My name is Ben Heard. Decarbonise SA is the vehicle I have created to help achieve, in my home state of South Australia, what needs to happen the world over: the rapid and total decarbonisation of our electricity supply. It is my researched opinion that we can only do this with nuclear power in the mix. I want to earn your support, and that starts with explaining the background and motivations that have brought this website to life.
It was shortly after completing my degree in Occupational Therapy from the University of South Australia that I heard David Suzuki, the renowned Canadian environmentalist, speaking on the radio in promotion of his new book at the time, Good News for a Change. The things he was saying resonated with me so deeply that I bought the book and read it. That was a life-changing event for me. I finally recognised, and could put into words my long held passion for building a healthier planet. I first learned and embraced the word sustainability, and there was no turning back.
While I worked in workplace safety and rehabilitation, I sought and read many of the other books and authors cited by Suzuki, becoming only more excited and determined as I read them. I realised though that passion and an impressive bookshelf were unlikely to open doors. My then fiancée, now wife, found a course at Melbourne’s Monash University; Masters of Corporate Environmental Sustainability Management. That was the one! I applied, was accepted, and moved to Melbourne with a new wife.
I worked two different occupational therapy jobs to pay the bills while my wife completed her PhD, and I took my Masters courses in the evenings. It was a (really, really) hard time, but I had never before been so enthused by my studies. I became one of the inaugural graduates of the Future Environmental Leaders program, which went on to become the Centre for Sustainability Leadership in Melbourne. I was quickly pushed forward by the course coordinator for my first consulting role. I was on my way, and it felt great.
I completed my course and walked away with a certificate covered in HDs (had never had them before in my academic life!). Things were going well. After some years of good consulting in sustainability and risk communication, I was realising the all encompassing nature of climate change and my passion for this issue. A move into a more specialised team of wonderful, talented and passionate colleagues brought with it the opportunity to work on some really excellent projects, and build a strong skill set in climate change.
But there was a problem… With every project I was learning more about climate change, and the news kept getting worse. It was getting wamer, faster, and the planet seemed to be more sensitive to change than had been assumed. Global growth was accelerating. That was actually mostly a good thing, because it meant a lot of people were becoming less poor. But it meant the demand for energy was outpacing anything we could implement to slow growth in greenhouse gases. Racing towards us over the horizon was the tipping point: that level of global warming from which there could be no correction, and to which there could be no successful adaptation. That level of warming at which we simply lost control, and doomed ourselves to global catastrophe.
The worst though was this: the logical part of my brain was telling me loud and clear that the broadly accepted set of energy solutions for climate change, namely renewable technologies and improvements in energy efficiency, had not a hope in hell of solving this problem on their own. No matter how optimistically my peer group and I talked them up, the reality of the scale of the climate crisis kept crashing the party. Things were getting worse, not better, and there was really no solution on my radar. Well, there was one, but I didn’t like it… nuclear power.
Quietly, I began to pay more attention to nuclear power, and one simple message got through quickly: this technology produces energy, in large quantities, for virtually nil greenhouse gas emissions. Ok, I wanted to confirm that, but that’s a big tick.
Moving home to Adelaide presented the opportunity to begin my own climate change consultancy, ThinkClimate Consulting. That in turn provided the freedom to look at nuclear power more actively. I still hated nuclear, for a whole bunch of reasons, but I was so appalled by what I knew of the climate crisis that I had to challenge my reasons for opposition. I assembled my reasons for hating nuclear, and began to explore them. I believed I may find it to be a necessary evil, but I didn’t. I found it isn’t necessary, it’s essential, and it isn’t evil; it’s actually a pretty darn good way of producing power, basically 99% better than coal. Even better, the coming generation of technology is nearly 100 times better than today’s. This meant…there is a solution!!! Hope was restored. We had the means. We just had to do it.
But so many people thought about nuclear power the way I used to. Specifically, that it belongs in the basket of technologies that have no place in a sustainable future, along with nuclear weapons, agent orange and land mines. So I made a presentation on how I changed my mind, advertised it through my business, and ran a free event. I paid for the venue, my wife baked cakes, and I did the dishes afterwards. Not many dishes mind you… only five people showed up, all prior acquaintances… one them my own father. It was an inauspicious start to be sure. But it was well received, and one of the five was with the Technology Industry Association here in South Australia, where I serve on an environmental committee. She was so impressed that she put the hard word on her colleagues that they must run it as a TIA event. I needed little persuading, and the deal was locked when I secured the excellent Professor Barry Brook as a co-speaker.
