SANT PERE, SANTA CATERINA I LA RIBERA

Presentation 1: Dr Ian J. Duncan

There is potential for large-scale commercial nuclear plants in Australia by the mid 2020s, particularly in the National Energy Market (NEM). The siting of nuclear power plants must be a community involved exercise. It should not be a political-down or company-down exercise, as these methods will only bring on NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) reactions, thus resulting in failure. A voluntary choice exercise, which will involve the community in assessing economics and risk, will serve as a powerful tool.

In terms of siting, a power plant would have to be a little distance from existing infrastructure, but not as far away from a medium-sized town as you would imagine. There needs to be geological stability, not necessarily earthquake-free, but structures need to be able to cope with such events. An appropriate site also needs access to condenser cooling water. Finally it needs access to the grid.

The following factors will impact on the community’s perception of siting a plant:

â Community safety;

â Environmental impact;

â Heavy-traffic increases;

â Growth in the surrounding community;

â Improvements to health, education and jobs; and

â Prospect for a significant contribution to the rate base of that area.

Negative portrayals of nuclear power are often conveyed with images of cooling towers. Cooling of condenser water is a requirement of all steam driven electricity generation, whether fossil fuelled or nuclear. Where there is insufficient natural cooling water cooling towers, air cooling or combinations of the two are necessary components in power generation. There is scope for Australia to use seawater instead of a cooling tower given its extensive coastline.

The city of Antwerp, with half a million people, is located close to the Dole four reactor nuclear power plant, and there are farms right up to the fence-line of this site. While Belgium is required to have this density, Australia does not, but the example of Antwerp’s siting displays the possibility of living and working safely near these reactors.

39

3

Chernobyl is no longer an impediment to developing nuclear power. It occurred almost 25 years ago, and every country impacted by the accident has gone pro-nuclear. Developments and nuclear status in some pro-nuclear countries include the following:

â The Ukraine has shut down sister plants of the RBMK (Reaktor Bolshoy Moschnosti Kanalniy, which means High Power Channel-type Reactor) technology and is replacing them with others;

â Belarus has no reactors at this stage, but has applied for funding from Russia;

â Russia is gradually replacing its RBMKs and is converting to pressurised water reactors;

â Finland has entered into agreements to build their fifth plant and legislating the sixth plant;

â Sweden has just reversed its ‘phasing out’ legislation in 2010, and is preparing to announce an expansion to its nuclear program; and

â England and Wales are considering new/renewal sites.

Waste management is another focus of debate. All processes produce waste and we have a responsibility to manage and dispose of all intractable wastes in an acceptable manner, not just the nuclear wastes. Some of the pro-nuclear points follow:

â The climate debate and the externalities of fossil fuels have had a great impact on the nuclear issue, as the community at large now believes that these factors are important;

â Uncertainties about the future cost of fossil fuels and their availability, and the goal of national energy independence are also supporting the positive nuclear case;

â Diversification of supply is a sensible approach, and mixing nuclear with renewables can achieve this; and

â Nuclear is very competitive economically against fossil fuels when a form of carbon impost is included. There is increasing uncertainty about investing large amounts of capital into coal- burning plants, in case of a future retro-fit against carbon emissions.

The anti-nuclear debate revolves around the following points:

â Safety and radiation fears;

â Management;

â Security and terrorism;

â Hiroshima/Nagasaki type fears; incidentally both those cities are now 25 per cent to 35 per cent dependent on nuclear power

There needs to be a separation between weapons and civil-use uranium in these debates. Secure energy for 2050 will be a mixture of renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels. There also needs to be further development in geothermal energy, as this has large potential. There is room in the expansion of Western Australian power over the next 20 years for nuclear power, and if that is so the carbon emissions would remain the same as they are now.

Public opinion is changing; in the past, it has been strongly opposed to nuclear power but seems to be more balanced now. In a global sense, there are 30 countries that have gone nuclear, and overall they are 15 per cent dependent on nuclear powered electricity.

Countries of High Nuclear Ambition

Source: Electrical Energy...towards 2050, Ian Duncan

As shown in the table above, China has 11 reactors operational, 17 in construction or planned, and a further 72 reactors have been proposed. They are leading the way in technologies and industrialisation. I conclude by recommending that Australia build, develop and use nuclear power. This includes the development of waste disposal for its own waste; however, Australia must refuse the importation of waste.

Presentation 2: Jonathon Thwaites

There are three main problems or issues surrounding ‘nuclear’ energy:

â Nuclear weapons proliferation;

â Sustainability / Environment; and

â Economics.

We would like to believe nuclear weapons proliferation is under control, but it is not under control. At present, it is perceived that there is a real threat from countries such as North Korea, Iran and Pakistan, to name a few. There is also the concern that the both the Howard and Rudd Governments are favourable to future uranium exports to China and India.

The most recent accident involving nuclear energy or power was Chernobyl in 1986 which involved a reactor fire and explosion during cooling system resilience tests. In 1979, Three Mile Island (off New York in the United States) experienced a cooling system failure which resulted in the partial meltdown of the core.

In terms of sustainability and the environment, the provision of large amounts of energy without restraint may lead (and not be limited) to an increased demand on natural resources, especially water. We have to consider all the factors that are already impacting our natural earth, such as emissions and CO₂ levels, global temperature and world population; all of which will certainly affect biodiversity and rates of extinction. Going nuclear can only make things worse.

What are the economic relative costs? Currently it costs $35 per Megawatt hour and $40 per Megawatt hour to generate electricity from coal and gas respectively. Nuclear energy costs are around $70 per Megawatt hour, however, this figure does not reflect the full life cycle costs of a nuclear power plant, such as decommission costs. Therefore nuclear energy is not really all that cheap.

Further, I believe nuclear plants are unstable systems that will inevitably collapse. We need to value energy and our natural environment to survive and maintain a reasonable quality of life, and it is my belief that we cannot ‘control’ ourselves well enough to live with nuclear. Finally, it is an undeniable fact that the waste from the nuclear fuel cycle will last for thousands of years.