------------------------------------------------

A few snippets from a debate on nuclear power in front of 1200 people at the Melbourne Town  Hall on March 4, 2010.

A poll before the debate found an eight percent margin in favour of nuclear  power. A poll taken immediately after the debate revealed a margin of 24 percent against nuclear power – 34 percent in favour, 58 percent against. This 32 percent turn-around was all the more striking given that the  pro-nuclear debating team included high profile nuclear advocates Dr Ziggy Switkowski and Dr  James Hansen.

The video will be posted sometime soon at:
http://www.iq2oz.com/events/event-details/2010-series-melbourne/01-march.php

ABC TV will broadcast the debate on "Big Ideas', possibly on 23rd March.

3CR Radioactive Show covered the debate on 6/3/2010 and the podcast is posted at
www.3cr.org.au/podcasts
We hear the speakers from IQ2 debate on nuclear power in Melbourne last week... speakers include Dr James Hansen, the godfather of climate change science, Dr Erika Smythe and the notorious Ziggy Switkowski from ANSTO all speaking for nuclear power, we also here from the opposition to nuclear power including Molly Olson former executive director of President Clinton's council of sustainability, Dr Mark Diesendorf physist, author, and has been a research scientist for the CSIRO, we also hear from Dr Jim Green, anti nuclear campaigner for Friends of the Earth
The radioactive show airs on 3cr 855 am (Melbourne) at 10am Saturdays and repeated at 6am Tuesdays,broadcast nationally on Tuesdays at 12 noon on the Community Radio Network and podcast on the 3cr website www.3cr.org.au/podcasts

 
Crikey article 5/3/10 (with one inaccurate comment removed)

Ziggy voted down in public debate on nuclear energy
Freelance journalist Timothy Roberts writes:
Apparently, we absorb more radiation from bananas than from nuclear power.
Which was easily the silliest contribution to a debate on Australia's energy future at the Melbourne Town Hall last night. But even the more reasoned responses from a pro-nuclear camp led by nuclear physics boffin Dr Ziggy Switkowski failed to convince the crowd uranium is a solution to a carbon-constrained future.
Ziggy insists nuclear is safe, cheap and, now, virtually ubiquitous. Even Ukraine is building more reactors in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster, he says, and Australia remains alone as the world's largest non-nuclear economy.
“Reasonable people agree...coal makes way to gas makes way to nuclear,” he said in the first of a series of Intelligence Squared debates organised by the Wheeler Centre. It didn't play well.
James Hansen, who brought the global warming problem to the world's attention in the 1980s, backs nuclear as a solution. “Fourth-generation” reactors have improved safety and efficiency, he told the debate.
Nuclear supporter Dr Erica Smyth went on to declare nuclear a “perfect solution” given Australia's “ideal population”. Her centrepiece suggestion: matching sets of nuclear and desalination plants (needed to cool the reactors) up and down the Australian coast.
But opponents insist safety remains an issue. “We cannot ignore the very real fear of catastrophic nuclear accidents,” EcoFutures' Molly Olson said, pointing to US nuclear industry subsidies of US$500 million a year as a sign the technology is an economic white elephant.
Those on the anti-nuclear side of the debate want to shift the focus to renewable energy. Why go nuclear, they ask, when renewable power sources like solar are more readily available. Ziggy and team are “renewable energy deniers”, according to Dr Mark Diesendorf from the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of NSW. ...
And the audience agreed, voting overwhelmingly for the anti-nuclear cause after the debate. Ziggy has some work to do.

Nuclear appeal on climate
REID SEXTON
March 5, 2010, The Age, www.theage.com.au/national/nuclear-appeal-on-climate-20100304-pm02.html
The man called the ''godfather of climate change'' has urged Australia to adopt nuclear power to secure its energy future.
James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told a packed Melbourne Town Hall last night that nuclear power's affordability offered a safe and affordable alternative to damaging fossil fuels.
Speaking at an IQ2 debate titled ''Australia should embrace nuclear power'', he said fossil-fuel pollution killed 1 million people a year and that the planet was doomed if carbon emissions were not addressed.
''Renewable energy and nuclear power together can solve the air and water problem, as well as the climate problem,'' he said.
Both sides of the debate pointed to the economics of nuclear power in other countries to bolster their argument.
But Mark Diesendorf, deputy director of the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of NSW, said proper government policy would result in renewable energy supplying at least 40 per cent of Australia's electricity by 2020 and double that in 2030.
Dr Diesendorf said if nuclear power fell into the wrong hands it could have catastrophic consequences and said recent experience showed governments could not be trusted with safely implementing the technology.
''Rushing a program to implement a very simple technology with no moving parts - insulation - has led to 90 house fires and four tragic deaths,'' he said. ''Imagine the outcome of rushing [nuclear] reactors.''

Comments from Prof Barry Brook, falsely claiming the vote was rigged!
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/02/22/hansen-adelaide

They did a pre-debate poll and had 37% pro, 28% anti and 35% “undecided”. After the debate, it was 38% pro, 60% anti and 2% undecided. There were many large organised groups there (anti nuclear and climate action groups), and I suggest that the vast majority of them had made pacts to pretend to be undecided so as to later give the impression that they'd be swayed by the negative's arguments. I can think of no other logical explanation – statistically, such a result would be nigh impossible if those undecideds really were that. If my suspicions are correct, then I think it's frankly pathetic, but not unexpected.

