TNEP Position Papers

'Action on climate change can help business competitiveness and economic growth' (See paper...)

'The Nuclear Energy Debate – Relevant Information'

Listent to TNEP's Mike Smith talk to ABC Triple J Radio on the topic!

Read about the Pro's and Con's of Nuclear Power

The nuclear energy debate in Australia has begun. The Prime Minister Mr John Howard is the latest in a line of Australian politicians to suggest that Australia should debate the use of nuclear power, including Treasurer Peter Costello, Science Minister Brendan Nelson, Labor backbencher Peter Garrett and New South Wales Premier Bob Carr. Now Hugh Morgan from the Business Council of Australia has also weighed in. Before this, overseas George Bush in his 2005 State of the Union Address reignited the debate by calling “for more (energy) production here at home, including safe, clean, nuclear energy.” Also in the UK James Lovelock, long time environmentalist, has championed nuclear power.

Why has the debate arisen now? This time the debate is resonating because of a growing recognition of the scale of reductions of greenhouse emissions necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. As our book The Natural Advantage of Nations shows (on page 37) for the last 400,000 years CO2 levels did not rise above 280 ppm yet they are already at 381 ppm and rising faster than ever. Most glaciers are in significant retreat, coral reefs are bleaching significantly, and already Pacific islands like Tuvalu are having to evacuate citizens to New Zealand due to rising sea levels.

The International Panel on Climate Change stated that 60% reductions in CO2 levels are necessary by 2050. Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced a 80% target of greenhouse gas reductions by 2050 and stated that "California is going to be the leader in the fight against global warming, I say the debate is over. We know the science, we see the threat, and the time for action is now." Bob Carr just announced that "NSW will aim to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050." This follows the example of Tony Blair and the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany who have all publicly committed to 50% of more reductions in greenhouse gas emission by 2050.

People are now really wanting to know how can nations achieve a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in a way that does not harm the economy? This is the key question that we devote much of Section 4 and 5 of The Natural Advantage of Nations to addressing in Chapters 17 Profitable Greenhouse Solutions with Adjunct Professor Alan Pears, Chapter 18 Greening the Built Environment with Alan Pears and Dr Janis Birkeland, Chapter 19 Sustainable Urban Transport by Jeff Kenworthy, Robert Murray-Leach and Craig Townsend and Chapter 21 Integrated Approaches to Sustainable Consumption and Cleaner Production by Professor Chris Ryan. These chapters bring together the latest case studies, technologies available and economic modeling showing that it is possible to achieve deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions without using nuclear energy.

But let’s consider can nuclear power solve the problem of climate change?

The first point The Australian Greenhouse Office’s latest inventory figures show greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation only accounted for 35% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Other major sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia include transport (15%), agriculture (18%), industrial processes (6%) and landfill (2%). If you add land clearing into the equation, these sources account for 65% of greenhouse gas emissions. None of these would be reduced by building a nuclear power plant. The AGO expects emissions from transport, commercial buildings and industrial processes to rise significantly by 2020. Yet the way some proponents of nuclear power argue, one could be forgiven for thinking nuclear power is the one ‘big fix’ needed.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) website states simply that: ‘With carbon emissions now threatening the very stability of the biosphere, the security of our world requires a massive transformation to clean energy. Renewables like solar, wind and biomass can help. But only nuclear power offers clean, environmentally friendly energy on a massive scale’. What the WNA conveniently ignores is the fact that most greenhouse gas emissions do not come from electricity generation.

In many countries, 20% or more of greenhouse gas emissions come from non-CO2 sources, which, again, a switch to nuclear power would not reduce. Non-CO2 gases currently account for well over one-half of the greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil and India. There are five classes of greenhouse gases, other than CO2, recognised by the Kyoto Protocol as causing global warming. These gases have significantly higher global warming potential and last longer in the atmosphere than CO2. Carbon dioxide lasts, on average, 100 years in the atmosphere. In contrast, one SF6 molecule has the same effect on warming the planet as 23,900 CO2 molecules, and lasts 300 times longer in the atmosphere than CO2. Perflurocarbons have a global warming potential up to 9,200 times greater than CO2 and last in the atmosphere up to 10,000 years. Therefore, no nuclear power on its own will not be sufficient to reduce greenhouse emissions significantly given that it can only influence 35% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in an OECD nation like Australia and even less in some other countries.

Nuclear power does produce less greenhouse gas emissions than goal or gas fired power stations but we need to ask will investing in nuclear give us the best return on investment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to other potential energy sources and demand management options?

On the 17th of June 2003 the Economist magazine, wrote that Nuclear energy does not merit any more investment because it is too expense compared to alternatives including wind and solar energy sources. The US has spent more money subsidising nuclear power than they did on the entire Vietnam War and the Space Race. Recently the Guardian newspaper estimated the cost Britain 's civil nuclear waste legacy have risen to around £48bn, a £6bn increase on previous estimates.

