Author Archives: Decarbonise SA

Critiquing “Deep Deep Decarbonisation Pathways Project”

Earlier this month my friend James Brown (analyst, economist and co-author of Zero Carbon Options), drew my attention to a new report: the Deep Decarbonisation Pathways Project Interim Report, Australia Chapter. The project is international, and is being run with some connection to the United Nations. This all sounds rather impressive, important and right in my area of interest. However James was concerned that some of the assumptions were peculiar. He had emailed the international project head to raise his concerns.

I took a look at the report. The closer I looked, the less comfortable I felt. While the ostensible goal is one I wholeheartedly embrace, I was concerned this report would potentially send the national conversation backward, rather than forward. I brought it to the attention of a few other parties including my friend Professor Tom Wigley. He, James and I committed to drafting a critique of the report and we got to work.

Late in the piece, a strange thing happened. While approaching some other parties for their review of the critique and potential endorsement, the draft critique was leaked to the authors of the Australia Chapter. Email communication was incoming immediately. To cut a long story short, we declined an offer of personal engagement to instead finish the draft and submit the critique as planned, which was a matter of days away. Our suggestion to the authors was that the critique should be published, along with their response, in the interests of transparency and following the example set by the IPCC.

The authors would not commit to this. They instead reserved the right to respond as they saw fit.

For that reason we have decided to publish the Interim Report and our critique here at Decarbonise SA.

We note here, as in the critique, that this is only an interim version of the report that we are commenting on and more information and a final version will be forthcoming in the near future. We note also that in the main report (as opposed to the Australia Chapter) we find much to agree with in terms of the value in developing deep decarbonisation pathways as part of a decisive response to climate change. As will be apparent in the reading, we have many and serious concerns about the Australia Chapter and we think a published written critique is the correct step. We were not, and are not, seeking explanations relating to the report. Rather, we believe reports like this should not require explaining. This distinction matters a great deal.

We don’t take the decision to critique this version lightly. A great deal of effort went into it. Nor do we take lightly the decision to publish our critique.

James, Tom and I share a conviction: achieving meaningful action on decarbonisation in a politically and economically complex world demands, as a starting point, work that is balanced, fully cognizant of the many complexities and uncertainties, and of the highest quality to underpin arguments and decision-making processes. Anything less and we are destined to repeat the past: environmentalists talking to themselves while the world heats up for another generation.

This is the Australia Chapter of Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project.

DDPP_interim_2014_report_Australia_chapter1

This is our critique.

HeardBrownWigley_DDPP_Critique

Like what you see here? Please subscribe to the blog, Like Decarbonise SA on Facebook and follow @BenThinkClimate on Twitter. Read more about the potential for nuclear power in Australia at Zero Carbon Options

Nuclear Q&A with OETEC

This week I have been responding to a detailed series of questions from Federic Bernal, director of OETEC, one of the most prominent energy think-tanks in South America. He is gathering opinions from 30-50 international multidisciplinary commentators for compilation and publication. This effort coincides with the new nuclear reactor in Argentina beginning to provide power. It will be at full power by November, at which time I look forward to joining Kirsty Gogan, Stephen Tindale and others at a panel meeting, “Nuclear Energy, Energy Security and Climate Change”.

My answers are to be translated and published to the OETEC site soon. Here they are in English for your enjoyment!

  1. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “There is currently an international drive to build new nuclear power plants, bringing about what is being termed a ‘nuclear renaissance'”. Why? Could you give us some international and local (your own country) examples?

    I feel that is premature. Nuclear development is fragmented across the globe. There is some rapid growth and new entrants to nuclear energy, some new build to maintain capacity, some stagnation and some active retreat. Many more plants are being constructed now than just a decade ago, a great many more are planned and proposed and new designs are coming on line. That all looks positive from an industry perspective. There are also a great many plants that are approaching the end of their licenced operating period, and their future is uncertain at this time.

    The share of electricity provided by nuclear energy has been falling. Growth in nuclear electricity generation will be occurring in the context of massive global growth in total electricity consumption. A product whose market-share is falling in a market that is exploding is en-route to becoming a niche product. That’s not what anyone expects of a “nuclear renaissance”.

