From: Terry Krieg To: Committee, Environment (REPS) Date: Monday, 2 September 2019 5:31:19 PM Attachments: In the JanSACOME journal articl 2..docx In the 2009 Feb.docx 00.docx My opinion piece prepared for and printed in the Adelaide Review Sept 2009.docx Australia-Ockhams Razor number 4.docx AUSTRALIAmust include nuclear.docx SOUTH AUSTRALIANuclear our saviour..docx
A submission from Terry Krieg,BA Dip Ed on the Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia.
Some biographical details about the author. 1. Lives in Port Lincoln - born 26/06/1938 2.Retired secondary school Deputy Principal and teacher of mainly senior secondary geography and geology from 1959 - 1992. 3. Studied geology and climatology as part of a BA degree at University of Adelaide 1956-58.. Retired from teaching 1992. 4 Established an ecotourism business in 1993 which was closed in 2017. 5. Conducted over 150 tours for international and Australian groups mostly in the inland of South Australia especially the Flinders Ranges and Lake Eyre. 6. Experienced bush walker having walked around Lake Eyre in 1982, in the Simpson Desert, the Willouran Ranges and,the entire Flinders Ranges including the Gammon Ranges.Leader of many bush walking expeditions for both student and adult groups [1980 - 2014]. 7.Spent 1981 on teacher exchange in Toronto, Canada where he became familiar with the nuclear industry.Converted from anti to pro nuclear during that year. 8. Began speaking for and promoting nuclear power for Australia in 1998 when the establishment of a national low/medium level nuclear waste repository on Arcoona Station near Woomera was discussed. 9. Since 2005, have given many pro nuclear talks to community, student, professional and political groups. Most importantly,has given four talks on the ABC Radio National Ockhams Razor programme [Sept 4th 2011, Jan 15th 2012, Mar 10th 2013 and Feb 9th 2014]. - For audio and transcripts log on to : www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhams razor and check past programmes for above dates. 10 Made a submission for the Scarce Royal Commission on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. 11. Have been making a comprehensive study of all aspects of the world nuclear industry since 1998. 12.Have sent many of my writings done since 2009 to Ted O'Brien and the committee for their consideration
The submission will take the form of a brief general statement about nuclear waste and will continue as a series of attachments which will cover details concerning most of the terms of reference.
General statement about waste. One of the most deeply ingrained anti-nuclear myths is that there is no safe way to get rid of nuclear waste.The most intractable problems of radioactive disposal are not physical or technical. They are legal, political and sociological. And the amounts of waste that have to be dealt with are very small compared with the amounts of industrial and municipal wastes we have to deal with.Because amounts of radwaste are tens of thousands times less than normal community waste, their disposal sites can be much smaller. Sadly, objectors to radwaste demand nothing less than absolute safety which is unattainable in any endeavour. That fact doesn't deter the objectors. They expect radwaste to be totally removed from the face of the earth. This has led to hare-brained schemes like rocketting High Level Waste into the sun. In reality, disposal of nuclear waste is not a serious problem.High level wastes are stored safely in cooling ponds until they can more easily be dealt with.Another anti-nuclear myth states that high level waste with plutonium will have to be guarded for centuries to stop terrorists getting it and making bombs. This is absurd because plutonium in high burn up reactor fuel is unsuitable for bombs and those who say any competent person can build a bomb in a garage workshop have no idea of the complexity of that task.Much of the truth about nuclear waste and its disposal will emerge when studying closely the attachments which follow.
The most important attachment is the last listed. It's very long and has been given as a speech on two occasions so far. It is based on the four Ockham's Razor talks given on ABC Radio National 2011-14.
Brief comments on some of the terms of reference
Health and Safety: Consult Nuclear Radiation Exposed by Prof Colin Keay The enlightenment Press 2004.I can send my copy if interested Environmental Impacts. Much kinder to the environment compared with every other type of generation including solar and wind. Solar and wind are NOT green -take up enormous amounts of space c/f nuclear Energy affordability and reliability. Nuclear is comparable in price with other base load generating facilities. It is the most reliable of all generating types and produces NO greenhouse gases during generation. Nuclear capacity factor averages around 85-90% in all types of reactors. Solar ave capacity factor 25%, Wind capacity factor ave 35% Solar life -20-25 years, wind turbine life - 30 years. Nuclear reactor life 40-60 years with some now extended to 80 years.
National consensus Achievable- last poll in SA had 56% in favour. Workforce capability. -Basic at this stage but would take off once a decision to develop nuclear was taken.Foundation of development probably at Lucas Heights [ANSTO]
Security.implications Australia a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty and a leader in its establishment
The following three facts appear in the long speech but they bear repeating here. They alone should be sufficient to convince any rational Australian of the good sense to include nuclear power in our energy mix. . Fact 1 Over the past 20 years, the world has spent $2.3 TRILLION on subsidies for the renewables [sun and wind mostly] for which the world generated 2.8% of its electricity and achieved zero reduction in greenhouse emissions. I believe the renewables have been a scandalous wasteful folly and In my opinion, Australia should do as many other countries have/are doing and that is to stop subsidising the renewables Fact 2. As of May 2017, there were 32 countries continuing to generate 11% of the world's electricity in 447 reactors. Those 32 and 17 additional countries were building 61 reactors at the time, 174 had been firmly planned and over 300 proposed for the future. China currently has 35 operating, is building 21 now and has plans for another 290 by 2050. By then 28% of their electricity will be clean, emissions-free nuclear.In my opinion Australia should be part of that rapid nuclear build.
Fact 3 South Australia has the world's best high level nuclear waste disposal site [Officer Basin] which was researched by Pangea Resources for the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] in 1998-2000. The Olympic Dam uranium ore body containing 20% of the world's total recoverable uranium.lies to the east of the Officer Basin. The uranium contained in the Olympic Dam ore body, used in the emerging Integral Fast Reactors.[IFR's]and on line within the next decade, could power the entire planet emissions-free for 4000+ years.
If it can be arranged, I would like to speak to the committee. I could come to Adelaide to meet them if there are plans for them to visit South Australia for community consultations.
Political bipartisanship for nuclear has never been achieved in Australia. It's time it was. After 20 years of speaking for and teaching the community about nuclear power I hope and pray that the committee will recommend in favour of nuclear power for Australia.As James Lovelock [GAIA] said at the 2007 Adelaide Festival of ideas. "It doesn't make sense that Australia hasn't already gone nuclear."
Here ends my submission.
Terry Krieg BA Dip Ed
.
. My first two Ockham’s Razor talks affirmed firstly, that Australia was unwise in pinning its clean energy future on the renewables [sun and wind] and still developing technologies like CCS and geothermal and should move towards including nuclear power in its energy mix. And secondly, I corrected many of the commonly held misconceptions promulgated by the anti- nuclear lobby. Following conversion from anti to pro nuclear in 1981 while on teacher exchange in Ontario Canada, I’ve been advocating nuclear for Australia since 1998. I believe the time has arrived for Australia to start getting serious about developing the full nuclear fuel cycle. It should be initiated in South Australia along the lines suggested in a piece which I wrote for the Adelaide Review three years ago, as follows: In the 2009 Feb/Mar issue of the SACOME journal, I called for Australia to offer the world the Officer Basin site for a much-needed international high level nuclear waste repository [dump]. Despite existing small quantities of waste [390,000 tonnes produced over the past 50 years from 33 nuclear power generating countries] and even smaller future amounts because of the development of Integrated Fast Reactors [IFR’s], probably on line within 10-20 years, the Officer Basin site has the potential to remove from the environment for ever, all of the world’s high level nuclear waste. It could certainly handle all of the waste generated by countries without suitable burial sites including many of those to which Australia exports yellowcake. Though increased reprocessing will certainly occur, thereby reducing the waste to very low volumes, ultimately there will be some waste to be disposed of in an environmentally sustainable manner. Deep burial in geologically stable zones is the preferred option of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In my opinion, commissioning such a repository, would be an eminently sensible first step in the development of the full nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. Australia could claim the moral high ground on the nuclear waste issue and establish itself as a leader in the rapidly growing world nuclear power generating industry. However, we will need some bold, imaginative leadership and strong bipartisanship from Labor and the Coalition, following familiarization with the facts about nuclear power. Sadly, because of the hangover from the Cold War, exaggerated fears of weapons proliferation, not to mention the consistent misinformation, half truths and often downright lies peddled by the anti-nuclear ideologues, Australia has failed to develop the cleanest, greenest, safest, most powerful source of energy known to mankind. And this is despite being blessed with the biggest uranium reserves, mostly in South Australia and the best waste disposal site on the planet, also in South Australia. Australia has been negligent in failing to develop nuclear power. We should be able to do better for ourselves and the rest of the world than just mining uranium and producing yellowcake . What follows, is my vision, now 12 years old for the next 30-40 years of development in South Australia. It is based essentially on our minerals and energy reserves, especially uranium.
The first step will be for our government to establish a nuclear education programme in our schools to teach students the basics of nuclear power production and the enormous benefits it will bring to their lives including serious reductions to their carbon footprint. In association with that, the government needs to develop at least one and preferably two university schools of nuclear science and engineering, one in Sydney [Lucas Heights], the other in Adelaide [uranium capital of the world]. The government together with BHP Billiton could mount a Public Private Partnership arrangement in sponsoring these two schools. In late 2011, this idea received a boost when a Memorandum of Understanding between the University of Adelaide and BHP Billiton for the establishment of a chair of nuclear science was signed. The second step should be the development of an international high level nuclear waste repository in the Officer Basin in SA’s north west desert. The Officer Basin is an extremely old sedimentary basin, geologically very stable, essentially flat lying, containing no useable ground water in a desert environment and situated between the Musgrave Ranges in the NW of SA and the Eucla Basin in the south. It meets the strict nuclear waste burial site criteria demanded by the IAEA, better than any other site on the planet. My older brother wrote and mapped the geology of the basin some 35 years ago. The waste repository would be serviced by a purpose built road or railway running from the western Eyre Peninsula coast from near Fowlers Bay? where a small purpose built port facility should be built to receive purpose built ships carrying the waste from nuclear countries. Such ships and facilities have been handling and transporting high level nuclear materials, including waste, safely and securely across the oceans of the world for decades with never an accident in which nuclear materials leaked into the environment. The transport ships are the safest vessels on the oceans. They are double hulled, have twin engine and navigation systems and special hold flooding capabilities in the event of fire. They carry a solid ceramic waste contained in stainless steel drums which are then placed in special transport casks 6 metres long with 30cm thick cast iron walls and weighing about 100 tonnes. They are virtually indestructible. Since the early 60’s these vessels have been crossing the oceans between Europe and Japan covering some 7million Km with never an accident which leaked nuclear materials into the environment.
