With some minor modifications, this is the original presentation with which I begin explaining how and why I had changed my mind about nuclear power

1. The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist
From Opponent to Proponent-
The Journey & The Destination
Ben Heard
Founding Director – ThinkClimate Consulting
Founder- Decarbonise SA
November 2011

2. Presentation outline
It’s a train of thought...
Origin: Nuclear
opponent
Destination: Nuclear
proponent
How bad is the problem? How good are the
other solutions?
Can nuclear help, and are the
drawbacks of nuclear power
acceptable?

3. What doesn’t make the cut in my reports...
• We cannot know exactly what will happen this century, but
– We are collectively staring down a very real and imminent risk of the
end of civilisation as we know it
– We are collectively staring down our own mass extinction by the
creation of a runaway level of climate change
– Our collective response assumes a luxury of time and certainty that we
simply do not have.

4. The evidence...
• Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are approaching
390 ppm.
• This is higher than any time in the last 450,000
years, covering 5 glacial/ interglacial cycles (Hansen
2010 p 116 & p 37)
• Human induced climate forcing, through the
increasing the concentration of CO2 by 2ppm per
year, is ten thousand times faster than levels of
natural climate forcing (Hansen 2010, p 161)
• Ice sheets are able to respond rapidly to large
climate forcings, with evidence of changes of 3-5
meters per century for several centuries 13,000-
14,000 years ago.
Images: Hansen 2010

5. • The warming experienced to date is
already manifest in several global
responses:
1. Rapid disappearance of mountain glaciers
2. Loss of mass of West Antarctic and Greenland
ice sheets
3. Poleward expansion of subtropical regions
4. Damage to coral reefs by ocean acidification
and surface water warming
5. Melting of northern hemisphere permafrost
6. Rapid decline of the arctic ice sheet
The evidence...

6. Summary of the influence of global growth
• Global population is forecast to reach 10 billion people by 2050
• Global energy consumption is forecast to roughly double from current
levels in this same period under a baseline scenario (Price Waterhouse
Coopers 2006)
Summary of the global policy response
• Coal to remain a major contributor to global energy supplies
• IPCC 5th Assessment Report is considering scenarios of 490, 650, 850 and
1,370 ppm CO2 by 2100 (Moss et al, Nature, Feb 2010)
• It is perfectly ok to “overshoot” safe levels of carbon dioxide and
temperature and then come back.
We must be

7. How bad is the problem? Conclusion
• 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)
World electricity
generation (Source: World
Resources Institute Earth
Trends 2008)

8. If you disagree with the scale or urgency of the problem, then you may
not see the need to be open to a rational assessment of all solutions.
Stop No. 1: The Problem

9. Presentation outline
Origin: Nuclear
opponent
Destination: Nuclear
proponent
How bad is the problem? How good are the
other solutions?
Can nuclear help, and are the
drawbacks of nuclear power
acceptable?

10. 1. Energy Efficiency
• Energy efficiency gets a great big 
• Universally supported by literature
• Lowest cost, often negative cost
abatement, constantly renewing
• Supported by my own experience
Limitations
• Moderates demand, does not
decarbonise supply
• Risky to rely on high levels of
implementation
• Non-cost barriers remain strong
• Rebound effect (Jevons Paradox) is
strong in the medium term
Conclusion on energy efficiency
• Any honest strategy to tackle climate change will be one of
“energy efficiency, plus...”
“Respectable engineering studies
have concluded that we could live
at our present level of material
comfort using just one quarter of
the energy we now use, simply by
improving the efficiency of
turning the energy into the goods
and services we require”
Prof. Ian Lowe 2010

11. 2 (a). Renewables: Wind
• Most market ready renewable power source
• Growing rapidly
Scale it up
• Thanet, largest offshore wind farm in the world
• Cost US$ 1.3bn
• Offshore, 100 towers, 115m tall.
• Site area is 35km2 (2.3 times City of Adelaide)
• Installed capacity is 300 MW
• Capacity factor of 35-40% (UK onshore average is 30%)= Maximum 1m MWh per year
• Hope that it comes at the right time
• Total UK electricity consumption (2007): 345m MWh per year (Source: US EIA)
The largest wind farm in the world, covering an area of 35km2, may
provide approximately 0.3% of the annual electricity consumption of
the UK. An inadequate solution to replace fossil on its own
• South Australia has 1,150 MW installed
• Emissions from electricity 1990/2006/2011 (Mt CO2-e): 6.5/10/8
• No fossil closure, more peaking gas