    The loss in share for nuclear coincided with an up-tick in share for coal, reversing a nearly-hundred year old trend of declining share for coal in global energy supply. Had the China boom of 1990-2010 been driven by fission, and it could have been, I could be giving you a very different answer. The fact that it wasn’t has been a terribly costly failure for humanity.

    Instead it was driven by coal combustion, plenty of it imported from Australia. Australia continues to both burn and export as much coal as it can. Coal is so plentiful and accessible in Australia that, absent firm and durable policy to reduce coal dependence, there is little economic prospect for nuclear at this time. Both Australia and the world is not about to run out of coal. We need to decide to stop burning it. The best chance of that happening is nuclear energy becoming dramatically cheaper, much in the way gas has done in the US. While the gas example is a short-term trend with a strong element of protectionism, it illustrates the economic phenomenon perfectly. Policy can assist this process by bridging the economic gap. The policy fight will be so much the easier when nuclear comes closer to simply beating coal on cost, making the gap smaller.

    I don’t believe we can speak of nuclear renaissance until the first clear sign that growth in nuclear energy is removing global market share for electricity generation from coal, and that this will be an accelerating trend. When the real renaissance is happening, no one will need to double check with me!

    2) Which are the main anti-nuclear myths that should be addressed in order to properly inform the community about the benefits of nuclear power in energy security and climate change? Could you explain us why those myths prove to be false?

    One of my favourites, or perhaps least favourites, is the idea that nuclear energy is not really a low-carbon energy source “when all things are considered”. What people are referring to in that type of statement is the full life-cycle emissions attributable to electricity produced from nuclear.

    I’m familiar with this myth as I once believed it entirely. It goes like this: once all the energy has been accounted for in the mining of the ore, the enrichment, the fabrication, the waste management and all the transport in between, any gains from the generation phase, which produces no greenhouse gas, have been eroded to the point where nuclear is barely worth it, and it may even be as bad as fossil fuels.

    There are a few perspectives to see why this is so false. Firstly, it has been positively studied to death and the results are conclusive. When the University of New South Wales undertook a meta-analysis of all global studies, they reviewed forty studies that examined the lifecycle emissions of nuclear. A single outlier suggested emissions in the range of 150 g CO2-e kWh-1. Two suggested from 50g-100g kWh-1 and the remaining 37 studies suggested <50 g kWh-1. For Australia, they suggested a best estimate of 61 g kWh-1. That compared favourably with photovoltaics (106 g kWh-1), and was much less than gas (577-751) and coal (863-1175).

    It also defies a test of common sense. If the nuclear fuel cycle was so hungry for fossil fuels along the way, it would be barely profitable at the best of times and the price of nuclear fuel would be highly sensitive to the prices of fossils fuels. Obviously, neither is true. Grasping the energy density of the nuclear fuel helps to see why. Our coal stations in South Australia can consume up to 6,900 t of coal per day. That is delivered in a train that is 2.8 km long with 161 wagons of coal. That quantity of energy in mined uranium oxide would fit inside a carry bag. In fuel pellets it would be barely a handful. Nuclear fuel may take some effort to make, but the return in clean energy is astonishing.

    Secondly, it is popularly supposed that nuclear power is terribly slow to roll out. Considered fully, the opposite is the case. Yes, it’s quick to put up solar panels and pretty quick to put in a wind farm, and that’s helpful. However the output is much, much smaller. Yes, it takes time to construct a nuclear power station, but the output it huge and no one said we need to add them one at a time! Over a period of 16 years the French nuclear rollout of the mid-1970’s to late 1980’s and sustained a rate of 0.28 MWh of new electricity, per person, per year, from the new nuclear sector. That’s higher than anything that has been achieved, anywhere in the world, using any technology in any era. A very impressive rate of commissioning is now underway in the UAE. We can make it take forever if we want to, but that’s our choice. History tells us nuclear roll-outs can be very fast indeed. The opposite is just a story some people want us to believe.

    3)
    Limiting climate change by stabilizing the global temperature requires the near complete phase-out of conventional fossil fuel power generation and its replacement through technologies with low greenhouse gas emissions, such as renewable energy, nuclear power, and fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Can renewables solve by themselves the greenhouse problem? Why?

    No, they can’t.