The third step would see the establishment of a nuclear cogeneration power/ desalination plant at or near Ceduna to provide water for Roxby Downs, the Olympic Dam mine expansion and Eyre Peninsula towns and power for the grid. This negates the planned Whyalla desalination plant and removes the perceived and probable real threat to the various Spencer Gulf fisheries [prawns, kingfish, cuttlefish etc] from the release of brine into the gulf waters where limited water circulation occurs. Ocean currents and tides in the Great Australian Bight flowing past Ceduna, will ensure much better dispersion of the brines associated with the desalination process.
The fourth step would be for BHP Billiton to have built its own nuclear reactor[s] to provide the power needs of the expanded Olympic Dam mine and the town of Roxby Downs with excess power fed into the grid. This locally produced power negates the 275Kv gas fired power line from Port Augusta to Olympic Dam. The South African designed Pebble Bed Modular Reactor [PBMR] or some other SMR’s [Small Modular Reactors] of which there are many types, could be used. SMR’s are small [20-180 MW] units which can be established on site where the power is needed. They are cooled by helium gas and so no water is needed for cooling. Being modular, additional units can be added as needed. They are cheaper and quicker to build requiring about 2 years for construction. A bank of three, perhaps four 180MW units would meet BHP Billiton’s requirements. The fifth step would see a major expansion of the Whyalla port and the development of new industries including reactor fuel manufacture, uranium enrichment appropriate for nuclear fuel production and reprocessing of nuclear waste. These industries would be based on yellowcake from Olympic Dam. Australia would become a major world supplier of low-enriched uranium and or nuclear fuel rods to the increasing number of nuclear power generating countries, including China and India. China alone is currently building 27 reactors and has plans for a further 245 by 2050 and at a cost of $550billion. They are very serious about reducing their greenhouse emissions using more nuclear power in their energy mix. Australia would take its rightful place as a leader in future world clean energy supply and use. As Saudi Arabia is the oil energy centre of the world, Australia, especially South Australia becomes the world nuclear energy centre of the world. We take back spent fuel from countries to which we have exported nuclear materials for reprocessing and for the final disposal of any waste generated in the Officer Basin repository.
The final step will be to gradually include more nuclear power in South Australia’s own future energy mix. With Leigh Creek facing a limited life [10years?], now is the time to plan the phasing out of that coal burning power station at Port Augusta and the phasing in of a nuclear one. Hitachi-GE are now marketing mid- sized Boiling Water Reactors of between 400 and 900 MW. Construction time is 34 months. Larger reactors which may be needed are now taking between 5 and 6 years for construction. Converting Adelaide’s gas fired power supply to nuclear could and probably should also be considered.
While all of the above is going on, numerous other developments in minerals and energy in South Australia will be occurring including those at Ambrosia, Challenger, Prominent Hill and now on Eyre Peninsula where significant iron ore discoveries by several companies are being developed. These will all add significantly to South Australia’s economic, employment and infrastructure growth. With this will come the opening up of previously unoccupied lands in the north and west of our state. The future is bright for South Australia but it does need to get serious about getting the best out of our incredibly fortuitous geology which includes enormous uranium and other base metal supplies as well as the best site on the planet for the disposal of nuclear waste. Access Economics figures of 1998 for the development of a nuclear waste repository in the Officer Basin suggested a huge new industry with 20,000 infrastructure development jobs, 2,500 operational jobs and taxes and royalties of $2.3 billion per year from user countries. A government which says that it wants infrastructure development, a secure, emissions-free energy future, new industries and more jobs for its people, needs to rethink its hopelessly misguided, illogical and somewhat hypocritical attitude to nuclear power. It needs to start now.
Terry Krieg
June 2012
In the 2009 Feb/Mar issue of the SACOME [South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy] Journal, the following opinion piece was printed.
WAKE UP TO NUCLEAR POWER - By Terry Krieg.
The December issue of this journal described the enormity of the BHP Billiton operation at Olympic Dam and Ziggy Switkowski's call for Australia to include nuclear power in our future energy mix. I believe there's a huge opportunity for Australia and South Australia if we wake up to the truth about nuclear power and its potential to help save the planet.
Despite Australians' anxieties about nuclear power, the world is increasingly going nuclear and governments and energy authorities around the world are calling for an urgent rise in world nuclear power generation to provide energy security without greenhouse emissions.
In late 2007, the US Deputy Energy Secretary said that "The USA should work towards a world where nuclear power becomes the primary source of global energy," and that "no person can be serious about climate change without being serious about greatly expanding nuclear power."
As a former geology teacher, I got up close and personal with Olympic Dam in 1991 when I took 41 students underground at the site. It was an impressive operation then with 55km of tunnels, several 30m by 30m by 100m open stopes and a six storey crusher 500m below the surface. We were gobsmacked!
Most citizens know by now just how big the Olympic Dam ore body is. What they don't know is that west of the site lies the Officer Basin - an old, stable sedimentary rock basin which is the best of just a few suitable sites on the planet for the disposal of nuclear waste. In the SA desert, we have the world's biggest uranium deposit juxtaposed with the world's best waste disposal site. What an incredibly fortuitous set of circumstances for SA. I believe we should offer the world that site for the disposal of some of its waste.
The technical problems of nuclear waste were solved decades ago. Current problems are political. The basin meets the strict International Atomic Energy Agency site criteria better than other world sites. In addition, it lies about 350 km north-west of Ceduna and not far from the Ambrosia and Challenger mine sites. It is as remote a site as could be found on the planet. It's a perfect location for an international nuclear waste repository.
According to Deloitte Access Economics 1998 figures, the repository could generate 20,000 infrastructure development jobs, 2500 operational jobs and at least $5billion per year including $2.5 billion in taxes and royalties from user countries.
I believe there's a compelling argument for Australia to assume a major leadership role in the global nuclear industry. While continuing to develop the renewables and other clean technologies [clean coal, geothermal] we need to understand that those technologies have never, nor will they ever provide base load power to keep Australia adequately powered without greenhouse gases. Only nuclear power can guarantee that.
Nuclear is the energy of the future and most countries are saying as much.
Terry Krieg
Jan 2009.
NUCLEAR WASTE - A PROFITABLE NEW INDUSTRY FOR AUSTRALIA
PREPARED BY TERRY KRIEG, FOR RADIO NATIONAL ,OCKHAM’S RAZOR, MARCH 2013.
Early last year, I exposed many of the myths associated with the nuclear power generating industry.
Among them was the issue of nuclear waste disposal which I affirmed had always been a
political problem and NEVER a technical one. Even so, I acknowledge that the strongest
opposition to having nuclear power in Australia comes from the great many people who assert
that the problem of nuclear waste disposal has never been solved. The common cry from those people is that “ There is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. “ This claim is false and always has been, ever since nuclear power was first generated in the late 1950’s. It has been handled since then by hundreds of workers around the world on a daily basis, safely and securely, with never any adverse health effects on anyone. I believe there is an enormous
environmental and economic opportunity awaiting Australia, were we to take responsibility for
the burial, and removal from the environment forever, of some, perhaps all of the world’s high
level waste. Here are my reasons based on research done over the past fourteen years.
Firstly, the volume of high level waste compared with the volumes of other toxic wastes we
handle is very small. Currently worldwide, there are about 390,000 tonnes of waste stored in
facilities attached to power stations. This waste has come from 33 nuclear power generating
countries over the past 50 years from a maximum of 440 civil power reactors. Within the next
ten years, there will be over 50 countries generating nuclear power from well over 500 reactors.
Interestingly, this so called waste is still extremely energy rich as during the nuclear fuel’s
eighteen months or so in the reactor during power generation, just 0.7% of the contained
energy has been recovered to run our factories and light our homes. With the developing, IFR [Integrated Fast Reactor - Generation IV reactor], which will
be on line within 10 -20 years, most of the remaining 99.3% of the contained energy will be
recovered. IFR’s effect an almost complete “burn” of the nuclear fuel, thereby reducing the real
waste to very small volumes. And furthermore, using IFR technology in the future will ensure that
current known and still to be discovered reserves of uranium, most of which are in Australia,
could power the entire planet for thousands of years and with no greenhouse emissions.
Now, how is the waste handled? Since the beginning, in the late 50’s, on exit from the reactor,
the spent fuel rods [waste] are suspended in cooling ponds under several metres of water. I saw such ponds in 1981 while visiting the Pickering nuclear power station in Toronto, Canada. The fuel assemblies remain in the ponds for 3 years by which time their radiation levels have reduced to about 1% of the level on exit from the reactor. They are then placed in above ground cool air storage where they remain for about 30 years by which time they are suitable
for deep burial in a suitable site. Current storage is achieved safely, on site where the power is generated unlike waste from coal power with millions of tonnes of solids which have to be dumped and the millions of tonnes of CO2 which are dumped mostly in the atmosphere.
Since the early 1960’s, high level nuclear materials have been moved through cities, across the countryside and over oceans with never an accident which leaked nuclear materials into the environment. Purpose built ships with double-walled hulls, twin engines and twin navigating systems and special hold-flooding capabilities in case of fire, have been plying the oceans between Europe and Japan since the 60’s. They’ve covered over 7 million Km in such travels.