12. 2 (b). Renewables: Solar
Scale it up
• Largest (proposed) solar farm a 1,000 MW project by
Solar Millennium at Blyth in California
• To cover an area of 24km2, or 5,950 acres (1.5 times
City of Adelaide)
• Cost of $3bn-$6bn
• Proponents expect production of 2.1m MWh per year,
therefore capacity factor of around 24% (California
Energy Commission 2010, Commission Decision)
• Total electricity consumption for California: 254m
MWh (2005 figures , US Department of Energy)
The yet to be constructed largest solar power plant in the
whole world, covering 24 km2 of one of the sunniest places in
the world, will provide less than 1% of California’s total annual
electricity based on 2005 consumption

13. 2 (c). Renewables: Geothermal
• HDR is a new, technically difficult, unproven
technology that would require major
transmission investment
• It’s just not ready

14. 2. Renewables: Conclusion
• Renewables play a role in global energy. They will
increase significantly, but from a low base
• Inherent limitations: Diffuse, intermittent, location-
specific, or potentially all of the above
• Costly, and impossible to scale up globally to meet
the challenge
• Even if I am wrong, I am not prepared to take the
risk of relying solely on renewables in the face of
climate catastrophe

15. 3. Coal Carbon Capture and Storage
This technology is:
• Not established at any realistic scale
• As expensive or more expensive than other low-carbon baseload
generation
• Fails to capture all the greenhouse gas (by a long way)
Sources: Nicholson et al 2011;
Commonwealth of Australia 2006;
Hansen 2010, Blees 2008

16. Conclusion: The non-nuclear solutions
In the mission to decarbonise the world’s energy supply as quickly as possible, with
the elimination of coal as a priority
• Coal CCS has (next to) no place
• Energy efficiency has a contribution to make
• Renewable energy has a contribution to make
• But energy efficiency and renewable energy sources on their own cannot meet
the challenge in the necessary timeframe (too great a risk to assume they can)
World Primary Energy
Consumption by source 2006
(Source: IEA 2009 Report)
World electricity
generation (Source: World
Resources Institute Earth
Trends 2008)

17. If you disagree with my assessments of the capability of the other
solutions to solve the problem, then you may not see a need to be
open to nuclear power.
Stop No. 2: The Other Solutions

19. Presentation outline
Origin: Nuclear
opponent
Destination: Nuclear
proponent
How bad is the problem? How good are the
other solutions?
Can nuclear help, and are the
drawbacks of nuclear power
acceptable?

20. Nuclear Power: Why not? OR The
Seven Reasons I was anti-nuclear
1. Nuclear power is dangerous
• 1(a). Operations
• 1(b). Waste
2. Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons
3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle
4. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable
5. Nuclear power is too expensive
6. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference
7. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

21. 1 (a). Opponent thinking: Nuclear power is dangerous
(Operations)
• Nuclear accidents are catastrophic and a constant risk
Challenge thinking: Are nuclear power plants dangerous
enough to reject nuclear power?
• What is the safety record of nuclear power plants compared to coal?
• Let’s examine the safety record of nuclear power plants in the US, France,
former USSR, Japan and globally

22. Safety Record of Nuclear Power Plants: United States
• Number of nuclear power plants in the US= 104 in 2009
• Percentage of US electricity production= 20.2% in 2009
(Source: US Energy Administration Annual Energy Review 2009)
• Number of deaths from radiation incident in the US in the
history of the nuclear power industry= 0
Cooling towers
Containment domes
Reactors
Three Mile Island Reactor (Image: Public source)

23. Safety Record of Nuclear Power Plants: France
• Number of nuclear power plants in the France = 59 in 2008
• Percentage of French electricity production= 79% in 2009
• Number of deaths from radiation incident in France in the
history of the nuclear power industry= 0
A French nuclear power plant
(Source: The Open University)

24. Safety Record of Nuclear Power Plants: Former USSR
• Number of direct fatalities at Chernobyl: 28 (workers and firefighters, acute radiation poisoning )
(Source: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation)
• Other serious health impacts: 6,000 additional cases of thyroid cancer, some reproductive
difficulties for other ARS sufferers (approx. 100) (United Nations Information Service, 28 February 2011)
• 15 deaths from thyroid cancer by 2005 (United Nations Information Service, 28 February 2011)
• Major social impact (Source: UNSCEAR)
• There were no containment domes, and the accident was caused by a massive contravention of
procedure
• Conclusion: This was a tragic, catastrophic, and very preventable industrial accident.
Site of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant post-
accident. There were no concrete containment
domes (Source: The Open University)
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2011/unisinf398.html

