the pro-nuclear environmentalist
DESCRIPTION
The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist. The Journey & The Destination. Ben Heard Founding Director – ThinkClimate Consulting Founder- Decarbonise SA June 2012. Where I came from. Where I am coming from now . The climate crisis is very, very bad. Very, very urgent - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The Pro-Nuclear EnvironmentalistThe Journey & The Destination
Ben HeardFounding Director – ThinkClimate Consulting
Founder- Decarbonise SA June 2012
Where I came from...
Where I am coming from now • The climate crisis is very, very bad. Very, very urgent• Temperature must be permitted to rise no more than 1.5°C• Atmospheric CO2 needs to be returned to 350ppm, less than current levels• The global energy supply must be completely decarbonised• Coal must be eliminated from the global energy supply post-haste
World Primary Energy Consumption by source 2009 (Source: IEA 2009 Report)
New Artic sea ice minimum. Sept 2011
1. Energy Efficiency• Supportive, but risky to rely on high levels of implementation• Long-term impact is wealth generation, not emission reduction (Jervons Paradox)
Any honest strategy to tackle climate change will be one of “energy efficiency, plus renewables,
plus...” otherwise we cannot meet the challenge in the necessary time frame
• SA has 1,150 MW installed • Emissions from electricity 1990/2006/2011 (Mt CO2-e): 6.5/10/8 • No fossil closure, more peaking gas• An inadequate solution on its own to replace fossil
• Cost, area and resource requirements, storage limitations, back-up requirements are too great for major, rapid roll out
• An inadequate solution on its own to replace fossil in the necessary timeframe
2. Wind3. Solar
What about the non-nuclear solutions?
4. Enhanced Geothermal (HDR)• Progressing, but slowly. Hard, expensive, distant, immature• An inadequate solution on its own to replace fossil in the necessary timeframe
So why not nuclear?1. It’s dangerous
– Operations– Waste
2. It leads to proliferation3. It produces too much GHG across the lifecycle4. Uranium mining is really horrible5. It’s too expensive6. It takes too long7. Environmentalists say no
1 (a). Nuclear power operation: a constant risk with catastrophic consequences
Nation % Electricity from Nuclear Death from radiation incident
USA 20 0
France 80 0
Japan 30 0
Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986)
ARS Fatalities 28
Latent cancer fatalities (thyroid) 15
Other radiological impact Nil detectable
Other major impact Psychological trauma
Data Sources United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR); United Nations Information Service)
Safety Record of Nuclear Power Plants: Global
OECD Non-OECD
Energy chain Fatalities Fatalities/TWy Fatalities Fatalities/TWy
Coal 2259 157 18,000 597
Natural gas 1043 85 1000 111
Hydro 14 3 30,000 10,285
Nuclear 0 0 31 48
Summary of severe* accidents in energy chains for electricity 1969-2000 Data from Paul Scherrer Institut, in OECD 2010. * severe = more than 5 fatalities
Nuclear power is exceptionally safe and only getting safer
1 (b). Nuclear Waste is deadly, long lived and impossible to manage
National Hazardous Waste (Annual) (t)
Annual Coal Waste: Loy Yang 2.2 GW Annual HLW 2.2 GW Nuclear Power (t)/m3
1.1 million 577,800m3 of fly ash 10/ 309,079 ML of wastewater
2,070 tons of fly ash
56,428 tons of SO2
29,398 tons of NOx
2,577 tons of CO
18,232,826 tCO2e
Source: National Waste Report 2010
Source: LYP 2009 Annual Report Source: Comm. Of Aust. 2006
• The problem is too big• The non-nuclear solutions have serious limitations• My previous objections to nuclear energy were either unfounded, or are
manageable and comparatively acceptable (to me)• The health and environmental benefits of nuclear energy compared to
coal are significant
• Conclusion: An open and honest examination of nuclear power as a means to tackle climate change must be permitted to take place in Australia
South Australia’s Base Load Generation Stock 2011Name Fuel Type Capacity (MW) Reported Emissions
2009 (tCO2-e)Commissioned Comments
BASELOAD 2,969 8.71 millionTorrens Island A&B Gas 1,280 1.6 million 1967&1977 Highly inefficient for
gas (33%-36%)Northern Brown Coal 540 3.6 million 1985 1.1 kg CO2-e/ kWh
Pelican Point Gas 478 627,000 2000/01 0.390 kg CO2-e/ kWh
Thomas Playford B Brown Coal 240 1.77 million 1960 1.2 kg CO2-e/kWh; running out of coal
Snuggery Gas/Other 103 50,000 1978 & 1997
Whyalla Brown Coal/Gas 98 785,000 1941 1.2 kg CO2-e/ kWh
Port Lincoln Distillate 50 32,000 1998/2000
Osborne Gas 180 243,000 1998
REMAINDER 826 390,000 Predominantly small gas peaking
TOTAL FOSSIL GENERATION
3,795 9.1 million
STATE TOTAL Approx 4,800 9.1 million 1,000+ MW wind. State average GHG intensity 0.72 kg CO2-e/ kWh
Incremental, Small ModularName Fuel Type Capacity (MW) Reported Emissions
(tCO2-e)Commissioned Comments
BASELOAD 2,840 952,000Torrens Island Nuclear: AP 1000 1,154 0 2020
Northern Combined Nuclear: B&W mPower x6
750 0 2022
Pelican Point Gas 478 627,000 2000/01 0.390 kg CO2-e/ kWh
Snuggery Gas/Other 103 50,000 1978 & 1997
Whyalla Nuclear: B&W mPower x1
125 0 2022
Port Lincoln Distillate 50 32,000 1998/2000
Osborne Gas 180 243,000 1998
REMAINDER (Fossil)
826 390,000 Predominantly small gas peaking
TOTAL FOSSIL GENERATION
1,376 1.3 million
STATE TOTAL Approx 5,000 1.3 million 1,350+ MW wind and other renewables. State average GHG intensity 0.11 kg CO2-e/ kWh (or better?)
So what now?What’s missing?
People
Sustainable Energy Choices: The Case for Nuclear in 2 ½ minutes