It is curious that in his Fairfax column Peter Costello takes what appears to be almost an afterthought of President Obama, and turns it into an argument for nuclear energy in this country. A little bit of rational discussion of the nuclear option, maybe even an economic analysis, might have made a worthwhile contribution to the debate. Instead it seems he has given us the infamous Costello smirk implying those dim-witted greenies who in their Obamania will slavishly follow the great one’s every word.
I don’t believe Obama is serious about new nuclear power plants. In the Australian context it is even less likely or justifiable. And the colour green has very little to do with it except in reference to humungous amounts of the folding stuff needed to fund a nuclear power program.
I lived in France and am in admiration of their nuclear program which is probably the best managed in the world and provides about 75% of their electrical power. Unlike most of the other European countries (Sweden, Germany, UK) who have abandoned nuclear power, perhaps the most significant factor in France was the political consensus amongst both politicians and voters. Their decision has largely proven correct over the ensuing decades and must have saved them several trillion dollars of imported oil, and it generated a world-beating export industry too.
Does this stellar example mean it is obvious we should attempt the same? Perhaps in the 1970s but today, no. The situation for Australia is very different. It may seem that we have the geography but actually the generators need to be close enough to the cities (not to mention massive water supply) so that the politics will always remain a problem. It is unrealistic to think we can create a nuclear export industry to compare with those already established.
Then there is the myth that nuclear provides a quick off-the-shelf solution. I was living in the UK during their last attempt to build a new nuclear power station but I was gone for a decade (in France) and returned again by the time Sizewell-B was finally built — in 1995 the last one to have been built in the UK. It took about 14 years and anyone who thinks it would be any easier in Australia is kidding themselves. In the US the last completed plant was begun in 1977 and opened in 1996. Anyone that imagines California building a new plant is dreaming, and anyone who imagines that Obama is seriously thinking this is seriously out of touch.
Then there is the economics, something one might have thought Peter Costello could have been able to comment intelligently on. In France (and Japan, Germany and others) it made sense mostly because of the displacement of oil imports and few other energy options. (Though it is notable that France also has the world’s largest percentage of its power derived from hydro.) This equation does not work for Australia where politics ensures it has to compete with the cheapest coal in the world. The nuclear plants are hugely expensive to construct and hugely expensive to decommission so that private industry will only do it if the government takes up these “stranded costs”. Anyone who claims nuclear plants produce the cheapest electricity is being economical with the whole truth.
It might have made marginally more sense in the 1970s when the first oil scare could have greased the politics but its time has passed. The earliest realistic date we could actually get any power out of an Australian nuclear generator would be 2025. In all likelihood if the process was begun we would expend absurd amounts of political will and energy to the endless enquiries (pop quiz for Peter Costello: are we more similar to the UK and USA or France?) and in the end it would still fall flat. Meantime we could have done something with geothermal, wind and solar-thermal that would make nuclear redundant. We could have Gigawatts from solar-thermal feeding into the grid in one quarter of that time if only government would commit. So forget safety and waste issues, think politics, time-to-build and economics. Looks dead in the water to me and Peter Costello’s superficial and simplistic observations do not make one jot of difference.
There are plenty of scientists and economists who have similar views. Here is commentary in the world’s top science journal:
As climate and fuel security dominate the energy agenda, the battle between traditional and innovative electricity intensifies around the world, notably in fast-growing economies such as China. After half a century, nuclear power is the ultimate in tradition. It needs climate more than climate needs it. To avert catastrophic global warming, why pick the slowest, most expensive, most limited, most inflexible and riskiest option? In 1957, despite the Windscale fire, nuclear power was worth trying. We tried it: its weakness proved to be economics, not safety. Now nuclear generation is just an impediment to sustainable electricity. — W.Patterson, NATURE|Vol 449|11 October 2007.
