Posted on by ColinTwiggs

Pro-nuclear greenies? Thinking outside the box with Pandora’s Promise

Ben Heard and Prof. Corey Bradshaw highlight the environmental and economic damage caused by pursuit of nuclear-free power.

Had Australia deployed a modest nuclear program starting in 1965, to build slowly to around 20% of electricity provided (as done in the USA), over 876 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) would have been avoided to this day.

…..In the OECD, three yes, only three countries have achieved success in all but eliminating fossil fuels from electricity supply. They are France, Sweden and Switzerland Finland will soon join them. All did it by embracing nuclear power generation. These nations deliver reliable, large-scale electricity supply with less than 1/10th the emissions of Australia. France in particular delivers the cheapest electricity in Western Europe, and is the second-highest net exporter of electricity in the world…..

Read more at Pro-nuclear greenies? Thinking outside the box with Pandora's Promise.

31 Replies to “Pro-nuclear greenies? Thinking outside the box with Pandora’s Promise”

  1. More propaganda from the Nuclear lobby. If the Japanese, who are probably the most technologically advance nation in the world and who made an art-form of quality production and engineering, cannot run a nuclear program without destroying huge areas of fertile land and poisoning the ocean why should we even consider it.

    1. Bill, I take it you are not one of the “pro-nuclear” greenies 🙂
      It is important to keep an open mind on this. We need to weigh up the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels to that caused by nuclear power, rather than honing in on one particular failure.

      1. Also – it’s worth noting that the failures were in badly run old technology – even at that very site on the reactors they had updated there was no failure

        These days reactors aren’t even designed like that – It’s a bit like saying you wouldn’t buy a japanese car because 1965 Mistubishis were crap

  2. Some general points.

    To be open minded is important. It does not apply to something like standing on train tracks. You are asked someone to be open minded about standing in the path of an oncoming truck.

    Japan is not the only example.

    All cars eventually get old. Should all Nuclear power plants be shut down as soon as they lose that new car smell? If that is what you are saying then you are right but it is not a cheap way to do things.

    1. I would certainly support increased scrutiny of old nuclear power plants to ensure they meet current safety standards. There is no such thing as a free lunch — both nuclear power and fossil-fuels have their negatives — but we need to weigh up which poses the greatest threat to our environment. I suspect the answer would be co2 emissions from fossil-fuels are the clear and present danger.

      Global co2 emissions

      Source: IEA Statistics (2012)

      1. You are right that greenhouse warming is a big challenge. There are better, cleaner and safer alternatives to fossil fuels than nuclear though. 🙂

      2. “There are better, cleaner and safer alternatives to fossil fuels than nuclear…..”
        You are quite right……but not cheaper. If any of the cleaner alternatives were economically viable, I would support them ahead of nuclear. Far as I know, none of the alternatives can deliver a stable electricity supply at 11 cents per KWh — the average retail price of electricity in the USA.

      3. French energy costs for different generation technologies in Euros per megawatt hour (2011):
        Technology Cost (€/MWh)
        Hydro power 20
        Nuclear 50
        Natural gas turbines without CO2 capture 61
        Onshore wind 69
        Solar farms 293

        Source: Wikipedia

  3. That might B a wise choice if the 1965 Mistubishis were crap so may be other Japanese cars. What I know about Nuc plants is if U build one after 30 some years U can build a wall around it. U get what U pay for; if we have better alternatives but they cost more perhaps we should have an open mind and not base our decisions soley on cost. How many more Japans would it take to destroy the worlds seafood? The Nuc accidents have not stopped happening if U build more wouldn’t there B more accidents?

    1. ” if we have better alternatives but they cost more perhaps we should have an open mind and not base our decisions solely on cost”
      The global economy runs on cheap energy. Good luck with trying to convince emerging economies such as China and India to switch to wind and solar.

      I suggest that 30 Gigatonnes of co2 are causing more environmental damage than Fukushima/Chernobyl. And the latter are avoidable, while the former is not.

  4. The generation of electricity from tidal flows is a much safer option than nuclear and it does not rely on wind and rain.
    The cost of nuclear may appear more efficient but if you include all the costs it is not.
    The Fukushima experience is still affecting the food supply in the Tokyo area
    Neville

      1. Apologies. Tidal is not= wave power. I will have to keep looking. Most assessments do not seem to cover tidal as an option. One obvious reason is the ebb and flow: tidal power generation is not 24/7 and cannot meet base load demand.

      2. Here are 2010 estimates from the UK. Tidal still looks expensive.
        UK energy costs for different generation technologies in pounds per megawatt hour (2010)
        Technology Cost range (£/MWh)
        New nuclear 80–105
        Onshore wind 80–110
        Biomass 60–120
        Natural gas turbines with CO2 capture 60–130
        Coal with CO2 capture 100–155
        Solar farms 125–180
        Offshore wind 150–210
        Natural gas turbine, no CO2 capture 55–110
        Tidal power 155–390

      4. It is hard to count the costs of something like Nuclear. There are the wastelands created by the Japanese and Ukrainian disasters. There is the cost of dealing with waste. More so there is the distortion created by selling the plutonium and enriched uranium into the weapons industries. Easy to forget that the only reason we have nuclear reactors at all is the need for nuclear weapons created by the arms race. The electricity produced is essentially just a by product so no wonder you can calculate out cheap prices for it. Nuclear ‘power’ is essentially a masterpiece of cold war marketing and Orwellian BS…

      5. “Easy to forget that the only reason we have nuclear reactors at all is the need for nuclear weapons created by the arms race. The electricity produced is essentially just a by product…”

        That’s a pretty sweeping statement. Does it apply to Finland, Sweden and Switzerland?

