Australia to Go Nuclear by 2030, Says Expert

June 5th, 2012 by Joshua S Hill

Australia will become a primary user of advanced nuclear technology, says University of Adelaide scientist Professor Barry Brook, if the country is serious about cutting carbon emissions.

Professor Brook, Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute, says Australia will eventually turn to nuclear power to meet our sustainable energy needs — and when we do, we will choose to focus on next-generation nuclear technology that provides major safety, waste, and cost benefits over conventional nuclear power.

Nuclear Power Plant

Speaking on the eve of World Environment Day (5 June), Professor Brook says: “Coal, oil, and natural gas are the main cause of recent global warming, and these fossil fuels must be completely replaced with clean sustainable energy sources in the coming decades if serious climate change impacts are to be avoided.

“One particularly attractive sustainable nuclear technology for Australia is the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). Although the scientific community has known about the benefits of IFR-type designs for many years, there are currently none in commercial operation because the energy utilities are typically too risk averse to ‘bet on’ new technologies. This is a wasted opportunity for Australia and for the rest of the world.

“Integral Fast Reactors are much more efficient at extracting energy from uranium, can use existing nuclear waste for fuel, produce far smaller volumes of waste that does not require long-term geological isolation, and can be operated at low cost and high reliability. They are also inherently safer than past nuclear reactors due to passive systems based on the laws of physics,” Professor Brook says.

“In order to re-start the nuclear power debate in Australia, it is best to have a solution that overcomes as many public objections as possible: safety, constraints on uranium supplies, long-lived waste, cost, and proliferation. The IFR technology offers a vast improvement in all of these areas.”

What are your thoughts about this?

Source: University of Adelaide
Image Source: Paolo/huntz

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: Australia, australia nuclear, australia nuclear power

About the Author

Joshua S Hill I'm a Christian, a nerd, a geek, and I believe that we're pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket! I also write for Fantasy Book Review (.co.uk), and can be found writing articles for a variety of other sites. Check me out at about.me for more.

Pingback: 7 Arguments Against Nuclear Power - CleanTechnica
http://ronaldbrak.blogspot.com.au/ Ronald Brak

Currently wholesale electricity prices in Australia are around 4 cents a kilowatt-hour. With an optimistic estimate for nuclear of 2 cents a kilowatt-hour for operating costs, one cent for decommissioning and waste disposal, and an extremely optimistic estimate of 2 cents a kilowatt-hour for insurance, that comes to a total of 5 cents a kilowatt-hour which is more than our current wholesale electricity price and not much less than what it will be once our carbon price is introduced next month. And given the effect that wind and solar are having on Australian electricity prices, it might not be long before they drop below 5 cents again. So even if the cost of the nuclear power plant was zero dollars, nuclear could still be a money loser in Australia. As France has shown there is nothing cheap about Integral Fast Reactors, their becoming competitive in 18 years has about as much chance as a chicken wing in a barrel of Tasmanian devils.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  A year or so before Fukushima melted down I made some effort trying to find what the cost of new nuclear might be.
  
  The lowest estimate I found was from an industry insider who claimed $0.12/kWh but did not release the details of what was and was not included in his numbers.
  
  Past that I found estimates ranging from $0.15/kWh to as much as $0.35/kWh. That’s without accounting for the value of subsidies provided in form of loan guarantee and liability limits.
  
  After Fukushima the cost is almost certainly higher. More safety requirements, more inspections, more time checking to look for problems.
  
  Wind in the US is now about 6 cents and expected to fall ~20%. Solar is now down to 15 cents and expected to fall fast. Nuclear cannot compete when the wind is blowing or the sun shinning. That means that nuclear would have to charge even more in the non-wind/sun hours to make up for their losses.
  
  Storage at 15 cents would kill nuclear. Aquion is going into production with grid storage batteries with a prediction of 3 cents per kWh.
Ross

Brook summarises his reasons to 7 main points each of which is highly debatable. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/05/01/whyvwhynp/

This appears to come from a book he co-wrote with Ian Lowe who argues the opposite case. Here are Lowe’s main arguments.