I wonder if Mr Costekllo has ever heard the word Monju? No need to think of European examples when re-considering the appeal of nuclear power. Just look due north to Japan where there are fifty-plus nuclear power stations generating roughly one third of Japan’s electricity. The long term strategy there is to use Fast Breeder Reactors to create plutonium that (some of these) these can mix with uranium oxide to burn as fuel, thus creating a self-sustaining supply of energy. Except that Monju, the first FBR, built on a remote bay on the Sea of Japan, has been out of action since 1995 when its cooling system (using of all things liquid sodium) sprung leaks (due to inferior welding) during testing. It was supposed to restart last year but so far it remains in mothballs. Why? Because its technology is critically flawed and with it the entire strategy creating plutonium for ‘re-use’. Not to mention that dangers that it might fall into ‘the wrong hands’. While understanding that the FBR element may not be part of an Australian program (it was abandoned by the USA and France) it does suggest that the timer delay and expense of getting this technology safe and efficient isn’t exactly state of the art. As the man said, it’s 1950s technology and belongs to the era when men in white coats had the answer to everything from plaque to plague.
In my piece, my place of work was inadvertently listed. I need to point out the obvious, that this was entirely a personal opinion, for which I take sole responsibility, and does not represent any official position of the institute.
Economics and engineering solutions will converge with public opinion soon, and the base load boogieman will ensure adoption of nuclear power for Australia. My guess is within 10 years. Bring it on now, so we can begin to deal with the problems of proliferation and control etc.
It’s odd, we always bring out examples like windscale and Chernobyl as issues.
firstly, windscale was a plutonium processing plant for weaponry, and was, air cooled. And the fire occured when they went into the annealing process.
Secondly, Chernobyl, is one of those odd cases, where human stupidity caused a major issue, connected with the reactor design.
Now in regards to cost. In the USA (and to an extent the UK) the big issue is that under current laws, each reactor had to be a totally new design. Which can’t be cost effective.
Strangely, we don’t think of Canada as a nuclear powerhouse, but their designs on the CANDU reactors, are quite cost effective and are in use all over the world. (as a side note candu reactors can cool themselves using sea water.)
The issue is people have been taught to be scared of ATOMS over the last few decade, and unless we wish to return to an agrarian lifestyle, I honestly doubt we can move away from the huge reliance of electricity we are using.
The big issues are, with Solar energy, the panels are built using iridium, which unless we find new sources of will run out, and don’t tend to produce anything at night.
Secondly wind farms, well these tend to take up large amounts of real estate, and do not produce continuous power.
And then finally, for those scared about radiation, the sheer amounts of uranium, thorium and radium, that gets pumped into the atmosphere by coal plants.
Australia is blessed with huge reserves of uranium, of which I feel we should use.
I have to say, I am rather uncomfortable agreeing with Peter Costello on something though.
~Ivy
This is a subject demanding sound intellectual input be it technical talent or politician. Unfortunately the likes of Costello can only be an intellectual fringe dweller to this subject. Dr James is on the money here.
I believe missed by nearly all was a comment by Putin during an annual ‘state of nation’ like address a couple of years ago when summarising Russia’s ‘Space Program’ merely said ‘… we will concentrate on building a space train to the moon …”.
The moon abounds (while Earth has only a few molecules) with an element that can provide nuclear power without the toxic radiation.
The Uranium on Earth is said to have about 16 years supply for already built generating stations demands.
Immediate International nuclear disarmament could change that however … ?.
Is the public treated as if in kindergarten? Putin shared something with his people respectfully. Or is the west intellectually mentally ill. We in Australia may have caught something from the Costello dribble now that honest John isn’t hanging about with the hanky.
The abuse of science by the West with an orchestra of media always lurking to get into playing loud distracting noise (like three year olds in a trombone factory) accompanied by a psychopathic talent for mimicking reasonableness is actually making me sick.
President JF Kennedy was making speaches about Global Warming.
The West always waits for the amphetamine dealer from the media to wake it up.