------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from an interesting article on the reactor manufacturing sector ...

Unexpected reaction

The handful of firms that build nuclear reactors face new competition

Feb 4 2010

From The Economist print edition

www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15457220&fsrc=rss

...

Yet the $40 billion contract in the UAE, won by a consortium led by Korean Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), South Korea’s largely state-owned electricity monopoly, has caused consternation among the six big firms that have dominated the industry for decades: GE and Westinghouse of America, Areva of France, and Toshiba, Hitachi and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan. Russian and Chinese firms hope to follow the Koreans’ lead. Suddenly the incumbents are confronted by emerging-market “national champions” with the full backing of their governments—an invaluable asset in a high-liability business like nuclear power.

...

Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s president, lobbied enthusiastically on behalf of the French consortium, whose leading members are also largely state-owned. It too could offer full service, in that Areva supplies fuel and manages waste in addition to designing reactors, while EDF runs more nuclear plants than any other firm. But the partners originally wanted to sign separate contracts rather than offer an all-in deal. Worse, their bid was 50% more expensive, thanks both to the strong euro and a more steel- and concrete-laden design, which Areva says makes its reactors safer—an idea the authorities in the UAE dispute. EDF has also suffered numerous operational glitches of late, while Areva’s flagship new reactor, under construction in Finland, is woefully over budget and behind schedule. The Koreans, in contrast, have a sterling record in both construction and operation.

...

In December the French government appointed François Roussely, a former boss of EDF and a friend of Mr Proglio’s, to produce a report on the nuclear industry, which is due in April. Mr Proglio’s ideas have provoked open war between the two firms: in January Areva briefly stopped collecting waste fuel from EDF’s plants following a long-running dispute over prices, until the government intervened.

The Japanese and American nuclear firms, for their part, say they cannot compete with state-backed bids. Danny Roderick of GE’s and Hitachi’s nuclear joint venture thinks the South Korean bid may prove “too good to be true” and wonders whether it will be able to stick to its budget and schedule. Big American utilities have little interest in teaming up with nuclear vendors to mount joint bids abroad; Japanese ones have a distressing record of falsified inspection reports and frequent outages. And the governments in both countries would find it difficult to favour one local nuclear firm over another.

But not all the problems facing the Japanese and Americans are of others’ making. The firms form a noodle soup of alliances and tangled technologies. Despite their joint venture, Hitachi and GE are pushing two competing reactors. They recently developed a third design with Toshiba, but after Toshiba bought Westinghouse in 2006, it also began to promote the latter’s technology. Areva and Mistubishi Heavy have rival designs of their own, but have also set up a joint venture to promote yet another type of reactor. “It’s chaos at the vendor level,” says an analyst in Japan.

...

------------------------------------------

31 Jan 2010

This FoE paper has been updated and added to

Case studies: Civil nuclear programs and weapons proliferation.

It is posted as a Word file and also as a single webpage at:

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power-weapons

From the intro:

This paper concerns countries which have pursued nuclear weapons under cover of a civil nuclear program. The case studies, arranged alphabetically, cover these 21 countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Syria, Taiwan, and Yugoslavia.

The criterion for the inclusion in the above list is concrete activity in pursuit of nuclear weapons, linked to a civil nuclear research or power program, e.g. weapons-related experiments or fissile material production. If the threshold was lowered to include countries which had an interest in developing nuclear weapons, and a civil nuclear program, but without any clear links between the two, the list could include other countries such as Indonesia and Italy. Nor does this paper cover nuclear threshold or breakout states such as Japan and Germany which could build nuclear weapons in a short space of time if they decided to do so based on their advanced nuclear and broader technological infrastucture.

Some other websites which provide country case studies of nuclear weapons programs, including weapons programs pursued under cover of peaceful nuclear programs:

* Nuclear Threat Initiative: <www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/index.html>.

* Institute for Science and International Security, "Nuclear Weapons Programs Worldwide: An Historical Overview", <http://isis-online.org/nuclear-weapons-programs>.

* Nuclear Weapon Archive, "Nuclear Weapon Nations and Arsenals", <nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7.html>.

* GlobalSecurity.org <www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/index.html>

--------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 25 2010

Brave New Climate host and nuclear advocate Prof Barry Brook was kind enough to post a guest article by FoE on nuclear safeguards. It is posted at

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/25/nuclear-safeguards

and a longer version is posted at

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/u/safeguards/nuclear-safeguards-and-australian-uranium-export-policy/

----------------------------------------------------------------

A great blow-by-blow news resource on the manifold problems facing the nuclear power 'renaissance', with an emphasis on the US

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/the-nuclear-retreat

Here are some of the entries:

FPL halts two new reactors targeted at Turkey Point!

January 14, 2010

----------

Another blow to the Areva empire

January 12, 2010

----------

Cooper: 19 of 26 proposed new reactors cancelled or delayed

January 1, 2010

----------

South Texas Project new reactor partners battle in court

December 26, 2009

----------

Harvey Wasserman celebrates "A quiet but HUGE no nukes triumph"

December 24, 2009

Harvey Wasserman's latest essay lists recent setbacks plaguing the nuclear "renaissance" ...