    The scale of the challenge is where we need to start to understand this.

    This is an energy hungry world. Humans have demonstrated, time and time again, that in a choice between dirty energy and no energy, they will choose dirty energy, every time. The challenge therefore is to provide clean energy, while of course taking smart steps using energy efficiency. Over this coming century, if the future human population were to use energy, on per capita average, at the lowest end of the developed group of nations, we would need triple the amount of energy we do today. That would represent a wonderful humanitarian and energy efficiency outcome, but the quantity of energy we are talking about is staggering.

    Next, we have to consider energy density: how much usable energy can we get from a given resource? Since industrialisation began, humanity has been steadily moving toward denser fuels that offer greater return for effort: wood, to coal, to oil, to gas, to uranium. Rather than greater density, renewable energy requires us to gather dilute energy in the form of sunlight, wind, or movements of oceans. We have to catch energy, concentrate it, move it from where it is to where we need it, when we need it, in a usable form. The word for something that does all that for you in the first place is “fuel”!

    The notion that we will double and then triple energy provision while using only dilute energy sources and whatever fuel we can grow is, frankly, a delusion. A very dangerous delusion.

     

    4) Economic and environmental advantages of nuclear power vs. renewable energy? Disadvantages?

    “Renewable energy” covers many things and they perform differently in different places.

    Most renewable energy today is biomass and hydro. Traditional biomass is an environmental and health disaster, killing about a half-a-million children from non-communicable diseases every year. Most purpose grown crops will represent further expansion of agriculture. That is a serious problem for preservation of biodiversity. Biomass is basically environmental bad news, with some clear and important exceptions.

    New hydroelectricity inundates vast areas and inherently alters the hydrology of large river systems with potentially serious ecological impacts. That’s a highly relevant concern here in South America. The result is a lot of reliable, but variable clean energy. I hope more nations can choose the full reliability without the landscape impacts by choosing to build nuclear plants.

    Wind turbines and solar panels are mostly benign technology in their deployment and have little water consumption. However accounting for variable supply and short lifespans, the comparison with nuclear worsens. Utility-scale solar again co-opts very large areas of potentially valuable habitat. That’s a genuine issue. The largest solar plant in the USA needs about 240 times more land per unit electricity than a small modular reactor design, and the land it used displaced endangered desert tortoises.

    Nuclear plants are long lived, with a tiny land footprint. They can be cooled with ocean water, have no emissions of waste and a tiny volume of contained waste that can be recycled. They can be placed close to loads and existing transmission and in areas that are already developed. The mining of the fuel is tiny. In the Integral Fast Reactor system represented by the PRISM reactor, the fuel does not even need to be mined but can be recycled from waste. Since nuclear is also the only technology that is proven to decarbonise electricity for large developed economies, it is clearly the overall winner from an environmental perspective.

    Economically, small solar systems and wind turbines have a real advantage in smaller outlays that allow more incremental additions. This is easier to finance and enables swifter, incremental roll-out. That can, over time, add up to quite a bit of capacity. We have seen exactly that in South Australia. The price of electricity from wind is really quite good now, provided it is not at very high penetrations where it must wear high integration costs. So I expect those energy sources to do very well in coming decades, right around the world. Direct heating of residential water from solar energy in sunny climates is an excellent use of renewable energy, both environmentally and economically.

    But for large, dispatchable, reliable supply, other renewables just don’t cut it economically. From a system perspective there is simply no advantage in very expensive electricity which is variable, intermittent, and climate-dependent. If we need to slash greenhouse gas emissions then frankly, from a dispassionate energy system perspective, what are these renewable power plants except vastly inferior nuclear plants? Less reliable, dependent on hourly, daily, seasonal and inter-annual variations in climate and weather. You couldn’t sell a nuclear plant that had that type of performance, and these systems are dramatically more expensive than nuclear.

    None of that is mounting an argument against development and deployment of renewables. It’s a call for honesty. We have what we need in nuclear power: clean, dispatchable, scalable power without limits. We should use it in partnership with the many renewable technologies that make good environmental and economic sense in each region.

