Antinuclear

Answer points to #NuclearCommissionSAust Issues Paper 3 – Electricity Generation – this week’s theme

Submissions on this Issue are due by August 3rd. Check  tips on submitting.

3.2 Are there commercial reactor technologies (or emerging technologies which may be commercially available in the next two decades) that can be installed and connected to the NEM? 

There are commercial technologies available, such as the General Electric Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactor, that would be available in the next two decades.  However, this is the same type of reactor as the ones at Fukushima Daiichi, and has been known to have safety flaws. (1)  Then there is the Generation 3+ EPR reactor, currently being built at Olkiluoto, Finland, and at Flamanville, France. However, this might not be available within two decades. The history of its development is one of delays and over-running costs.(2)  Recently, cracks in its pressure vessel have caused problems, that shed doubt on its safety. (3)

There are no “emerging” technologies that are at all likely to be available within the next two decades. The Generation IV reactors include : the Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GFR), the Leadcooled Fast Reactor (LFR), the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR), the Supercritical Water-cooled Reactor (SCWR), the Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) and the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR). (4)

The French Radiological Protection Agency (IRSN) has carried out a review of these systems from the point of view of safety and radiation protection. On the basis of its examination, IRSN considers the SFR system to be the only one of the six to have reached a degree of maturity compatible with the construction of a Generation IV reactor prototype during the first half of the 21st century.

Even then this will depend on further studies.   DECC estimate in their 2013 Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap that the first commercial Generation IV reactors should be operating by 2040. (4)

3.3. Are there commercial reactor technologies (or emerging technologies which may be commercially available in the next two decades) that can be installed and connected in an off-grid setting? 

The suggested Small Modular Reactors , including the PRISM reactor have serious disadvantages, especially economiic ones . SMRs are likely to have higher costs per unit of output than conventional reactors. (5) Even if SMRs could eventually be more cost-effective than larger reactors due to mass production, this advantage would only come into play if large numbers of SMRs were ordered. But utilities are unlikely to order an SMR until they are seen to produce competitively priced electricity. This Catch-22 suggests the technology will require significant government financial help to get off the ground.

Even industry executives and regulators believe the SMR technology will have costs that are substantially higher than the failed “nuclear renaissance” technology on a per unit of output. The higher costs result from

• lost economies of scale in containment structures, dedicated systems for control,

management and emergency response, and the cost of licensing and security,

• operating costs between one-fifth and one-quarter higher, and
• decommissioning costs between two and three times as high.(6)

As to these “off-grid” technologies being available within the next two decades, I have been unable to find any credible reference that states that this is the case. I conclude that, even if design and testing of these small reactors were to be completed, it would be many decades before they would be commercially available. For reasons of regulatory processes, but more importantly, of uncertainty over economic viability, commercial availability is decades away, if ever to be achieved. (7)

3.4. What factors affect the assessment of viability for installing any facility to generate electricity in the NEM? 

The major factor in assessing the viability of installing nuclear power for electricity generation in South Australia is the increasing practical and economic success of the alternative – truly modern power – renewable energy. (8)  Combine that progress with the revolutionary developments in battery storage, and nuclear reactors of any size look like unnecessary and uneconomic dinosaurs in the electricity providing sector.(9)

3.7. What place is there in the generation market, if any, for electricity generated from nuclear fuels to play in the medium or long term? 

Referring to my answers to previous questions, I would have to say – No place.

3.8   What issues should be considered in a comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the generation of electricity from nuclear fuels as opposed to other sources? What are the most important issues?

The most important issues are health, safety and environmental protection. Nuclear power of whatever design loses out on all those counts.(10)

However, that hardly matters in a world where economics is king. Fortunately as nuclear power is widely recognised now to be getting more and more expensive, while renewable energy and energy efficient technologies are getting cheaper, it is indeed economics that provide the killer disadvantage for nuclear power (9)

3.11. How might a comparison of the emission of greenhouse gases from generating electricity in South Australia from nuclear fuels as opposed to other sources be quantified, assessed or modelled? 

