution and black carbon (avoiding millions of fatalities per year)
• Reduce the transporting of coal and gas – less ships, trains and gas pipelines.
• Greater energy security.

If we want to reduce emissions in anything like the time frame required by the greenhouse theorists then nuclear is about the only way to go, and the author is right to point out that very low levels of radiation have been unfairly demonised.

But politically it is just impossible in this country. It just isn't going to happen. Noel.Wauchope's comments in the first post are typical of the sort of wild-eyed nonsense that we can expect if anyone even breathed the possibility of building a power reactor here. Never mind that tsunamis and earthquakes are in short supply in Australia, the green movement will mount the most enormous scare campaign on whatever risks they can find.

As its the media's job to play up those scare stories (as a member of the media, I know this) and are ideologically disposed to the green side, the general public will soon be scared silly. Safety assurances simply won't matter. Let's stick with gas.

Agree with Tombee: Interesting, informative and well researched article.
Fukushima was due to an almost impossible to predict natural event, not the technology!
Modern pebble reactors use helium, and even if the coolant is stopped, are designed not to actually melt down.
They can be mass produced in factories and trucked on site as modules, that can begin to generate electrical power within days.
So, the garbage about needing years to go from design to finished plant, is just that!
And as mass produced modules, able to quite seriously undercut coal-fired power.
And indeed, negate the need for the carbon production doubling, great white elephant, that is the national grid!
Moreover, coal prices are set to rise and rise, with other fossil fuels and demand.
Meaning, we should already be running our major international and defence shipping, with pebble reactors, rather than guaranteed to rise and rise diesel.
Thorium reactors are cheaper to run than coal, albeit, there will need be some lead time before we can change over to them.
We have enough known thorium reserves to power the world for 600 years!
The world is not threatened by the odd nuclear meltdown, as tragic as they are, for significant numbers; but rather, mounting atmospheric carbon. [If anyone seriously believes any of us could survive a worse case scenario, 6.4C rise in average ambient temperatures, they have to have rocks for brains!]
Sure, we could deploy diesel engine replacing wind and solar voltaic, which seems to becoming more affordable almost daily!
Even so, common sense dictates, we will need to keep the diesel or gas powered generator as essential backup!
We live in a world where we will always have to compete, for our daily bread!
[We can't import everything; and, we can't all live on state welfare!]
And that means even cheaper power, as an absolute essential!
Rhrosty.

Is nuclear the only way forward?
Well, no!
We have copious NG, and Methane is 75% hydrogen, as is scrubbed biogas.
Even so, passing methane through a catalyst, knocks one or two hydrogen atoms out of the molecule matrix, thereby creating petrol replacing methanol!
CNG, with a few plumbing modifications, will run any conventional petrol or diesel engine.
Including things like inboard electrolysis, that uses spare alternator capacity and regenerative braking, to produce Hydrogen and Oxygen, both of which can be fed into either end of the air intake to dramatically improve economy and range.
The addition of a cobalt catalyst to the water, quite literally doubles the gas production, for the same power input! [And interesting connotations for fuel cell powered vehicles!]
Similarly, water injected directly into the combustion chamber, with every sixth power stroke, negates the need for an energy sapping radiator and circulation pumps!
Moreover, the steam created by this method, provides some high torque motive power, all while adding quite significantly to the range and economy.
After that, I feel that hydrogen will play a vital role as fuel in the future.
And will likely be made utilising the much less expensive, catalyst assisted, water molecule cracking method.
We have boundless sea water and sunshine, both of which could be deployed to produce very price competitive compressed/storable endlessly sustainable hydrogen fuel.
All that's currently missing is the national gas grid, that could carry NG, scrubbed biogas, or hydrogen.
Nonetheless, we could use it to power very fast trains, with hydrogen powered ceramic cells, placed at convenient sites track-side or carried on board, with a few towed tanks of compressed fuel.
We are currently researching ways to lock in a few carbon atoms, with hydrogen, to create a hydrocarbon molecule, thereby creating an endlessly sustainable transportable/storable liquid fuel!
Rhrosty.

How much of the objection to nuclear power is knee-jerk? I know mine was. And then along came climate change.
Has anyone else been following the weather reports coming out of Beijing over the last few days? Our export of coal to China and elsewhere makes us culpable in much of today's atmospheric pollution. Whether or not that pollution contributes directly to a changing climate becomes secondary when the air we breathe goes bad. And our fingerprints are all over that bad air.
Isn't it time we started a serious debate on how much harm our export-driven dollar-earning coal industry is inflicting on the world.

The Chinese are putting together a thorium powered plant, as is India.
Thorium is virtually non toxic, [if handled with care.]

Best OLO article in years. Thank you John.

Of course the anti any & every thing mob surface like mosquito larvae. Must be dreadful living in continual fear of a myth.

Hay Rhrosty, how about a little bet mate, although at the rate we keep finding hydrocarbons it might have to be our grandkids that actually collect.