25. Fukishima, Japan: March 11th and aftermath
• Direct radiation fatalities : 0
• Elevated exposure for emergency workers
• Water pollution to nearby ocean, air pollution to
surrounding areas.
• Irreparable damage to the plants- will be
decommissioned
• Evacuation : 200,000 people within 20km from plants
• Challenge is now the re-opening of the exclusion zone
and letting people return home

26. Iran Illushin II-76 (2003): 302 deaths
Air Africa Antonov (1996): 300 deaths
American Airlines Flight 587(2001): 265 deaths
China Airways Flight 140(1994): 264 deaths
Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 (1991): 261 deaths
Garuda Indonesia 152 (1997): 235 deaths
TWA Flight 800 (1996): 230 deaths
Swissair Flight 111 (1998): 229 deaths Air France Flight 447 (2009): 228 deaths
Korean Air Flight 801 (1997): 228 deaths
China Airlines Flight 611 (2002): 225 deaths
Lauda Airflight 004 (1991): 223 deaths
Egypt Air Flight 990 (1999): 217 deaths
China Air Flight 676 (1998): 202 deaths
TAM Airlines Flight 3054 (2007): 199 deaths
Birgenair Flight 301 (1996): 189 deaths
Pulkovo Airlines Flight 612 (2006): 170 deaths
Kenya Airways Flight 431 (2000): 169 deaths
Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 (2009): 168 deaths
PIA Flight 268 (1992): 167deaths
China Northwest Airlines flight 2303 (1994): 160 deaths
West Caribbean Airways Flight 708 (2005): 160 deaths
Libyan Arab Airways Flight 1103 (1992): 159 deaths
American Airlines Flight 965 (1995): 159 deaths
Air Indian Express Flight 812 (2010): 158 deaths
Gol Transportes Aeros Flight 1907 (2006): 154 deaths
Spanair Flight 5022 (2008): 154 deaths
Airblue Flight 202 (2010): 152 deaths
Yemenia Flight 626 (2009): 152 deaths
How must we respond?

27. Lessons from Fukishima
Design Lesson 3: Spent Fuel Containment
• Spent fuel must have robust containment on all sides
• Melt-down then becomes local and contained problem
Design Lesson 1: Power Supply
• Back- up power supply must be independent and protected.
Operational lesson: Engagement and Social Capital
• Ignorance of risk from radiation among surrounding
populations is the responsibility of the operator, not the
population
• Operators must engage with communities, build trust,
knowledge and understanding that can be the difference
between life and death in an emergency.
Design Lesson 2: Passive Cooling
• In the event of failure, cooling is maintained without any
power or intervention, through immutable physical
properties e.g. gravity, convection.

28. 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

29. New thinking from exploring the question
“Are nuclear power plants dangerous enough to reject
nuclear power?”
• No, they are exceptionally safe and getting safer
• Chernobyl , TMI, Fukishima incidents provide a good basis for
the continuing evolution of stringent safety
• Conclusion: Concerns regarding the safety of nuclear power
plants provides a poor basis for rejecting nuclear power
outright
1. Nuclear power is dangerous
• 1(a). Operations
• 1(b). Waste
2. Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons
3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle
4. There is not enough uranium
5. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable
6. Nuclear power is too expensive
7. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference
8. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

30. 1 (b). Opponent thinking: Nuclear power is dangerous
(Waste)
• Nuclear waste is deadly, long lived and hard to manage
Challenge thinking: Is nuclear waste dangerous
enough to reject nuclear power?
• What is nuclear waste?
• How is nuclear waste managed?
• How does it compare to other toxic wastes?
• How does it compare to waste from electricity production
from coal?

