australian nuclear technology engagement

AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY ENGAGEMENT

Australia is not pursing nuclear power generation technologies as an alternate option to fossil fuels as part of an integrated

adaptive/resilience strategy for the impacts of climate change.

Prepared for: Mr Matthew Warren Chief Executive Officer

Energy Supply Association of Australia

Presented by: Brian Doyle

Aslan Pride Consulting October 2015

S40493251

ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving

Brian Doyle - 40493251

2

TABLES OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION .......................................................................................... 5 2.1 CURRENT REALITY (How a problem is perceived) ............................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Social .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Commercial .................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Political .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.4 Environment ................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 FUTURE REALITY (Predicted future condition) ..................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Social .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.2 Commercial .................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Political ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.2.4 Environment ................................................................................................................. 10

2.3 DESIRED REALITY (Ideal situation construct) ..................................................................................... 10 2.4 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION .............................................................................................................. 11

3. PROBLEM CLUSTERING ...................................................................................... 12 3.1 PROBLEM CLUSTER MODEL ............................................................................................................. 12

3.1.1. Government .................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.2. Industry ........................................................................................................................ 14 3.1.3. Society .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.4. Education system ......................................................................................................... 16 3.1.5. Media ........................................................................................................................... 17 3.1.6. History/Legacy ............................................................................................................. 18 3.1.7. Environmental consciousness ...................................................................................... 18

4. PRIORITY ESTABLISHMENT .............................................................................. 19 5. PROBLEM ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................. 22 6. PROBLEM SYSTEM ................................................................................................ 23 7. OPTION GENERATION ......................................................................................... 24 8. OPTION EVALUATION .......................................................................................... 25 8.1 MANAGEMENT LEVEL ........................................................................................................................ 25 8.2 OPERATIONAL LEVEL ......................................................................................................................... 26

9. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 27 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 28



3

1. INTRODUCTION The twenty first century will see an enormous increase in the demand for electricity driven by

population growth across the globe (Waughray, 2011). Within an environment where the

world is striving to stem the rate of climate change, energy generation is under the

microscope, not only as a means to establish future energy security, but also to reduce

emissions against traditional energy generation technologies in the fight against climate

change.

In this evolving paradigm Australia faces duel challenges. The first challenge is to develop a

new energy generation regime that will secure Australia’s needs into the future. Implicit in

this new generation regime, is that it is based on low carbon emissions to support Australia’s

international emission commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The second

challenge is to transition its thermoelectric energy generation away from fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel power generation caters for 86% of Australia’s energy needs (chart 1), with coal

the largest contributor at 73% (Origin Energy, 2015). Within the Australian context this level

of reliance on coal has largely been driven by its abundance, reliability and low cost (Origin

Energy, 2015).

Chart 1. Electricity generation mix across Australian. Source: Origin Energy, 2015



4

Chart 2. World Electricity Production from all Energy Sources in 2012 (TWh). (Source: The Shift Project – Data Portal)

A comparison of Australia’s electricity generation chart (chart 1), and the World Electricity

Production chart (chart 2), identifies nuclear power generation as being power generation

technology absent from Australia’s energy generating options - a generating option that

makes a signification contribution to global energy needs. While using nuclear power for

energy generation is a topical and contentious issue globally, it continues to contribute to

global energy needs and regardless of recent problems, such as Fukushima Daiichi in Japan,

the industry continues to expand with new reactors under construction and planned across the

world (World Nuclear Association, 2015). However, nuclear power generation’s potential to

establish energy security and reduce carbon emissions appears to be lost on Australia,

particularly at an industry, higher government and public perception and awareness level.

Australia’s general state of disinterest and disengagement is at odds with not only what is

happening overseas, but with the academic and government departmental research being

conducted across the nation. In 2012, the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics

(BREE) undertook an Australian Energy Technology Assessment (AETA) designed to

evaluate 40 utility-sized power generation technologies (World Nuclear Association, 2015).