The waste to be disposed of is in a sparingly soluble, solid ceramic form, held in stainless steel drums which are placed in purpose built transport casks 6 metres long with 30cm thick cast iron walls and weighing about 100 tonnes. They are virtually indestructible. In 1984 in the UK, a test demonstrating their durability was carried out. A cask was placed across a straight stretch of railway track. A locomotive with two cars was cranked up to 160kph and was slammed into the cask. The locomotive and cars disintegrated while the cask remained intact with a slight reduction [1%] of the pressure inside the cask. They are very robust containers and protect the waste from outside forces and the people outside from radiological effects. But, you say, “What if a ship
load of waste was sunk during a journey across the oceans?”
Well, that is a very highly improbable scenario but it is not impossible.
First, the double-walled hull ship has to be scuttled and sent to the bottom. The transport cask has
to be broken open, the stainless steel drums have to be ruptured and then, the solid ceramic
waste [about 5-15 tonnes per cask] will be exposed to the water and will slowly dissolve and be dispersed by tides and currents. Those few tonnes of uranium will gradually be included in the
4.5billion tonnes of uranium contained in the world’s oceans. Did you know that the Japanese have successfully extracted uranium from seawater? The sea could be a future important source of uranium for their power reactors which will without doubt eventually come back on line following the Fukushima disaster. Some local authorities want them generating now.
In April this year, the Japanese government approved the restart of Kansai Electric’s Ohi 3 and 4 reactors. Significant electricity shortages are likely without them.
Currently, the world has to handle about 12,000 tonnes of waste every year. That will ultimately reduce to a few hundred tonnes when IFR’s come on line in future decades. For many years now, the IAEA has wanted to get the waste out of surface storage and into a more environmentally sustainable storage method. Deep burial in suitable sites is the IAEA’s preferred option. Over 20 years ago, the IAEA established the site criteria necessary for safe, permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste. They demanded the following:
[a] Simple and stable geology. Earth movements will have ceased. There will be no
earthquake or volcanic activity.
[b] Flat topography and stable arid climate. Low rainfall means less water and less possible radionuclide movement.
[c] Low permeability host rock which discourages water movement.
[d] Old saline groundwater of no stock or human value.
[e] No resource conflicts ie no other landuse at the site.
[f] Thick layer of host rock to house the waste.
[g] A low population density.
Having established the criteria, the IAEA asked where on the earth, regardless of political boundaries, such sites existed. A worldwide search revealed four, most in the Southern Hemisphere[South Africa, Argentina, Australia and China]. The IAEA engaged Pangea Resources to test the Officer Basin site in Australia which was identified as one of the best sites. The Officer Basin is a desert region straddling the SA/WA border and lying between the Pre Cambrian granites and metamorphics of the Musgrave Ranges in the north and the Pre Cambrian
Coompana Block and Tertiary limestones of the Eucla Basin in the south. The Officer Basin is an old [Palaeozoic] geologically stable sequence of essentially flat lying sedimentary rock layers
[shales, sandstones, mudstones, siltstones] about 5km thick and dipping gently [5 degrees] from south to north. Research done over 30 years by many geologists, including my late brother, has revealed that the Officer Basin site does meet the site criteria for waste disposal better than most other sites. Importantly, the nearest population centre is the Oak Valley Aboriginal Community. Those people could be part of the workforce to operate and administer the waste repository on behalf of the increasingly more nuclear world.
The area is as remote a place as can be found on the planet . It’s a prime site for nuclear waste.
The burial site would need an area of about 1km2 for surface infrastructure to receive and take the waste underground. Ships bringing the waste from around the world would dock at a purpose built small port on the SA far west coast [perhaps Fowler’s Bay].
Discharged waste would be carried on a purpose built railway or road to the site some 250 km inland. At the site, a decline or shaft to an appropriate impermeable layer about 500m underground would be required. A series of tunnels drilled by a full-face boring machine to minimize rock disturbance could radiate from a central chamber. The waste in drums would be placed on cradles, moved into and stacked in a tunnel and backfilled. The nuclear waste will have been isolated from the
environment forever and will never require future human intervention. It has been returned to
the earth’s crust, whence it came and is looked after by the geology, FOREVER. It will NEVER harm
anyone or anything, EVER.
To conclude. The world has been looking for a suitable nuclear waste burial site for decades.
Australia has the best site on the planet. We export yellowcake to 22 countries for them
to produce emissions-free electricity. Many of those countries don’t have suitable burial sites. I
believe we have a responsibility to take back their waste [ it has come from
our yellowcake] for final disposal. And so, In my opinion, Australia should offer the world the
Officer Basin for the development of an international high level nuclear waste repository for the final
disposal of what will be an increasingly smaller volume of waste. Australia will operate a vital
world asset for which the world will pay us handsomely. The economics of the facility, carried
out by Deloitte Access Economics in 1998, suggested a $200billion industry over 40 years or so with
20,000 infrastructure development jobs, 2,500 operational jobs with $2.5 billion per year in taxes
and royalties paid by user countries. Australia would take its rightful place as a leader in the
growing world nuclear power generating industry and we would capture the moral high ground
on the previously thought intractable problem of waste disposal. The development of this facility
in South Australia would be an eminently sensible first step in the development of the full
nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. We urgently need our politicians to come together on this issue,
to get the facts about the nuclear industry, to ignore the fictions peddled by the anti-nuclear
lobby and declare that Australia will include nuclear power in our future energy mix and that
we will offer the world some leadership in solving, once and for all, the problem of nuclear
waste disposal.
My opinion piece prepared for and printed in the Adelaide Review Sept 2009.
NUCLEAR FAILURE SIDELINES AUSTRALIA
Despite Australians' anxieties about nuclear power, its generation is growing rapidly worldwide. Terry Krieg puts the case for a nuclear Australia.
Governments and energy authorities around the globe are calling for an urgent rise in world nuclear power generation to provide energy security without greenhouse emissions. In late 2007, the US Deputy Energy Secretary said that, "The USA should work towards a world where nuclear power becomes the primary source of global energy," and that, "No person can be serious about climate change without being serious about greatly expanding nuclear power." In response, 20 countries are currently building 67 power reactors adding to the 33 countries already generating 16% of the world's electricity in 430 reactors. They understand that only nuclear can deliver their emissions-free base load power supply. They also recognise that the dilute, discontinuous renewables [wind and sun] will never contribute more than a small fraction of their growing energy needs.
It's clear that Australia is in urgent need of some bold, imaginative leadership following familiarisation with the facts about nuclear power from our governments. Unfortunately, because of the hangover of the Cold War, exaggerated fears of weapons proliferation and the consistent misinformation, half-truths and often downright lies peddled by the anti-nuclear ideologues, Australia has failed to develop the cleanest, greenest, safest most powerful source of energy known to mankind. This is despite being blessed with the world's largest uranium reserves and the world's best nuclear waste disposal site, both here in South Australia. Australia has been both foolish and negligent in failing to develop nuclear power and has become sidelined as a result. Both major political parties have nuclear supporters within their ranks. John Howard called for a nuclear debate in 2007 and Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull have spoken in favour of it. Martin Ferguson, Bob Hawke and AWU secretary Paul Howes support nuclear power. Instead of each party using the issue to wedge the other, it's time that a Liberal/Labor bipartisan position was reached. And the Greens must surely be aware by now that champion Greens, James Lovelock [Gaia] and Patrick Moore [Founding chair of Greenpeace], both formerly anti-nuclear are now strongly pro- nuclear and see it as essential in the global emissions reduction effort. When here in SA in 2007, James Lovelock rightly noted that, "It doesn't make any sense that Australia has not already gone nuclear." One thing is certain. Australia should be able to do a lot more for itself and the planet than just mining uranium and making yellowcake.
As Australia goes nuclear, the opportunities for South Australia are enormous. We are in the box seat to become an energy powerhouse and a leader in the world nuclear industry once we begin the development of the full nuclear fuel cycle in our state. What follows is my vision, now 10 years old, for the next 30 years of development in South Australia. It's based essentially on our mineral and energy reserves, especially uranium and promises to make us one of the richest states in the Commonwealth. The Officer Basin in SA could provide a much needed International High Level Nuclear Waste repository [dump]. The small quantities of existing waste [350,000 tonnes produced over the past 50 years from 33 nuclear power generating countries] and even smaller future amounts because of the development of the IFR [Integral Fast Reactor] and increased nuclear reprocessing means that an Officer Basin site has the potential to remove from the environment forever, all of the world's high level nuclear waste. It could certainly handle all of the waste generated by countries without suitable burial sites including many of those to which Australia exports yellowcake. Though increased reprocessing will occur, ultimately there will be some waste to be disposed of in an environmentally sustainable manner. Deep burial in geologically stable zones is the preferred option of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]. Commissioning such a repository would be an eminently sensible first step in the development of the full nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. Australia could claim the moral high ground on the waste issue and establish itself as a leader in the rapidly growing world nuclear power generating industry. Australia should initiate the development of the nuclear fuel cycle with the establishment of an International Nuclear High Level Waste repository in the stable sediments of the Officer Basin, serviced by a purpose built railway or road running from the western Eyre Peninsula coast where a small port facility could receive purpose-built ships carrying waste from other countries. Such ships and facilities have been handling and transporting high level nuclear materials, including waste, safely and securely across the oceans of the world since the early 1960's with never an accident that leaked nuclear materials into the environment.
Meanwhile, it's imperative that the government establish a nuclear education programme in our schools to teach students the basics of nuclear energy and the benefits it will bring to their lives including a reliable, sustainable, affordable supply of emissions-free energy. In association with that, the government needs to develop at least one, preferably two university schools of nuclear science/ engineering, one in Sydney at Lucas Heights, the other in Adelaide [the uranium capital of the world].