    5) According to NGO Environment 360: “While Germany continues to expand solar and wind power, the government’s decision to phase out nuclear energy means it must now rely heavily on the dirtiest form of coal, lignite, to generate electricity. The result is that after two decades of progress, the country’s CO2 emissions are rising”. Do you agree or disagree and why?
    (http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_the_road_to_green_energy_germany_detours_on_dirty_coal/2769/)

    I can only agree. It’s a fact. Germany is producing more electricity from wind and solar than ever before, and at the same time burning more coal than they have in 20 years. Suggestions this is some sort of “transition” to a renewable future are laughable. A major new lignite mine has been approved to begin operations in 2025. That’s not a making a transition away from fossil fuels, that’s fostering a long-term addiction to fossil fuels. This has little to do with whether renewables are useful or not; the bottom line is the relevant parties in Germany decided it was more important to close nuclear than to close coal. They could have built more renewables either way. That speaks volumes about traditional environmentalism. They can deny the outcome but they will only be fooling themselves.

    6) You attended the International Youth Nuclear Congress 2014 in Burgos, Spain. Could you explain your excellent “A systematic review of the literature exploring 100 per cent renewable electricity”. You stated that “No evidence for 100 % renewable from current supply systems”. Really no evidence at all? How is this possible?

    We need only reflect on the question “Can we power ourselves with 100 % renewables?” to see the truth in my statement. In the world today, there is not one single operational example of a 100 % renewable electricity or energy system as popularly perceived (with the exception of some very small outliers). In fact, there is nothing even close. There are many combinations of fossil fuels, renewable and nuclear energy that have been demonstrated to work. We have no real-world evidence and experience, none whatsoever, that the 100 % renewable concept can be done. We have much to suggest that it can’t.

    What we do have is a growing body of literature that explores the possibilities in different locations. That is what I am examining in this systematic review. In the absence of operational evidence, can the 100 % renewable case be adequately established in literature? I have reviewed about 15 studies so far, ranging from global to national in scale. There is a range of quality and usefulness from these papers, however some clear themes are emerging.

    Many begin from the point of massively reinventing the energy system, by economy-wide energy efficiency, electrification, demand shifting and addition of storage, well beyond the range presented from the major modelling and forecasting organisations. Many of those concepts may be good ideas. But it means the output examines whether 100 % renewables can power a world that the authors have invented for their study, to suit their proposed supply solution. That world does not, and may never exist. That diminishes the value of the evidence.

    Others undertake no modelling to demonstrate that supply would meet demand in real time. This is essential. It’s not enough to talk about quantity of electricity generated. That’s relatively easy. The system has to work, accounting for large amounts of supply from stochastic sources like wind and solar.

    Several studies model recent actual demand levels, which is helpful. Here we see that hydro is always maximally exploited in the modelling first. Then, many deploy biomass in huge quantities. In some cases the quantity of biomass is utterly unrealistic and the authors acknowledge it. So what we see is strong agreement that systems need a base of dispatchable supply. The studies just propose burning plants, not coal. Pre-fossilised coal, you could say.

    Few of the studies articulate the new transmission requirements. None of them articulate the new distribution requirements from high penetrations of decentralised solar PV.

    The studies that come closest to technical feasibility come from Australia. They provide a lot of insight. The also leave some very large and important gaps, particularly in relation to managing low renewable resource events that may lie at the statistical tail. What if a record-drought winter with low hydro output merges with very low solar output and very still conditions with no wind for a week? What then? Until such questions are answered, it’s hard to say the system is feasible, which makes costing a system arguably pointless!

    So, with all the uncertainty and urgency related to climate change, some stakeholders are demanding we embrace an electricity supply solution for which there is scant evidence and no proof. I think that is insane.

    7) You stated Pandora’s Promise is having a major and ongoing impact. What is Pandora’s Promise? Could you explain further this opinion about the film…

    Pandora’s Promise is a beautiful and compelling documentary that outlines, for the first time on film, the case for pro-nuclear environmentalism. The narrative is built around the journey of several prominent people who, much like me, have had a profound change in the way they view nuclear power. What I love most about the film is how respectful it is of the anti-nuclear position. Were I still anti-nuclear when I saw it for the first time, I would have felt challenged but not attacked or insulted.

