Transcript Nuclear Power – the issues

Energy Options in a Carbon
Constrained World.
Martin Sevior, School of Physics, University of Melbourne
http://nuclearinfo.net
Energy underpins our Civilization
Imagine one week without Electricity
Imagine one week without Motorized transportation
We rely heavily on Fossil Fuels to provide the energy our
civilization needs.
However our finite Earth constrains
our future use of these.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Energy use without constraints
Non-OECD Countries are growing very quickly and are
consuming an ever-increasing amount of energy.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Is Oil coming up against a wall?


Australia’s Oil production peaked in 2000
Will/When will World Oil production peak?
(http://sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1972)
http://nuclearinfo.net
Energy Data from 2005
Burning Fossil Fuels produces CO2
http://nuclearinfo.net
CO2 increase in the Atmosphere
http://nuclearinfo.net
Total World CO2 emissions


Total world demand for energy is expected
to at least double by 2050
Much is this growth is in the third world
which needs energy to escape poverty
“If we have to free our people from drudgery and illhealth, we need to address the issue of access to energy,
particularly the need for rural masses”
Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India on plans to
expand electricity generation capacity from 110 GW to 980
GW by 2030. (Australia has 40 GW of electricity
generation.)
http://nuclearinfo.net
Greenhouse Emission targets

Kyoto protocol



Reduce Greenhouse emissions by 5.2% from
1990 levels by 2008-2012
This is extremely hard. eg Canada has
increased it’s emissions by 20% since 1990
Future