31. Nuclear waste: what is it and how is it managed?
• High Level Waste (HLW): Spent fuel and reprocessed components. Needs cooling,
special handling, transport and storage. Remains hazardous for a long time
• The HLW eventually needs permanent geological disposal. This is feasible and low
risk (Commonwealth of Australia 2006). No country has done it yet. Many are
working on it.
Commonwealth of Australia
2006 p 69
This is fuel in waiting
for Generation IV
(Fast) Reactors

32. HL Nuclear waste: Short-term storage

33. HL Nuclear waste: Proposed long term storage
Source: Commonwealth of Australia 2006 p 65
We could do this, but
probably never will.
We will use HLW as
recycled fuel instead

34. Compare with other toxic waste
Australia’s Hazardous waste p.a. : 1.1 million tons
(Source: Department of Environment, Heritage Water and the Arts
2009 p 175)
•Chemical by-products from industrial processes
•Metals and metallic compounds (lead, mercury,
cadmium)
•Waste mineral oils
•Household chemicals and pesticides
•Biological wastes
•Does not include post consumer waste!!!
Environment Protection and Heritage
Council National Waste Report 2010
HLW p.a. (25 GW nuclear power industry): 750 tons/ 250m3
•An additional 0.07% by weight
•45,000 tons for 60 years of reactor life, or 4% of current annual
total of hazardous waste

35. Compare with coal waste
In 2009, the 2.2GW operations of the Loy Yang Power Corporation, consuming up to
60,000 tons of coal per day, reported the following waste:
•577,800m3 of fly ash for “disposal at the on-site overburden dump”
•9,079 ML of wastewater, including 3,535 ML of ash water
•2,070 tons of fly ash emitted to the atmosphere
•56,428 tons of SO2
•29,398 tons of NOx
•2,577 tons of CO
•18,232,826 tCO2e (Source: Loy Yang Power Environmental Report)
“..the waste produced by coal plants is actually
more radioactive than that generated by their
nuclear counterparts... the fly ash emitted by a
power plant..carries into the surrounding
environment 100 times more radiation than a
nuclear power plant producing the same
amount of energy” (Scientific American 13
December 2007).

36. New thinking from exploring the question: Is nuclear
waste dangerous enough to reject nuclear power?
•HLW is:
•Undesirable, but small and very manageable
•Way, way better than coal waste
•Fuel in waiting for Generation IV reactors
•Conclusion: A transition of electricity generation from coal to a well managed
nuclear power regime would be hugely beneficial to the environment and
human health. Nuclear waste must be well managed, but it provides no
grounds for the complete rejection of nuclear power.
1. Nuclear power is dangerous
• 1(a). Operations
• 1(b). Waste
2. Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons
3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle
4. There is not enough uranium
5. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable
6. Nuclear power is too expensive
7. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference
8. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

37. 2. Opponent thinking: Nuclear power leads to
nuclear weapons
• The spread of nuclear power will lead to the spread of nuclear weapons,
and this is an unacceptable compromise
• Nations that adopt nuclear power inevitably develop nuclear weapons
Challenge thinking: Does nuclear power lead to
nuclear weapons?
• How strong is the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons?
• Can power plants be used to make weapons?
• Would the increased use of nuclear power as a means to tackle climate
increase the spread of nuclear weapons?

38. Are nuclear armed countries also nuclear powered?
• Yes. 9 Nations have nuclear weapons capability AND civilian nuclear power generation.
(United States, China, Russia, United Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan, Israel (unconfirmed
nuclear capability), North Korea)
Are nuclear powered countries also nuclear armed?
• No. 21 nations have civilian nuclear power generation AND NO nuclear weapons capability
(includes nations in Africa, Asia, North and South America)
• Several nations are pursuing nuclear power for the first time, including in our region (e.g.
Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia)
22.30%
19.91%
5.50%
5.24%
1.84%
4.28%
79%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Nuclear
Powered/Nuclear Armed
Nuclear Powered TOTAL
% Global CO2 Emissions
(Fuel Only)
Nuclear Status
% Global CO2 Emissions (Fuel Only) by Nuclear Status
China
USA
Russia
India
Japan
Would the increased use of nuclear power as a means to
tackle climate change lead to the spread of nuclear
weapons?
• Firstly, the Megatons to Megawatts program has disposed safely of over
16,000 warheads of highly enriched uranium in the course of providing fuel
for zero carbon electricity

39. Can power plants be used to make weapons?
Well yes, but... of these means of creating weapons grade material...
1. Nuclear Power Plant 2. Research Reactor 3. Dedicated Facility
•The slowest
•The most expensive
•The easiest to detect/ least clandestine
•Produces the lowest quality material
•This is easier
•Australia has had one of these for
decades
Sources: Cohen 1990, Ch 13;
Physics Today September 2008
(Wood, Glasser and Kemp)
•This is easiest, cheapest, easiest to hide, produces
reliable material e.g. Gas centrifuge
•This is what is happening in problem nations
•Does not require a power plant or power industry

