NEI Nuclear Notes

The Australian energy business is an imperfect analogue to the American – the antipodean market has its own quirks, but both leave electricity production to private industry, not to the government. So a report on Australia’s energy policies can be seen as having utility on this side of the world. All that said, a report from the Energy Policy Institute of Australia is less interesting as a potential alternate guide for America than for what it says about nuclear energy. In the interests of reducing policy uncertainty and of lowering the risk to investment in the energy industry, governments should no longer pursue energy policy and climate policy independently of each other – governments must integrate energy policy and climate policy into a coherent whole, whilst they continue to facilitate open energy markets. This does sound like something applicable to the United States. In any event, it leads to this recommendation: The continuation of the prohibition of nuclear ...

We haven’t mentioned Pandora’s Promise for a while, but the pro-nuclear energy documentary continues chugging around the world and picking up play dates. Its director, Robert Stone, has written a very specific editorial in Australia’s national newspaper, The Age, not about his movie – though he does tout it a bit - but about nuclear energy down under . Like much of the world, the main fuel that lights Australian homes and powers Australian industry is coal. The difference is that Australia's dependence on coal is nearly double the global average. That’s actually a good point that one does not see too often. Australia as we’ve noted before is about as anti-nuclear energy as a country could be – with its neighbor New Zealand a close contender – it’s practically an article of faith there. All power to antipodean pro-nuclear activists, but from afar, it seems an intractable position. But the result has been that the country has exceptionally limited alternatives to its co...

What can be happening in editorials these days? Is nuclear energy going pear shaped under the weight of – economics? natural gas? gastric distress? No, none of these. Actually, the views of different news outlets and their op-ed writers is not so bad. Take this from NJ dot com , a website shared by several state papers (the op-ed comes from the Times of Trenton): There is good reason to give nuclear power a fresh look. It can replace fossil-fuel-burning power plants for generating electricity 24/7, avoiding air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions that could contribute to global warming. This is nothing new to readers here, but we certainly purr when we hear it in the mainstream press anyway. Now, this is interesting, an argument that really does tend to dwell among the nuclear friendly only: There is a humanitarian imperative to using nuclear power. More than 2 billion people still lack access to electricity for basic needs such as clean water, cooking, sanitat...

Something we always like to hear : Nuclear energy has received the thumbs up from a former anti-nuclear environmentalist who co-authored an independent report pitting the advantages of nuclear energy against renewable energy for electricity generation. Ben Heard told a uranium conference in Adelaide today that nuclear power presented lower start-up costs, lower cost electricity, much smaller land use, no use of fresh water, more reliable generation capacity and other advantages compared to renewable energy. Lower startup costs? He’s got numbers. Key takeaways include nuclear power requiring a capital cost of between $3.5 billion and $4.8 billion for a 690* megawatt equivalent plant compared to $8.1 billion for a 1,460MWe equivalent combined renewable energy plant as well as requiring 2 square kilometers of exclusive land compared to 18.1 square kilometers for the renewable option. I’d like to see those num – oh, wait, I can? Heard’s comprehensive, self-funded report (Zero C...

From U.S. News and World Report : Despite a slew of developed nations putting the brakes on nuclear programs in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster, global nuclear energy generation is expected to increase significantly, climbing 30 percent by the end of the decade, according to recent research. A slew? Is that like a murder of crows? Rapidly increasing demand for electricity coupled with surging fossil fuel prices is making nuclear power an increasingly attractive option for many countries, especially in those where large-scale alternative-energy generation—such as wind and solar—is impractical. Around 45 current nuclear-free nations including the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Poland and Bangladesh are looking at adding the controversial power source to their energy portfolio, the GlobalData report noted. That controversy might be a little overhyped if 45 countries that have never used nuclear energy are considering implementation. If you’ve really got to pr...