Reduce greenhouse emissions by 60% from
1990 levels by 2050 to stabilize temperature
rise to 2 C
http://nuclearinfo.net
Scale of the challenge
What is wanted
Possible
Needed
Conventional Oil and Natural Gas cannot
keep pace with demand nor should they.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Default for Electricity is Coal
Additional CO2 emissions due to new Coal
Fired Power Stations to 2020
http://nuclearinfo.net
Australia’s Challenges
Conventional Oil production is declining, we rely on imports
Our CO2 emissions are the largest per Capita in the OECD
http://nuclearinfo.net
Australian CO2 emissions
Around 50% of Australia’s CO2 emissions are from
electricity production.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Options for Transport
Convert Coal to Oil (Monash Energy Project, being
developed)
Convert Gas to Oil (under active Consideration)
Use LPG (well underway) or Natural Gas (not persued)
Rework our Cities, Public transport improvements
BioFuels – Ethanol, BioDiesel (May meet 10% of current
demand)
More Efficient Vehicles
http://nuclearinfo.net
Transport can be far more efficient
Gasoline Engines are on-average 10% efficient
Modern Diesel Engines are 20% efficient
Fuel cells vehicles can reach 50% efficiencies
Batteries/Electric engines are 80% efficient
The electric route means same
transport with 1/8th the energy.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Next generation batteries
0 – 100 km/hr in 4 seconds, 400 km range, available 2007
Cost US $100K
For the rest of us, Plugin Hybrids, (60 km range on
electric) are likely to enable us to continue to use
personal transportation post 2010
If sourced from electricity with low carbon emission
technologies can substantially reduce world CO2 emissions
http://nuclearinfo.net
Electricity Generation
Our current coal-fired power stations provides us with
cheap and reliable electricity.
Electricity costs vary depending on the coal quality
and distance from mines.
Queensland Black Coal generates electricity at less
than 3 cents per KW-Hr. Victoria generates electricity
at 4 cents KW-Hr
But if we’re to meet our target of 60% CO2 emissions,
we must close many of them or at least not use them as
much.
What can we do for Electricity?
http://nuclearinfo.net
Energy Efficiency
Over the past 5 years, Australia’s electricity consumption
has grown by 3.7% per year.
To some extent this reflects our very cheap electricity.
This are a variety of energy efficiency gains available
throughout the economy. All require investment of time and
money.
Achieving additional efficiency gains in addition to those
made via “natural” processes, almost certainly requires
higher prices.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Natural Gas
Natural Gas produces half the CO2 for the same
amount of electricity.
Output can be altered quickly so it can be usefully
paired with renewable energy sources such as
wind and solar.
However, Natural Gas is also a finite resource and
it’s world-wide production rate is likely to peak
within the the next 20 years.
Gas produced electricity, at current international prices
of $6 per GigaJoule, costs around 7 cents/KW-Hr
http://nuclearinfo.net
Wind Power
Wind is the leading renewable energy source.
Cost is 7 – 9 cents/KW-Hr but is unlikely to decrease.
Intermittency and variability of output mean diminishing
returns after 10% – 20% of total capacity.
http://nuclearinfo.net
The problem with variability
In order to make a difference in CO2 outputs, you have
to actually turn off (or down) coal-fired generators.
Victoria’s goal of 10% Renewable by 2015 if met by
wind requires about 2 GW of peak output
Output from wind can vary by 90% over 1 hour
Baseload generators require 6 hours to ramp through
80% of their output.
At higher percentages the problem gets worse, 30% wind
in Victoria requires 6 GW of peak output.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Solar Energy
Fundamentally factor of 20 higher flux than wind.
Commercial PV systems currently provide electricity at
25-50 cents per KiloWatt-Hour
Solar works at small scale, so can compete at the retail
level of 10 –14 cents/KW-Hr
Huge potential for improvements (factor 4 – 10 decrease in
price).
eg Sliver Cells (developed at ANU), Nanosolar (California) rolls of thin film CIGS (400
MW factory), SolarSystems (Vic.) concentrators
The Nanosolar factory is costed at $100 million and
expects to produce product worth $2 billion / year.
Variability and intermittency issues remain after costs
are reduced – needs storage.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Carbon Capture and Storage
Coal is gasified into CO and H2 streams.
If combusted in pure O2, a pure CO2 stream emerges.
This can be reinjected into underground reservoirs. Intensely
challenging – cubic kilometers of CO2 per year!
The coal gasification process depends on the properties of the
coal (moisture content, sulphur and other impurities).
The CO2 storage procedure depends on the properties
of the local site. All need detailed modeling
Appears feasible in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley but more
study is needed. Late 2010’s – 2020.
Electricity cost is expected to increase by 1 – 4 cents/Kw-Hr
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear Power
A “drop in” replacement for coal-fired base-load generation.
When used at world-best practice, emits about 1% of
the greenhouse gases of fossil-fuel plants.
Fuel is abundant and will last for centuries.
New plants expected to produce electricity in the range
4-7 cents KW-Hr
Need considerable operating and regulatory expertise
which does not yet exist in Australia
Needs additional infrastructure for Waste Disposal
Fierce Opposition from some in the community.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Others
Hydro – almost fully exploited already in Australia
GeoThermal – Immature and of limited availability
BioMass:
Useful for small scale local developments to
utilize waste. (eg Saw Dust and Bagasse)
Large scale usage faces significant environmental
challenges and transport issues.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Leading technologies
Technology
Cost
Potential
Carbon Capture and storage
Unproven technology
6-10
cents/KW-Hr
Substantial scientific
questions for each
site.
Natural Gas.
Good for Peaking demand. Still
emits large amounts of CO2
5-7 cents/KW- Likely to increase in
Hr
Price.
Nuclear Power
“Drop in” replacement for Coal
4-7 cents
/KW-Hr
Wind Power
7–9
Currently best renewable option cents/Kw-Hr
Solar Power
Can compete at retail level.
(10 –14 cents/KW-Hr)
25 – 50
cents/KW-Hr
http://nuclearinfo.net
Large potential for
improvements
Limited future
potential
Huge potential.
Works well at small
scale and retail.
Concluding remarks
Without storage, intermittency and variability of wind
and solar likely to limit penetration to 30%.
Solar energy is worth direct Government support.
Achieving 60% reduction in CO2 emissions while growing
electricity consumption requires replacing our existing
Coal fired power stations with Nuclear or Carbon Capture.
Nuclear Power has proven track record of delivering large
amounts of reliable electricity.
All options are more expensive than current coal.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Backup Slides
http://nuclearinfo.net
Myths about Nuclear Power
1. We’ll soon run out of Uranium
We’ve mined less than one ten millionth of the Uranium in
the Earth’s crust.
If we need to use lower grade ore’s there is hundreds
to thousands of times more we can extract.
2. It takes seven years to recover the energy
consumed constructing the plant.
Nuclear Power plants use approximately one quarter the
concrete and steel of a an equivalent amount of wind turbines.
Modern studies show Nuclear Power repays it’s energy cost
in a few months
http://nuclearinfo.net
3. Mining Uranium uses a huge amount of energy and
produces larges amounts of Greenhouse gases
The lowest grade large mine currently operating,
Rossing in Namibia, requires just 1 PJ of energy to
produce Uranium that generates over 400 PJ of
electricity.
4. Nuclear Power Plants are dangerous and will blow
up like Chernobyl
The Western Nuclear Power Industry has an extremely
good safety record an order of magnitude better than the
Fossil Fuel industry
Chernobyl had a number of obvious design flaws and
was operated in a environment of no safety culture
http://nuclearinfo.net
5. Terrorists will blow up Nuclear Power Plants
The concrete and steel containment shell that surrounds
a nuclear power plants is extremely strong.
Simulations predict a it will survive the impact of a fully
laden passenger jet.
Spent fuel assemblies can be stored underground
Nuclear Power is a “Hard” target.
6. Takes too long
In the time it takes Victoria to build up to 10% renewable
energy, twice the amount of Nuclear Power could be built
for the same capital cost.
Unlike Wind or Solar, Nuclear could scale to replace all our
coal plants.
http://nuclearinfo.net
http://nuclearinfo.net
http://nuclearinfo.net
Alaster Meehan