This analysis projected the suitability, efficiency and electricity cost of these technologies out

to 2050, using the National Transmission Network Development Plan (NTNDP) parameters

from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and the Department of Treasury



5

(World Nuclear Association, 2015). Based on a levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) the two

nuclear technologies evaluated matched the lowest electricity cost range of the 40

technologies from 2020 to 2050 (World Nuclear Association, 2015). BREE’s analysis

matched a CSIRO eFuture model that shows that including nuclear power generation into the

generation mix from 2025 will have significant greenhouse gas abatement and health savings,

in addition to driving down the LCOE from 2040 onwards (World Nuclear Association,

2015). In considering this information, it is important to note that the LCOE is a measure of

power generation sources that facilitates the comparison of different generation methods. In

the case of nuclear power generation this includes all capital, build, operating and waste

disposal costs (World Nuclear Association, 2015)(CSIRO, 2013).

This paper was prepared by Aslan Pride Consulting (Brian Doyle) for the Chief Executive

Officer (CEO) of Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA), Mr Matthew Warren.

ESAA, as the peak industry body representing the Australian energy sector, is in an ideal

position to influence the policy decisions of government and contribute to future debates over

which technologies to pursue to secure Australia’s energy future. Importantly, ESAA have

industry members from both the fossil fuel and the renewable sectors, and as the industry

peak body are fuel and technology neutral.

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION

2.1 CURRENT REALITY (How a problem is perceived)

2.1.1 Social

The Australian public perception of nuclear power is largely driven by stereotypes

(Khripunov, 2007). All the evils of the last 70 years from the USA bombing in Japan,

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island through to Fukushima Daiichi are layered upon one another

to create a perception of danger, evil, badness and something Australia would rather not deal

with. The periodic attempt by commercial interests, politicians to use Australia’s geology as a

‘pay as you use’ waste repository has always experienced negative ‘blowback’ from the

public. This negative ‘blowback’ is not based on any understanding of the technology or the

process, as it is normally simply a case of the ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome. These attempts

to use Australia’s backyard have further feed into the existing stereotypes of the Australian

public consciousness (Reiner and Nuttall, 2011).



6

Even with the negatives of radioactive waste and weapons proliferation, many global societies

have faced having nuclear power on their door step as a way to provide clean economical

electricity and as such have accommodated it, and adjusted to the associated challenges.

Australia, by virtue of its abundant source of cheap and reliable coal has never been in a

position where it has had to face using nuclear power, and therefore not needed look beyond

its superficial understanding of the technology, which presently exists.

2.1.2 Commercial

From a commercial/industry perspective nuclear for power generation is not on the table for

consideration. Cheap, reliable and abundant coal is still the primary source of generation, as

well as a significant export earner. Australia, in pursuit of meeting it international emission

reduction obligations, is actively pursuing alternate renewable technologies to replace coal

and other fossil fuels. The primary diver of any commercial/industry project, whether new

technology for existing fossil fuel generation or renewables, is the price of electricity per

kilowatt-hour (kWh), in conjunction with the associated emissions abatement. Accordingly,

there is no commercial/industry activity to introduce nuclear power generation into Australia.

2.1.3 Political The existing Australian political landscape is confusing. The current coalition government of

the Liberal Party of Australian (LPA) and the National Party of Australian (NPA) have no

specific or direct policy on nuclear energy (LPA and NPA, 2013). The coalition policy

platform only lists the following policy commitments that have any relationship to a nuclear

energy policy (LPA and NPA, 2013).

• Update the 2012 Energy White paper produced by the Rudd-Gillard Labor

government.

• Formalise the agreement to enable the export of uranium to India.

• Examine the potential of Thorium as an energy source for export.



7

The existing coalition policy appears to be inconsistent with comment’s made in parliament

by the former Resources Minister, Mr. Ian Macfarlane in 2008, when he called for Australia

to include nuclear in its future energy mix (The Australian, 2008). Coalition Opposition

Minister Ian Macfarlane said in a speech to parliament, "If Australia expects to live up to the

expectations the Rudd Government is creating, and to be taken seriously in claiming to set an

example it expects other nations to follow, we simply must get real on nuclear energy" (The

Australian, 2008). The Australia Labor Party (ALP) government, Environment Minister,

Peter Garrett responded by calling the Liberal Party policy on nuclear energy ‘a dog’s

breakfast’ (The Australian, 2008). However, since Ian Macfarlane’s comments, the coalition

has been returned to government, but little in the way of policy has changed regarding nuclear

power generation.