This time, 45 people showed up, and the response was phenomenal. I realised there and then that I had not thought of something: it’s all well and good to get people on side, but then what??? There was serious energy in the room but I had nothing for them to do, and no way for them to apply it. It was after that evening that I had the idea for Decarbonise SA, a vehicle to form a collective of concerned people to actually implement the changes needed to completely decarbonise South Australia’s energy supply. Which brings us to now.
Presenting the Decarbonise SA case at a function for CEDA in Perth, September 2011. This time there were 70 people in the audience, and four other speakers.
But that is enough about me. I really want Decarbonise SA to be about us: the people who want effective action, not earnest conversation and piecemeal change. The people who fear for the future we are creating, but remain determined to create a better one. The people who believe in facts and science, rather than slogans and platitudes, as the basis for building a safer planet. The people who will put their time and skills where their morals are, get together and make something happen.
Decarbonise SA is here to give us structure, vision, goals and actions. It’s here to let us share and build ideas, communicate and collaborate. Above all though, it’s here to succeed in this little part of the world, and show others how we can regain control of the future. Please subscribe and stay tuned. This is only the beginning.
Good onya Ben.
Though if you reckon the vitriol you’ve received so far is anything, just wait for the shitstorm.
Can we please have a photo of you on bio page?
Ben,
I attended your talk yesterday. I was impressed with your arguements and you have changed my opinion as long as the new technology is safer, it virtually consumes its own waste and can be installed underground . Had you asked at the end of the talk , the following 2 questions:
How many people were opposed to nuclear power generation before the talk?
How many of those people have changed their view?
I think these figures may help your arguements with politicians.
I have joined as a subscriber.
Welcome Iain! It’s great to have you on board.
I must remember to do that show of hands thing, it’s a great idea.
I hope you are enjoying the articles so far.
Best wishes
Apologies to anyone who has been here lately only to find the most GINORMOUS photo of me. I don’t know what happened.
Went to a talk tonight at The Hawke Centre about the Fukushima disaster and the way Japan is moving forward after the incident. I had an open mind when I walked in. Unfortunately, due to the verbal attack at ‘question’ time, I have zero support or sympathy for your organisation. What exactly were you hoping to achieve? To alienate a room full of people? Because in my opinion that’s what happened. You had the opportunity to make people aware of your organisation but instead chose to argue with the speaker. I’m an educated person, I listened to what the speaker said, some of it I did not agree with, but I’m able to make up my own mind about that. You had no respect for anyone in that room. I suggest if you want to broaden your following to those who are not ‘like minded people’ you change your attitude, or you’ll find your cause will slowly die.
Kieron, thanks for commenting, that is really important feedback for me.
I don’t quite see it as you do, but I certainly made mistakes that I will learn from. To be honest, I thought I was under attack from the moment I opened my mouth. I will be making a post about the event and I encourage you to come back for it.
Fact is, that is what you took away from it, therefore you are correct and I was in error, there can be no other truth. I would certainly rather have the opportunity over. So thanks again for telling me.
In the interest of more important issues than whether you support me or this blog, please retain an open mind about nuclear power as a response to climate change.
Gday Ben, I have been reading up on the Mungbean Pronukers for a while now. I am by nature a curmudgeonly reactionary LibNat voting bastard who Green Left types hate instinctively. There is no point on me tut tuting about “warmies” and spewing about the Carbon Tax. It is a process and I want to be part of hope for the future of this planet. I think it is plausable the AGW is a problem. Who knows ? If it turns out not to be – great. If CO2 causes problems they could be huge and probably take forms that will surprise the current warmists. I think there are already far more pressing environmental issues.
Be that at it may. Either way we need nukes.
People in my demographic are going to be a huge reationary PIA after the next election – interest in Environment Issues will be slaughtered at the Ballot Box.
I want to be helping in a positive way and I think a mungbean / sustainable pronuke lobbying is a brilliant move. United we stand !! I would feel much more confident of the future if I thought it had a nuclear component to the energy mix.
Count me in !
Ha! This is all the funnier for the fact that I do, honest to God, eat mung beans pretty regularly. Their bad rap is undeserved.
