I’d be very reluctant to support nuclear energy in Australia for all the reasons that have been discussed over and over on this forum and many others.

However, the situation with the conversion to an energy regime that is dominated by renewable energy sources is likely to be very ugly. The enormous changes, increases in costs, reductions in quality of life, very uneven effects on different people, etc, threatens to cause massive social upheaval.

If the development of a large-scale nuclear energy regime could be shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of this social fracturing, then it might just be the way to go.

Social cohesion is all-important. We want to make sure that the rule of law stays intact and that the government stays in control.

If however we decide to start building nuclear power plants only after we have become really stressed by rising oil prices or the effects of climate change, then I’d say that we should forego it and just battle through a very difficult transition period without nuclear energy.

The development of a nuclear energy regime is something that we need to do when we have the time, resources and safeguards well and truly in place to do it properly. It is certainly not something to be done when we are stressed and rushed, when there are other huge areas crying out for emergency funding and when our government is very likely to cut a lot of corners.

Good article Martin.

Even if you don't believe in AGW or think we have an obligation to act, it still makes good sense to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. It appears that global liquid fuel production peaked in 2008. It is thought that China's domestic coal production will peak by 2015 and will almost certainly drive up the world price of coal. As Australia's ageing coal fired power stations are retired many are suggested they be replaced with gas fired generators. That will only reduce CO2 around 40-50% and will be more expensive than nuclear power, even without carbon taxes. However the upfront capital cost is lot lower than nuclear. Additionally gas fired power stations can use air cooling and don't need to be on the coastline like nuclear plants. If we replace Australia's oil demand (now mostly imported) with gas that could add 50% to domestic gas demand on an equivalent energy basis.

Therefore while gas fired generation is cheaper upfront and can be tucked away it is still relatively high emitting and will be a lot more expensive in the long run. I doubt that aluminium smelters will be prepared to pay the full price for gas fired electricity. The decision should be made now to replace coal fired power stations with nuclear baseload plants. They can be co-located with desalination plants on the coastline perhaps using waste heat. We're kidding ourselves if we think wind and solar can replace coal. We also have no plan for oil depletion. The rush to gas will make power bills very expensive and still won't make big enough cuts to emissions.

With much of Western Australia having its biggest freeze on record many pensioners struggling to stay warm due to high heating costs must be relieved that the Rudd/Gillard/Turnbull team did not get their way with the ets. Many would in fact be praying that more emissions might be pumped in the atmosphere in order for them to get warm. Gillard is trying hard now to pretend she welcomes open debate on illegal immigrants. Hopefully she will also be shamed into facing the known fact that much of the man made gw pseudo science has been and is one big joke with many like Flannery and Gore making a good quid out of distortions, false prophecies and straight out lies.

Runner,

It is indeed very cold in Western Australia at the moment and has been now for weeks - but it's because right into the dead of winter we've had day after day of glorious sunshine, hence the freezing night time temperatures. It's looking like another sunshiny day today after a very cold night - strangely, we haven't had any wintry weather this winter.

Martin - I'm glad to see that you have a realistic idea of the costs and difficulties of switching to renewable energy but I think you could have gone further. There is no evidence that renewables do, in fact, reduce emissions. Reductions have been assumed but never actually calculated for a working system. One possibly exception is Denmark where there are a lot of dams to store power in the Swedish and Norwegian systems just across the Baltic.
The problem is that the network has to be completely re-engineered to accommodate renewables, the choice of generators is different (they are not chosen to minimise emissions and costs, but to accommodate renewables) and the spinning reserve requirements are different. By the time all that is taken into account the saving from wind energy in particular looks very sorry indeed.
As for solar thermal, there have been claims it can substitute for base load power but I have yet to see any proof - in any case, as you note, there is still the problem of cloudiness.
Renewables are simply too costly and difficult to use to be taken seriously.

A little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down but the sugar cannot mask the vast amount of nuclear waste (including uranium waste) stored around the planet. Nor can it mask the reality that as of 2006, the decommissioning costs for aged nuclear reactors and contaminated sites in the UK was £70 billion, according to the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, with a significant shortfall in funding.

And so we're to believe that GenIV reactors will gobble up the waste. When? Even the latest reactor design from French nuclear power company Areva has significant flaws according to nuclear regulators in France, Finland, and the United Kingdom all alluding to "a significant and fundamental nuclear safety problem. You can just go down the list, and they've got problems — safety design problems and concealment of actual price tag."

Regional projects of solar energy or other renewable energies are supplying small villages with all their electricity needs in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria Uganda, Malawi, Northern Tanzania, Ghana, Italy, Austria etc.