For one thing,  Greenhouse gases are emitted at all stages of the nuclear fuel chain. (10)  However, in practical terms, nuclear power as a solution to climate change, is irrelevant – action on climate change is needed now , not in 20 -30 years.(11)  Furthermore, climate change itself makes nuclear power an impractical and increasingly dangerous solution. – water shortage, water over-heating, (12) sea level rise (13) Storm surges (14)

3.12  and 313 . What are the wastes (other than greenhouse gases) produced in generating electricity from nuclear and other fuels and technologies?

What risks for health and safety? 

Nuclear reactors produce dangerously toxic radioactive isotopes, come previous unknown on the planet, – plutonium – decaying to three types of radiation – alpha, beta, and gamma, caesium 137, iodine 131 , strontium 90  (15)  No other technologies produce these toxic, carcinogenic wastes.

(1) http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-general-electric-knew-its-nuclear-reactor-design-was-unsafe-so-why-isnt-ge-getting-any-heat-for-fukushima/5361300

(2)   http://yle.fi/uutiset/french_auditors_slam_areva_for_olkiluoto_nuclear_project_in_finland/7358244?origin=rss

(3) http://yle.fi/uutiset/nuclear_watchdog_seeks_re-check_of_olkiluoto_3_reactor/7937448

(4) Generation IV International Forum https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_40465/generation-iv-systems 2. IRSN 27th April 2015http://www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Pages/20150427_Generation-IVnuclear-energy-systems-safety-potential-overview.aspx.

Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap: Future Pathways, Dec 2013 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/168043/bis-13-632-nuclearenergy-research-and-development-roadmap-future-pathway.pdf.

Nuclear Engineering International 2013 http://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionwhy-theenvironmental-movement-is-important-for-nuclear-power-4559455

(5) http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_Small_Nuclear_Reactor_report.pdf

(6)  http://216.30.191.148/Cooper%20SMRs%20are%20Part%20of%20the%20Problem,%20Not%20the%20Solution%20FINAL2.pdf

(7) https://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/newreactors/cooper-smrsaretheproblemnotthesolution.pdf

(8)  http://qz.com/456931/half-the-world-already-gets-more-power-from-renewables-than-from-nuclear/(9)https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730312-100-the-battery-revolution-that-will-let-us-all-be-power-brokers/

(9) http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/solar-and-wind-substantially-cheaper-than-nuclear-even-in-uk-10393

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/french-government-study-95-renewable-mix-cheaper-than-nuclear-and-gas-37241

(10)    http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html?referrer=https://www.google.com.au/

(11)  http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/05/why-nuclear-power-is-not-low-carbon/

(12)  http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact614.pdf

(12) http://www.theenergycollective.com/globalwarmingisreal/107461/how-climate-change-may-affect-nuclear-power-plants

(13) http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-brings-added-risks-to-coastal-nuclear-plants

(14) http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/21/push-nuclear-power-climate-change-concerns-overlooked

(15) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity

http://www.geigercounter.org/radioactivity/isotopes.htm

July 28, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | Leave a comment

Pro Nuclear Royal Commission Pushes on With Determination

Computational General Equilibrium Modelling Assessments for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Issued by Attorney Generals Department Request for Tender

https://www.tenders.sa.gov.au/tenders/tender/display/tender-details.do?id=27826&action=display-tender-details

July 27, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | Leave a comment

Nuclear Royal Commission back from overseas jaunt

Nuclear commission takes overseas experiences on board as SA considers uranium industry expansion, ABC News By Nicola Gage, 24 July 15,  South Australia’s nuclear royal commissioner Kevin Scarce says he is “nowhere near” making a recommendation to government on the potential for an expanded industry in the state after a research trip to Asia, Europe, the United States and Canada…….The commission received 90 submissions from companies and individuals in its first round of public feedback, which has now closed…….[n.b second round of submissions closes on August 3rd]

Public hearings are expected to commence from September, with a final report due in May.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-24/sa-nuclear-commission-takes-overseas-experiences-on-board/6647018                 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6swqTljXeE

July 25, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | Leave a comment

Points for #NuclearCommissionSAust Submission to Issues paper 2 – “Further Processing” – theme for this week

Submissions on this Issue are due by August 3rd. Check  tips on submitting.

Questions.2.2 and 2.4. –  (feasible for South Australia to make more radioactive substances? What will be future demand for conversion, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel processing?)

It would not be economically, socially or environmentally feasible for South Australia to further manufacture radioactive substances.