Gareth Jones

Damien George

Adrian Flitney

Greg Filewood
Technical Support

Ivona Okuniewicz

Lyle Winton
Reviewed by:

Dr. Andrew Martin
Web Design

University of Melbourne Writing Center

http://nuclearinfo.net
Energy and Entropy






2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Entropy tends to increase
Sharing of energy amongst all possible
states
Life is in a very low state of entropy
To exist it must create large amounts of
entropy elsewhere. (S = Q/T)
Life requires large amounts of Energy.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Life and energy

Life takes energy from the sun
Life represents a
~0.02%
decrease in
entropy from the
sun heating earth
http://nuclearinfo.net
Energy and civilization



Our Civilization is based on cheap energy and
machines
Previous civilizations utilized humans and
animals. (Still the case for large parts of the
world.)
Given sufficient quantities of energy our
civilization can generate all the products it needs.
(Food, Health, Metals, Plastics, Water)
http://nuclearinfo.net
Energy in Australia




Australia’s Electricity needs are currently
supplied by 40 GigaWatts of power
stations.
Our electricity demand is forecast to grow
by over 2% per year to 2020
On average 1.0 GigaWatts increase each
year
Equivalent to Loy-Yang B Power Station
http://nuclearinfo.net
World Energy Growth.
Energy Growth by “region”
Energy Growth by
source
Projections are “business as usual”
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Growth in a finite system
dQ
 kQ (1  Q )
dt
http://nuclearinfo.net
Q =P/T
P = Amount Produced
T= Total available
Growth in a finite system
dQ
C(t) = T Q
P(t) = TdQ\dt
P (t )
C (t )
dt

 k (1 
)
C (t )
Q
T
http://nuclearinfo.net
Global Temperature Measurements
http://nuclearinfo.net
Myths about Climate Change

Myth- Water vapour is the main source of
Greenhouse heating so CO2 makes no difference.


Myth - CO2 absorption lines are saturated.



Residency time of water is 10 days, CO2 is ~100
years. CO2 is the driver, water vapour provides
feedback/amplification.
Only true at ground level. The upper atmosphere is
sensitive to CO2 concentration
Net effect of doubling CO2 is an additional 4
watts/m2 extra heat.
No climate model shows a decrease in
temperature with an increase in CO2
http://nuclearinfo.net
The transition.