Five bucks says we are powering the next generation of transport with nuclear power, not fuel cells. If you want to use hydrogen, you might as well burn it.

What a great thought a nuclear powered car is. Chuck a pebble of uranium into the thing on the production line, then run it until the wheels fall off.

The only problem is by then they will have made the things auto controlled, & far too safe. We will have to come up with a whole new range of dangerous sports, [blindfolded mountain climbing, round world hot air balloon racing anyone], to make life interesting again.

No, nuclear is not the only way forward.
We could collect and digest all our current biological waste and produce energy from it, rather than put energy into it, to pump it as treated effluent, wastefully out to sea. Where it does no end of harm, to the very poorly understood marine environment!
All our high-rise buildings, villages and individual suburbs, can have all their independent power needs supplied onsite by the very waste they create! Adding in food scraps and wastage, [around 50%], produces a saleable energy surplus. Methane powered ceramic fuel cells, with a world beating 60% energy coefficient, produce endless free hot water, as a by product.
The digesters produce methane, a thoroughly sanitised phosphate and nitrate loaded, high carbon organic fertilizer and recyclable water, with enough soluble nutrient, to keep a nearby or rooftop algae production facility going indefinitely.
Some algae are up to 60% oil, and absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in carbon emission; and, under optimised conditions, effectively double that bodyweight and absorption capacity every 24 hours; meaning, the ten tons of algae you have today, could be 160 tons in just five days, or put another way, around a hundred tons of alternative fuel!
However, you likely settle for fifty-seventy tons a week, so as to keep the process going indefinitely.
Extracting the oil is as simple as sun drying the filtered algae, then crushing it to extract the oil.
The remaining material might be suitable as a food source for some animals or as source material for ethanol production.
The sludge from ethanol production, possible nitrate and phosphate rich material, that might be usable as crop improving fertilizer?
We simply have to stop wasting our waste/fouling the marine environment with it, and then using potable water and expensive hydrocarbons, to make artificial and often expensive fertilizer?
Sealed or closed cycle production systems, rarely if ever, produce objectionable smells, which seems to have been the main/past major objection!?
Rhrosty.

Halduell the Chinese could burn coal, with out putting all those pollutants into the air. That they chose not to clean up their emissions says something about their priorities rather than anything else.

Just about all that comes out of our plants is water vapor & plant fertilizer. To achieve this does add to the cost of our power, but a cost we believe worth paying. China sees things differently regarding life, something we should never forget.

I tend to believe that nuclear is not the only way forward but at this stage I think it's the most sensible. Who knows what technology is waiting around the corner. The problem with Fukushima & Chernobyl was that these plants were too big to handle. Make them smaller thus more controllable.

Rhrosty
commercial scale power from waste? Um, did you get that stuff from anywhere? I'm sure you could produce some power that way, but I think the scale is vastly different from the 500 MW coal fired plants we usually use.. maybe you want to recheck the scale of the systems they are talking about in whatever material you're quoting..

I am amazed at our self importance. What we do as a very sparsely populated country really counts for nought. Its like when the Indian press call us racist or sexist. A simple diversion from the real problems where the population is bulging.

Hey Hasbeen; what's possible now today, are CNG powered ceramic fuel cells, in electric cars.
One can put a pebble reactor on the back of a very long multi-wheeled low loader, as a piloted very wide load!
So, I don't contemplate a nuclear powered car any time soon. [Not while I live and breathe, or on planet earth anyway.]
A ceramic fuel cell, around twice-three times the size of a microwave, will run an average family home and supply endless free hot water!
A much smaller water cooled one, could replace the combustion engine in any hybrid car.
We already make both of the things here!
And we have copious NG!
And local suppliers are on the public record saying, even with a 15% fuel excise imposed, they could supply gas at 40 cents per cubic metre, which has around the same calorific energy, as a litre of petrol.
Yet, we currently import up to 80% of our transport fuel requirements; mostly from an increasingly volatile middle east!
And pay an arm and a leg for it at the bowsers!
As kick-a-ball, lamb chop chewing Sam Kickavictch would say, you know it makes sense!?
I have however, heard of Afghan rebels, "confiscating" some Russian depleted uranium waste, a "pebble", and then using the heat produced to make tea?
Who knows, something like that might produce enough steam to power up a old Stanley Steamer, which as you probably know, once held the land speed record!
Otherwise, we could probably ask the Missus, to throw another log on the fire, or peddle harder!?
You have a nice day now HB, Rhrosty.

Hi Noel.Wauchope

Use of Thorium reactors might in fact be a bonus for Australian miners as Australia is estimated to have the largest Thorium "resources" in the world http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/mineral-resources/thorium.html .

However John Ridd might be overly optimistic about Thorium reactor's technical and economic viability given the very low use and slow development of Thorium reactors over the last 60 years.

Still, this is in comparison with a near cartel of Uranium miners, U reactor builders and operators. The dual-use (military-commercial) value of Uranium may have also artificially favoured U reactor development at the expense of Thorium reactor development and economical functioning.