    I helped to bring Pandora’s Promise to Australia for a cinema tour and the response was huge with several sold-out screenings. The impact has been clear in the further evolution of discussions around nuclear power in Australia. Pandora’s Promise highlighted the reality that anti-nuclear activists have absolutely no monopoly on caring deeply about people and the environment. The true leaders are those who have been able to look beyond their pre-conceptions and learn anew.


    8) Could you explain the ongoing debate in Australia about nuclear energy and climate change? What were the main conclusions of the “100 per cent renewables study—modelling outcomes” paper?

    Australia is deeply contradictory in its relationship to nuclear technology. We have one of the dirtiest, most coal dependent energy supplies on earth. We also have the largest known reserves of uranium and we export uranium around the world. We have an excellent modern research nuclear reactor, sold to us by Argentina. At the same time we have a legal prohibition in place preventing the approval of nuclear power stations!

    The absurdity of this situation is untenable. As a result, the debate around using nuclear in Australia simply will not go away. Since the time I got involved in the issue in 2010, the level of interest and activity has intensified greatly. A growing diversity of voices from academia, business institutions, government, industry and unions are calling for steps to be taken to allow the use of nuclear power.

    Australia had proportionally greater contribution from renewable electricity in 1960 than it does today. Since 1990 our emissions from the electricity sector have soared 45 %, thanks to expanded dependence on coal combustion. The prohibition on nuclear energy has not turbo-charged deployment of renewables, it has simply reinforced our dependence on coal. Nuclear energy is a simple, straight substitute for coal in electricity systems. It offers all the scale and reliability with none of the emissions and other waste pouring out of the stack. So it’s obvious why Australian environmentalists like Barry Brook, Ove Guldberg, Tom Wigley and others are pressing the case for nuclear very hard.

    However the anti-nuclear discourse remains prevalent. Partly thanks to that the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) received terms of reference to undertake a study of 100 per cent renewables in the National Electricity Market (NEM). The NEM is the largest geographically distributed electricity grid in the world.

    It’s a very useful report with extensive supporting documentation. AEMO took a level of electricity demand for Australia for 2050 that is close to official projections and sought to model whether renewable electricity could meet this demand. The results are “maybe”, with some strong cautions. AEMO suggested such a system would be “at or beyond the limits of known capability and experience anywhere in the world to date”. It would require much higher capacity reserves than the current system, large contributions from biomass, acquisition of up to 5,000 square kilometres of land, and costly augmentation to our transmission and distribution network.

    Of concern to me, AEMO’s modelling only works on the assumption that peak demand is shifted from the end of the day, as it currently is, to the middle of the day to match output from PV. Without this change, every single day would have unserved demand. It is strongly implied that this demand shift would be achieved by mass electric vehicle charging at midday. I think this is a serious error. Electric vehicles must be supported in their own right, which means owners should be able to charge them with clean electricity when it suits them to, not when it suits the network. A base of nuclear would facilitate that outcome.

    This study is valuable. Australia is arguably the best-case scenario for 100 % renewables, and this study highlights just how challenging it would be even here.

    9) Could you explain us the highlights of your article http://decarbonisesa.com/2013/05/16/green-nuclear-junk/?

    A prominent Australian anti-nuclear activist (whose name is Green, hence the title) published an article accusing Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen of “junk science”. The claim was in relation to their paper asserting that nuclear power had been responsible for saving around 1.8 million lives through the displacement of coal. In support, the anti-nuclear article published a mortality table suggesting nuclear had as many attributable fatalities per unit electricity as did coal.

    A colleague, Geoff Russell, and I were incensed at this attack on good scientists and incredulous regarding the mortality table, so we set out to investigate.

    We found both fabrication and error. The author had ignored the many references, including those applied by Kharecha and Hansen, that assert a low fatality record for nuclear power. He used mortality estimates from one low-quality source but left out the figure relating to nuclear as it still showed nuclear as safest.

    To make nuclear look dangerous, the author combined three unrelated sources, devising a completely novel methodology for determining the hazard of nuclear energy across the lifecycle. Something like that could only ever be responsibly done through the peer-reviewed scientific process. This author has no relevant qualification, experience or publication record that would support him in doing so. He then merged this mortality figure for nuclear into a table of mortality figures for the other energy types that came from other sources.