Having access to large amounts of cheap energy
is vital for our civilization.
Over the next human generation we will need to
manage a transition from our Fossil-Fuel based
energy sources
The combination of resource depletion and
Climate Change mitigation forces this.
Getting this right is vital for the world we leave
our children.
I believe that this is one of the great issues facing
this generation.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear Energy




About 6 Billion years ago a supernova exploded
in this region of space.
About 1 solar mass of hydrogen was converted to
Helium in about 1 second
All the elements heavier than Lithium were
created making life possible in the solar system
A tiny fraction of the energy was used to create
heavy elements like Uranium and Thorium.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear Energy

Chemical reactions release a few electronvolts of energy per reaction.
Nuclear Fission releases 200 Million electron volts per reaction
A neutron is captured by 233U,235U or
239Pu. The nucleus breaks apart and
releases 2-3 more neutrons. These in
turn can induce further fissions.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear energy




The energy release from a single fission
reaction is about one-tenth that of an antimatter annihilation.
There is as much energy in one gram of
Uranium as 3 tonnes of coal.
The reaction produces no CO2
So how much Uranium is present on Earth?
http://nuclearinfo.net
Uranium Abundance.
The Earth’s crust is estimated to contain 40 trillion
tonnes of Uranium and 3 times as much Thorium.
 We have mined less than a ten millionth of this.
(We have extracted about half of all conventional Oil)
 If burnt in a “4th Generation” reactor provides 6
Billion years of energy.
 If burned in a current reactor enough for 24
Million years.
 But most is inaccessible. How much is really
available?
 Look at Energy cost of mining compared to energy
Generated in Reactors
http://nuclearinfo.net

Uranium Abundance
Proven reserves as of June 2006 amount to 4.7 Million tonnes,
sufficient for 85 years at present consumption rates
Rossing mine in Namibia has a Uranium
abundance of 350 ppm and provides an
energy gain of 500
Extrapolating to 10 ppm provides an
energy gain of 14
4th Generation reactor (50 times more
efficient Uranium usage) provides an
energy gain of 100 at 2 ppm
At least 8,000 times more Uranium can be usefully mined using
current reactors. 32,000 times more with 4th Generation. (96
million years worth.)
http://nuclearinfo.net
Uranium in Sea Water


Very low concentration 3 mg/m^3, but a huge
resource ~ 4.5x109 tonnes
Japanese experiment recovered > 1 Kg in 240 day
exposure
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear Power



Nuclear Power has been demonstrated to work at large scale.
France (80% Nuke, 20% Hydro) and Sweden (50% Nuke, 50%
Hydro) have the lowest per capita greenhouse emissions of large
countries in the OECD
Australia, with it’s reliance on Coal-powered electricity, has the
highest
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear Greenhouse Gas emissions
The Nuclear Fuel cycle is complex. How
much Greenhouse Gases are produced?
http://nuclearinfo.net
Vattenfall




The Swedish Energy utility operates
Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, BioMass, Solar and
Fossil Fuel facilities.
Vattenfall have performed LifeCycle
Analyses for these.
These are described in Environment
Product Descriptions “EPD”.
Useful “Worlds Best Practice” reference
http://nuclearinfo.net
CO2 emissions from Nuclear
Vattenfall EPD calculations, Gas 400 gm/kw-hr,
Coal 700 – 1000 gm/kw-hr
http://nuclearinfo.net
Vattenfall CO2 emissions from other sources
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear Reactors







Nuclear reactors work by purposely allowing a controlled chain
reaction.
This is controlled by adjusting the neutron multiplication factor.
Current nuclear technology mostly employs “Light Water Reactors”
which burn Uranium enriched in 235U from it’s natural 0.7% to around
3%
The reactor is shutdown and fuel is changed after the 235U abundance
has fallen to around 1.2%
This typically occurs every 2 years.
So every 2 years 60 tonnes of fuel is replaced
Compare to Coal fired plants which burn 3000 tonnes of fuel every
day.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Science of Nuclear Power

Cross sections for fission
http://nuclearinfo.net
Thermal Nuclear Reactors

Neutron cycle in 235U and 238U mixture
Self-sustaining
chain reaction.
Requires neutron
multiplication factor
k =1.00000
http://nuclearinfo.net
Control of Thermal Reactors

Controlled via absorption in 238U
At least 20 times
more 238U than
235U
At higher temps
•Doppler broaden
•Harder spectrum
Increases 238U
absorption
http://nuclearinfo.net
Control of light water reactors

Delayed neutron emission


Negative temperature coefficient


(k reduces with T)
Negative “void” coefficient.