The ALP is equally confusing in their policy approach. At a Federal government level their

policy on Uranium is very specific. It clearly “prohibits the establishment of nuclear power

plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia” (ALP, 2015). Whereas, at a

State government level the opposite approach is being taken. The South Australian Labor

government is presently conducting the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. The four key

points of reference for the Royal Commission are the following:

1. Exploration, extraction and milling

2. Further processing and manufacture

3. Electricity generation

4. Management, storage and disposal of waste

The Royal Commission is scheduled to present its report to the Federal Government in May

2016.

The Greens party takes a position, which in comparison to the other three major parties, is an

extreme approach to nuclear policy. The Greens policy platform on nuclear and uranium lists

the following imperatives (The Greens, 2015):



8

• No nuclear power

• No uranium mining

• No uranium export

• No nuclear weapons

The Greens policy platform elaborates on the above four key points with sub-sets of related

principles and aims (The Greens, 2015). The principles and aims are surprisingly detailed,

including the closing of the OPAL nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights and all nuclear research

facilities Australia-wide (The Greens, 2015). Essentially, for anything remotely related to

nuclear, it is a ‘No’ from the Greens party, whether it is related to energy generation, industry,

agriculture or health applications.

2.1.4 Environment Environmental concerns regarding radioactive waste management and weapons proliferation

is an influencing factor shaping the views of Australian society, politics and commerce.

In the current reality, it is important not to over play, nor under estimate the role of

radioactive waste and nuclear weapons on shaping public opinion. The stark reality is that

Australia is blessed with an abundance of cheap and reliable coal in its fossil fuel mix. Driven

by jobs, investment, commercial and political interest Australia has happily mined, burnt and

exported coal, with all the associated carbon emissions with impunity for countless decades.

Only now, with the challenge of climate change and international pressure is Australia

reluctantly taking steps to reduce emissions. The challenge of managing the world’s

radioactive waste is put into perspective when you consider the global impact of a century of

mining, burning and exporting coal for power generation and steel-making.

Australia does have radioactive waste issues relating to the OPAL facility at Lucas Heights

and other smaller research facilities. These issues are not to be downplayed, but in

comparison to Australia’s current environmental challenges relating to fossil fuels, they are

minor.



9

2.2 FUTURE REALITY (Predicted future condition)

In predicting a future reality, I have assumed no change in Australia’s engagement with

nuclear as a power generation source. In this scenario we can only speculate about the future

energy generation mix.

2.2.1 Social

There is little or no change in Australian public opinion. The superficial knowledge of nuclear

technology, in the absence of any direct engagement, is still driven by traditional stereotypes.

2.2.2 Commercial Underpinned by public perception and political policies there has been no incentive for

industry to pursue a nuclear power solution. Australia’s power generation mix still includes a

large contribution from coal and other fossil fuels with the balance supplied by a mix of

renewables.

Australia’s focus on a mix of fossil fuels and renewables for its future energy needs expose it

to the following issues:

• A policy of disengagement with nuclear has shut out Australia from taking advantage

of the evolving nuclear technologies, such as new generation fission reactors and new

fuel options that provide low emissions energy with reduced radioactive waste and

proliferations risk. Advances in large scale fusion power generation, similar to the

ITER project in France, will be lost to Australia. Similarly, advances in small format,

modular fusion power generation, such as being developed by the Skunk Works

research facility of Lockheed Martin will also be lost to Australia.

• An increased risk of failure for Australia’s energy generation mix within the context

of energy security. Many of the renewables, such as solar and wind, are intermittent

energy sources that require an evolving battery storage technology to support future

growing domestic and industrial needs. The intermittent nature of these renewables

presents an uncertain risk when considered with the changing impact of climate

change to weather patterns. There is an unknown risk to fixed location

domestic/industrial solar and industrial wind farm power generation capacities being

impacted by increasingly unpredictable and volatile weather patterns.



10

2.2.3 Political

Little or no change’s in Australian political party’s policy platforms. The South Australian

Labor government, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission brought clarity to the nuclear

debate and debunked many of the stereotypes held by Australian society and the political

class. Unfortunately, this good work remained a State based initiative that did not transition to

the Federal policy arena, largely due to existing commercial and political self-interest.

2.2.4 Environment

There is little or no change in Australia’s environmental challenges from OPAL and other

research facilities.

2.3 DESIRED REALITY (Ideal situation construct)

From a social, commercial and political perspective Australia has moved passed the negative

stereotypes of nuclear power generation, which has been the legacy of the last 70 years.