40. New thinking from exploring the question “Does
nuclear power lead to nuclear weapons?”
Conclusion:
• Nuclear technology will continue to be applied globally
• Nuclear power does not “automatically” lead to nuclear armament
• Nuclear power plants are very poorly suited to weapon development
• Australia could easily pursue civilian nuclear power with no weapons
program, as many other nations are.
Non-proliferation is a worthy pursuit. Refusal to use nuclear power makes
little if any contribution to this today.
1. Nuclear power is dangerous
• 1(a). Operations
• 1(b). Waste
2. Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons
3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle
4. There is not enough uranium
5. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable
6. Nuclear power is too expensive
7. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference
8. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

41. 3. Opponent thinking: Nuclear power produces
too much GHG across the lifecycle
• It may look good when just the energy generation is considered, but
actually across the lifecycle it is far inferior to renewables.
Challenge thinking: Is nuclear power a climate change
solution when the full lifecycle emissions are considered?
• What are the lifecycle emissions of nuclear power?
• How does it perform in comparison to other energy sources?

42. What are the lifecycle emissions of nuclear power?
• Full lifecycle for nuclear power
needs to include the following:
– Mining
– Milling
– Conversion
– Enrichment
– Fuel fabrication
– Plant construction
– Plant operation
– Plant decommissioning
– Waste storage
– ILW/LLW waste disposal
– HLW waste disposal
– Depleted uranium
– Mine site rehabilitation Zippe-type centrifugal uranium enrichment
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

43. How bad does the lifecycle need to be?
1230
680 650 547
320
90
140
80
0.03
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
gCO2-e/kWh
Comparative intensity of GHG in electricity
Sources: NGA Factors 2010 for Australian figures
Barry Brook (2010) for Denmark (Reconstructed)
Danish Energy Agency (2009) for Denmark (Reported)
International Energy Agency (2010, 2008 figures) for France

44. What are the lifecycle emissions of nuclear power? How does it
perform compared to other energy sources?
•Reviewed 40 global studies of the energy
and greenhouse balance of nuclear power
•Undertook new analysis for
Australian conditions
Source: University of Sydney 2006, p 172
Source: Australian Government 2006, p 95

45. What are the lifecycle emissions of nuclear power? How does it
perform compared to other energy sources?
Wright, M. and Hearps, P. (2010), p 35
• 2010 Study to provide a “detailed
and practical roadmap to
decarbonise the Australian
stationary energy sector within a
decade” (p. xiv)

46. What works?
1230
770 650 547
320
90
60
140
80
0.03
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
gCO2-e/kWh
Comparative intensity of GHG in electricity
Sources: NGA Factors 2010 for Australian figures
Barry Brook (2010) for Denmark (Reconstructed)
Danish Energy Agency (2009) for Denmark (Reported)
International Energy Agency (2010, 2008 figures) for France

47. New thinking from exploring the questions “Is nuclear power a
climate change solution when the full lifecycle emissions are
considered?”
• Nuclear power performs very well, far superior to coal power and
competitive with renewables
• This concern is unfounded and spurious
• Conclusion: A review of the lifecycle emissions of nuclear power provides
evidence to support its rapid implementation as a replacement for coal
1. Nuclear power is dangerous
• 1(a). Operations
• 1(b). Waste
2. Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons
3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle
4. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable
5. Nuclear power is too expensive
6. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference
7. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

48. 4. Opponent thinking: Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable
• Uranium mining causes massive environmental harm that outweighs any
benefit
Challenge thinking: Is uranium mining sufficiently harmful and
unsustainable to rule out the use of nuclear power?
• How do the impacts of uranium mining compare to other types of
mining, especially coal mining?

49. Examples of non-uranium mining
La Trobe Valley brown coal mining
Copper Mine, Canada with SMTD to
neighbouring sound
Ramu Nickel Mine, PNG. Cleared
rainforest, with planned SMTD
Flooded La Trobe Valley brown coal mine
...uranium mining is going
to have to be pretty darn
bad...