Mark, I appreciate the honesty of your sentiment, and how right you are; what ever way you cut several different pressing issues of environmentalism and human development, we sure do need nuclear power. I quite agree, and I think this is a matter of evidence rather than opinion, that environmental sentiment is tanking at the ballot box. All the more reason we need durable zero carbon energy solutions that stand on all of their merits, rather than confining ourselves to the most expensive and least reliable of the technologies on offer.
Please do dig around the site, there is a lot of content now, and if you need a recipe on mung beans do get in touch.
I have had a good look about and learned quite a lot. I have also recalibrated my stance on AGW. I still think the chicken littles like Flannery do far more damage than good (specially since he flopped on the nuke support). My main objection was probably more that; a gesture as futile as trying to roll out non nuclear “solutions” now, would be like hitting the patient with the defibrillator when we weren’t that sure the heart has stopped. This way I am not exactly a “contrarian denialist who just is pronuke to piss off hippies” as some ~ahem~ might unkindly conclude. As an incipient geologist I know how mind blowingly complex this planet is. There are so many claims and counterclaims and so much propaganda from both camps. But I repeat myself; on AGW – The expression “The jury is out” has some resonance with me and if they come back with something you dont want to hear, it’s WAY too late – then Princess – you are going down. Ergo we need nukes in either event.
I noted you spoke of solidarity with a bunch of environmentalists. OK call me part of a rainbow coalition. I have Leftie mates who are desparate about AGW. If I do nothing thier acusations of me being unpricipled are undeniable. I get to speak to a lot of Geos and other mining folk in my job. I will keep the flame alive and inform my self of the honest answers to the FAQs. The “waste storage” and the “not econimicly viable” ones are the two I hear most often.
I am doing a post grad in Geology at the moment and looking at a unit in fossil fuels. I was none too keen on that line of work before. Today I made up my mind that I wont touch it. I am to write a paper on it and am looking for ideas. I now have some thoughts. The troll call of “industry shill” is an admission of defeat IMO. Some of us wont adopt a position that can only be justified by propagana. It’s called “ticker” – some have heard of it.
I must compliment you and Rod Adams for the calibre you both showed on the Online Forum going in to bat for Barry Brook. Good gracefull articulate stuff. I am signed up with the website. You have my contacts. Let me know if there is anything I can help with.
That’s very generous, and a really appreciate the sincerity of your post. Frankly, if only more people thought as you do about this stuff. Hopefully you found the recent waste article helpful. We have a detailed discussion of costs coming up for the SACOME journal. We let them run it in print first, then reproduce here. Watch out for it and let me know if you have any question.
Rod is a real champ, and thanks for the compliments. I felt it had to be done, and glad to know I did a good job of it.
Look forward to seeing more of you in the comments, and if you are local to Adelaide, a bunch of us meet regularly. Let me know.
No Mate. Last time I was in Adelaide was on my way to Broken Hill to do some underground survey work. I live in Perth and FIFO mostly to Kalgoorlie then out into the bush in the Goldfields. Most of my study is external through Curtin WASM.
The Internet freed up enough to listen to the audio of radio appearance. You hit just the right mood. Humility is important. A good strong voice with no annoying habits. It possibly was your co talent but mentioning worldwide takeup is important. A good take on the NIMBY / ethnocentric view. Especialy when young people travel so widely. The Vietnameese can see the sense in it but we Anglo Saxon Aussies are too precious. We aussies wont make a difference (viz the Bolt Question) so thank goodnees our more populus niebors, who have tasted poverty and dont like it , are doing something about the environment. Of course you must never expressly say such things since you only antagonise. Great as a subtext.
Time to pull my finger out and hit the text books. Toodle Pip.
Hi Ben,
Hope you’re well. I have been reading your website with interest and the content has helped swing me further towards being pro-nuclear.
Once question I have is about the longevity of uranium supplies. There are various statistics about how long existing supplies will last, and I’ve copied a few below from credible sources listed on Wikipedia. Interested to hear your comments on how demand could be met if we do significantly boost the number of nuclear power stations.
Jol
“Various agencies have tried to estimate how long these resources will last.
European Commission
The European Commission said in 2001 that at the current level of uranium consumption, known uranium resources would last 42 years. When added to military and secondary sources, the resources could be stretched to 72 years. Yet this rate of usage assumes that nuclear power continues to provide only a fraction of the world’s energy supply. If electric capacity were increased six-fold, then the 72-year supply would last just 12 years.[11]
OECD
The world’s present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at a price of 130 USD/kg according to the industry groups OECD, NEA and IAEA, are enough to last for 100 years at current consumption.[29]
Australian Uranium Association
According to the Australian Uranium Association, yet another industry group, assuming the world’s current rate of consumption at 66,500 tonnes of Uranium per year and the world’s present measured resources of uranium (4.7 Mt) are enough to last for 70 years.[14]“
Hi Jol!