Sen. Barnaby Joyce "If we are fair dinkum about reducing carbon emissions, and we want to have a minimum carbon emission form of power, then uranium is where it's going to be." And as we know, Australia is fair dinkum, but nuclear energy is not part of the equation. The speaker is Senator Barnaby Joyce, who quite rightly wonders why his country is so eager to export uranium if nuclear energy is so - "Let's be honest, if you think nuclear energy is immoral, why on earth are you exporting uranium?" What he’s reacting to is the decision to start mining the (plentiful) uranium in the Queensland province. Apparently, that won’t happen right away . AUA [Australia Uranium Association] communications director Simon Clarke said uranium was already being sold from existing mines in other states. "But the estimate of the price that would make it viable to build new mines suggest that the market will be ready for new mine capacity in some time from fiv...

We've been talking a lot about Australia in recent weeks (click here and here ), where the debate over nuclear energy has been heating up. Long one of the world's top sources of uranium, some folks in Australia are wondering out loud whether or not it might be a good idea to turn to a home-grown energy source to generate electricity. One of the people helping to drive that debate is Ben Heard of Decarbonise South Australia and Think Climate Consulting . A one-time skeptic, he's now embracing nuclear energy as the only rational way to battle climate change while producing the electricity we need to power advanced societies. Recently, Heard took part in a television debate sponsored by the Australian Broadcasting Company . As we've written before here at NEI , we're not climate scientists and don't take a position on the validity of research that has concluded that climate change is caused by human activity. However, it's only logical to conclude tha...

Just for fun, let’s combine a couple of topics into something miasmic – who knows, maybe even phantasmagoric. Lately, we’ve noted that despite some expectation in the press that nuclear energy would go gently into that long night, it seems be staying out in the daylight. Even countries that have notably downbeat on ever implement nuclear energy have shown at least shivers of interest. Thus, this editorial in the Canberra Times: The United Arab Emirates is not a country that springs to mind as one in need of nuclear power. The small federation on the Arabian peninsula has oil reserves ranked as the world's sixth largest, and could conceivably use this resource to generate cheap and plentiful power for decades. The news hook here is that UAE has pacted with Australia for some of its plentiful uranium to run its reactors, but I found the Canberra Times’ bluntness, which can sound a little rude to American ears, to be refreshing: Although the UAE's foreign minister...

I mentioned the other day that nuclear energy is not everyone’s best friend – sad but true - and named Australia as having a particularly long-lived animus toward it. That’s been crumbling over the last few years, as Australia has found it difficult to move forward with its carbon emission reduction plans. According to the World Nuclear Association , in 2009 Australia generated almost 54 percent of its electricity from black coal, 22 percent from brown coal and 15 percent from natural gas. That’s not the mix that will achieve the country's goal. Hydro is on the list at 4.5 percent, but other renewables barely register. Australia is rich in resources, a net exporter of coal and uranium (more on this below). And of course, it is blessed with considerable sunshine and wind. In the meantime, the country has taken an exceptionally aggressive stance on greenhouse gasses by passing new energy legislation (think cap-and-trade married to a carbon tax), encouraging energy efficiency and ...

The analysts at the Commonwealth of Australia Bank want you to know : "But it is a case of one step backward, two steps forward," they said in a review of the sector. "Nuclear growth plans remain intact in China, India, Russia, South Korea, the U.S. and U.K. among others, and dominate the medium- term uranium industry outlook." The Australians maintain an interest as a large exporter of uranium, but the salient point is that the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi has not dimmed interest in nuclear energy in many countries. One can see that in any number of stories, but it’s interesting to see it aggregated where its abandonment would cause financial pain – as it would in Australia – even if it has no nuclear facilities of its own. But uranium? it has a lot of that. You can read more about uranium mining in Australia here . Obviously, not speeding ahead is good policy. But so is not stopping. --- Speaking of which : Developers of major energy ...