    In the process, he failed to convert units correctly from terawatt hours to gigawatt years for the other energy sources. Nearly all his figures were incorrect by a factor of 77. His fabricated nuclear fatality figure was still smaller than coal once the maths had been corrected.

    After sustained pressure, the author made an apology on my blog. His organisation issued no apology in relation to the article and no formal retraction of the flawed data. While the source material has now been modified, the original article that accuses these scientists of junk science and publishes incorrect information, is still available. The author has been a little more subdued lately but still publishes in the name of his organisation quite regularly.

    This is a blatant example of anti-nuclear activists wishing to don the trappings of science but refusing to be bound by its rigour. From their point of view, they are allowed to lie as long as they don’t get caught.

     

    10) Your opinion about Nuclear sector in Argentina (please find attached a short and updated description of our national nuclear sector)…

    Like Argentina, Australia has a strong heritage in nuclear knowledge and technology and a strong international reputation in non-proliferation. Unlike Argentina, Australia has rejected nuclear power generation entirely and has allowed knowledge and experience in this sector to erode. The fact that Argentina has arrested and now reversed this same process is certainly very encouraging.

    Argentina clearly has a great deal to offer the world in the area of nuclear technology. When I asked an Australian nuclear professional about the OPAL research reactor and where it came from, he described how the Argentinian bid was outstandingly strong, and the willingness to work with the Australians to get the right reactor was greatly appreciated. So I am pleased to see Argentina continue to take a leading role in research reactor development.

    At this time, Australians use three-and-a-half times more electricity per person than Argentinians but we produce over ten times the greenhouse gas emissions per capita. It is clear that if nations like Argentina continue their development using fossil fuels, the battle against climate change is simply lost. So I am greatly heartened to know that existing reactors will have extension of life and I am very pleased to see the commissioning of the new Kirchner reactor. Over coming years I would love to see more electricity for each and every Argentine, with emissions from the sector falling. With nuclear technology, you can do this. Australia may have a lot to learn from Argentina in coming years. In particular, if small reactors like the CAREM can be brought to market at a good price, it may assist Australia in making the transition to nuclear. Our long, skinny type of electricity grid will more easily accommodate small reactors than large ones.

    Conversely, Australia’s mature uranium mining sector may offer a source of both knowledge and resources for the Argentinian nuclear sector. I see a great deal of potential for both Australia and Argentina to continue our relationship in nuclear technology over the coming decades. Argentina could provide a great example for us to follow.

Hurts and hopes, past and future

I spent this morning at NITV studios recording an episode of current affairs panel show “Awaken”. The topic was Uranium: Friend or Foe?

I was one of what turned out the be a lot of special guests so the show was fast paced, busy and covered a lot of territory.

I had fair coverage and offered my perspectives. I also got the chance to do a lot of listening, which was excellent.

The legacy of hurt and pain around the nuclear testing at Maralinga expressed by many guests was palpable and from the heart. As someone who abhors nuclear weapons and injustice, and a South Australian who loves his State, that history and the seemingly insufficient remedies put in place disgusts me. But it was not done to me. That must be an altogether different shade of pain that I will hopefully never know for real. It is easy to see how this legacy is carried through to distrust and anger for many indigenous Australians in dealing with Australian authorities and companies. When those dealings then relate to disturbance of the land again (i.e. mining) for none other than uranium… well, I feel I appreciate a great deal more just where people are coming from. When we seem to think we need to make managing Australia’s radioactive waste an Aboriginal responsibility, which Barry Brook and I have argued is flat wrong, well, I really understand better why the answer from some traditional owners may always and forever be no. Those issues as expressed by the indigenous guests make perfect sense to me and have my full respect.

As an aside, my sadness extends to the Australian soldiers who were exposed to the blasts in the course of doing their duty. This diminishes not one bit my above statements. End aside.

Several other commenters seemed to leverage out of these matters into matters of international energy needs and security. Here, my respect for the positions, and the commentators, wanes considerably from the point of view of the factual quality of the rhetoric and the evidently narrow understanding on display. I would have liked more time and opportunity to take up these matters in more detail, however that was not to be today.