All in all if Australia is ideologically opposed even to Thorium reactors we can at least export it to future customers like India, France and China etc.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/thorium-reactors-indian-and-australian.html

Individual,

>"Make them smaller thus more controllable."

Dead right. That's where we are heading, for many reasons. Small units can be produced in factories on production lines like aircraft, shipped to site and returned to factory for refueling. Therefore, better quality control. Small units can be produced more quickly, so this reduces the time to build new plants. So the order can be placed later and the funds are tied up for a shorter time before they start producing electricity. This reduces the cost and also reduces the financial risk for the owners and investors. All this reduces the cost.

But the most important advantages is the small units are produced more frequently so improvements are built in more quickly than with larger designs. So the technology is improved more quickly, costs come down, productivity increases and safety improves more quickly than with large units.

There are some 43 small modular nuclear power plant designs in various stages from concept through to in-production awaiting the go ahead from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The US Department Of Energy approved the first of these to be taken through to commercialisation in November. It is 180 MWe which is about the same size as large gas units. it is an ideal size. This is what it looks like:http://www.uxc.com/smr/Library/Design%20Specific/mPower/Presentations/2012%20-%20Reactor%20Design%20Overview.pdf

With a doubling of global generating capacity of plants like this every 3 years, the world could cut GHG emissions by 13 Gt CO2/a by 2050. And cost of electricity could be about half compared with the current cost of new coal generation. Furthermore, doing so would avoid over 1 million fatalities per year from coal fired generation,

Who, in their right mind, wants to argue against this?

It is strange how Australia, way ahead of the rest of the world, with the world's biggest economy wide tax, is the most backward in alternative power sources.

Nuclear is statistically still by far the safest energy source (no one has yet died of radiation in Fukashima compared to the 30 000 that have died from the Tsunami)

PS. Hot rocks is all but dead and buried.

Daffy or daft as usual, I quite like the perspective on Nuclear Power given by William Irwin Thompson at Wild River Review.
Plus his essay on the In Context website, and all of his other essays on the Wild River website.

Don't forget all that methane clathrate lying around the ocean deep, just waiting for us to start dredging or vacuuming it up.

Who ever it was that put this planet together sure didn't want us to go short of energy, provided we developed half a brain.

I wonder how much longer it is going to take for the inner city chattering classes to do that?

Rhosty
Where are you getting this stuff from?? Are you just making it up, or is there some basis to this fantasy..
"A ceramic fuel cell, around twice-three times the size of a microwave, will run an average family home and supply endless free hot water!
A much smaller water cooled one, could replace the combustion engine in any hybrid car."
As far as I know all of that is completely wrong .. ceramic fuel cells are not around the technological corner, and mass use of them for the family home is not being proposed by anyone. So do you have any links on that one? I'm curious to know where this has come from..

We're now entering the seventh year of a smoke-and-mirrors, extend-and-pretend, can-kicking phase of history in which everything is being done to conceal the true condition of the economy, with the vain hope of holding things together until a miracle rescue remedy occurs.

As the US and broader global economy stumbles, the banking system implodes on the incapacity of debt repayment, there will be less and less capital available for investment in shale oil and other energy investments.

As with shale gas, the shale oil wells deplete very rapidly, too, and production requires constant re-drilling, meaning more rigs, more employees, more trucks hauling fracking fluid, and more capital investment. This is referred to as "the Red Queen syndrome," from Lewis Carrol's Through the Looking Glass tale in which the Red Queen tells Alice that she has to run as fast as she can to stay where she is.

A perfect storm in the global bond market has formed with Europe crippled, Canada and Australia entering their own (long-delayed and spectacular) housing bubble busts, the USA sharply losing credibility as it fails to politically address its balance sheet problems - or even continue to pretend that it might - and Japan utterly floundering under a new lack of commitment to nuclear power, the need to import virtually all the fossil fuels it needs for its industrial economy, a consequent negative balance of trade (for the first time in decades), and a deadly debt-to-GDP ratio around 240 percent.

As I see it, shale oil and gas production will stop increasing, possibly turns around to decline. The event hugely demoralises "energy independence" cornucopians.

Fuel shortages return to the USA on a scale last seen in the 1970s. Cause: broken oil market allocation system. Some regions will suffer more than others.

Do any of us really think there is enough capital to develop a global nuclear industry no matter its engineering size or energy output, I doubt it all.

Reality is something we all fear, nuclear power is going to be one of those dreams that never really surface into reality, especially in Australia.....dream on!

Good morning Geoff of Middle Perth,

It’s a sure sign that the former alarmism behind CAGW is fading rapidly when you come up with its replacement, CPOW (Catastrophic Peak Oil Warning).

Your very scary alarmist post surpasses our greatest expectations but Shhhhhh! You are frightening the children.

As for the rest of us, I think we will leave you in “predictable box”.