----------

Nuclear reactors too "expensive" for Saskatchewan

December 18, 2009

----------

"The Renaissance That Wasn't" - a PSR chronology of the nuclear retreat

December 14, 2009

----------

A "Retreat" chronology, January 2008 to September 2009

December 14, 2009

Dr. Mark Cooper presents a nuclear retreat chronology chart for the January 2008 through September 2009.

----------

December 2009: Nine Mile Point asks for further postponment

December 8, 2009

----------

December 2009: City of San Antonio cans South Texas reactor plans

December 3, 2009

----------

November 2009: Seven proposed EPR reactors now down to two

December 3, 2009

The seven French EPR reactors slated for the U.S. are now reduced to two.

----------

October 2009: NRC questions safety of AP-1000 reactor design

December 3, 2009

NRC has identified significant safety issues with the shield structure on the AP1000 reactor design, potentially signaling delays for nearly half of proposed reactors.

----------

August 2009: TVA cancels three of four planned new reactors

December 3, 2009

----------

July 2009: Callaway ditches second reactor plan

December 3, 2009

----------

Oyster Creek reactor owners to be challenged in federal court

December 3, 2009

--------------------------=------------------------------------

The nuclear renaissance goes backwards in 2009.

Some figures compiled from various World Nuclear Association webpages:

Four permanent power reactor shutdowns in 2009
- 233 MWe France
- 1185 MWe Lithuania
- 515 Mwe Japan
- 806 Mwe Japan (the two oldest reactors at Japan's Hamaoka plant)
Total above -2739 MWe

Two new reactor start-ups in 2009:
+ 866 MWe  Japan
+ 220 MWe India
Uprates in 2009 (i.e. reactors modified to produce more power)
+ 808 MWe
Total above +1894 MWe

Net decrease: 2 reactors, 845 MWe

But there's a sting in the tail - construction began on 11 reactors in 2009 - 9 in China, one in South Korea and one in Russia.

Here's an estimate for the nuclear 'renaissance'. The current IAEA 'low' projection for 2030 is 510 GW. Since 1985, IAEA 'low' projections have overprojected by an average of 13%. So if we reduce 510 GW by 13%, that gives 444 GWe, a 12% increase above the current 373 GWe.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Will Tony Abbott go nuclear ...? FoE article in The Age:

Libs unclear on nuclear

Jim Green

December 11, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/business/libs-unclear-on-nuclear-20091210-kmed.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Other than paid newspaper columnists, who has had the most opinion pieces published in Australian newspapers in the past 40 years?

Retired academic and strident nuclear advocate Leslie Kemeny wins by a country mile. And good luck to him - he's nothing if not persistent. A critique of some of Kemeny's articles is posted at

www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/kemeny

and a shorter version of that critique was published by Crikey on 12/11/09

www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/11/leslie-kemeny-a-nuclear-crusader-in-his-own-write

-------------------------------------------------------------------

October 2009 - It is not true that a recent opinion poll found 49 per cent of Australians support nuclear power, as has been widely reported. It found that 49% of Australians believe nuclear power should be CONSIDERED - there's a big difference.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Barry Brook (Adelaide Uni)

Barry Brook (Adelaide Uni) claims that your lifetimes’ worth of energy waste will weigh just under a kilogram with 'next-generation' fast spectrum nuclear reactors, ('Power for the People', The Advertiser, August 4, 2009). Marvellous things these non-existent 'next generation' reactors − always have been and always will be. Back in the real world, we can use the Olympic Dam Environmental Impact Statement to calculate the waste associated with nuclear power. To produce enough uranium to generate nuclear power for just one household for just one year, 890 kgs of radioactive tailings waste will be produced at Olympic Dam, where it is dumped above-ground, open to the environment. Over a 70-year lifespan, a typical household would be responsible for just 2-3 kgs of high-level nuclear waste but over 60 tonnes of radioactive tailings waste.

Barry Brook writes in 20/11/09 web post:

"Naturally, if water is a real limitation in a given area that requires electricity, then what’s good for the solar thermal goose is good for the nuclear gander — nuclear power can use air cooling too, if necessary. Or, in most cases, you take the win-win option of saving inland fresh water by closing down coal plants and building your nuclear plants by the sea. I guess Friends of the Earth didn’t think of these points — or, perhaps, they just chose not to mention them. But at least now, having read this TCASE post, you’ll not be tricked by this anti-intellectual sleight-of-hand."

The paper Brook is attacking is a short, non-FoE media statement which focuses on uranium and finishes with two paragraphs on nuclear power. Brook is unaware of or chose to ignore FoE web-papers and articles which address the issues he claims FoE ignores - air cooling or sea-water cooling. There was no correction by Brook.