      6. Hi Colin,

        Normally when people say “with respect” they don’t mean it. In this case I do.

        With respect and this is only an extract from Wikipedia but it illustrates my point. Talking about the design of Finland’s Loviisa VVER reactor compared to more modern RBMK reactors: “Fuel elements in a RBMK reactor can be replaced while still operational, allowing continued operation and plutonium extraction compared to the VVER which needs to be shut down. ”

        Basically the problem with Finland’s Loviisa VVER reactor is that you need to shut it down to harvest the Plutonium rather than it being set up for continuous production.

        If you can think of any handy uses for Plutonium except bombs, I am all ears. And it is the value of Plutonium that dramatically reduces the cost the by-product (electricity). Then to complete the calculations all that is required is to ignore the cost of waste disposal, decommissioning and potential disaster clean-up (or even insurance for disaster clean-up).

        Bill

      7. Thank you Bill. It appears that weapons-grade plutonium (Pu-239 with less than 8% Pu-240) is needed for bombs, while reactor-grade plutonium is commonly used as a nuclear fuel for power stations, in pacemakers, ships, submarines, satellites and space exploration. Stockpiles of surplus weapons-grade plutonium in the US and USSR are in fact being used as a fuel in fast-neutron reactors.

      8. If they can be made cost-effective, solar, wind and tidal power generation are still only suitable as supplementary sources of electricity because they are not effective 24/7. The base load has to be provided by coal, nuclear or gas. It is simply a case of weighing the costs and benefits of each.

        Nuclear is often painted as the bad boy of the three, but I suspect that coal does more environmental damage.

      9. And so the reactors in Iran (of the same type) cannot be used for weapons grade material production. I feel safer already.

        Just because Coal is bad, does not make Nuclear good. It is not one or the other. They are both bad. Coal destroys the world slowly (as you have pointed out) Nuclear has the potential to destroy life much more quickly (or slowly as in Fukushima). The wasteland that is Chernobyl and the 20km around the Fukushima reactor could not have been caused by solar panels or windmills.

      10. Solar and wind can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels or nuclear, if they can be produced at competitive prices, but cannot fully replace the 24/7 base load requirement. For that there are only 3 options: coal, nuclear or gas. Whichever does the least long-term environmental damage is the obvious choice. 35 Gigatonnes of co2 from fossil fuels each year or the (albeit diminishing) risk of future nuclear power plant failures is not much of a choice, but one we have to make.

      11. Hi Colin, I don’t like David Mills much because he passed me up for a job once but he provides a good explanation of the Base load energy myth here: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.htm
        🙂
        The actual requirement is for a quick escalation of generation to fill peaks in demand, not a source which requires hours (or even days) to respond to changes the way that Coal fired or nuclear power stations do. Solar thermal power stations can provide this as efficiently as gas.

      12. Hi Bill, Maybe I am missing something. How does solar generate electricity when the sun isn’t shining, or wind turbines when the wind isn’t blowing?

      13. Solar Thermal generators work well with molten salt storage technology. There are examples in Spain and at the impressive Ivanpah in the USA.
        http://ivanpahsolar.com/
        http://www.abengoasolar.com/web/en/
        Have a look around for CSP and you will see how it works.

        There is also Geodynamics technology if you must have base-load power. They have had a lot of setbacks but now have a 1MW demonstration plant operating.

        If you look at the New UK plant that just has been announced the costs are a little higher than your figures at about 150 $US per megawatt. No doubt that cost also ignores the waste disposal and decommissioning costs.
        http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/uk-nuclear-reactor-gets-go-ahead-at-double-cost-of-electricity-89214

      14. Ivanpah looks impressive, but most of the presentation is devoted to how many jobs will be created (during construction) — not a good sign — while I could find no mention of cost/KWh. No doubt solar has a part to play in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels…… if we can halve the cost over the next decade. But on its own it’s not a solution.

      15. http://youtu.be/JAsRFVbcyUY

        Lockheed Martin say they will have a demo 100MW compact fusion reactor, that runs on plentiful and cheap deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen), by 2017.

        Charles Chase and his team at Lockheed have developed a high beta configuration, which allows a compact reactor design (the size of a large jet engine) and speedier development timeline (5 years instead of 30).

        Still vaporware at this stage, but achievement of this would minimize radiation risk compared to current fission reactors. The difficulty with fission is stopping the reaction whereas the problem with fusion is maintaining the reaction.

      16. Hi Colin, I had almost forgotten this thread…
        At least Fusion does not have the association with weapons but it is still a massively complicated solution to a problem which has already essentially been solved. The tricky part with Solar and other ideas is maintaining centralised control over power generation and I think this is the root cause of the political debate that is holding the world back from a low carbon future. That and the massive inertia from conventional power sources.

      17. I agree with Robert Hargraves: “low or non-CO2 emitting energy sources must be cheaper than coal or will ultimately fail to displace fossil fuels.”

Comments are closed.