The third step would be to establish a nuclear co-generation power/ desalination plant at or near Ceduna to provide water for Olympic Dam expansion , Roxby Downs and Eyre Peninsula towns with possible excess power[depending on the name plate capacity of the power station] for the grid. This negates a Whyalla desalination plant and removes the perceived and probable real threat to the various Spencer Gulf fisheries from the release of brine into the gulf waters where limited water circulation occurs. Better dispersion of the brine will be achieved by ocean currents moving in the open waters of the Great Australian Bight.
The fourth step would be for BHP [Billiton] to go off grid by building its own nuclear reactor to provide the power needs of the expanded Olympic Dam mine and Roxby Downs town with excess power fed into the grid. This negates the 275Kv gas fired power line from Port Augusta to Olympic Dam. Small Modular Reactor [SMR]technology would be a desirable reactor option. They are small [up to 300MWe] units which are gas [helium] or metal[sodium] cooled. So no water is needed for cooling. Being modular, additional units can be added as needed and they are cheaper and quicker to build, requiring about 2-3 years for construction.
The next step would see significant expansion of the Whyalla port and the development of new industries including uranium enrichment appropriate for power reactors, fuel assembly manufacture and nuclear reprocessing, all three industries based on Olympic Dam yellowcake. Australia would become a major supplier of low enriched uranium and nuclear fuel assemblies to the increasing number of nuclear power generating countries. And Australia would take its rightful place as a leader in future world energy supply and use. As Saudi Arabia is the oil energy centre of the world, Australia, especially South Australia, could become the nuclear energy centre of the world. We could take back spent fuel from countries using our nuclear products for further reprocessing and the final storage of any waste generated. Volumes of waste will be very small as the new Generation IV Integral Fast Reactors gradually come on line over the next 20 years.
The final step would be to continue the inclusion of nuclear power in our own future energy mix. With Leigh Creek facing a limited life, perhaps as little as ten years, now is the time to plan the time of phasing out the coal burning power station at Port Augusta and replacing it with a nuclear one.
While all of the above is going on, numerous other developments in minerals and energy will be occurring including those at Ambrosia, Challenger and Prominent Hill, all adding significantly to South Australia's economic, population and jobs growth and the opening up of previously unoccupied lands in the north and west. The future is bright for South Australia but we need to get serious about getting the best out of our fortuitous uranium reserves. A government that claims it wants infrastructure development, a secure, clean energy future, new industries and more jobs for its people, needs to rethink its misguided, illogical and somewhat hypocritical attitude to nuclear power. It needs to start now.
Terry Krieg is a retired geology/geography teacher and member of the Australian Nuclear Forum and the Australian Nuclear Association.
Australia’s future energy supply must include nuclear. Prepared by Terry Krieg for the Radio National ABC Ockham’s Razor programme hosted by Robyn Williams. - Feb 2014
In my first talk, I affirmed that nuclear power is Australia’s best option to ensure an adequate and emissions-free base load energy supply and that the renewables [sun and wind] and still developing technologies [CCS and Geothermal]are inadequate, too expensive or too far into the future. My second talk exposed many of the myths associated with nuclear power generation as promulgated by the anti- nuclear lobby. My third talk promoted the Officer Basin in South Australia as meeting the IAEA’s criteria for the disposal of nuclear waste better than other sites on the planet and that Australia should offer the world that site for the establishment of an international waste repository. I added that the development of that waste facility would be an eminently sensible first step in the development of the full nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. In this final talk, I offer a timeline for that fuel cycle development and a summary statement which confirms my long held belief that Australia must include nuclear in its energy future. The first such development should occur in South Australia over the next 25-30 years. This is what I believe should happen:
Working together, the state government and BHP Billiton should embark on an infrastructure development programme along the following lines:
1. Establish a nuclear education programme in our schools and at least two schools of nuclear science and engineering in our universities. This latter move was initiated in late 2011 when a memorandum of understanding between the University of Adelaide and BHP Billiton was signed. 2. The development of an international high level nuclear waste repository in South Australia’s Officer Basin should follow that. 3. A cogeneration nuclear power/desalination plant should be established at/near Ceduna to provide water for Olympic Dam, Roxby Downs and Eyre Peninsula towns, with excess power for the grid. 4. BHP Billiton should establish, on site at Olympic Dam, a bank of gas cooled small modular reactors [SMR’s] to power its entire operation. 5. A major port development at Whyalla with new industries in nuclear fuel manufacture and nuclear reprocessing and nuclear recycling should occur. 6. The coal fired power station at Port Augusta should be replaced with a nuclear one for the state electricity supply.
This all presupposes of course, that our government and opposition have come together and have had the good sense to declare that Australia will include nuclear in our energy mix. Careful consideration of what follows should enable them to make that declaration. Current world primary energy supply is mostly from fossil fuels [coal,oil,gas] and they all emit carbon dioxide. World fossil fuel use has grown 28% between 2000 and 2010 and similar future growth is likely. The Copenhagen Accord called for a global reduction of 80% of CO2 emissions by 2050 and Australia has adopted a similar target. The question is, how are we going to achieve that target if global energy use increases by 50% by 2050 due to population and economic growth in developing countries? It seems to me impossible to reduce the use of carbon by over 80% over a few decades by regulation that would have to be enforceable worldwide. So, what are our options to replace fossil fuel energy for transport, industry, services and electricity? Primary energy used for electricity generation [2012 figures] shows the following percentages of total:
World Australia
Fossil fuel 66 92
Hydro 17 7
Renewables 2 1
Nuclear 15 0
For all of the countless applications for electricity, we need a base load supply to keep them all going. What do we mean by base load? Well, it has to be continuous, reliable and adequate. The renewables, wind and solar are not suitable for base load. They are intermittent and large scale storage is rarely possible. Renewables require back- up which means there has to be extra generation investment to maintain the supply. There are five types of generation which can reliably provide base load. They include coal [produces CO2], gas [produces CO2], hydro [limited in Australia because of a paucity of water], geothermal [still a developing[hot rock] technology] and nuclear, which is available.
Nuclear has been in use for over 50 years and provides supply in 32 countries and it produces no emissions during operation. Australia is one of the few developed nations not using nuclear power and we are the only G20 nation without it. And why is this the case? Two reasons, fear and politics. Safety is seen as being one of the biggest barriers against using it. In fact, there has been one accident with fatalities in almost 60 years of generation, i.e. in 14,000+ reactor years. That was at Chernobyl on 26/4/1986. According to the report handed down in 2000 by the United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, [UNSCEAR], about 40 people died and another 100 suffered ongoing health impairment. It was due to bad design [there was no containment structure around the reactor] and bad operation. In 1979, during the Three Mile Island incident, there was no release of radioactivity and no health effects. And at Fukushima in Japan, as of 30/8/2012, a review by Japan’s reconstruction agency revealed that:
1. Stresses of personal involvement in evacuation management and clean up have emerged as the biggest factors in ill health. 2. The mental and physical burden of the forced move caused 34 deaths, mostly in the elderly. 3. 1916 people from the Fukushima, Iwate and Mujagi prefectures died during evacuation from the areas hit by the tsunamis and earthquake. They were additional to the: 4. 19,000dead at the hands of the tsunamis.
The death toll directly due to the nuclear accident or radiation exposure remains at zero. But stress and disruption due to the continuing evacuation remains high.
The nuclear safety record is impressive and nuclear is the safest means of electricity generation. Coal causes thousands of deaths annually, oil/gas explosions have killed hundreds, dam failures have caused thousands of deaths. Actual figures according to a World Nuclear Association report, between 1969 and 2000,deaths from nuclear generation number about 100, coal deaths 20,000,natural gas, 2000 and hydro 30,000 deaths. Considering the most nuclear country on earth, we note that France is 78% nuclear and supplies neighbouring countries including Germany. France built a nuclear capacity equal to Australia’s in 20 years. It is competitive and has had no accidents. France’s per capita emissions is 60% less than Australia’s.
If we consider the environmental effects of nuclear power stations:
1. They require very small land areas. A 1GWe nuclear power station requires an area of about 1Km2. An equivalent solar station requires about 90km2 and wind about 200km2.Solar and wind may be renewable. They are definitely NOT green. 2. With nuclear, there are no fuel piles or ash dumps. 3. There are no emissions during generation. 4. The fuel inventory and used fuel are stored within the power station.
Considering the economics of nuclear: It’s true that coal and gas are cheaper although they both produce plenty of CO2. However with the carbon tax/ETS proposed, nuclear will become competitive. Annual fuel quantities for a 1GWe power station are: 27 tonnes for nuclear and 3,000,000 tonnes for coal. And there are two options for handling the waste. It can be reprocessed as is happening around the world now. This ensures greater energy payback from the original uranium fuel or the waste can go into terminal storage as described earlier.
Let me remind listeners that Australia has a long history of involvement in the nuclear industry. It began with the HIFAR reactor starting up on Australia Day 1958. Research at Lucas Heights between 1962 and 1982 was headed by Dr. Keith Alder. He and his researchers directed all of their efforts at peaceful uses of atomic energy. They worked on nuclear power, uranium and the nuclear fuel cycle. Australia had a permanent seat on the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency [Sir. Phillip Baxter]. We achieved world class developments in isotopes and in radiation and nuclear physics. In the 1970’s, efforts were made to introduce nuclear power with work done on heavy water reactor technology and studies on enrichment technology began. Many Australian s worked in Canada and the UK on reactor technology. They also worked with the USA, Germany, France and India. In 1969 we did a feasibility study for a 500MWe power station at Jervis Bay. That project was canned by the McMahon government. Soon after, in 1971, enrichment possibilities were considered. We worked first with the French, then the Germans and finally Japan. It showed great promise. Then that was thwarted by politics and the study terminated. The French deserted us and accepted partners from Spain, Italy and Belgium. Meanwhile, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission continued work, very successfully on the nuclear fuel cycle especially the development of gas centrifuge technology. Then that went belly-up [politics again]. In 1981, a study for a conversion plant to make UF6 at Port Pirie was mounted. The Labor government canned that and scaled down all development except that of Synroc [Ted Ringwood], a now well used bit of Australian technology for handling nuclear waste.