Australia has decided to put a price on carbon in the hope that it can kick-start its renewable energy i ndustry and reduce emissions .  The Australian government has unveiled plans to impose a tax on carbon emissions for the worst polluters.  Prime Minister Julia Gillard said carbon dioxide emissions would be taxed at A$23 ($25) per ton from 2012. The country's biggest economic reform in a generation will cover some 500 companies. In 2015, a market-based trading scheme will be introduced. Households are expected to see consumer prices rise by nearly 1%, and the move has been criticised by the opposition. The announcement by Gillard has led to a healthy debate about the plan, to put it mildly, as you can see on the comment section of this article . The greater question is: Will this lead to Australia to reconsider nuclear power ? "No one will build coal-fired power plants," he [Paul Breslin]said. "It is already sending a signal to prospe...

Here’s a bit of news that might seem unusual at first: {…} Chile and the United States signed an accord on Friday intended to help Chile develop a nuclear energy program. Chile, a country that imports much of its energy, is considering building nuclear reactors to try to fill an expected energy gap in the next few decades. But the developing nuclear crisis in Japan has complicated the debate in Chile, which suffered an 8.8-magnitude earthquake last year that caused widespread destruction. That may be more a question of timing. There are compelling reasons to proceed: Chilean officials are concerned that limits on the amount of energy the country may import and its outdated power grid will compromise the rapid growth of its economy. Chile will require a doubling of its energy supplies over the next 12 years if demand for electricity continues to grow at 6 percent a year, said Jorge Zanelli, a physicist who carried out a study of nuclear energy in 2007 for the previous ...

The news is good : No new Minnesota nuclear power plants are planned, but state senators overwhelmingly voted today to lift a 16-year-old moratorium on building one. “It is not a decision to construct a new nuclear power plant in the state of Minnesota...” Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, R-Buffalo, said about the vote. “It is not a preference for nuclear power.” And that’s a pretty good rationale for lifting these bans on nuclear energy – about a dozen states still have them – because the safety records and electricity generation capacity of the plants have been good and because current thinking about energy suffers if nuclear energy is wedged out of the conversation. As Koch says, including it in deliberations doesn’t mean anything other than that. Well, hope springs eternal, never say never, and other similar clichés. Minnesota’s Prairie River and Monticello nuclear power plants (both operated by Xcel) now provide about 23 percent of the state’s electricity capacity, ...

Up in New York state, one of the three candidates for the 23rd district really likes nuclear energy: "Chief among the alternatives is nuclear," Mr. Doheny said. "It's safe, it's reliable." That’s Matthew Doheny, the Republican. Here’s what he says on his campaign site: In the U.S. today, 104 reactors generate approximately 20% of our nation’s electricity. By comparison France (hardly a beacon of free-market thinking) has almost 80% of its electricity generated by nuclear power. Nuclear is renewable, safe and one of the cheapest sources of power available. The 23rd district is home to three reactors, at Oswego. Well, what about the Conservative, Douglas Hoffman? Oswego … could probably accommodate one or two additional ones [reactors], he said. "Nuclear puts people to work immediately," he said. Shall we try for a clean sweep with Rep. William Owens (D-NY)? Mr. Owens said he is "clearly very supportive" of n...

This is amusing: In expressing conditional support for nuclear energy, [Gov. Deval] Patrick joined Republican Charles Baker and Independent Tim Cahill in backing the controversial energy source. "I agree with President Obama on this one," Cahill said. Similarly, Baker said, "I'm glad to see the president decide that this is part of the agenda." “Controversial energy source?” Says who? Not any of the candidates for Massachusetts governor, evidently. --- Yesterday, I mentioned some of the consequences of not passing a climate change bill, but forgot one: people get annoyed . Tens of thousands of protesters - and a few skeptics - have taken to the streets across Australia to urge the major political parties to take action on climate change. There’s an election coming up this weekend, so one could call this a last minute push. Interestingly, none of Australia’s parties seem to have gained much support for energy policy. Both Labor a...