50. A method of uranium mining: Acid in-situ leaching
In situ leaching of uranium
(Source: Uranium SA)

51. Mining uranium with acid in-situ leaching, Beverely
Beverley Uranium Mine, South Australia
LLRW landfill, temporary storage, Beverley Uranium Mine
Evaporation Pond 5, Beverley Uranium Mine
(Source of images: Heathgate
Resources Annual Environmental
Report (2007)

52. Comparison of energy value between
coal and uranium
Calorific value of coal: 29.3 GJ/t
(Source: World Energy Council
conversion factors)
Calorific value of uranium: 14,300-23,000 tons
of coal equivalent,
OR
420,000-675,000 GJ/t !!!
(Source: World Energy Council conversion
factors)

53. How much less???
Leigh Creek Coal Train
•2.8 km long
•161 Wagons
•6,900 t coal per day
The energy equivalent in uranium oxide
•20 L
•200 kg

54. New thinking from exploring the question “Is uranium mining
terrible enough to rule out the use of nuclear power ?”
• In terms of environmental impact, uranium mining is unremarkable
compared to other forms of mining. But the vastly greater energy content
of uranium means the impact of uranium mining compared to coal mining
is negligible per unit of energy provided
• Conclusion: The impacts of uranium mining are a poor basis for rejection
of nuclear power. In fact, in the interests of better outcomes for the
environment, coal mining should be substituted for uranium mining as
quickly as possible!
1. Nuclear power is dangerous
• 1(a). Operations
• 1(b). Waste
2. Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons
3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle
4. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable
5. Nuclear power is too expensive
6. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference
7. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

55. 5. Opponent thinking: Nuclear power is too expensive
• We should be pursuing the cheapest options first, and nuclear
power is not cheap.
Challenge thinking: Is nuclear power so expensive that
is needs to be ruled out of the mix of solutions?
• How do the costs of nuclear power compare to other power
sources and other means of cutting emissions?
Olkiluoto Nuclear Power
Plant, Finland, 2008

56. How much does nuclear power cost?
• Very high up front cost (construction)
• Construction cost estimates of a new 1GW plant vary from $1bn-
$3.5bn (nuclearinfo.net) up to $5bn (Dr Ziggy Switkowski, Nov.
2010), but varies highly country to country (Dr Barry Brook, Nov.
2010)
• Costs are reduced by increasing modularisation, using economies of
volume, and reducing first-of-a-kind design and construction.
• Very competitive lifetime cost of electricity delivery, including
incorporation of waste management and decommissioning costs

57. How does nuclear fare with a carbon
price?
Source: Nicholson, Beigler and Brook
2010, published in the journal Energy
With a carbon
price, nuclear is the
swiftest technology
to displace coal on a
financial basis, and it
also has the least
sensitivity to the
carbon price
increasing
That makes it a smart
move!

58. “In contrast to our overseas studies, we have excluded nuclear
power from the Australian cost curve... Because it appears highly
unlikely that regulatory approval would be granted to build such a
facility by 2020, and because political and environmental
considerations, rather than economic ones, will drive this decision in
future years...We have assessed its impact in an alternative
scenario...Nuclear power penetration of around 10% by 2030 would
reduce costs to the economy by 12% under a 60% reduction
scenario by 2050”

59. McKinsey and Company 2009, p 7

60. New thinking from exploring the question: Is nuclear
power so expensive that is needs to be ruled out of
the mix of solutions?
• Per unit of electricity generated, nuclear power is a highly cost
competitive means of decarbonising the energy supply and replacing coal
• It is a major and cost competitive source of GHG abatement
• It has the best response to a carbon price of any Fit for Service baseload
source
• Conclusion: Cost is not a reason to rule out nuclear power
1. Nuclear power is dangerous
• 1(a). Operations
• 1(b). Waste
2. Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons
3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle
4. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable
5. Nuclear power is too expensive
6. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference
7. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

61. 6. Opponent thinking: Nuclear power takes too long to
make a difference
• We need a solution now, and nuclear power takes too long
Challenge thinking: Would nuclear power take too
long to make a difference?
Belleville sur Loire Nuclear Power Plant, France
(Image from The Guardian)

62. Would nuclear power take too long to
make a difference?
• Often used figure of 10-15 years-development of all regulatory
frameworks. Need it take this long?
• There will still be a problem in 10-15 years that needs to be solved
• French experience supports potential for high volume roll out. 5% to 80%
in 22 years
• Conclusion: Even at a worst case of 10-15 years, there is a role for nuclear.
We could greatly improve that timeframe by engaging in open and honest
dialogue
1. Nuclear power is dangerous
• 1(a). Operations
• 1(b). Waste
2. Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons
3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle
4. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable
5. Nuclear power is too expensive
6. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference
7. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