On economics, South Australia would be producing  a product whose market is declining.

In Canada, Cameco’s failed laser uranium enrichment project added to its losses in 2014.(1).

“The nuclear industry is in decline: The 388 operating reactors are 50 fewer than the peak in 2002, while the total installed capacity peaked in 2010 at 367 GW before declining to the current level, which is comparable to levels last seen two decades ago.” (2)

Socially, people are becoming more aware of the hazards of uranium enrichment plants. Even in China  – Jiangmen residents protested against proposed uranium processing plant (3)

Massive amounts of depleted uranium are created by uranium enrichment, causing social concern a social problem as well as an environmental problem.

Most of the byproducts (garbage) “from uranium enrichment (96%) is depleted uranium (DU)… There are vast quantities of depleted uranium in storage. The United States Department of Energy alone has 470,000 tons.[1] About 95% of depleted uranium is stored as uranium hexafluoride (UF6).” (4)

2.5. (South Australia to get involved in emerging nuclear technologies) 

As to new and emerging technologies, it is becoming ever clearer that the untested technologies, such as Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, will not be developed for very many years, during which time renewable energy technologies, including battery storage, are racing ahead. By the time the “Generation IV nuclear reactors are developed, (if they ever are), they will have no appeal in the 21st Century modern energy scene. Even now, their cost is astronomic, and they cannot attract investment. Their only hope is tax payer funding. No Generation IV nuclear reactor will be ready before 2050 (5) .

2.6 (What are the specific models for best practice in these activities?)

As to specific models – there is the failed Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX facility) at USA’s Savannah River site – an environmental and financial disaster (6)

2.11 (What are the security implications?) 

From uranium enrichment, and further processing, danger arises not only from the depleted uranium waste produced, but also from the transport of enriched uranium, – the danger of  accidents or of terrorist attacks:

“The transportation of UF₆ is dangerous, both because of what it is – a hazardous chemical and radioactive substance; and what it is a part of – the production process of nuclear reactor fuel, nuclear bombs, and uranium ammunition. It is documented that a release of UF₆ in a populated area could have catastrophic consequences. Cylinders used to transport UF₆will result in quantities of uranium and hydrofluoric acid (HF) in the immediate vicinity far exceeding levels dangerous to health (both chemically and radiologically).

Despite the danger, the dominant belief within governments and the nuclear industry is that UF₆ transport is safe. This belief, regrettably, is mainly based on two assumptions shown to be false. These assumptions are that UF₆ does not present a significant radioactive hazard, and cylinders used to transport UF₆ are built strong enough to survive accident conditions. It is noted, however, that deciding whether or not the transportation of UF₆ is dangerous involves qualitative moral and ethical decisions as well as analysis of quantitative, technical data.” (7)

2.13. (How to estimate the financial benefit to South Australians?) 

This question is a joke. Given the unfathomable costs and the disastrous history of U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) , it is ludicrous to expect any accurate assessment of the costs, let alone the very hypothetical benefits.(8)

2.14.(What impacts on other sectors of the economy?)

 Whereas in the past, countries like France and USA were complacent about setting up nuclear industries, and not worried about the effects on clean industries  – farming, vineyards, fisheries, those days are over.

“The increased exposure of contaminants to crops and livestock, and the natural environment and cumulative “food chain” events of unregulated agricultural products, have the potential for significant safety and health risks to consumers. Perhaps more importantly, the public perception of risk or danger from uranium may also result in serious negative repercussions for the marketability of agricultural products from the nearby regions” (9)

“A nuclear facility in Washington State’s prime wine country is leaching radioactive groundwater….the DOE report released last year that indicated trace amounts of the radioisotope tritium were found in wine samples collected”. (10)

Any nuclear facility – from uranium mining through to waste facility poses a real impediment to tourism, as well as to agriculture. In England, the Lake District is currently facing this threat – Tourism, Milk and Cheese or Nuclear? (11)

All uranium/nuclear activities bring the danger of radioactive leakage to groundwater, with  impacts on all agricultural industries. (12_)

So far, I have considered only the effects on industries of the normal operations of advanced uranium and fuel fabrication processes. But what if there’s an accident? (13)  Chernobyl and Fukushima give an illustration here, of what happens to farming and fishing industries.