All of the aforementioned work should have been vital in setting up an Australian uranium processing industry. And what have we done instead? We’ve closed down and destroyed our own know-how, all research and development on uranium enrichment and all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and all because of political ideology. All of this in the country with about a third of the known world uranium reserves. And we are “the clever country”.
More like the negligent, irresponsible, indeed, the stupid country. We’ve thrown away one opportunity after another in the past. However, the opportunities remain if we’ve got the good sense to take advantage of our two main bargaining points – our enormous uranium reserves and theworld's best high level nuclear waste disposal site.
So, should we develop nuclear power in Australia? Well, if we’re concerned about CO2 emissions, nuclear is the only available option to replace carbon for base load. But, at present, there is no bipartisan support for nuclear in Australia. There is a great deal of misinformation, perceived political risk and there’s been no serious discussion since the Howard government’s reports. But surely, the question should be, why are 32 countries continuing to use it and another 17 countries proposing to do so? And there seems to be strong growth ahead. Over 60 reactors are under construction as I speak. China plans another 290 by 2050. World total operating reactors number over 400. Within 10 years that number will be over 500. The world is most assuredly going increasingly nuclear despite the Fukushima incident and the irrational response of Germany in deciding to phase out nuclear. We should add Australia to the list of nuclear nations and we need urgently, bipartisan support from Labor and the Coalition for nuclear power. They have to stop using the issue to wedge each other and to do something good for the nation together. Both parties have to come together on this issue, sideline the Greens who on the emissions-free energy future for Australia are hopelessly misguided, ill-informed and unrealistic in what they claim the renewables can deliver. And once our politicians understand that nuclear is the energy of the future and have declared in favour of introducing it into Australia’s energy mix, we must expedite the following:
1. We must remove all of the legal prohibitions against nuclear powe.r 2. We must establish a regulatory framework. 3. We must master the technology. 4. We must plan at least one unit.
If we don’t plan a reactor in the next 10 years, Australia will rightly be regarded as technologically backward and irrelevant.
Terry Krieg
Feb 2014 AUSTRALIA'S ENERGY FUTURE MUST INCLUDE NUCLEAR POWER
Nuclear power generation is increasing rapidly around the world and it's now time for Australia to be part of that nuclear expansion. We have languished for far too long without nuclear. The rest of the world has left us behind as they continue generating nuclear power for themselves and often using yellowcake provided by Australia. Despite that, it has been impossible thus far, to get through to the politicians how important nuclear could be for Australia's future secure emissions-free energy supply and its general economic well-being. They need to come together urgently in a bipartisan manner and legislate for nuclear's inclusion in our energy mix. What follows is offered in the hope that it will help our leaders reach a pro- nuclear position and with the determination to get nuclear into our energy future.
Current world primary energy supply is mostly from fossil fuels. They all emit CO2. Years of debate during the many energy summits which have occurred have sought to reach an international agreement which will see all nations, including developing nations, taking steps to reduce their green house emissions. This, it's hoped, will be achieved by the replacement of fossil fuels with the renewables [solar and wind]. It has not panned out well and Trump recently withdrew the US from the Paris Accord and also ditched Obama's Clean Power Plan. He chose instead, to save tens of thousands of jobs and many US communities whose livelihood depended on coal and gas for energy supplies. He refused to try to stop global warming [climate change] through the expansion of the inadequate, inefficient renewables. Most countries, including Australia, have set emissions reductions targets[Australia 26-28%, Federal Labor 50% and SA , a ludicrous 75%] by 2030. Germany, in an even more disastrous energy mess , recently lowered its emissions target from 40% to 20% by 2030. And, they're at present building 21 lignite [dirtiest of all coals] power stations.
What are Australia's options to reduce the use of carbon by the figures above over a couple of decades? Primary energy production figures for electricity generation in 2012 were:
World Australia
Fossil fuels 66 92
Hydro 17 7
Renewables 2 1
Nuclear 15 0
For all of the numerous applications for electricity, we need a base load supply.
1. What is base load? It has to be reliable, continuous and adequate. Wind and solar are not suitable for base load.
2. Five generation types can give base load. Coal [emits CO2], Gas [emits CO2], Hydro [ limited and at a maximum already in dry Australia], Geothermal [not viable in Australia] and Nuclear [it is available].
3.Nuclear has been in use for almost 60 years and provides supply in 32 countries with another 17 countries currently building power reactors. 4. Australia is one of the few developed nations and the only G20 nation without nuclear.
5.The biggest barriers against it are fear and politics. There's been one accident with fatalities in 60 years of generation [Chernobyl]. There were no fatalities through radiation poisoning at either Three Mile Island or Fukushima. The nuclear safety record is impressive . It's the safest means of electricity supply. Coal kills thousands every year, oil and gas explosions have killed hundreds, dam failures have killed thousands.
6. France, the most nuclear country on earth [78% nuclear electricity] built an equivalent to Australia's supply in 20 years. It's competitive, there's been no accidents and per capita emissions are 60% less than Australia's.
7.The environmental effects of nuclear:
[a] Require small land areas -1GWe nuclear about 1Km2,equivalent solar-90Km2, wind-200Km2
Wind and solar may be renewable. They are NOT green.
[b] No fuel piles or ash dumps.
[c]No emissions during generation.
[d] Fuel and used fuel stored within power station.
8.The economics: Coal and gas are cheaper but both emit CO2. Nuclear is competitive with other base load generation types and produces no emissions.
9.Handling the waste. It can be reprocessed as is happening at present or it can go into terminal storage as I previously outlined.
10. Between 1960 and 1980, Australia was heavily involved in the nuclear industry and we worked with many countries on it including the US ,UK, Canada, France, India and Germany. It showed great promise but over time all work was stopped by government and we threw away all of our own know-how and many opportunities. And we're "the clever country." More like the negligent, the irresponsible, indeed, the foolish country.
So should we develop nuclear? If we're concerned about CO2 emissions, nuclear is our only option. The rest of the world is going nuclear at pace. Australia should join that rapid nuclear build. Both major parties must come together soon and legislate for nuclear's inclusion in our energy future. When that's done, our leaders have to:
[a] Remove all of the legal prohibitions against nuclear power.
[b] Establish a regulatory framework.
[c] Master the technology.
[d] Plan at least one unit.
[e] Make the Officer Basin available to the world for high level waste disposal. Australia's present inaction on nuclear is making us look technologically backward and irrelevant. That's an unacceptable state for Australia to be in. Urgent change to nuclear is needed.
Terry Krieg
January 2018.
A CASE FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR POWER INTO AUSTRALIA'S ENERGY MIX AND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FULL NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE INCLUDING HIGH LEVEL WASTE
DISPOSAL, NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT, NUCLEAR REPROCESSING AND NUCLEAR FUEL
MANUFACTURE IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA OVER COMING DECADES.
BY ADVOCATE FOR A NUCLEAR AUSTRALIA, TERRY KRIEG BA. DIP. ED. NOVEMBER 2017.
USE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TITLES OR ALTERNATIVELY, WRITE YOUR OWN.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA - WORLD CLEAN ENERGY CAPITAL.
FULL NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE IS RIGHT FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
NUCLEAR POWER IS ESSENTIAL FOR AUSTRALIA'S CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE.
This presentation is based on the four talks I have given on the ABC Radio National Ockham's Razor programme hosted by Robyn Williams. The first given in September 2011 was entitled " Climate Change and Australia's energy future."
Let's be clear about one thing right from the start. Government energy policy in most developed countries over the past two decades, has been predicated on the need to provide a reliable, adequate, affordable, emissions-free supply of base load electricity. This has come about in response to the findings by many "climate scientists" and the IPCC, that the earth is warming at an alarming rate and mainly because of mankind's burning of CO2 producing fossil fuels, especially coal, for the generation of electricity. The earth is accordingly facing a plethora of dangerous to catastrophic effects as global warming takes over. Those scientists who continue to espouse that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming [CAGW] line, have controlled the agenda now for the best part of 30 years. Very little has been heard from the NIPCC, a group of highly qualified and reputable real climate scientists who assert that the effect of man in causing global warming, now called "climate change", is minimal and that natural variability factors [especially the sun] are the major cause of the warming. They acknowledge that increasing CO2 may be a contributing factor, but is not the major cause of the warming. In fact, over the past 20 years, despite an increase of about 8% in atmospheric CO2, there has been no increase in earth temperature over that period. This is the famous "pause" that the "warmists" either deny, or explain by the manipulation of data. The pause was certainly not shown in their modelling on which all of their forecasts were made. As Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology noted during his address to the UK House of Commons on February 22nd 2012, "Briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing : it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the in-numerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming , and that the connection of this minimal warming [or even significant warming] to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest." 1. The deniers [Lindzen, Judith Curry, John Christie, William Happer, Australian the late Prof Bob Carter etc] have been denigrated, censored and indeed, in 2016 came close in the US to having criminal charges laid against them for daring to promote an alternative to the accepted climate change orthodoxy. John Christie has testified many times to committees in Congress producing evidence from the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, demonstrating that global climate models tested, greatly overestimate the warming of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect occurs. The models used by the IPCC are false. In general, the US models greatly overestimate the warming of the atmosphere despite the US spending over $40billion on what government reports call climate science from 1993-2015. Quite simply, there is no reason for governments to implement policies, including those of energy use, based on falsified models. Such policies defy logic, fact and scientific philosophy. However, since the Trump election, US energy policy has changed quite dramatically. Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris COP21 Agreement and has dumped Obama's Clean Power Plan [ imposed on the US by executive order]. That plan would have seen coal taken out of electricity production in the US to be replaced with the unreliable renewables, especially wind and solar. Most other western countries, including Australia, are engaged in a similar "phase out coal" programme through reducing emissions in the future by the establishment of an NEG [RET]. However, two big emitters, China and India are not going down that path although China has "promised" to start reducing its emissions by 2030. The myth that solar and wind can replace nuclear and fossil fuel power plants is both dangerous and expensive. Modern civilization requires reliable and resilient electrical power, something that many government officials in the US, Europe and Australia do not recognise or understand. Now what has the world done in response to the dire prediction of the anthropogenic global warming [AGW] supporters? Over the past 20 years, the world has tried to replace emissions-intensive power generation[fossil fuels] with emissions-free renewables. In summary, the world has spent at least $2.3 trillion on subsidies for the renewables, generated just 2.8% of its electricity and achieved zero emissions reductions, the very reason the renewables were developed in the first place. The renewables around the world, have been a scandalous, reckless, misappropriation of public funds. SA has fared worse than any other state mainly because it has become too dependent on wind, a certain contributing factor to the disastrous September 2016 blackout. What have we been doing in Australia and South Australia?