0.7% neutrons emitted after beta decay (8 seconds)
Loss of coolant through bubble formation or other
means, means no further moderation and a decrease
in reactivity.
“Massive loss of coolant”


Decay heat problem
Second generation reactors have multiple active
backup and containment.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Radiation
Nuclear Energy produces vast amounts of
radioactivity which is extremely dangerous.
Effects of Radiation:
 Cell Death or Apoptosis
 Cancer Induction (0.06/Sv)
 Genetic Damage to Future Generations
(0.02/Sv)
However we are all exposed to radiation every
day of lives. It cannot be avoided.

http://nuclearinfo.net
Radiation Exposure
Typical background exposure is 3000 micro-seiverts per year
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear Safety




Typical large Nuclear Power Plant contains
10 billion Giga-Becquerel's of activity.
1 Giga-Becquerel typically leads to an
unwanted exposure.
Nuclear Power Plants contain vast amounts
of dangerous material.
Safely handling this is a significant
challenge.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Safety – Reactivity Control





Nuclear reactors work by keeping the neutron
multiplication factor to be 1
Multiplication factor is adjusted by changing the
configuration of neutron absorbers.
This possible because 0.6% of neutron emission
is delayed by a few seconds
Light water reactors naturally slow down when
the temperature increases – “negative temperature
coefficient”
Light water reactors naturally slow down if there
is a loss of coolant – “negative void coefficient”
http://nuclearinfo.net
Safety – Reactivity Control
Accidents:
Numerous things can (and do) go wrong during
operations.
These are normally handled through routine
adjustments of the reactor parameters
Worst case is massive loss of primary coolant.
Current reactor handle this with multiple redundant
systems to pump water through the core. “Active
Safety systems”
Next generation reactors employ Passive features
which rely on Laws of Physics to ensure safe
shutdown.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Safety




The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
requires reactors to be design so that “Core
damage accidents” occur less than 1 in 10,000
years of reactor operation.
In this case the radiation is contained within a
safety shell. (50 cm reinforced steel surrounded
by 1.3 meters of concrete.)
Current Reactors are estimated to have core
failure rates of 1 in 100,000 years of operation.
New reactors under investigation for deployment
are estimated to have failure rates of 1 in 2
million years of operation.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Safety





The western nuclear power industry has the best
safety record of any large scale industrial activity.
Within the US, communities living close Nuclear
Power plants are overwhelmingly in favour of
continued operation.
There is strong competition between communities
to be the location of New Reactors.
As of February 2006, the NRC had received
“expressions of interest” for 17 new Nuclear
Power Plants in the USA. All have local support.
Now up to 27 expressions of interest.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Safety - Chernobyl








The Chernobyl reactor had a number terrible
deficiencies compared to Western reactors.
No containment structure
“Positive void coefficient” at low power.
“Control rods” were graphite tipped!
As part of an experiment, operators switched off
the safety interlocks
Reduced the Power of reactor to low level.
Strenuously tried to increase the power in an
unconventional operating environment.
Fundamental Failure of “Safety Culture”.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear Power Costs







Total cost = Cost of Capital + Operating Costs
Operating costs of current plants are the lowest of
all forms except Hydro (typically 1.5 cents/KwHr).
New Nuclear plants are projected to cost less than
1.5 US Billion dollars and operate for 60 years.
BUT best new plants have First of their Kind risks
Projected Electricity costs are 2.2-3.8 US cents/KWHr (but up to 6 US cents/KW-Hr)
Current Australian Eastern Australian coal
electricity costs around 2.2 - 4 US cents/KW-Hr
“Clean Coal” expected to add 2 cents/Kw-Hr
http://nuclearinfo.net
Previous generation Nuclear Power