Fukushima’s fish industry is yet to recover. (14)  Chernobyl: “Agriculture was hardest hit, with 784 320 hectares taken from production. Timber production was halted in 694,200 hectares of forest. Remediation made “clean food” production possible in many areas but led to higher costs in the form of fertilizers, additives and special cultivation processes.

Even where farming is safe, the stigma associated with Chernobyl caused marketing problems and led to falling revenues, declining production and the closure of some facilities. Combined with disruptions due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, recession, and new market mechanisms, the region’s economy suffered, resulting in lower living standards, unemployment and increased poverty. All agricultural areas, whether affected by radiation or not, proved vulnerable”. (15)

1. http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20141103/ARTICLES/141109942/-1/topic24?Title=Uranium-producer-Cameco-reports-a-third-quarter-loss-
2.  http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/WNISR2014.html
3. The Standard July 12, 2013
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle
5.  http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo74.pdf
6.  http://io9.com/failed-nuclear-weapons-recycling-program-could-put-us-a-1586851270
7. Some Problems And Hazards Associated With The Transportation Of Uranium Hexafluoride by Miles Goldstick
8. http://ecowatch.com/2013/uranium-titan-tumbles/
9.  Maggy J. Lewis http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=wmelpr
10. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/hanford-nuclear-site-could-be-threatening-washington-state-s-best-vineyards.html
11. https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/tourism-milk-and-cheese-or-nuclear/
12. . SLAC Scientists Search for New Ways to Deal with U.S. Uranium Ore Processing Legacy New Field Project Tests Link Between Organic Materials and Persistent Uranium Contamination http://www.newswise.com/articles/slac-scientists-search-for-new-ways-to-deal-with-u-s-uranium-ore-processing-legacy
13. Possible Effects of Nuclear Radiation Accidents on Agriculture http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=1439&context=utk_agbulletin?
14.  http://www.unisdr.org/archive/43503
15. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index1.html

July 24, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | 2 Comments

Inaccurate information in #NuclearCommissionSAust’s Issues Paper 1

the public are making submissions based on inaccurate information provided in the Issues Paper.  The dismissive response of the Royal Commission undermines any confidence that the Issues Papers are accurate overviews of the nuclear industry.”

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS BASED ON MISINFORMATION:

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE FAILS TO CORRECT FACTUAL ERROR IN ISSUES PAPER

Friends of the Earth Adelaide have recently informed the Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle of a factual error in Issues Paper 1, concerning the regulation of Aboriginal Heritage matters in South Australia. Issues Paper 1, which deals with the exploration, extraction and milling of uranium, states that Aboriginal sites of significance are protected by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.

“The Royal Commission was informed in writing that this is not the case for BHP Billiton, South Australia’s biggest miner,” said Nectaria Calan of Friends of the Earth Adelaide.  “Under the Indenture Act, which applies solely to BHP Billiton, the company’s Olympic Dam mine and some 15, 000 square kilometres of the surrounding Stuart Shelf are exempt from the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.  This exemption would carry through to any future expansion of uranium mining by BHP Billiton at Olympic Dam or in the surrounding area.”

In his recent response to Friends of the Earth Adelaide Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce insisted that in the event of an expansion of uranium mining Aboriginal Heritage matters would be regulated by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.

“This is simply not the law throughout the state,” said Ms Calan.  “Friends of the Earth Adelaide have supplied the Royal Commission with referenced information regarding the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Act 2011, which amends the current Indenture Act to apply to any expansion formally announced by the company up until October 2016. If it was an honest mistake to begin with, it is negligent not to correct it.” Continue reading →

July 24, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | Leave a comment

Some points on #NuclearCommissionSAust Issues paper 3

Roger Sowell , Sowell’s Law Blog 22 July 15 .It is interesting indeed that the questions for Paper 3 did not specifically mention renewable energy as providing supply to the grid. It is perhaps not surprising, given the Commission’s charter to examine the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. However, questions 8, 12, 15, 16, and 17 have wording that is sufficiently broad that one could include renewable energy in the answer.

A more encompassing grid planning study would (and many do) include various forms of energy generation. The advantages and disadvantages of each form are assessed. An excellent example is from the California Energy Commission, at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SF.PDF, Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation, published in 2010. However, even this study is confined to a comparison of costs, both initial and operating costs. Safety, impacts on the grid, fuel supply and price volatility, environmental impacts, and reliability are not included.