Nice to hear from you and I’m pleased you have found the site useful.
I think this question is answered in two parts. Firstly, relating to currently commerical technology: What is the probability of “present measured resources of uranium” being an accurate estimate of what is actually out there and recoverable. Secondly, relating to soon to be commercial technology: might the entire issue very shortly become moot?
First question first. Consider two things. Firstly, Australia is known to be pretty much the richest place in the world for U reserves. But with its (now gone) Three Mines Policy, there was a virtual standstill in exploration for a very long time. A patchwork of State restrictions also puts an anchor on exploration. Secondly, consider just how (sadly) good we are proving at maintaining hydrocarbon supply. My point being when we talk about “known, recoverable reserves”, both the “known” and the “recoverable” bit depends on both policy and economics. I personally doubt very much that current estimates will actually prove to be a limiting issue for a very long time indeed, should the world decide it actually wants a lot more nuclear power and create the conditions for more exploration and recovery. I’ll stop talking now and hand over to Tom Quirk:
The punch line to that economic issue is that the price of uranium has practically no bearing on the price of electricity from a nuclear power plant.
As to the second issue: an Integral Fast Reactor, which pairs a fast reactor with a pyroprocessing fuel recycling facility, is capable of extracting energy from the 99+% of the uranium that does not get consumed in currently commercial reactors. This material is sitting around as spent nuclear fuel and depleted uranium from enrichment. There is enough of it to power the whole world, fully developed, for centuries, sitting around doing nothing right now. So there will be transition to this technology that will mean more construction of current reactors and therefore more requirement for mined uranium. But that will then end, and the whole thing becomes a non-issue. In fact, the problem will be what else to do with all that zero carbon energy we now have. Charging electric vehicles would be a good start. For more on the IFR see the heading in the top-most menu and also the heading for the great debate. Brave New Climate also keeps great amount of information on IFR ready to hand.
I hope that helps your personal deliberations. Cheers mate.
About uranium supply longevity: There’s enough uranium scattered about in the world, I mean really old stuff, that radon is a danger you should check out in your own basement. Radon is a decay descendant of uranium, about the tenth generation, a daughter product of radium. With a half life of 3.8 days, it is continually regenerated from very old deposits, and seeks through the ground. 4.2 tonnes, 4.2 million grams of U-238 is enough to generate an equilibrium quantity of 3.8/(365 thousand) grams of radon, i.e. just over ten micrograms. The radioactivity in becquerels of the 4.2 tonnes of uranium is equalled by the direct activity in Bq of the radon, but if it’s in your lungs, the next four decay products get you in hours, as well.
The world’s current rate of consumption is because the fissile isotope U-235 is present at seven parts per thousand of natural uranium. Put it another way, the world’s entire current consumption of U-235 is seven times 66.5 tonnes per annum, and more than half of that ends up in “depleted” and “spent fuel” uranium.
But fissile isotopes are a renewable resource, if you build breeder reactors. Neutron capture converts U-238 to neptunium 239 which decays to plutonium 239 which is fissile.
Moreover, if you have a reactor designed to do it, neutron capture will convert thorium, which is more plentiful than uranium, to U-233, which is a fissile uranium isotope. The USA has designed and successfully run reactors which do each of these. You won’t find it mentioned on the DoE website.
Radon seeps, not seeks, through the ground. Aaachhh! One Bq is one nuclear decay per second. If you have enough potassium to run your body, you’re probaby receiving 4,400 Bq internally from its radioactive isotope!
Hi Ben,
Thanks for taking the time to write an informative response. I agree with the points you make. Just last week I was reading a George Monbiot article about peak oil – and why the price of oil and technological advancements appear to have killed (or perhaps postponed) the theory of peak oil. And the reasoning for that appears to be equally applicable to uranium.
Keep up the good work – I think what you are doing is great. Even if people don’t agree with your point of view, the important thing is having the debate and getting people to engage with this and other issues related to sustainability.