In the USA Nuclear Power plants turned
out to be FAR more expensive.
Plant cost was 3 – 5 Billion for 1 GW
Operational availability was around 60%




Design deficiencies – NRC mandated
changes
Two stage licensing
Fragmented industry for construction
Fragmented industry during operation
http://nuclearinfo.net
Current US experience



Availability has increased to more than 90%
Specialist companies now operate the US fleet.
Costs average 1.6 cents/KW-Hr
Nuclear
Industry
expects new plants
cost 1.0 – 2.0
Billion per GW
2.3- 5 US
cents/KW -Hr
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear Waste




Nuclear Power plants produce 30 tonnes of
high level waste/year.
95% of the energy in the fuel remains
Waste consists of short-lived light fission
products and long-lived trans-Uranics.
Current waste handling procedure is to
leave spent fuel in cooling ponds for 20
years. Followed by either dry storage,
reprocessing or long term geologic disposal
http://nuclearinfo.net
Geologic Disposal




3 mature proposals, Sweden, Finland and
USA.
Unprocessed waste requires isolation for
100,000 years
The Nordic proposal consists of a multiple
barrier burial deep in wet Granite Rocks
The US proposal consists of dry burial
underground with easy retrieval.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Finish proposal
Spent Fuel is placed in Cast Iron Insert. Then in copper canister
Canister is embedded in Bentonite clay
Then buried in Granite rock 500 meters underground
http://nuclearinfo.net
Multiple Barriers







The fuel itself retains the fission products.
Cast iron insert
Studied of Copper in anaerobic environment show
stability over 100,000 years
Bentonite Clays swell on wetting removing oxygen.
Also retain fission products.
Granite and infill isolate waste from the environment.
Granites show affinity for trans-Uranics
Oklo “natural” reactor show fission products have not
moved over 1.8 Billion years.
Strong scientific case that nuclear can be isolated
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear Proliferation




A single large Nuclear Power plant
produces large amounts of 239Pu. More than
enough for 100’s of nuclear weapons.
However over time they also produce a
significant amount of 240Pu.
Too much 240Pu makes it very difficult to
construct a Nuclear Weapon.
Weapons Grade Plutonium is defined to
have less than 7% 240Pu.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Nuclear Proliferation
After 4 months operation in a Light Water reactor the 240Pu
concentration exceeds 7%
Operating a Commercial Light water reactor under the IAEA
Additional Protocol is a low proliferation risk activity
http://nuclearinfo.net
East Australian Electricity demand
http://nuclearinfo.net
Alternatives - Renewables
The Earth receives vast amounts of solar energy. In
principle more than enough for an advanced civilizations
energy requirements.
Energy from the sun can be harnessed through:
 Hydro-Electricity
 Biomass (Burning organic products.)
 Wind
 Solar Thermal including passive heating
 Solar PhotoVoltaic’s
All these can and are making a significant contribution to our
energy needs
Plus GeoThermal (uses Earth’s Radioactive resources)

http://nuclearinfo.net
Renewables






However it’s not clear that these can meet all our
energy needs.
Hydro is basically exhausted in Australia and
faces environmental concern elsewhere
Biomass cannot supply both food and fuel in
many parts of the world. (Current energy use is
10% of total global photosynthesis)
Wind is not suitable for large scale base-load
generation. (Plus is more expensive.)
Solar-electric is also not suitable for Base-Load
generation. (Plus is also more expensive.)
Limited availability for GeoThermal
http://nuclearinfo.net
Wind Variability
CSIRO study
assuming 3 GW
of generating
capacity spread
over SA, Vic
and NSW.
Best sites give
30% utilization
http://nuclearinfo.net
Wind energy density

Average output is at best 1.3 MW/ km^2
No trees
allowed over a
wind farm
Extra costs
involved in
handling
varying supply
http://nuclearinfo.net
Clean Coal