We published a sour editorial the other day from Australia to show we had to go down under for a negative view of our loan guarantee. But let’s not sell Australia short – we’ve run enough material over the last couple of years to show the country is grappling seriously with ending its long standing ban against nuclear energy. Our experience is that once the conversation gets going, it’s hard to imagine it not getting to its conclusion – which is usually to the good of the atom. Tony Owen told the Paydirt 2010 conference the "enabling investment" would allow Australia to have a serious debate on a nuclear industry. He said nuclear power was likely to be the nation's best option after 2030. Professor Owen, who heads the Australian energy campus at University College, London, said new power generation plants over the next 20 years would be fired by gas or renewables, the latter driven by government support and eventually a price on carbon. Well. on the one hand,...

Monday morning, Let’s see which stories will help us digest our breakfast better and which will make us do a coffee spit take. Two Liberal climate hardliners have strongly opposed putting up amendments to the Government's emissions trading scheme, as internal Opposition battlelines sharpen following the Nationals' intransigence. Backbenchers Dennis Jensen and Cory Bernardi also backed Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce's argument that the Opposition should push the issue of nuclear energy. Those are Austalians talking . Liberals are the conservatives while Laborites are the liberals. A third party, The Nationals, are also conservative (more rural-based than the Liberals) and usually add to coalitions with the Liberals. Got it? Us either. In any event, Labor has the governing majority, so this is a intra-oppo-coalition squabble that will lead up to the next election. Australians politicians talking about nuclear energy? The world has gone upside down under ...

Bloomberg reports on the growing realization in Australia that its ambitious carbon emission reduction goals may be hard to achieve without nuclear energy. Well, those with a horse in the race definitely think so : “As more and more Australians get involved in the whole climate change debate, as they learn about what’s happening around the world where the uptake of nuclear power is increasing quite strongly, they’ll accept the attraction of nuclear power and over time embrace it,” That comes from Ziggy Switkowski , head of the nation’s main nuclear research institute , and you really wouldn’t expect him to say different, would you? So what does the government think? “We have a very clear view that Australia is blessed with conventional energy resources, as well as renewable energy resources and our focus as a nation should be on developing those technologies in renewable energy,” Wong told reporters in Canberra. “That’s why we have got our renewable energy target, to dr...

" What is art? " A long-time favorite answer of mine to this unanswerable question comes from the venerable English philosopher Keith Richards : "As far as I'm concerned, 'Art' is just short for 'Arthur.'" The aboriginal people of Alice Springs , in the Northern Territory of Australia, are a little less cheeky in their definition of art; reacting strongly this week to an "anti-nuclear art installation" located on the sacred Annie Meyer Hill. Per the ABC News , The art features an anti-nuclear poem, which says: "Solar city, getting hippy; nuclear city, what a pity. Solar city sitting pretty, nuclear city makes me shitty." The hill is part of the Olive Pink Botanic Gardens and a registered sacred site. A custodian for the site, Doris Stuart, says the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority has told her it had no knowledge of the sign. "I'm in mourning at the moment because we had my brother's funeral there at Annie Me...

Watching Australia come to grips with nuclear energy is like watching Mr. Hyde fighting not to become Dr. Jekyll - the struggle is intense but perhaps not wise. Let Ziggy Switkowski  (and doesn't that seem like a name right out of Laverne and Shirley!),  chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, explain it to you : MALCOLM Turnbull [leader of the Liberals, currently the political opposition] is correct in emphasising the need for bipartisan support if the nuclear journey is to proceed. The question is, why has it been so hard to build bipartisan support? There may be three reasons not to support nuclear power for Australia: * You don't believe in climate change or the need for a sustainable economy, so business as usual is fine. * You don't believe a small economy such as Australia's, with its 1.4 per cent contribution to global emissions, can make a difference, so why bother with clean energy? * Your planning horizon st...