Mark Diesendorf again writes that “Nuclear energy has received huge subsidies since its inception: government-funded R&D, uranium enrichment, security systems, and insurance from accidents. In the USA the latter subsidy was institutionalised by the Price-Anderson Act, which initially limited the liabilities of a single nuclear accident to $560 million. Much of the data claiming that nuclear energy is cheap comes from industry and government sources that cannot be verified. But we now have much better data from two countries where the electricity industry has been corporatised and privatised: USA and UK. Here the market has revealed the real costs of nuclear energy.

In the USA, no nuclear power stations have been ordered since 1978, primarily because of poor economics. (Initially the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 discouraged nuke building, but memories of that accident have faded and nowadays it is economics that rules out this technology.) However, there are signs the Bush administration may be preparing to grant a new round of massive subsidies to nuclear power. A 2003 report on "The Future of Nuclear Power" from an MIT team estimated that a hypothetical new nuclear power station in the USA could produce electricity at US 6.7 c/kWh (AUD 9 c/kWh). For comparison, wind power in the USA is currently priced in the range 4-5 c/kWh, depending upon siting and size of wind farm.

In the UK, when the electricity industry was deregulated, nuclear energy had to be subsidised from a levy on electricity amounting to 1.2 billion pounds sterling per year. That is equivalent to a subsidy on each unit of nuclear electricity of UK 3 p/kWh (about AUD 6 c/kWh), making the total cost of a unit of nuclear electricity almost double the price of wind power at excellent sites in the UK.

Nor does it make sense to create a new terrorist target.

In these times of heightened terrorist fears it is important to debate and question anything, let alone a nuclear power plant, that could create such a significant terrorist target. Post 911, the traditional hazards associated with nuclear power plants have been added to by the possible scenario now of terrorists flying an aeroplane into any of the world's nuclear power plants. Those traditional hazards are significant. While the worst nuclear accidents are emblazoned on the minds of millions, there have been more big ones than most people probably know of: Chalk River (1952),  Greifswald (1976), Three-Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1985), Monju (1995), Tokaimura (1999), for starters. While only 31 people died immediately from radiation at Chernobyl, an estimated 3 billion people received some radiation exposure, and one estimate suggests that accident will ultimately cost 16,000 lives.

However what is currently missing from the nuclear energy debate in Australia currently is the fact that there are now 13 significant costed studies showing that with an appropriate mix of demand management, energy efficiency, renewable energy, hybrid cars and biofuels, fuel cells, distributed energy generation any nation can achieve 30-60% reductions in CO2 emissions economically by 2050. These are summarised in the final section of the Clean Energy Future report by the Clean Energy Group.

These studies all show that nuclear power is not required to achieve the necessary greenhouse gas reductions.

That's why a sustainable energy future, based on efficient energy use, renewable sources of energy, biofuels and natural gas, is the best solution to the greenhouse problem. (See the Clean Energy Future ) and Chapter 17 Profitable Greenhouse Solutions and its extensive online companion of the recent publication The Natural Advantage of Nations:Business Opportunities, Innovation and Governance in the 21st Century.

For those interested in further detail please see the publication Small Is Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of Making Electrical Resources the Right Size, voted #1 book for 2002 by The Economist Magazine. It demonstrates and proves categorically why companies, energy sectors, households and governments should seek to wisely implement an effective sustainable energy strategy, based on efficient energy use, renewable sources of energy and (at least for the next 75 years or so) natural gas. It shows why this is the best solution to the greenhouse problem. It shows that the world is on the cusp of a major wave of innovation in the energy supply and demand sector. Small is profitable brings together for the first time the context that connects. Developed by Rocky Mountain Institute, the book describes 207 ways in which the size of “electrical resources”—devices that make, save, or store electricity—affects their economic value. It finds that properly considering the economic benefits of “distributed/renewable (solar, wind, geothemal, biomass, tidal,etc)” (decentralized) electrical resources typically raises their value by a large factor, often approximately tenfold, by improving system planning, utility construction and operation (especially of the grid), and service quality, and by avoiding societal costs.

Final thought

Many have taken a "Not In my backyard approach" to the cheapest renewable energy option wind power but this is because until recently there was sporadic information on where are the best wind sites in Australia. Until recently as a result of this wind sites had been proposed for high tourist value coastal sites leading to genuine concerns from the respective local communities. Now CSIRO's Victorian and NSW Wind Atlases show that many of the best sites are inland in places that would add valuable income to farmers and rural communities whilst allowing their crops and herds of sheep and cattle to continue to grow and graze respectively. Also in Europe it is now cost competitive to put wind generators out at sea on old oil rigs and other areas where the sea floor does not fall away quickly out of sight (and out of mind). Another criticism has been the noise wind power makes. However through better design made possible by the wide uptake of the techology, the noise problem and other negatives have been drastically reduced. These and other concerns are addressed on the US Department of Energy website.

Referencing this Paper;

Smith, M., Hargroves, K., Palousis, P., and Paten, C. (2006) The Nuclear Energy Debate–relevant information. Retrieved 13 July 2006 from: http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/TNEPArticlesNuclear.aspx.