“Beyond Zero Emissions” reports that the rapid uptake of wind power in other countries is in stark contrast to Australia. Denmark, for example, with 5.4 million inhabitants crammed into an area twenty times smaller than New South Wales is supplied with 24.1% windpower capacity and is aiming for 50% of its power to come from wind by 2025. The US took over 50 years to install their nuclear fleet (just 19% of energy requirements), but 90% of global wind capacity has been installed in just the last 10 years.

My local Council recently installed underground power to all its many suburbs with a cost of nearly $4,000 to each ratepayer – like it or not and objections were in the minority so what are the obstacles preventing Councils implementing mandatory projects for solar power?

Society is sick of the hubris from duplicitous governments and greed merchants.

Thirty nuclear reactors for Australia by the year 2050 to supply a mere one third of our energy requirements? I don’t think so unless one is delusional!

Protagoras - what vast amounts of waste from nuclear plants? think of the MCG or the SCG. All the waste from all the nuclear power plants to date and to come for the next century would not fill one of those grounds. An obvious point when you think about it, as we're not talking about uranium ore waste (from which the radiactive uranium is extracted and is in the megatonnes) but the actual fuel rods from the power plants. Given the small volumes involved and low radiation levels (they are spent rods after all), it is difficult to believe that a low tech storage solution involving concrete, sand and barbed wire in a remote location would not be effective. But there are activists who insist that as the waste cannot be stored without risk we should not store it at all.
Let us pass over such logic. You mention Denmark and Germany as the leaders in wind power. Sure they have wasted vast amounts of public money for very little reduction in emissions, so why should we be in a hurry to follow their lead?

Poirot

.strangely, we haven't had any wintry weather this winter.'

Really, I would think that the longest coldest patch on record is wintry. You would hardly call it summer. Just goes to show that people will put whatever spin they want on it including the alarmist who justify their spin with pseudo and fraudulent science.

Energy Game Chanager ?

Sheesh yes.. specially when Obama had the chance since day 1 to utilize very effective skimmer ships which pick up 90% plus of spilled oil...but REFUSED TO DO SO..for SEVENTY + DAYS!

Hmmmmmm....*wonders*..

"why" would Obama hold off on an effective clean up for over 70 days?

Hmmmm...just wondering......

Maybe the real game is... 'change the energy game' :)

Curmudgeon, thanks for your comments. I am, of course, aware of all the points you have made. As you would know it is difficult to get everything into a sub 1000 word piece. Also some of the points are really still conjecture.

There is certainly a body of research that suggests that variable renewables (such as wind) do not reduce emissions if you are relying on fossil fuel plants to cover for the wind lulls. The inability for Denmark to close any coal plants despite a very high penetration of wind power would tend to support this. But if we can ever get cost effective and scalable storage this will change.

You and I know that renewables are simply too costly and difficult to use to be taken seriously but unfortunately our government seems to believe they should be. I suspect they are more likely to be influenced by the increased cost argument than any hoped for reduction in emissions.

runner,

That's all right, then...if you think that cold sunny days and frigid nights with almost no rain constitutes a winter, that is your prerogative.

So because of a disastrous environmental catastrophe caused by fossil fuels you want us to replace then with something that could cause a much much worse catastrophic environmental disaster. Excuse me for not seeing the logic here.

runner
You are a fool if you think a few weeks of cold, in the middle of winter, confirms your denialist propaganda and lies.

I now understand why there are so many demanding a price on Carbon. Its not because of emissions so much, as it will make little difference to energy usage. Its to make currently uncompetitive Solar and Wind etc artificially more competitive. I'm not sure that this is economically a wise way to go.

A price on Carbon will push the world to use inefficient, expensive though less polluting energies. Developing countries cannot afford such expensive energy and will have to remain with oil and coal for some time. These countries will dominate global emissions for some time to come.

I agree the only current feasible answer for Australia is nuclear particularly with our uranium reserves. Hopefully, people can get over their fear, much of which is unwarranted.

Also, it is wrong to suggest we are "addicted" to fossil fuels. Its just that our cars don't go far on anything else and bicycles are relatively useless for interstate haulage or picking up your 3 kids from school in the rain. I'm afraid the author is giving the impression it is some kind of moral malaise that makes us use fossil fuels, which is incorrect. There is no reasonable alternative at present. Don't blame Joe Average,he has no choice in the matter.

I just wanted to give some facts about nuclear energy.