In the various intros and outros, I lost track of the number of mushroom clouds. This remains a real problem. Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons just isn’t the same thing. This too deserves a lot more exploration. We also saw a lot of ominous looking footage of Onkala waste repository in Finland, mainly clips from Into Eternity. No one mentioned, and I lacked the opportunity to point out, that the community in question embraced that facility after a long and good process, beating two other communities who were actively looking to host it. Surely that, if anything, must provide some clues as to how Australia might reconcile it’s nuclear past with the waste challenges of our present and our global clean energy responsibilities for our collective future?

There is a lot more to be done. Thank you NITV Awaken for having me as your guest. May this be the beginning of many more discussions.

Of forests, fences and foxes: A South Australian reflection on George Monbiot’s “Feral”

Your regular nuclear advocacy programming will resume shortly. As a (disputed!) environmentalist I like to keep thinking and learning outside my direct area, and in other spaces that engage my passion. Hence I have been sitting on a copy of Feral since the day of release which I finally managed to read recently while flying to-and-from Spain (yes, when you live in Australia that’s more than enough time to read a book!). This is not a book review. You will find plenty of those for Feral if you want one. Suffice to say, I think the book has serious merit. I hope you will read on.

Australia remains a wild place. This is a country where the crocodiles eat the people, and the pythons eat the crocodiles. This sparsely inhabited continent is home to the oldest continuing human cultures on earth and an extraordinary collection of world-famous wildlife. We have a bird that can disable a large dog, the most poisonous snakes on the planet, and kangaroos that get pretty aggressive if you walk through their lie on the golf course. So the concept of “rewilding”, as raised by George Monbiot in his most recent book Feral, might, at first consideration, seem inapplicable. If George is as determined to experience death-by-nature as some of his exploits suggest, he could do worse than to emigrate and settle down-under. Continue reading

Worlds Without Nuclear

Many of you will be aware I recently attended the International Youth Nuclear Congress 2014 in Burgos, Spain. I had an outstanding week of learning and meeting wonderful people and I will provide a fuller write-up in coming weeks.

Burgos Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was honoured to be recognised by the judging panel for the Best Oral Presentation of the congress for Worlds Without Nuclear: A systematic review of the literature exploring 100 per cent renewable electricity.

The presentation was not recorded so I have attached a shareable PDF of the slides. Continue reading

Solar thermal, Alinta, Port Augusta… what does this all mean?

One would be hard pressed not to have picked up on the decision announced by Alinta to progress the option of stand-alone solar-thermal power for commercial feasibility study. There seems to be a certain “dancing in the streets” vibe from much of the early commentary.

What does this announcement really mean?

It pays to recall where this all began. Back in 2011 Beyond Zero Emissions put forward a proposal in a report called Repower Port Augusta to replace the coal-fired generation (760 MW) with a hybrid renewable option of solar thermal (760 MW) and wind (712.5 MW) to produce 4650 GWh per year.

Concerned as I and others were at how this proposal sought to limit our decarbonisation options, I, along with James Brown, produced Zero Carbon Options to compare the BZE proposal to a reference nuclear option against thirteen criteria. Our overriding point then was this: if decarbonisation through the permanent closure of large fossil fuel generators is the imperative, we are unlikely to reach it by a process of attempting to corral community and political stakeholder support for only one option that lies at the very highest level of cost and other impacts. We have a much better chance by focusing on the outcome and impartially considering our options.

logo only

The fact is, stakeholders and particularly market forces simply cannot be corralled in this way if the cost difference is too great, the uncertainties too high and particularly if it is pulling hard against given ideological bents. Outcome-driven processes that are less specific about the solution stand a much better chance.

So, how has the process proceeded to now?

Alinta has announced that it will progress a 50 MW stand-alone solar thermal power tower with energy storage for commercial feasibility. This decision comes from the findings of the first part of the $2.3 million dollar feasibility study which is half publicly funded (Aside: James Brown and I worked hard, unpaid, for about 6 months to produced Zero Carbon Options and then crowd funded $10,000 to print and launch it. End aside).

RePower Port Augusta wanted 1472 MW of new capacity in 2011. Come mid-2014 the process is now down to 50 MW.

The preliminary costs for this option are $15,926 kW-1 installed with electricity priced at $258 MWh-1. This is around double the capital costs of the most famous global nuclear cost overrun at Olkiluoto in Finland and the electricity price is bang-on the range James Brown wrote up for Zero Carbon Options.