1. We've missed the fact that coal, clean or otherwise, will remain the world's main source of electricity generation, especially in developing countries for decades to come.
2. We've missed the fact that fracking is a safe, 20 year old technology which has allowed the US to become an exporter of oil and gas again rather than an importer. They've also reduced their emissions by more than any other country
3. In SA, banning fracking makes us victims of an inadequate gas supply which we'll need for a reliable, relatively clean supply of base load electricity at least for the medium term [10-15 years].
4. The ill-informed Weatherill government signed SA up for a $550 million taxpayer funded gas fired power station which without fracking will assign us to inadequate gas supplies despite the Federal government insisting that more local gas be made available for local generators. 5. We've rushed headlong into continuing development of wind power and solar thermal which worldwide has proved inadequate and extremely costly.
6. We've built the world's biggest lithium storage battery at Jamestown. Batteries don't generate power, they only store it. The power has to be generated by some other technology [usually gas] and at cost.
7. We've bulldozed the Port Augusta coal fired power station and were going to replace it with a $650million solar thermal unit. Thankfully that idea has been canned. Solyandra, the world's biggest solar company in the US went broke in 2015, as did several other solar companies. The world's biggest solar thermal unit at Invanpah, California,[cost $2.2billion] failed to deliver promised power and was facing closure late 2016.
8. Nationally, former PM Malcolm Turnbull's Snowy Mountains 2.0 pumped storage hydro scheme which might be on line in 7 years will help secure our supplies. Recently we've gone from an RET to a CET [Finkel's idea] and finally to an NEG. In August 2018, the NEG policy collapsed.
9.We've missed the fact that the renewables have never provided base load electricity anywhere in the world. Developed and developing countries alike will need base load for the future. The renewables are incapable of providing base load.
10. We've missed that [1] China is pulling back from the renewables and turning to coal. It's also conducting a massive nuclear build[2] Germany is following China, cutting subsidies to wind developers and is upping gas imports and building coal fired stations.[3]Japan plans to remove its renewable subsidies and is expanding fossil fuels. It will add 40 coal stations to the 100 it already has.[4] The UK is turning from renewables. Investment will decrease by 95% by 2020. [5] Donald Trump has abandoned the Paris Accord and revived the US coal industry. US once moribund growth rate has passed that of other countries who are now following America's lead. The IPCC, is largely forgotten, having lost its US funding and relevance.
11. It seems to me that many governments deep down, are indirectly admitting that the Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] scare enunciated 20+ years ago by a group of political activists and which persists to the present day, was in fact a hoax. Many real climate scientists said it was a hoax at the time. They have been proved right but sadly, 20 years after, the world has paid dearly for its blind acceptance of the AGW scare. Fortunately, the world would appear, at last, to be waking up to having been fooled into believing that mankind's production of CO2 was the cause of a warming planet.
12And sadly for Australia, chief scientist, Alan Finkel, who wrote the blueprint for the government to the affordability, reliability and the environmental impact of the energy system is now in favour of encouraging power station owners to spend another few hundred million dollars on extending the life of coal fired plants to improve the stability of the grid and give time for investment in more renewable generation and firming capacity such as gas- fired peaking plants and large scale batteries to catch up. Finkel's plan perpetuates the mess Australia's energy policy is already in. Instead, he should have recommended the inclusion of nuclear in our energy mix. Why muck around with a mish- mash of inadequate technologies when one type alone [nuclear] can guarantee an affordable, emissions-free, reliable base load supply?
13.For interest, here are the world electricity percentage production figures for 2017. Coal - 39.3, Gas - 22.9, Hydro- 16.0, nuclear -10.6, Solar/Wind/Geothermal/ Tidal [renewables] -4.9, Oil - 4.1, Other- 2.2. The renewables will NEVER be able to replace fossil fuels for base load.
What a bloody mess[excuse my language ladies] our governments, state and federal, have made of Australia's energy future.
What SA and Australia should do, as many European countries have done, is to stop subsidising the renewables and cease any further development of them. Any future electricity generation must guarantee a reliable, adequate, affordable, emissions-free base load supply. Only, hydro, geothermal and nuclear can meet that base load requirement. Hydro and geothermal are not viable in dry, non volcanic Australia, leaving nuclear as Australia's only available option. And that's why Australia must include nuclear in its future energy mix.
Significant nuclear build has been occurring around the world for decades. As of May 2017, according to the World Nuclear Association, 32 countries generated 11.5% of the world's electricity in 447 reactors. Those 32 and 17 additional countries have 59 reactors under construction, 170 have been firmly planned and 374 proposed for the future. In a February 2010 paper, "Australia and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" by Keith Alder, the late former Director of Lucas Heights [ANSTO] and John Reynolds, Executive Director of the Victorian Chamber of Mines, noted that, "Nuclear offers immediately, electricity supply that is reliable and continuous, cleaner and safer than others, generally competitive and alleviates CO2 emissions. With advances in fast neutron reactor technology and the capability to "breed" fuel, it should become the world's major energy source for a long period. Australia should now position itself to benefit to a much greater degree from its massive uranium resources through active participation in the rapidly expanding nuclear fuel cycle industry. We should not forego the opportunities it offers and simply remain a supplier of the basic raw material for this very important global industry." I concluded my first talk with," South Australia has, juxtaposed in the north west desert, the world's biggest single uranium deposit [Olympic Dam] and the world's best high level nuclear waste disposal site[Officer Basin]. South Australia is in a very strong position to take a leadership role in the growing world nuclear industry, to build new industries, new infrastructure, create thousands of jobs and become economically one of the richest states in the commonwealth instead of one of the poorest. All of that is based on our fortuitous enormous uranium reserves. SA could become the "clean energy capital of the world" once we've started to use the uranium for our own as well as the world's benefit. And what a depressing response we've had from Australia's politicians on the nuclear issue. Our governments have delivered Australia an absurdly misguided energy policy. We should heed the views of engineer, Mr. Barry Murphy who writes, "The obsolete "leave it to the market" concept for the electricity sector was broken a few years ago. The obsession with renewables was just one factor through the introduction of subsidies and lack of good system design. There is no management of the sector as a whole either short term or long term for the benefit of the Australian community. Only an independent statutory authority of government can take over and provide sound leadership and restore the type of discipline that built our existing fleet of generators prior to the "miracle" of deregulation. Only an independent statutory authority can manage the funding that will be required for base load investment through to 2050. Roughly, $180 billion will be required to replace about 30,000MWe of base load in that period. Coal in any shape or form is dead in the public perception. Renewables such as solar and wind need additional backup in our system which makes the combination at least twice the cost of nuclear. Such backup currently negates emissions reductions as experienced in Germany. Stand alone pumped storage and batteries are "dead" investments in the grid adding to cost without any generation advantage. Nuclear must be part of the future and there is growing public awareness and understanding of its benefits."
Following this first talk, and in an effort to correct the widespread community ignorance and misunderstanding on matters nuclear, I entitled my second talk, " Nuclear Power - The Myths Exposed." Briefly, here are 10 widely believed myths.
1. There is no safe level of exposure to nuclear radiation. In fact, we are all subjected to radiation continuously from our surroundings, our buildings, our food and each other. It's called background radiation and varies from place to place. Ramsar in Iran has radiation levels 50 times the world average. People have adapted to these levels with no health impairment. Studies in the US, Canada, Taiwan and Lucas Heights have shown that low level radiation stimulates the immune system and effects DNA repair.
2. Nuclear power reactors emit dangerous levels of radioactive materials. No they don't. They emit very little radioactive materials during normal operation because most radiation is confined to the fuel assemblies inside the reactor. The UNSCEAR Report of 2000 suggests nuclear operations give an average person a radiation dose of 0.2micro Sieverts/yr. Background dose around the world, averages 2.4milliSieverts/yr.
3. Nuclear power is the most expensive form of electricity generation. Wrong. The cost over 50 years of nuclear to the consumer has steadily dropped. This is mainly because weight for weight, nuclear fuels have 20,000 times the energy content of fossil fuels. In most countries, nuclear is very competitive with other options for base load with the big advantage of producing no greenhouse gases during operation.
4. No nuclear reactors have been safely decommissioned and who pays the bill? Not True. To date, over 80 reactors, research reactors, and some fuel cycle facilities have been retired. Decommissioning costs have fallen to about 2% of the total cost of electricity generation and are fully included in the tariffs paid by the consumer. Nuclear power production is the only industry that takes full responsibility for the disposal and clean up of all of its operation and decommissioning costs.
5. There is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. Rubbish! On exit from the reactor, the spent fuel rods spend 3 years in cooling ponds attached to power stations. When cool enough, they are held in above ground cool air storage for about 30 years. They are now ready for burial in suitable sites. Nuclear waste has been handled safely and securely for decades, has been transported across cities, the countryside and oceans since the early 60's with never an accident which leaked nuclear materials into the environment. Safe storage of waste has never been a physical problem. It's a political problem.