“In summary, the 7 reasons why we should say NO to nuclear power are:
1. Because it is not a fast enough response to climate change
2. Because it is too expensive
3. Because the need for baseload electricity is exaggerated
4. Because the problem of waste remains unresolved
5. Because it will increase the risk of nuclear war
6. Because there are safety concerns
7. Because there are better alternatives”
- Bob_Wallace
  
  Three are enough…
  
  1. Because it is too expensive
  2. Because it takes too long to install
  3. Because it brings unique safety and dangerous waste problems to the mix.
  
  Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro and biomass/gas are cheaper, faster and safer.
M_Karthik

I think Australia being richly endowed with sunlight in the major parts why wind and solar energy should not be an area of focus.
It is ridiculous to pursue water based power generation systems instead of non water based power gen systems when the major part of the country is dry and deserted.
- Bill_Woods
  
  The population, and hence the demand for power, is in coastal cities, so access to cooling water is not an issue.
  - http://ronaldbrak.blogspot.com.au/ Ronald Brak
    
    There’s a tradeoff between building near the coast and population centres and insurance costs, so air cooling might be cheaper.
  - TomSparc
    
    Have you heard that sea levels are rising?
    
    I wonder if Barry Brook knows about that?! It seems like Mr Brook ignores everything and anything that suggests nuclear is a very bad idea.
    - Bill_Woods
      
      At this stage is would be simple for Australia to require that plants be built on sites 10m, or 20m, or whatever, above sea level.
      Since Brook is a climate scientist, I suspect he’s heard about rising sea levels.
      - TomSparc
        
        You assume the nuclear industry thinks ahead and chooses safety over profits. The evidence is against that.
        
        Brooks also seems incapable of working out how long it takes to build nukes, how many would be needed to mitigate climate collapse, how little uranium is available, how big the risks are, and many other factors.
        
        Brooks is simply a blind, techno-utopian ideologue.
http://k.lenz.name/LB Karl-Friedrich Lenz

I blogged that with the headline “Barry Brook: no nuclear energy in Australia until 2030″, and went on to point out that I expect him try to standing in the way of renewable energy in the meanwhile instead of helping to develop the excellent solar resources of Australia.

Even if Australians listen to what Barry Brook says, it will take two decades before the first small amount of low carbon nuclear energy gets produced in Australia. It would be nice if Brook could at least get out of the way for these two decades while other people develop renewable and actually do something about this “global warming” problem. It would be even nicer if he started doing something useful himself in those decades and actually help get something substantial done.
- kevinmeyerson
  
  I agree with your take wholeheartedly. Barry Brook needs to get his head out of the sand with regards to renewable energy policy.
Captivation

How can a country with so much Sunlight, Wind, Coastline (wave energy), and Geothermal decide to power itself with such an expensive and discredited energy source? Its like buying a sports car just to pick up the mail at the end of the driveway.
http://ronaldbrak.blogspot.com.au/ Ronald Brak

Currently new nuclear can’t compete with Australia’s wholesale electricity prices, including the carbon price that comes into effect in a few weeks. Currently the average Australia wholesale electricity price is less than the total operating costs of nuclear power. Currently point of use solar is cheaper than coal + distribution in Australia. Currently wind and solar power are lowering wholesale electricity prices in Australia. The chances of nuclear becoming competitive in Australia in 18 years, something it hasn’t managed to do in the roughly 60 years it has existed, seems extraordinarily remote. If Barry wants to make a bet with me on this I’m more than willing.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  18 years is a very long time when it comes to emerging technology.
  
  Who would be willing to bet against cheap solar in the next ten years? How about cheap grid scale battery storage?
  
  Wind and solar at a nickle, storage for 3 cents more. New nuclear at 15+ cents per kWh isn’t going to be a player.
  
  Remember, new nuclear has to sell its power for 15+ cents 24/365. You can’t turn off the plant and especially you can’t turn off the loan payment.
Guest

Fachidiot