A letter published in The Advertiser on 18/11/09

Old-style spin
BARRY Brook promotes what he optimistically labels "next generation'' reactors with old-style spin ("Follow Britain's lead on nuclear power'', The Advertiser, 10/11/09).
For example, he repeatedly has claimed the non-existent "integral fast  reactors'' he champions ``cannot be used to generate weapons-grade  material''. Unfortunately, that simply is not true. Worse still, Brook persists with that claim although he knows it has been  contradicted by, among others, a scientist with hands-on experience working  on a prototype integral fast reactor in the US.
Brook and other promoters of "next generation'' reactors have another  credibility problem. They acknowledge the need for a rigorous safeguards system to prevent the  use of peaceful nuclear facilities to produce weapons of mass destruction,  and they acknowledge the existing safeguards fall well short of being  rigorous.
None of them, however, is willing to get off his backside to support  important, ongoing efforts to strengthen safeguards. This simply is irresponsible. Moreover, it is hypocritical for Brook to criticise Friends of the Earth and  other groups which have worked long and hard to strengthen safeguards - with  absolutely no help from such people as him.
Brook also berates Friends of the Earth for failing to acknowledge  "technological developments that solve the long-lived nuclear waste  problem''. Those developments, however, involve another non-existent technology, called pyroprocessing.
South Korea recently announced its intention to embark on a research and  development program which aims to provide a "demonstration'' of the  viability of operating reactors in conjunction with pyroprocessing by the  year 2028. That is almost 20 years - just to demonstrate the concept.
Brook offers nothing but false and extravagant claims based on non-existent  technology. We deserve better.
Jim Green, Friends of the Earth, Melbourne, VIC.

As with so many other nuclear power advocates, Brook is in denial about the extensive and repeatedly demonstrated links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

Brook complains about environmental organisations which "ignore technological developments that solve the long-lived nuclear waste problem (it is burned as energy in fast spectrum reactors)." Brook is confusing reality with make-believe. No reactors, fast spectrum or otherwise, burn nuclear waste. A small number use uranium+plutonium MOX fuel.

-------------------------

Nuclear economics

This article is worth a look, some excerpts follow:

Nuclear economics just don't add up

MICHAEL R. JAMES

December 24, 2009 - 7:40AM

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/nuclear-economics-just-dont-add-up-20091223-lcuj.html

An article on this website by Martin Nicholson (Renewable energy is not as reliable as nuclear, 14/12) proposed nuclear power over alternative renewable energy as the solution to a low-carbon energy future for Australia. Elsewhere with his colleague Barry Brook they have discussed common objections to nuclear power such as safety, waste handling and storage, and weapons proliferation. These, however, are among the most contentious and unresolved issues, both scientifically and politically, and by no means did the authors resolve them to the satisfaction of anyone informed on these topics.

Surprisingly they avoided the single major issue that is much more convincingly resolvable: costs. And a second major issue, that of time.

...

Nuclear advocates always cite "next-gen" designs and purported much swifter and cheaper construction but the figures given above are the actual costs of the plants being constructed in Europe today, not even the much higher industry estimates reported by Grunwald for the proposed US plants. The timetable of this construction is anyone's guess except that history warns us to be pessimistic. By comparison China plans for 50-60 of the simpler, smaller Westinghouse design by 2030, but nuclear will still account for only about 4 per cent of their energy needs.

Those are just the construction costs. As is well known, liability insurance needs to be covered by government. The other big cost is the decommissioning of reactors. Even with many of the world's 439 existing reactors approaching the end of their productive lives, so far none have been decommissioned. The world's first commercial nuclear power generator, Calder Hall at what is now called Sellafield (previously Windscale), was turned off in 2003. It has been estimated by the UK industry that full decommissioning of Calder Hall, if ever done, will cost about $2 billion at today's prices. Meanwhile, old plants need continuous maintenance and high-security against decay and incursion including against potential terrorists.

But the biggest cost, especially for Australia, could be the opportunity cost of throwing these vast sums into an old technology dominated by other countries, rather than investing in new renewable technologies and industries of the future. From relatively modest funding Australia has already produced world-beating solar-photovoltaic and solar-thermal technologies, even if both have moved offshore due to lack of investment support. Geothermal power has just received government grants, which will allow full prototypes to be tested in a few years. Many scientists believe that it is inevitable that these technologies will be viable, provide so-called baseload power cost-competitively, and that their maturation would be faster than the typical construction schedules of nuclear power stations if comparable budgets and subsidies were deployed.

Is this any different to the claims by the nuclear dreamers such as Brook and Nicholson? Emphatically yes. The nuclear industry is not a new one but an old mature one. For more than 50 years it has consistently over-promised and under-delivered, yet its advocates continue to propose that governments should provide massive subsidies to nuclear construction, provide unlimited liability insurance, assume most of the decommissioning costs and — after 50 years — continue to search for the elusive "permanent" storage of high-level waste.

There are not minority views and indeed are not contested by the nuclear industry, or the Wall Street Journal, or Lazards the merchant bank. Or many scientists. Here is commentary from the world's top science journal Nature (W.Patterson, Vol 449, 11/10/07): "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."

...

Dr Michael R. James is an Australian research scientist and occasional journalist.

--------

Citigroup, November 2009, 'New Nuclear - the Economics Say No: UK Green Lights New Nuclear – Or Does It?', <https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU27102.pdf>

Nuclear power station developers face five big risks: Planning, Construction, Power Price, Operational, and Decommissioning. Three of the risks faced by developers — Construction, Power Price, and Operational — are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially. This makes new nuclear a unique investment proposition for utility companies.

--------

Government officials have drawn up secret plans to tax electricity consumers to subsidise the construction of the UK's first new nuclear reactors for more than 20 years, the Guardian has learned. The planned levy on household bills would add £44 to an annual electricity bill of £500 and contradicts repeated promises by ministers that the nuclear industry would no longer benefit from public subsidies.

Source: Families face nuclear tax on power bills

Tim Webb, The Guardian, Monday 19 October 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-tax-on-power-bills

--------

From Forbes magazine ...