6.The number of deaths from the Chernobyl accident will number in the tens of thousands. Rubbish! Reading from the UNSCEAR report of 2000 to the UN General Assembly on the sources and effects of ionizing radiation, the Chernobyl incident caused:
[a] Direct deaths of 30 plant operators. [b] High radiation doses to 600 emergency personnel with 134 experiencing acute radiation sickness, 100 of whom had ongoing health impairment. [c] An increased risk of non-fatal thyroid cancer, especially in children. [d] No evidence of other major impacts on public health caused by exposure to ionizing radiation.[e] no other increase in overall cancer incidence or mortality that could be associated with radiation exposure and no increased risk of leukemia. [f] No increase in the incidence of birth defects. Later studies by UNSCEAR have shown that the Chernobyl disaster caused little risk to the population. Their most up to date estimate of the radiation doses received by the inhabitants in the fall out zone is between 0.47 and 3.2 milliSieverts/yr. Both are lower than background exposure in many regions of the world. In retrospect, the relocation of 116,000 people following Chernobyl was un-necessary.
7. Plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man. No it isn't. As far as radioactive elements go, Pu 239 is not even in the top 10. Isotopes of Radium, Actinium, Thorium and Lead are more toxic. Talking of toxic chemical elements, Pu is hardly in the running. In the Handbook of Toxicology of Metals, it doesn't rate a mention except in passing with the entry for uranium. In 1975, Ralph Nader made the absurd claim, later echoed by Helen Caldicott, that one pound of plutonium is enough to induce lung cancer in every person on earth. American health physics expert, Professor Bernard Cohen called Nader's claim "fictional nonsense" and challenged Nader that he, Cohen, would eat as much plutonium as Nader would eat pure caffeine. After 35 years, Nader had still not taken up the challenge. Cohen, an expert in risk analysis, affirmed that "There is no direct or epidemiological evidence that the toxicity of plutonium has ever caused a human death anywhere in the world."
8. Terrorist groups will make nuclear bombs from stolen nuclear materials. This threat was summarily dismissed by Mr. Justice Parker who conducted the Windscale Inquiry in Great Britain in 1978. In his report, he noted that "although plutonium has been produced and moved both intrastate and internationally for more than 25 years, there has never been any terrorist threat." And there's been no threat in the 40 years since the Parker report. Using non-weapons grade plutonium from a civil nuclear electricity reactor would be useless for construction of any nuclear explosive device. The fact remains, no nuclear weapons country uses Pu from commercial power reactors. And being part of the NPT, they've agreed not to do so.
9.Nuclear power stations are not covered by insurance. Yes they are. They have to be. Nuclear power plant operators are liable for any damage caused, regardless of fault. They are required to take out third party liability. Cross boundary consequences of a nuclear accident are covered by a national and international liability regime. In 2006, a broker who was responsible for a nuclear insurance pool said, "It is wrong that insurers will not touch nuclear power stations. In fact, wherever they are available to private sector insurers, Western designed nuclear installations are sought after business because of their high engineering and risk management standards." In the US, the Price Anderson Act - the world's first comprehensive nuclear liability law has since 1957 been central in addressing the question of liability for nuclear accidents. It now provides $12.5 billion in cover without cost to the public or government and without fault to be proven. It covers power reactors, research reactors, enrichment plants and waste repositories.
10. Nuclear energy is not the answer to global warming. If greenhouse gases are the cause, then nuclear power generation, emitting no greenhouse gases, will play a major role in coping with the problem. Many leading world environmentalists including Patrick Moore are calling for more nuclear power as the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel. Moore, a founder of Greenpeace has said, "Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand."
Every aspect of nuclear power generation has been demonised by the anti-nuclear ideologues who will never be persuaded by fact or reason. They don't bother with research, have a complete disregard for logic and are generally unwilling to engage in civil discussion. Their actions have effectively delayed the growth of nuclear power and ensured greater world use of fossil fuels, especially coal. Unwittingly, they've contributed more than anyone to the greenhouse problem the world apparently faces. They have been wrong-headed in their opposition to nuclear power, should hang their heads in shame and apologise to the world. Nuclear has demonstrated time and time again as a clean, reliable and resilient source of electricity.
In my third talk, given March 2013, I decided that the "No safe way to dispose of nuclear waste " myth had to be put to rest once and for all. I entitled my talk, "Nuclear waste - a profitable new industry for Australia". I asserted that there was an enormous environmental and economic opportunity for Australia were we to take responsibility for the burial and removal from the environment for ever of some, perhaps all, of the world's high level waste. I stated that the volume of high level waste compared with the volumes of other toxic waste we handle is very small. At the time, worldwide, there were about 400,000 tonnes of waste stored in facilities attached to power stations. That waste had come from 33 countries over the previous 55 years and from 440 civil reactors. The waste [spent fuel rods], was still extremely energy-rich as during the fuel's time in the reactor, just 0.7% of the contained energy had been recovered. With the developing Integral Fast Reactors [IFR's] coming on line within 10 years or so, most of the remaining energy would be recovered. Real waste volumes would thus reduce to very low levels. Here's a surprise for you. Using IFR technology, Olympic Dam uranium reserves [20%world total] could power the entire planet for 4000+ years and without greenhouse emissions. How is the waste handled? On exit from the reactor, the spent fuel rods [waste] are suspended in cooling ponds under several metres of water where they remain for about three years by which time, they are cool enough and radiation levels have reduced to about 1% of the level on exit from the reactor. They are then placed in above ground cool air storage where they remain for about 30 years. They are now ready for burial in a suitable site. Since the early 60's high level nuclear materials, including waste, have been moved through cities, the countryside and across the oceans with never an accident that leaked nuclear materials into the environment. Purpose built ships with double- walled hulls, twin engines, twin navigating systems and special hold-flooding capabilities in case of fire, have been plying the oceans between Europe and Japan since the early 60's. The waste, in a sparingly soluble solid ceramic form, is held in stainless steel drums which are placed in purpose built transport casks 6 metres long with 30cm thick cast iron walls and weighing 100 tonnes. They are very robust containers, protecting the waste from outside forces and the people outside from radiological effects. What, you ask, if one of those ships sunk during a journey across the ocean? That's rather unlikely but not impossible. First, the ship's double walled hull has to be smashed open and the ship sent to the bottom. The 30cm thick cast iron transport cask has to be busted open, the stainless steel drums ruptured and then the solid ceramic waste [5-15 tonnes per cask] will be exposed to the seawater. It will slowly dissolve and be dispersed by tides and currents. Gradually, those few tonnes of uranium will be added to the 4,500 million tonnes of uranium contained in the world's oceans. The Japanese have already successfully extracted uranium from sea water. For many years, the IAEA has wanted to get the waste off the surface and into more environmentally sustainable storage. Deep burial in a suitable site is the IAEA's preferred option. 30 years ago, the IAEA established the site criteria necessary for safe, permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste. They demanded the following: [a]Simple and stable geology, [b] Flat topography and stable, arid climate. [c] Low permeability host rock which discourages water movement.[d] Old saline ground water of no stock or human value. [e]No resource conflicts. [f] Thick layer of rock to house the waste. [g] A low population density. The IAEA then asked where on the earth, regardless of political boundaries, such sites existed. They searched the world and found four, one in each of China, South Africa, Argentina and Australia. The IAEA engaged a UK company, Pangea Resources, to investigate the WA section of the Australian site [Officer Basin], regarded as the most preferred site. The Officer Basin is in a desert region straddling the SA/WA border and lying between the Musgrave Ranges in the north and the Eucla Basin in the south. It's an old [Palaeozoic] geologically stable sequence of essentially flat lying fine- grained sedimentary rock layers [shales, mudstones, siltstones] about 5km thick and dipping gently [5 degrees] from south to north. Research done over 30 years by many geologists, including my late brother,[he was the first] has revealed the Officer Basin meets the site criteria very well. Importantly, the nearest population centre, is the Oak Valley Aboriginal Community. They would be excellent custodians of any waste facility developed in the Officer Basin. Remember, Kevin Scarce recommended development of a waste repository in his report. The area is as remote a place as can be found on the planet. The burial site would need an area of about 1Km2 for surface infrastructure to receive and take the waste underground. Ships bringing the waste from around the world, would dock at a purpose built small port on the SA far west coast [Fowler's Bay]. Discharged waste would be carried on a purpose built road or railway to the site [300Km?] inland. At the site, a decline or shaft to an appropriate impermeable layer 500m? underground would be drilled and at that level a highly engineered repository would be established. The waste, in drums, would be placed on cradles, moved into and stacked in a tunnel and backfilled. The nuclear waste will have been isolated from the environment forever and will never require future human intervention. It has been returned to the earth's crust whence it came and is looked after by the geology FOREVER. It will NEVER harm anyone or anything, EVER. In conclusion, I noted that the world had been looking for a suitable nuclear waste burial site for decades. Australia has the best site on the planet. We export yellowcake to 22 countries for them to generate emissions-free electricity. Many of those countries do not have suitable burial sites. I suggested that Australia should offer the world the Officer Basin for the development of an international high level nuclear waste repository for the final disposal of what will be an increasingly smaller volume of waste. Australia will operate a vital world facility for which the world will pay us handsomely. The economics of the facility carried out by Deloitte Access Economics in 1998, suggested a 40 year, $200 billion industry with 20,000 infrastructure development jobs, 2500 operational jobs and with $2.5billion per year in taxes and royalties paid by user countries. Australia would take its rightful place as a leader in the growing world nuclear power generating industry and we would capture the moral high ground on the previously thought intractable problem of waste disposal. The development of this facility in South Australia, would be an eminently sensible first step in the development of the full nuclear fuel cycle in Australia over coming decades. I noted that we urgently need bipartisanship from our political parties and for them to come together and legislate for the inclusion of nuclear power in our future energy mix. And it is incumbent on us to offer the world some leadership in solving once and for all, the problem of nuclear waste disposal.