I would not anticipate the nuclear power industry being able to kill renewable energy, in fact, quite the opposite is very likely to occur. Most forms of renewable energy have a decreasing unit cost over time, most especially wind turbines over the past decade. Meanwhile, nuclear-based power has an increasing unit cost. The only examples I can find where nuclear power plants can be built for approximately $4,000 per kW are those countries where labor rates are still very cheap, such as China. But, labor costs increase over time so that small advantage will disappear. Finally, the grid-storage problem has been solved technically, with under-sea storage and hydroelectric power as described by MIT. As offshore wind-turbines decline in installed cost, and the under-sea storage costs also decline with experience, truly sustainable and inexhaustible clean power on demand will finally exist. The electricity may not be too cheap to meter (the big lie of nuclear power), but it will be relatively cheap and not subject to price increases due to fuel availability.  http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com.au/

July 22, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | Leave a comment

 Nuclear Power Reactors large or small for South Australia Not Justifiable

South Australia Invites Comments on Nuclear Power, Sowells Law Blog,Roger Sowell, 21 july 15   Nuclear Power for South Australia Not Justifiable”………I have been invited to prepare and submit responses to the questions and issues posed in Paper 3 for Civilian nuclear power plants.  There are 17 questions, shown below [on original] .   I plan to formally submit detailed answers to most, if not all, the questions.

The short, summary answer to the over-arching question of Should South Australia build and operate nuclear power plants, is no.   The basis for that conclusion is the facts and particulars of South Australia’s power grid both at present and the foreseeable future.  The grid is small, with 5,000 MWe total installed capacity.  The demand is low, with typical daily maximum 1,500 MWe although demand peaks on hot summer days at approximately 3,000 MWe.  More importantly, minimum demand at night is approximately 700 MWe.   Finally, South Australia has access to abundant coal and natural gas for fuel.

Given the small grid loads, and small minimum night demand, a nuclear power plant that is operated at baseload to provide maximum efficiency and minimum power price, must be a small size at perhaps 300 MWe.   Small nuclear reactors suffer from reverse economy of scale and are very expensive for the amount of power produced.   Conversely, a larger plant would achieve some economy of scale, but the plant must have its output reduced at night to ensure grid stability.  A larger plant would be more costly to allow load changes, and the sales price for electricity produced must increase accordingly.  (see Truth About Nuclear Power, part 2 for details — see link)   The usual safety concerns also apply: operating upsets and radiation releases, evacuation plans, spent fuel storage or reprocessing, and sabotage and terrorist attacks, to name a few. http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com.au/

July 22, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | Leave a comment

Don’t let the nuclear lobby shut you up! Submissions to Royal Commission due by 3rd August

If you’ve been thinking of making a submission, I hope that you have not been intimidated by the Royal Commissions Issues Papers – by either their  ambiguous and confusing content, or by their complicated process for submitting.   These submission procedures are set up to be easy  for AREVA, EDF, Toshiba, Lavalin SNC, Terrestrial Energy, Bill gates’ Terra Power – or any other international  nuclear company.

And – hard for the ordinary person.

However,

• you can send in a submission on paper, if the Internet process is not convenient for you.
• You don’t have to make comments on every question on the Issues Paper – just ones that you are interested in.
• You can add your own ideas, outside of their set questions,  though the Commission wants them to be at the end, in an Appendix.

Issue Paper 2. FURTHER PROCESSING AND MANUFACTURE.  Issue Paper 3. ELECTRICITY GENERATION 

Your submission doesn’t have to be long.  They want you to download and use a Cover Sheet

They want you to have your signature witnessed, and signed by a JP or a Commissioner for Affidavits. A member of the police force will do. In some States, pharmacists, teachers, and others will qualify. This is a hassle, but not that hard to do.

If you don’t want the hassle of scanning it all into the computer – to send via the internet, to submissions@nuclearrc.sa.gov.au, you can post it to Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission GPO Box 11043 Adelaide SA 5001.  You can even phone them, and arrange a verbal submission  o8 8207 1480

More information at the Commission’s website

July 18, 2015 Posted by Christina Macpherson | NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 | Leave a comment