On a dry dock in Yokohama sits 250 tons of steel forgings waiting to be assembled into the core of a nuclear reactor. After it is built it will be shipped to Bay City, Tex., 90 miles southwest of Houston, where it will join two nuclear plants built a couple decades ago. The forgings would enclose the reactor within a new nuclear power plant, the first built in the U.S. since 1990. Power from the reactor would spew forth starting in 2016.

That is the vision of David Crane, chief executive of NRG Energy, the $7 billion (sales) Princeton, N.J. power company that wants to build the two-reactor project at a hoped-for price of $10 billion. Crane, 50, thinks he can pull the nuclear energy industry out of the mud and spark a renaissance with a time-honored strategy: use other people's money.

He's first seeking loan guarantees from the Department of Energy and the Japanese government (read: taxpayers) that would cover 80% of the project. That leaves $2 billion. Then there are a pair of partners--the city of San Antonio, which will end up with 40% of the equity, and another partner to be named by the end of this year, which will take another 20%. The plant's builder, Toshiba, is taking a small chunk. In the end NRG will have a financing bill of $700 million over seven years.

How NRG Energy Wants to Revive Nuclear Industry

Jonathan Fahey, Forbes Magazine, December 14, 2009

One small power merchant thinks it can revive the faltering nuclear renaissance. How? Offload the risk.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1214/energy-power-nrg-energy-wants-revive-nuclear-industry.html

--------

See also the links page for references to more literature on nuclear economics.

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/links

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

G20 countries

One of the favourite lines being run by nuclear advocates in late 2009 is that Australia is the only G20 country which does not operate nuclear power reactors (15, including the EU) or plan to operate them (4 - Indonesia, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Turkey).

Presumably the argument is that there is a causal relationship between the operation of nuclear power plants and national wealth (and thus entry into the G20 club). It's a bit of a stretch:

Of the 19 countries (i.e. excluding the EU, which is the 20th member of the G20)

* Only 8 rely on nuclear power for 10% or more of their electricity.

* Only 4 rely on nuclear power for 25% or more of their electricity.

* Australia is not the only G20 country without nuclear power - also Indonesia, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Turkey.

* Australia is not the only country with no reactors operating, under construction or planned/ordered - the same applies to Italy (though nuclear power is 'proposed' in Italy). In December 2009 Turkey also abandoned plans for nuclear power - yet again (see news items below in this webpage).

* Australia is not the only country with no reactors under construction or planned/ordered - also Germany, Italy, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

* It's not difficult to identify relatively wealthy countries which do not operate nuclear power reactors (e.g. Australia, Austria) or relatively poor countries which do operate power reactors.

Above info drawn from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

So the correlation between nuclear power and national wealth is tenuous at best. A much stronger correlation can  be drawn between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The 9 countries with nuclear weapons account for 58% of global nuclear power capacity while the remaining 185 countries account for the remaining 42%. (Of the nuclear weapons states, only Israel does not operate any power reactors.)

Above info calculated from:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberal Party MP Ian Macfarlane claims that nuclear power is the safest of all energy sources. Needless to say, nuclear power is not a safer energy source than wind, solar, or numerous other renewable energy sources.

Mr Macfarlane claims that: "Nuclear is the answer being adopted by virtually every other country in the world." (ABC 23/7/09, www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/23/2634155.htm)

In fact, 31 countries operate nuclear power reactors, 163 countries do not. Perhaps Mr Macfarlane meant to say 'virtually one in six countries' ...?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan claims that  uranium export revenue is the solution to the potential collapse of the South Australian health system ('Uranium drives SA's economic future', The Advertiser, Oct 29, 2009.)

However, the uranium companies give nothing to support the health system, and royalties are negligible compared to health system costs - all the more so when subsidies to the mining companies are taken into account. Moreover, the uranium mining companies are majority or completely foreign-owned so most of their uranium revenue never comes anywhere near Australia let alone SA's health system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The nuclear renaissance is going backwards

"In 2008 World nuclear generation decreased by 0.7%, making for two consecutive years of decline."

BP Statistical Review of World Energy Production

www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9023764&contentId=7044471

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Daily Telegraph reports that "nearly 50" countries operate nuclear power reactors but the true figure is 31 ('No nukes ideology is just political stupidity', Daily Telegraph, October 29).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SA Premier Mike Rann, the AWU's Paul Howes and others compare Australia's (or South Australia's) uranium industry with Saudi Arabian oil export revenue. In fact, Saudi Arabia's oil exports generate 325 times more revenue than Australia's uranium exports. Despite supplying about 20% of world uranium demand, uranium accounts for just one-third of 1% of Australia's export revenue and an even more underwhelming one-fiftieth of 1% of jobs in Australia. Globally, nuclear power has been stagnant for the past 15-20 years, the global fleet of reactors is middle-aged, and the industry will be kept busy maintaining current output let alone expanding.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Advertiser reported that China operates 111 nuclear power reactors - but the true figure is just 11. ('Uranium drives SA's economic future', Oct 29, 2009)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommended reading:

Briefing paper #20 at www.energyscience.org.au/factsheets.html

THE  NUCLEAR  INDUSTRY :  A  HISTORY  OF  MISLEADING CLAIMS

Dr Sue Wareham OAM

Nuclear Power and Health

Nuclear Accidents

Uranium to Weapons

Terrorism and Nuclear Facilities

The Back End – Nuclear Waste

Community Consultation

Nuclear Power and Australia – The Full Agenda?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some nuclear power advocates have argued that local support for nuclear power reactors could be obtained by providing local residents with free or cheap electricity. But it's doubtful if there is a single example of this happening anywhere in the world. Conversely, in some US states, residents are being forced to pay a levy to support the construction of new nuclear reactors. This 'pay in advance' model is just one of the many subsidies enjoyed by an industry that has pretty much written the book on novel methods of securing public subsidies for private profit. Yet the (now defunct) Uranium Information Centre claimed that nuclear power is not subsidised anywhere in the world.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANSTO commissioned the Gittus report which concluded that nuclear power would be economic in Australia ... if it is subsidised!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More front than Myers

Jennifer Marohasy claims that nuclear power is the only greenhouse-neutral source of base-load energy ('Spread Christmas cheer, go nuclear', 20/12/07). But nuclear power is not greenhouse neutral. It compares favourably to fossil fuels but is three times more greenhouse intensive than wind power and more greenhouse intensive than energy efficiency measures. Morahasy's claim also ignores the renewable energy sources which provide reliable base-load power.

Marohasy describes herself as a 'fellow' at the Institute of Public Affairs, suggesting that the IPA is a credible academic institute. In fact it is a front group for corporate polluters. Marohasy also notes her role with the Australian Environment Foundation. In fact, the Foundation is a front group for the IPA, which is itself a front group. More front than Myers!

------------------------------------------------------------

AWU national secretary Paul Howes trotted out many familiar but false claims in a 2009 Sydney Institute address.

See http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/awu-howes-howlers

See also:

A webpage correcting Assoc Prof Haydon Manning's errors:

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/hm

Critique of the Switkowski report:

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/Switkowski-Infosheet-Final.doc/view

The (Martin) Ferguson Files:

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/ferguson

Critique of the Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office (ASNO):

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/u/asno

Critique of the Uranium Information Centre:

http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/u/uic

--------------------------------------------------------------------

New reactor types and the nuclear renaissance - rhetoric and reality

The rest of this webpage comprises commentary on the hype and rhetoric surrounding new reactor types the nuclear power 'renaissance'.

Barry Brook: "In terms of costs and build times, modular, passive-safety designs, which can be factory built and shipped to site, look to be game changers for the industry."

Yet recent experience provides more than ample evidence in support of Amory Lovins' summary:

"An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off the shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.

"On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.

New reactor types - a view from the World Nuclear Association

Fast moves? Not exactly...
www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_France_puts_into_future_nuclear_1512091.html

There are two worldwide programs to develop next-generation reactors, which both enjoy wide international membership and support. However, progress is seen as slow, and several potential designs have been undergoing evaluation on paper for many years. One initiative is the Generation IV International Forum, consisting of a group of governments; the other is Inpro, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In practical terms the US Department of Energy (DoE) appeared a leader thanks to plans to deploy a prototype, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant, at Idaho by 2010, but this has suffered stop-go funding and start-up in the 2020s is now likely. Currently the project is moving forward with the DoE contracting businesses for scientific studies.

In Russia a project was begun for a initial General Atomics GT-MHR unit - very similar to Antares - but this faltered in the early 2000s.

And South African advocates of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor claim Generation IV status for it but the nation has severe difficulty with financing.

Pebble bed reactors

A South African nuclear utility has been at the forefront of developing pebble bed reactors but the project has recently been postponed indefinitely. Unless the South African project is revived, that leaves only China developing pebble bed concepts (with one small prototype operating and one 200MW plant planned or in the early stages of construction).

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-PBMR_postponed-1109092.html

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-demise-of-the-pebble-bed-modular-reactor

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=76&storyCode=2052590

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=76&storyCode=2052589

A slightly more optimistic view in Feb 2010:

MHI to collaborate on PBMR development

04 February 2010

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-MHI_to_collaborate_on_PBMR_development-0402107.html

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) has signed an agreement with South African company PBMR Pty that will see the Japanese firm collaborating on the development and commercialisation of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR).

Under a newly signed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), MHI will initially study areas for possible collaboration in the design of the 200 MWt plant being developed by PBMR Pty. Once areas for collaboration have been agreed, MHI will undertake some of the research and development activities, and in the longer term will look at possibilities for further collaboration, including plant construction and exploring market potential.

...

Various countries are involved in collaborations on the development of the PBMR. A major US-South Africa bilateral agreement signed in September 2009 covered collaboration in R&D on advanced reactor technologies and particularly focused on the PBMR and the US Next Generation Nuclear Plant project as an area for collaboration. Collaborations also exist with China, which is also developing a similar HTR project.

...

In September, Kriek confirmed that plans for a demonstration PBMR plant to be operating by 2018 were being delayed because of governmental funding constraints, and that his company was looking to attract funding from potential industrial users.

Thorium-powered reactors

A sober view from Nuclear Engineering International:

A thought for thorium

03 November 2009

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=76&storyCode=2054564

The question of thorium fuel comes up every so often, says [Albert Machiels, senior technical executive at the USA’s Electric Power Research Institute]. "I really cannot claim that there is a great interest in thorium fuel – it is more a matter of curiosity.

...

Experts disagree about whether thorium fuel is more proliferation-resistant than uranium.