My fourth and final talk, given in Feb 2014, affirmed that Australia's energy future must include nuclear. I offered a timeline for the full nuclear fuel cycle development and a summary statement which confirmed my long held belief that full nuclear fuel cycle development should occur in South Australia over the next 25-30 years. Accordingly, the state government and BHP[ Billiton] should initiate an education and infrastructure development programme along the following lines:
1. Establish a nuclear education programme in our schools and two schools of nuclear science and engineering in our universities.[Adelaide and Sydney]. That move was initiated in late 2011 when a memorandum of understanding was signed between BHP Billiton and the University of Adelaide.
2. The development of an international high level nuclear waste repository in the Officer Basin should follow that.
3. A cogeneration nuclear power/ desalination plant should be established at/near Ceduna to provide water for the Olympic Dam mine, Roxby Downs and Eyre Peninsula towns.
4.BHP Billiton should establish , on site at Olympic Dam , it's own nuclear power plant for its entire operation and Roxby Downs township. I suggested a couple of SMR's [Small Modular Reactor] be built.
5. A major port re-development at Whyalla, with new industries in uranium enrichment, nuclear reprocessing and fuel assembly manufacture should occur. Mention Sanjeev Gupta.
6. The coal fired power station at Port Augusta should be converted to a nuclear one for SA electricity supply. [We look like getting a solar thermal unit instead -AArrrgghhh!!!].
That all presupposed that the government and opposition had reached a bipartisan position and agreed to legislate for the inclusion of nuclear in our energy mix. The following was intended to help them reach that position.
Current world primary energy supply is mostly from fossil fuels which all emit CO2. Fossil fuel use had grown 28% between 2000 and 2010. The Copenhagen Accord called for global reduction of 80% CO2 by 2050. Australia had a similar target. The question is, how are we going to achieve that target if global energy use increases by 50% by 2050 due to population and economic growth in developing countries. It seems to me impossible to reduce the use of carbon by over 80% over a few decades by regulation that would have to be enforceable worldwide.[COP21 in Paris in 2015 failed to reach a meaningful, enforceable agreement on emissions reductions]. So what are our options to replace fossil fuel energy for transport, industry, services and electricity? Primary energy used for electricity [2016 figures] shows the following percentages of total.
Fossil fuel -World 69- Australia 92, Hydro - World 17- Australia 7, Renewables - World 2 - Australia 1, Nuclear - World 12- Australia 0.
For all of the countless applications for electricity, we need a base load supply to keep them all going. Base load has to be continuous, reliable and adequate. The renewables, sun and wind, are not suitable for base load. They are intermittent and the necessary grid scale storage is not available anywhere on the planet. Renewables require back-up so there has to be extra generation investment to maintain supply. There are five types of generation that can reliably provide base load, viz. coal, gas, hydro, geothermal and nuclear. Coal and gas are fossil fuels [CO2],we are already at a maximum with hydro and geothermal[hot rocks] is not viable for Australia. That leaves nuclear which is available. Nuclear has been in use for over 50 years, provides supply in 32 countries and produces no emissions during operation. Australia is one of the few developed nations not using it and we are the only G20 nation without it. Why is this the case? Fear and politics. Safety is seen as a barrier against it. In fact, there has been only one accident with fatalities in over 50 years [16,000 reactor years], Chernobyl 26/4/86. According to the UNSCEAR report of 2000, about 40 people died and 100 had ongoing health impairment. No radioactive release at Three Mile Island and no health effects. At Fukushima, as of 30/8/12, a review by Japan's reconstruction agency revealed that: 1. Stresses of personal involvement in evacuation management and clean up have emerged as the biggest factors in ill health. 2.The mental and physical burden of forced removal caused 34 deaths, mostly in the elderly. 3. 1916 people from the Fukushima, Iwate and Mujagi prefectures died during evacuation from the areas hit by the tsunamis and earthquake. 4.19,000 died at the hands of the tsunamis. The death toll due to the nuclear accident or radiation exposure remains at zero. But stress and disruption due to continuing evacuation remains high.
The nuclear safety record is impressive and it is the safest means of electricity generation. Coal causes thousands of deaths annually, oil/gas explosions have killed hundreds, dam failures have caused thousands of deaths. If we consider the environmental effects of nuclear power stations:
1. They require very small land areas. A 1GWe nuclear power station requires about 1km2, an equivalent solar station requires about 90km2 and wind about 200km2. Solar and wind may be renewable. They are definitely not green. 2. With nuclear there are no fuel piles or ash dumps. 3. There are no emissions during generation. 4. The fuel inventory and used fuel are stored within the power station. We need to remember also that Australia has a long history of nuclear involvement. It began on Australia Day 1958 with the start up of the HIFAR reactor at Lucas heights. Between 1962 and 1982, research was headed by Dr. Keith Alder [mentioned earlier] and he and his researchers directed all of their efforts at peaceful uses of atomic energy. They worked on nuclear power, uranium and the fuel cycle. Australia had a permanent seat on the Board of Governors of the IAEA [Sir Phillip Baxter]. We achieved world class developments in isotopes and in radiation and nuclear physics. In the 70's efforts were made to introduce nuclear power, with work done on heavy water reactor technology and studies on enrichment technology. Many Australians worked in Canada and the UK on reactor technology. They also worked with the USA, Germany, France and India. In 1969 we did a feasibility study for a 500MWe power station at Jervis Bay. That project was canned by the Mc Mahon government. In 1971, enrichment possibilities were considered. We worked first with the French, then the Germans and finally Japan. That was thwarted by politics and the study terminated. The French deserted us and accepted partners from Spain, Italy and Belgium. Meanwhile, the AAEC continued work successfully on the nuclear fuel cycle and especially on the development of gas centrifuge technology. Then that went belly-up [politics again]. In 1981, a study for a conversion plant to make UF6 at Port Pirie was mounted. The Labor government canned that and scaled down all development except that of Synroc, a now widely used bit of Australian technology for handling nuclear waste. All of the above work should have been vital in setting up an Australian uranium processing industry. And what have we done instead? We've closed down and destroyed our own know- how, all research and development on uranium enrichment and all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and all because of political ideology. And all of this in the country with 30% of the world's uranium reserves. And we are " the clever country" No we are not. We are the irresponsible, the negligent, indeed we are the stupid country. We've thrown away one opportunity after another in the past. However, the opportunities remain if we've got the good sense to take advantage of our two main bargaining points, our enormous uranium reserves and our world's best nuclear waste disposal site.
So, should we develop nuclear power in Australia? Well, if we're concerned about CO2 emissions, nuclear is our only available option to replace carbon for base load. But, there's still no declared bipartisan support for nuclear in Australia. There's much misinformation, perceived political risk and no serious discussion since the Howard government's reports. Following recommendations from the Scarce Royal Commission, it is imperative that the nuclear discussion continues. And we must hope that bipartisanship will soon be achieved both federally and state. But whatever happens, the question for our politicians and everyone else must surely be, "Why are 32 countries continuing to generate 12 % of the world's electricity in 447 reactors? Those countries and 17 others are building 59 reactors right now, 170 have been firmly planned and 374 proposed for the future. [World Nuclear Association Dec 2016 figures]. I believe we should add Australia to the growing list of nuclear countries and we need urgently, bipartisan support from the Coalition and Labor. And once we have declared for nuclear power, we must expedite the following: 1. Remove all of the legal prohibitions against nuclear power. 2. Establish a regulatory framework. 3. Master the technology. 4. Plan at least one unit. 5. Offer the world the Officer Basin for the development of a high level nuclear waste disposal repository. If we don't plan a reactor within the next 10 years, Australia will rightly be regarded as technologically backward and irrelevant. My personal belief is that development of the full nuclear fuel cycle over coming decades, beginning with the development of an international high level waste repository, followed by the introduction of nuclear power and then gradually introducing other aspects of the fuel cycle in South Australia over coming decades, is a NO BRAINER. And with the recent Free Trade Agreement signed with China, we should start talking to them about how together, Australia and China can progress the growing world nuclear industry. China currently has 35 reactors, is building 21 at present and plans to build another 290 by 2050. By 2020, China plans to double their nuclear capacity, triple it by 2030 and reach 1400GWe by 2100. By then, nuclear will be the source of not only low carbon but all energy within China. By 2018, China's new High Temperature Gas Cooled reactor, will be suitable to replace coal boilers in some existing coal plants, making generation of cheap hydrogen possible. This will usher in the age of near zero emissions steel manufacture. The Chinese are shaming the rest of the world with their commitment to the world energy future. Australia should be talking to them and working towards partnering with them in our future nuclear infrastructure, especially in the waste repository development and in supplying nuclear fuel. The disposal site and other nuclear development over coming decades, will help rescue South Australia from further crippling economic decline and make it one of the richest states in the commonwealth instead of one of the poorest. And EVERYONE wants that.
A final word: If you have been listening carefully, you would have picked up three very important facts during my talk. I'll repeat them now, just in case you missed them.
1. Over the past 20+ years, the world has spent[wasted I believe] $2.3 trillion+on subsidies for the renewables [sun and wind], generated 2.8% of its electricity and achieved no reduction in greenhouse emissions. The renewablehave been a scandalous, reckless misappropriation of public funds.
2. As of Dec 2016, there were 32 countries continuing to generate 12% of the world's electricity in 447 reactors. Those 32 and 17 additional countries were building 59 reactors at the time, 170 reactors are firmly planned and 374 proposed for the future. World going increasingly nuclear at pace.
3. The uranium contained in the Olympic Dam ore body [20% of world recoverable reserves], used in the developing Integral Fast Reactors [IFR's] and SMR's [Small Modular Reactors]could power the entire planet, emissions-free, for 4000+ years.
Now here's my challenge for you.
Is there someone in this room who would now care to make a case against South Australia including nuclear power in its energy future?
Thanks for listening.
.