Electricity carbon footprint:
- in environmently friendly Denmark: 314g/kW
- in environmently friendly Germany: 412g/kW
- in not so environmently friendly France: 90g/kw

France has a very low electricity production cost (including nuclear waste recycling, stockpilling and plant dismantling).

Sodium cooled fast neutron reactors built in France (Phenix/Super Phenix) and Russia (BN-600) have proved for years that it's technically faisable to generate electricity from nuclear waste materials. Of course, both countries will need between 15 and 30 years to develop industrial-scale reactors compatible with new very high security standards.

As for stockpilling high grade nuclear waste, it's not that simple but it's feasable short term and long term. Finland, France and Sweden have done thorough studies on this subject.

Today, we know for a fact that there is an answer to the nuclear waste problem. Australia could build third generation reactors today and fourth generation reactors, when they will be ready, to recycle the nuclear waste and generate more electricity.

Of course nuclear energy development implies a strong industrial base and political courage.

It is disappointing to see a well-proven technique for cost-effective renewable energy collection AND storage being overlooked in this discussion. I refer to that of solar pondage, where solar radiation is trapped in a dense layer of brine insulated by a covering blanket of less saline or fresh water separated from it by a membrane which prevents convection losses of the trapped heat.

The heat stored is recovered through what is essentially refrigeration machinery, organic Rankine cycle technology, a technology that is already very mature. Solar pondage substantially overcomes the problem of cloudy weather, with trial ponds having been able to deliver what amounts to base load power for up to a fortnight in such conditions.

It would also seem that solar ponds and organic Rankine cycle technology could be made to dovetail well with the relatively low temperature steam to be obtained in hot dry rock projects, using the low grade heat left over from that process.

To top it all off, solar pondage is capable of providing a disposal solution for the relatively more concentrated brines that are a by-product of desalination operations, a by-product claimed by many to be effectively a marine pollutant.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5616#75632

Prospects for all of these technologies being scaled up and coming together in the Central Coast and Hunter regions of NSW all under one ownership (that of the existing NSW public), and right on the existing electricity grid, seem to have been so far completely overlooked. What is it with our politicians that the best they seem to be able to do is perhaps run off and get invested in (taxpayer subsidised) wind farms for their retirement?

Refocussing upon the liquid fuels aspect of this addiction, a gradual shift from coal-fired electricity generation achieved in this way in this region would free up coal reserves for Fischer-Tropsch style coal-to-liquids conversion, moving towards an onshore solution to peak oil for Australia, maybe even putting Australia in the position of being a refined liquid fuels exporter in a seller's market.

All with Big Oil locked out!

TBC

During the heat wave of 2003, 17 French reactors were forced to power down or shut down completely as river water temperatures rose. France had no option but to import costly electricity from abroad. France discharged hot water to rivers during the 2006 heatwave, indifferent to the potential damage to the surrounding aquatic environment.

In May 2007, technical problems with steam generators at a number of French nuclear plants caused the country to import record levels of electricity.

Again, with temperatures across much of France surging above 30C in 2009, Électricité de France’s reactors were generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.

As a nuclear power, no clear accounting of the real cost of nuclear power is available in France. The uranium enrichment budget is not transparent.

One nuclear plant in France is operating while the concrete floor layer is of only 0.5 metres. It is well known that for safety matters in the case of a major accident, at least 3 metres of concrete are required.

Nuke’s pin-up girl, France has remained incapable of upgrading its nuclear reactors and have been surreptitiously dumping radioactive waste in Russia. "Ten to 20 percent of the uranium comes back to France to be used in French power plants," an EDF spokeswoman said. So 80 to 90 percent of the RA waste is being dumped on another nation:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4786672,00.html

Despite the glowing reports by the nuclear industry (and its duplicitous cheerleader - the IAEA), on the U beaut new technology, no nation on the planet is even capable of building a waste repository for high level radioactive waste.

Meanwhile nuclear waste is currently languishing in the US at more than 121 temporary locations in 39 states across the country. All for 104 nuclear reactors providing a paltry 19% of energy needs?

But course all this (and much more) is a mere peccadillo if you’ve already decided to swallow the exorbitant costs, lengthy delays, safety, terrorism, cover-ups, proliferation, waste problems and a thoroughly disgraceful, atomic history:

http://www.ib.cnea.gov.ar/~protrad/biblioteca/3Accidentes.pd

Mikk

'runner
You are a fool if you think a few weeks of cold, in the middle of winter, confirms your denialist propaganda and lies.'

Which lies Mikk? or are you just venting your hatred.

Ooops - one more try:

http://www.ib.cnea.gov.ar/~protrad/biblioteca/3Accidentes.pdf