The future

Many in the industry remain sceptical with regard to thorium. Now that uranium infrastructure is in place, developing a thorium fuel cycle is ‘' big risk,' 'unnecessary' and a 'distraction,' according to some in the industry.

I put the question to Thorium Power; if thorium fuel is so good why aren’t we using it? Their response:

"Essentially the answer is because the nuclear industry started using UO2 on a large scale first and they’ve had 50 years to improve it and become comfortable with it. Due to a highly conservative nature of nuclear utilities (‘why change something that works just fine’), there has been little incentive for a commercial utility to switch from UO2 fuels even though ThO2-based fuels have many advantages."

For this reason, if thorium fuel is going to take off it will need to be introduced in light water reactors first, notwithstanding the interesting reactor concepts currently being developed that use thorium. In accelerator-driven systems, or ADS, a particle accelerator knocks neutrons off a heavy element such as mercury, and those neutrons cause thorium to breed fissile uranium- 233. In molten salt reactors, thorium dissolved in a 650°C fluoride salt coolant breeds uranium-233, which undergoes fission.

"ADS and breeder reactors, such as molten-salt reactors, are so far in the future that if thorium has to wait for one of those developments it’s not going to happen. The point of entry must be the existing infrastructure, at least for the United States," Machiels says.

(See also 'Thorium and WMD Proliferation Risks: <www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power-weapons/thorium>)

USA

---------

See the blow-by-blow news resource on the waning fortunes of the nuclear 'renaissance' in the USA at: http://www.beyondnuclear.org/the-nuclear-retreat

---------

Nuclear subsidies won’t solve climate change

Peter A. Bradford (ex-member of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission)

November 3, 2009

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/guest/article_37b3c6b1-dff6-5ef1-a21c-8a511e278961.html

Of 26 new nuclear reactor license applications submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2007, nine have been canceled or suspended indefinitely in the last 10 months. Ten more have been delayed by one to five years. The Tennessee Valley Authority has canceled plans to revive a partially built unit.

Much of this chaos is because cost estimates for new reactors tripled while natural gas prices declined precipitously. The recession and energy efficiency programs postponed estimated need for the power -- often exaggerated in any case -- by at least five years.

In short, year seven of the ostensible U.S. nuclear renaissance looks a lot like the 1980s, a decade of no new orders, multiple delays and cancellations, and emerging cheaper alternatives.

What is the response of the industry that took the country through what Forbes Magazine in 1985 called "the largest managerial disaster in business history"? These companies and their congressional allies are praying toward the Mecca of failed industries: the federal treasury. As the economic risks of new reactors become ever clearer, the industry's desire to offload them on the taxpayer grows apace.

---

On Wednesday, General Electric claimed a significant step toward getting one of its advanced reactor designs, the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — although the model has recently lost most of its customers. Westinghouse, in contrast, has customers lined up for its new reactor model, the AP1000, but it was recently told by the N.R.C. that certification would be delayed because the company had been slow in answering the regulators’ questions.

New York Times 9th Sept 2009

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/a-nuclear-renaissance-stumbles-forward/?hp

---

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) recent objection to serious safety problems in the AP1000 reactor design is just the latest setback of the so-called “nuclear renaissance” and shows that it would be contrary to the Obama administration’s emphasis on ending reckless lending practices for the Department of Energy (DOE) to proceed with its plans for loan guarantees for any new reactors that are not finalized and licensed. In the last 18 months, more than half of the 25 nuclear reactors that the industry has said constitute the "’nuclear renaissance’ have been canceled, or have been delayed by more than a year, or have experienced an upward cost revision of more than a billion dollars. These delays are very likely to increase the costs of the plants, turning some of them into economic white elephants.
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy 28th Oct 2009
http://www.cleanenergy.org/images/position_statements/F-DOE%20loan%20guarantee%20Hill%20briefer102809.pdf

---

Safety flaws in US next-gen nuclear reactors

01 December 2009 by Rob Edwards

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18219-safety-flaws-in-us-nextgen-nuclear-reactors.html

You'd think it would be the one thing nuclear companies want to be sure about: that their reactors can withstand freak weather or a plane crash.

Yet US firm Westinghouse has so far failed to convince regulators that its AP1000 reactors can withstand such events. "At this stage Westinghouse has not presented an adequate safety case for external hazards," concluded the UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) last week.

This echoes comments from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in October, which said the firm must rethink the "fundamental engineering standards" of the reactor housing. The US plans to build 14 AP1000s; China four.

For its nuclear programme, the UK is considering the AP1000 and the European pressurised water reactor (EPR), developed by Areva and EDF. The EPR is the front runner, but its design was also criticised by the HSE.

Kevin Allars of the HSE adds that neither reactor is unsafe and the criticisms are a normal part of the regulatory process. The nuclear companies say they are addressing the problems.

---

Toshiba has told San Antonio City Council in Texas its new twin $13bn ABWR reactors will cost US$4 billion extra, prompting the Council to postpone a crucial vote on the project’s financing until January.
Climate Progress 28th October 2009
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/28/toshiba-san-antonio-nuclear-power-plant-expensive-cost

---

CPS's owner, the City of San Antonio, has already postponed voting on a $400 million bond issue and now CPS has announced an investigation into "how and when management became aware of a substantially higher preliminary cost estimate from Toshiba."