63. 7. Opponent thinking: People I like
and respect are anti-nuclear
• I am an environmentalist
• Those who champion the environment are anti-nuclear
• Those who are pro-nuclear are guided by their own vested
interests
• I seek guidance in a range of issues, including nuclear
power, from scrupulous experts and talented critical thinkers
• Almost everyone I know is anti-nuclear
• Almost everything I have read is anti-nuclear
• John Howard was pro-nuclear

64. Challenge thinking: What are people I like and
respect saying about nuclear power?
• When did I last revisit some of my favourite thinkers on this issue?
George Monbiot
James Hansen
James Lovelock

65. George Monbiot
I’m not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective... On
every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial
injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than
nuclear power... Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the
harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has
been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of
nuclear power.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/

66. James Hansen
“That’s what began to make me a bit angry. (outright opposition to
nuclear power) ... The antinuke advocates are so certain of their
righteousness that they would eliminate the availability of a alternative to
fossil fuels.... What if the utility executives are right, and we must choose
between coal or nuclear for baseload power?
The scientific method requires that we keep an open mind and change our
conclusions when new evidence indicates that we should. The new
evidence affecting the nuclear debate is climate change, specifically the
urgency of moving beyond fossil fuels to carbon free energy sources... A
phase out of coal emissions in the West can proceed promptly on the basis
of efficiency, renewables, third generation nuclear power and possibly a
contribution from carbon capture and storage.
Storms of my Grandchildren (2010 p. 204)

67. James Lovelock
• “Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-
style science fiction the Greens lobby and media...but I am a Green, and I
entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection
to nuclear energy... We have no time to experiment with visionary energy
sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear - the one
safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted
by our outraged planet.
http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm

68. New thinking from exploring the question: What are
people I like and respect saying about nuclear power?
• Conclusion: The anti-nuclear movement in no way has a monopoly over
those with genuine, passionate and non-vested concern for the
environment and climate change
• Anti-nuclear activism and environmentalism are two different movements
• Many thinking, caring, passionate and non-vested people range in position
from active promotion to conditional acceptance of nuclear power
1. Nuclear power is dangerous
• 1(a). Operations
• 1(b). Waste
2. Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons
3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle
4. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable
5. Nuclear power is too expensive
6. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference
7. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

69. Destination: Nuclear Proponent
• 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

70. South Australia’s Base Load Generation Stock 2011
Name Fuel Type Capacity (MW) Reported Emissions
2009 (tCO2-e)
Commissioned Comments
BASELOAD 2,969 8.71 million
Torrens 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

71. Incremental, Small Modular
Name Fuel Type Capacity (MW) Reported Emissions
(tCO2-e)
Commissioned Comments
BASELOAD 2,840 952,000
Torrens 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?)

72. “Community acceptance would be the first
requirement for nuclear power to operate
successfully in Australia”
Australian Government, Uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy- opportunities for Australia?, 2006
Conclusion

73. Want to help?
• Visit www.decarbonisesa.com
• Subscribe! It’s free, and that way I
can stay in touch with you
• Visit the Want to help? page
• Arrange a new audience to hear
this message
• More actions will come next year

74. Sustainable Energy Choices: The Case
for Nuclear in 2 ½ minutes

75. Comparative radiation doses and their effects
2.4 mSv/yr
Typical background radiation experienced by everyone (average 1.5 mSv in
Australia, 3 mSv in North America).
9 mSv/yr Exposure by airline crew flying the New York – Tokyo polar route.
10 mSv Effective dose from abdomen & pelvis CT scan.
250 mSv
Allowable short-term dose for workers controlling the 2011 Fukushima
accident.
250 mSv/yr Natural background level at Ramsar in Iran, with no identified health effects.
1,000 mSv
single dose
Causes (temporary) radiation sickness (Acute Radiation Syndrome) such as
nausea and decreased white blood cell count, but not death. Above this,
severity of illness increases with dose.
5,000 mSv
single dose
Would kill about half those receiving it within a month.
10,000 mSv
single dose
Fatal within a few weeks.
Source: World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Radiation and Health Effects November 2011