Jol
You’re welcome, and I have heard talk of that recent post from Monbiot, must pop over and read it. Most people I talk with end up agreeing pretty emphatically. I talk with more people every week. We are getting somewhere. Thanks for the endorsement.
I have to seriously disagree about Peak Oil. I think it is the world’s greatest problem not climate change. Basically people don’t care about floods and firestorms if they are relatively unscathed but they won’t like it when the whole global middle class is in a similar position to Spain and Greece. The wheels of the economy will literally grind to a halt without the magic elixir. I think Monbiot undermined his credibility by endorsing the Maugeri report and a dozen critiques have since been written; here’s a recent one by an industry insider (which Monbiot isn’t)
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-08-22/don%E2%80%99t-count-revolution-oil-supply
I can supply a longer list of critiques but that should go on another thread.
Which is worse… hot weather or 40% unemployment?
Good link. But in both oil and gas right now, we were supposed to be hitting a crunch and it is not happening, in fact, a lot of movement in the other way. We may be wrong by only 20 or 30 years but that’s long enough for a lot of reinvestment. We clearly cannot rely on peaks to force our hand for moves away from fossil.
It isn’t the unemployment that worries me, it’s the absence of income, or indeed the inevitable starvation.
Let’s not forget, that if we could import Jupiter’s methane for zero cost, we’d have to morry about consuming the fossil oxygen of the atmosphere. In a mere four half-lives of Pu-239, at the present rate of oxygen consumption, the survivors will be gasping for breath.
It’s very touching and inspiring story Ben. Now I know more about you and what you are doing and more important is why you do it?. I am one of your active followers.
Thank Ben.
I am running website http://greenforvietnamblog.com/ , translate some good lectures, materials on climate change, sustainability and green development into Vietnam. My aim when running this website is share what I have learned, build trust on climate change and advocate for green growth and nuclear power in Vietnam.
your vision is to de-carbonize the wealthiest, my path is to work for the poor not to put them in a situation unsustainable way of life……let’s see what is our future
The trouble with supplies for PWReactors is that they use an isotope which is 7 parts to every 1000 of natural uranium. Worse, the process of making the uranium reactor-grade is akin to making 3.6% alcohol from beer watered to 0.7% , IF the boiling point of alcohol was half a degree lower than that of water. We end up using about 2 or 3 tons in every thousand mined, with a small assist from the dreaded Plutonium, of which the reactor kindly cannot help making about half as much as the U-235. So although uranium is not all that scarce, U-235 certainly is.
But there’s a perfectly good way to use the whole lot. It’s called a breeder reactor. The website http://arcnuclear.com belongs to a company, Advanced Reactor Concepts, that has designed a descendant of the IFR, which I believe is the most successful LMFBR project ever.
LMFBR stands for Liquid Metal cooled, Fast neutron Breeder Reactor. It uses liquid sodium as the coolant, has no moderator for the neutrons, and depends upon the neutron flux to convert as much U-238 to fissile Pu-239 as the amount of fissile uranium or plutonium being consumed. It could equally well be fueled with mixed uranium-plutonium fuel.
The Clinton administration canceled it in 1994, but some of the engineers now work for that company. The IFR was designed with metal fuel rods, liquid metal primary coolant, and of course a framework of steel.
Its huge safety advantage over current reactor designs is three fold. The fuel rods conduct heat far better than the uranium oxide pellets in a PWR, the coolant does not need a pressure vessel and has a very high heat capacity, and in the event of loss of cooling pumps, or of the entire secondary cooling system (the power steam cycle) the thermal expansion of the metals leads to neutrons no longer hitting quite enough uranium nuclei, and the reaction progressively slows down and stops. It has been tested. Simple convection in the liquid metal suffices to dissipate the heat of the radioactive fission products remaining, and no longer being created.
Since 24,000 tons of uranium annually suffice to supply 20% of the electrical energy consumed in the USA, I have computed, or reckoned, that about 80 tons of actual fissile material is consumed. The same amount of uranium, therefore, if it were all used instead of a mere 80 tons, should suffice to supply 300 tiimes as much energy, and at a thousandfold reduction in the persistence of the radioactive waste products.
Indeed if the figures given by ARC at arcnuclear.com prove to be true — and they are more plausible than anything from the wind and solar lobbies — the USA has enough uranium in problematic storage (depleted UF6) and plutonium in war surplus bombs, to supply energy at its present TOTAL rate for the next 200 years. That’s without mining any more uranium.