Way over budget and way cheaper than solar thermal with storage

Way over budget and way cheaper than solar thermal with storage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alinta Energy states in the report that commercial development would require “long-term offtake agreements with one-or-more customers to purchase the electricity generated from the CSP” (Alinta Energy 2014, p 19). At $258 MWh-1 that simply won’t happen unless the customer is the Government in the form of a subsidy of greater than 50 %. The volume-weighted average price of electricity for South Australia was $74 MWh-1 in 2012-2013 (Australian Energy Regulator 2013).

Alinta Energy has been upfront in stating that these costs are prohibitive (Alinta Energy 2014, Media Release). Alinta says the commercial feasibility of this option will be studied further “with the due diligence it warrants” to provide information for potential investors “should the cost of technology or regulatory environment change” (Alinta Energy 2014 Media Release).

So, as someone who really likes technology and really wants decarbonisation, what would I be hoping for from here?

I would be hoping that the commercial feasibility delivers a radically improved assessment of the costs. I would be hoping the cost gap closes sufficiently that the required subsidy is a much politically easier challenge. I would be hoping the mechanisms to support renewable energy all make it through this political period unscathed. I would be hoping that somehow the 50 MW build can go ahead, that it exceeds expectations, identifies multiple cost-saving improvements for subsequent expansion and the process gets easier and easier from there.

Hope, however, is not and will never be a plan. All of the above may happen. However I doubt that it will and if it doesn’t? Where does that leave us in the decarbonisation challenge from late 2015?

If, as stated earlier, the goal is decarbonisation, not simply the promotion of some technologies, then the forces marshalled behind this solution for Pt Augusta are making terrible strategic and commercial errors by insisting on limiting our options in this way. It is entirely possible that every bit of effort from every single person (and dollar) behind this campaign will produce little more than studies of one option that won’t get up.

I (and nearly all those I have regular dealings with) am not anti-renewable technology. But the technology must be subservient to the outcome. The outcome stands a much greater chance of surviving the process if we keep our options open. Most especially we need to be open to the only technology South Australia can deploy that is proven to decarbonise large, developed-economy electricity supply.

Like what you see here? Please subscribe to the blog, Like Decarbonise SA on Facebook and follow @BenThinkClimate on Twitter. Read more about the potential for nuclear power in Australia at Zero Carbon Options

Another climate scientist joins calls for nuclear

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the Global Change Institute has become the latest climate scientist to make an open call for the use of nuclear power to combat climate change.

OveHoegh-Guldberg, a well-known Australian marine scientist who will be remembered by many for his confrontations with climate change denier Andrew Bolt, has made a direct call for the use of nuclear energy in Australia and globally to improve our chances of preserving the Great Barrier Reef.

In a lengthy column in today’s issue of The Australian , co-authors Hoegh-Guldberg and Eric McFarland of the Dow Centre for Sutainable Engineering, take aim at both the misinformation that has slowed the uptake of nuclear energy and lack of transparency from within the nuclear industry itself.

“Our understanding and control of nuclear reactions is among the greatest intellectual triumphs of human beings and it provides us today with the one real option to significantly reduce global carbon emissions”

“Unfortunately, public focus has been only on risks to human populations highlighted by tragic incidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, rather than the hundreds of reactors that have been operating safely for decades. Nuclear power can provide low-cost, carbon free electricity improving the lives of billions of people. For too long this has been the butt of scaremongering and misinformation that has all but stopped widespread deployment”.

In a separate article, Hoegh-Guldberg was frank about the challenge in changing his position on nuclear energy.

“I have definitely changed my position on this. In all these debates it’s really important that one gets guided not by the position you have taken and stick to it- it’s about looking at the evidence and really thinking the issue through”.

Hoegh-Guldberg joins a growing list of scientists, environmentalists, experts and progressives calling for the deployment of nuclear power to meet the clean energy challenge this century.

Both articles can be found in today’s issue of The Australian

Like what you see here? Please subscribe to the blog, Like Decarbonise SA on Facebook and follow @BenThinkClimate on Twitter. Read more about the potential for nuclear power in Australia at Zero Carbon Options