Idea is to capture CO2 emissions and store them
deep underground.
World capacity is sufficient for 80 years of current
CO2 production.
Challenge: Each year a 1 GW Coal plant produces
around 6 million tonnes of CO2 gas.
The Bass Straight structures have the potential for
2 – 6 Billion tonnes of CO2 storage.
Sufficient for 55 – 150 years output at current rate
Incremental cost increase expected 2- 4 cents/KWHr
http://nuclearinfo.net
New nuclear technology





Variety of new reactor designs that are at least 50
times more efficient and can destroy the TransUranic waste. (4th Generation)
Waste is reduced to 1 tonne per year. Isolation
time of 500 years.
Hydrogen gas can be cheaply generated via
thermo-chemical reactions using the High
Temperature reactors.
This can be used in place of Petroleum for many
transport needs.
Projected cost equivalent to 40 cents/litre petrol.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Advanced (Fast) Reactors


Use unmoderated (or lightly) neutrons.
Avoids neutron losses plus can directly
fission 238U and other even actinides
Can “burn” long lived radioactive waste
http://nuclearinfo.net
“Fourth Generation” reactors






The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR)
Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)
Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor
(SCWR)
Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)
Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)
Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)
http://nuclearinfo.net
Goals of the “4th Generation”








They efficiently utilize Uranium
Destroy a large fraction of nuclear waste from current reactors via
transmutation.
Generate Hydrogen for transportation and other non-electric energy
needs.
Be inherently safe and easy to operate.
Provide inherent resistance to Nuclear Weapons proliferation.
Provide a clear cost advantage over other forms of energy generation.
Carry a financial risk no greater than other forms of energy
generation.
Not before 2020 at the earliest
If successful will provide energy indefinitely
http://nuclearinfo.net
Accelerator Driven Systems





Use a very high powered accelerator to
provide neutrons to a subcritical assembly
No possibility of a melt-down.
Provides an energy gain and
Destroys long lived isotopes through
transmutation.
Requires around 50 MW of proton beam
(current best around 2 MW)
http://nuclearinfo.net
Australian Context





Australia has the largest CO2 emissions per
capita in the OECD (27 tonnes Per Person)
Finland has CO2 output of 8.6 tonnes/person
Australian Per Capita energy consumption is
approximately the same. Electricity
consumption in Finland is 60% more.
Finland (and Sweden and France) is where
Australia should be by 2050.
Finland continues to invest in Nuclear Power
http://nuclearinfo.net
Planning Issues




Australia is a democratic and open society
with many opportunities for citizens to
influence local developments.
Top down and imposed decisions can face
fierce opposition (cf some Wind Power.)
Any development of large scale facilities
must provide net benefits to locals
Time scales of the order of many years are
typical.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Regulatory Issues for nuclear




Overseas (particularly US) experience
shows the importance of correct regulatory
framework.
Australia does not have this.
Need to achieve economies of scale for
light water reactors
Operating a reactor requires significant
expertise. Need to establish and monitor
World Best Practice
http://nuclearinfo.net
My opinion.




Credible case for Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power can displace the huge Fossil
Fuel base-load electricity requirements.
But Nuclear Industry needs to demonstrate
Advanced Passive reactors work and are the
prices advertised.
Carbon Dioxide sequestration also has
potential but is less mature
For Australia, going the Nuclear route would require
a significant consensus that this is the best way
forward on the part of Society.
http://nuclearinfo.net
Recommendations







We should take advantage of economies of scale and deploy a significant
number of reactors (more than say, six 1 GW reactors) so that the costs of
waste disposal and fuel enrichment can be shared.
Local communities should be encouraged to bid for nuclear investment.
Decisions should not be imposed.
An Australian Nuclear Industry must be pro-active in engaging with the
World Community and employ World Best Practice levels of Safety and
operations.
We would need an independent and pro-active regulatory framework to
oversee the operations of a Nuclear Industry.
The activities of the Regulators and the Industry must be open to the public
and all decisions should be fully transparent.
We must invest in research to find and build a suitable site for geologic
disposal of waste.
We must decide on appropriate means of transporting the waste to the site.
http://nuclearinfo.net