 "Preliminary findings have resulted in two CPS Energy employees being placed on administrative leave pending the completion of the investigation," said general manager Steve Bartley.

www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_Utility_warning_on_nuclear_cost_0511091.html

---

http://www.beyondnuclear.org

4 Dec 2009

A major shake up at Texas electric utility CPS is being called for, after revelations that the company concealed the skyrocketing costs of two proposed new reactors at the South Texas Project nuclear power plant from investors such as the City of San Antonio itself. The San Antonio Express-News has run extensive coverage of the unfolding scandal for several months. Energy economists have long warned utilities like CPS that new atomic reactors could not compete in the free market with more cost effective low-carbon alternatives such as energy efficiency, and renewables like wind and solar, which are plentiful in Texas. Those who sounded the alarm early on include Arjun Makhijani at Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute, and credit rating agencies such as Moody's. NRG Energy's two proposed General Electric-Hitachi "Advanced Boiling Water Reactors" at the South Texas Project could be considered one of the top front runner new reactor projects in the U.S. It was the first to apply for a combined Construction and Operating License from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in Sept. 2007. The ABWR design, unlike the Westinghouse-Toshiba AP1000 and the Areva EPR, has already been certified by the NRC (although even it, like the others, continues to "evolve,"requiring yet further NRC approvals). Perhaps most significantly, the South Texas Project ABWRs have been short-listed by the U.S. Dept. of Energy for nuclear loan guarantees.

France

The new-generation European pressurised reactor, which was supposed to spearhead French exports appears to be presenting one problem after another for Areva. This week, safety authorities from three countries - France, Finland and the UK - asked the French group to modify the control and command systems of the EPR. This is just the latest in a series of embarrassing setbacks that have already cost Areva in Finland alone, where one of the very first EPRs is being assembled, about €3.2bn in provisions so far. But it is not only Areva that is facing the heat. The French electricity behemoth EDF is also grappling with big problems of its own. For the second year running, France will have to import electricity at peak hours during the winter to avoid the risk of black-outs because its own reactors cannot keep up with the demand. Almost one third of the utility's 58 reactors were out of service - either for maintenance or for other reasons. So much for the much touted efficiency of the French nuclear system. EDF critics claim the company has simply not focused sufficiently on improving the efficiency of its ageing nuclear facilities and instead preferred to embark on expensive international expansion sprees.

FT 4th Nov 2009

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3dd706a8-c8e3-11de-8f9d-00144feabdc0.html

---

Pierre Gadonneix, CEO of French company EdF, had a straightforward idea to reduce the company’s debt – increase French retail electricity prices by 20%.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6853104.ece

---

UK

----

Nuclear incidents/accidents - UK

Operators of Britain's nuclear power stations reported 1,343 incidents to the Health and Safety Executive since 2001. The authority's inspectors classified 773 of them as posing no threat, while 563 were safety anomalies. But seven incidents, five of which were related to power plants operated by British Energy, have been listed as harmful. The most recent occurred last year at Dungeness B, after British Energy had been taken over by French nuclear giant EDF, when there was found to be "non-compliance or inadequacy" in its safety arrangements. The most serious incident was a leak at Sellafield in 2005 which went undetected for months. No one was injured when around 80,000 tonnes of acid containing 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium leaked from a broken pipe into a sealed concrete holding.

Telegraph 26th Jan 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7073977/Nuclear-watchdog-reveals-harmful-safety-incidents.html

---

Britain's main safety regulator threw the government's plans into chaos tonight by damning the nuclear industry's leading designs for new plants. The Health and Safety Executive said it could not recommend plans for new reactors because of wide-ranging concerns about their safety. "We have identified a significant number of issues with the safety features of the design that would first have to be progressed. If these are not progressed satisfactorily then we would not issue a design acceptance confirmation," the agency concluded following a study of the latest French EPR and US AP1000 reactor designs. Kevin Allars, director of new build at the HSE, admitted frustration that the design assessment process was already behind schedule owing to insufficient information from the companies promoting the reactors and a lack of enough trained staff in his own directorate.

Guardian, 27th Nov 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/27/nuclear-power-reactor-design

---

The UK’s £20bn nuclear programme is facing delays because of a failure to tackle design problems with their reactors, the Health and Safety Executive has warned. A report by the HSE said the two firms in the running to build the reactors had to put more resources into dealing with the safety assessment process if it was to be completed on time. One of them, Japanese-owned Westinghouse, came in for particular criticism for failing to provide a report on external hazards such as flooding. The HSE also criticised it for its "slow progress" in responding to questions on civil engineering design codes. It said: "We’ve not seen evidence the civil structure design conforms to the standards we’d expect to be applied to new nuclear construction." Another cause of concern is last week’s statement by the US nuclear regulator, which said Westinghouse would have to modify its designs to receive approval in the States. The HSE report also discussed French company Areva, the other candidate to provide third-generation reactors to the UK. In July, it expressed concerns about the control and instrumentation systems on Areva’s pressurised water reactor. It said the matter was still on its “red indicator” list of worries, although it added that it expected the matter to be resolved satisfactorily.

Building 30th Oct 2009

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=29&storycode=3152061&c=1

---

German energy company E.On has put back its schedule for UK new build – originally all the talk was about having plants up and running by 2017, now they have said reactors may not be built until the late 2020s.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/06/nuclearpower.energy

---