The Power of the Atom
Date: 5th August 2009
INTRO
We stand at a junction – between action and in-action. Climate Change legislation is upon us, and we are about to either reduce our standard of living or pay a heavy financial cost. The choices are simple – do nothing and soon be bankrupt as a nation or embrace the future through nuclear energy. In the next few minutes, I am going to outline to you the horrors and unpredictably of the climate change legislation, often known as Kyoto - and then show that some of the alternatives are weak, ineffectual and implausible and that nuclear energy is the only way that our standard of living as Australians can be preserved.
KYOTO – REASONABLE?
The Kyoto Protocol as it is known seems reasonable to most people. The principle seems simple - we consume too much energy via carbon-based fuels and this causes the earth to heat up and this is bad as it causes change – and we all hate change - so major consumers must pay so as to reduce the rate of change and everyone will be happy. Or will they?
Maybe not. The Kyoto protocol, a UN environmental treaty, is about to cost you a significant amount of money, or a decreased standard of living. Starting in 2012, producers of energy from fossil fuel sources such as coal, oil and gas will have to buy Carbon Pollution Permits in addition to paying for their fuel – one permit for each ton of CO2 emitted.
GRAPH OF CHANGE REQUIRED AS PRODUCED BY RUDD GOVERNMENT
Let me show you a graph taken from a government white paper. The blue line, representing Australia's CO2 emission is what is expected if we do nothing and the yellow line is where we would be if we went with – and achieved - the scheme. The gap between the two lines in a way shows what the scheme is going to cost us if we participate. As you can clearly see, with our lack of action taken so far the gap is going to get very large and very soon – and that can only mean buying credits from the market. In 2012 we will be overspending on emissions credits per year by about 50 million credits – or up to 2 billion dollars at 40 dollars per credit – which is the cap on prices imposed by the United Nations. I propose that if we were to meet the scheme that the effect on the economy would be catastrophic – much worse than the current recession which we are experiencing. Businesses of all sizes would be crippled by the high energy prices, causing a wave of inflation to ripple across the economy, leading us to recession.
UNPREDICTABLE COST OF KYOTO
I have analysed this and it is all very unpredictable – after reading very many government and United Nations white papers I am unable to determine what this scheme will cost us – either in the best case or the worst case. Why is this so – how can we have something this major happening in this world but not know the consequences to us individually? Is this political correctness gone wrong?
RENEWABLES – TOO LITTLE TOO LATE?
But renewables will save the day, right? Well, maybe, but we are going to have to vastly increase our amount of renewables if we are going to stave off comparitive price rises.
With less than 7% of our current electricity needs being met by renewables, they can only be used to offset a very small proportion of the carbon tax which needs offsetting from the use of coal used to make electricity. Even if we got the energy from renewables for free, that would only make a small dent to overall prices due to the tiny amount of renewables currently in production.
A great expansion in the use for renewables must be made now, before a carbon tax is introduced. As renewables have a large built-in up-front energy cost, a tax in carbon will greatly increase their installation cost. Renewables which are already in place will be shown to be extremely profitable.
CARBON SEQUESTRATION – UNPROVEN TECHNOLOGY STILL IN DEVELOPMENT, FLAWED
Meanwhile, the Rudd government recently announced the granting of 100 million dollars towards the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute in Canberra. This technology aims to collect the carbon normally emitted by a coal fired power station and to then hide it away underground for ever, or hopefully forever. This unproven darling of the coal industry is seen as our saviour and yet has never successfully left the laboratory – and is being used as the excuse to do nothing substantial now to better ensure our energy future.
NUCLEAR – THE FUTURE
Finally, there is the alternative from the other side of the spectrum – that of Nuclear Energy. With the ability to produce electricity with no carbon output, nuclear gets us around the expense of a carbon tax, and reduces the amount of carbon credits we would have to buy from a global carbon market.
PROBLEMS
But nuclear is not seen as the solution by all people, with the problems of nuclear being three fold, firstly the public's belief that it is unsafe, secondly that it poses a waste disposal hazard and thirdly that it is expensive.
SAFETY
The reality is that none of these problems is very significant or proven. Regarding safety, there have only been two accidents of note that people will recall – that being Three Mile Island in the USA, in which there were no deaths, and Chernobyl in the former USSR where 31 official deaths were reported, although the unofficial estimates ran higher. However, the reactors at Chernobyl, of a design known as High Power Channel Reactor were built to produce plutonium as well as power, and these reactors are generally considered one of the most dangerous designs produced. Current reactor designs are not of this design and are known as Pressurised Water Reactors and are considered safe and reliable.
Yet, coal is not safe in comparison. In 2006, according to the State Work Safety Supervision Administration of China, 4,749 Chinese coal miners were killed in thousands of blasts, floods, and other accidents in mines. Amazing we resist nuclear energy when there are more deaths in one year from mining coal than there have ever been from nuclear accidents. And coal is not clean, releasing nitrous and sulfur oxides, as well as heavy metals such as mercury when it is burnt. These poisons are in the air around us, poisoning and polluting us. Yet, because there has been no 'leak' we are not concerned?
WASTE
Most nuclear waste is stored at the nuclear facility in which it was consumed. It is not as though we are surrounded by mountains of nuclear waste – the actual volume of material is very small. For Australia, the prospect of storing and finally recycling the worlds' nuclear waste is one which should be seen positively.
EXPENSE
Earlier I said that the high cost of nuclear was a problem with it's adoption . However, with approximately 450 nuclear reactors producing power in the World operators of these plants are finding that they are becoming increasingly profitable as they age. This is because the cost of a nuclear power plant is largely up-front, with low fuel and running costs once the plant is in operation. This makes going nuclear the ideal stimulus measure, as we get to spend money up front and get a large payback later.
Off-the-shelf reactors are available now from American and French companies and are being installed into Europe, North America and India. This is not a new technology – this is established and safe with 60 years of technological progress. These plants cost between 2 and 6 billion dollars – with the money the Rudd government recently spent on consumer stimulus we could have built 8 of these plants and cemented our energy future.
FUEL and INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Additionally, as a nation, we have available to us a vast richness of nuclear fuel. Yet, whilst we export this fuel, we do not utilise it for our own use to any substantial degree. We have available the opportunity to not only mine and produce nuclear fuel, but also to become leaders in the use of the fuel in our own reactors – and possibly to create our own nuclear power export industry, with us being involved in all stages of the utilisation of this valuable product.
CONCLUSION
Some time in the future, your children and grand children are going to turn to you and ask the question “Dad, how did we end up in this situation? I read the history books and have seen movies and know that things were different in your day”. Are we going to be able to tell our children that they live in such a rich world because we threw our energies into renewable energies in the short term and nuclear energy in the medium and long term – or, alternatively, are we going to tell our children that we chose to do nothing and that is why we now go cold in winter and can't even afford to run the flat screen and play on the Nintendo? For that is where we stand, at the decision point between action and non-action, and the time to decide is now. The Carbon Pollution reduction scheme will greatly reduce our standard of living. Nuclear will be our future.