Australia now recognises that its early laggard position of disengagement from nuclear

technology for power generation has excluded it from many of the direct challenges early

adopters of nuclear power have had to deal with. In this reality Australia recognises that the

timing for engagement is ideal to seize the opportunities new fission and fusion-based nuclear

technologies can now offer. These technologies can provide large, small and modular fission

and fusion power generation solutions without the radioactive waste and weapons

proliferation risk of legacy technologies. New power generation solutions can be integrated

into mitigation, adaptive and resilience strategies to assist in combating the impacts of climate

change. Together these new solutions offer a long-term consistent base load capability against

the intermittent nature of other renewables. These new technological solutions replicate the

physical reaction process that powers the sun as opposed to just harnessing by-products such

as wind and solar.

By including nuclear power into the energy mix for establishing Australia’s long-term energy

security the benefits established by the early BREE and CSIRO eFuture Model will be able to

be realised. New nuclear technologies offer an energy generation solution that generates very

little in the way of carbon emissions, compared to other technologies over the life of the

projects.



11

2.4 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

In attempting to understand Australia’s current status with regard to nuclear technology

engagement a detailed examination of the narrative for the ‘current reality’ highlights the core

problem. That is, that the Australian public still embrace the negative stereotypes for nuclear

energy that have evolved over the last 70 years since the USA Army’s decision, through the

Manhattan Project in 1942, to pursue nuclear reactor technologies and a uranium fuel option

that was implicitly driven by the imperative to build a bomb and win the war, as opposed to

altruistic imperatives and concerns for long-term radioactive waste issues and weapons

proliferation.

As discussed earlier in this paper, the Australian public has never been in a position to need

nuclear technology as way to ensure energy security as other countries have had to do to

ensure their energy security. Australia’s abundance of coal and other fossil fuels has allowed

Australia to keep the nuclear ‘genie in the bottle’, for the most part, at arms length. While the

majority of incidents relating to nuclear, such as Three Mile Island (1979) and Ghernobyl

(1986), have occurred overseas. Australia has only experienced incidents related to nuclear

energy when Australian and British armed forces tested nuclear weapons at Maralinga/Emu

Field in the 1950s.

Australia’s social consciousness regarding nuclear is also clouded by the fact that we export

uranium to other countries, where we go to great lengths to unsure that it is only used for

power generation and not for weapons proliferation. This utilisation of Australia’s uranium

resources by other nations reinforces the stereotyping and perceived risks that accompany the

use of nuclear at home and overseas.

By making Australia’s social consciousness or public opinion regarding nuclear the centre

piece of our problem, it is both logical and easy to see how the commercial/industry and

political elements fall into place. To suggest that contemporary political parties run on

opinion polls and the 24-hour news cycle is to understate the political reality. Therefore, it is

logical to expect that the policy platforms of Australia’s major parties reflects the publics

social consciousness regarding nuclear. In this environment, political parties, periodically

poke their heads above or outside of their platform policies to test the publics reaction. I

would speculate and suggest that Ian Macfarlane’s comments in parliament in 2008, were not

only to provoke the government’s Environment Minister, but also to test the reaction of the



12

public and media. I would further suggest, that the South Australian government Nuclear Fuel

Cycle Royal Commission is in essence the same exercise in testing public opinion, but on a

much larger scale. The South Australian government has identified a number of areas it can

engage with the nuclear industry to generate an income stream for the State. However, before

it can do so it needs to educate and alter public opinion. In this scenario, commerce and

industry are waiting in the rear. Industry will only commit investment capital when public

opinion, government policy and legislation provides a stable environment for long-term

investment.

Through the process of problem definition and identification, the core issue of public

opinion/perceptions relating to the status of Australia’s nuclear technology engagement, and

to understand why Australia is not pursing nuclear as an alternate to fossil fuels, as part of an

integrated adaptive/resilience strategy for the impacts of climate change has been established.

3. PROBLEM CLUSTERING

3.1 PROBLEM CLUSTER MODEL

Figure 1. Public perception (Nuclear power) – Full Problem Cluster Model

PUBLICPERCEPTIONNuclear Power

GOVERNMENT

MEDIA

SOCIETYINDUSTRY

ENVIRONMENTALCONSCIOUSNESS

HISTORYLEGACY

EDUCATIONSYSTEMCultural impact Radioactive waste

Weaponsproliferation

Accidents Manhattan project

Academicleadership

Opion leaders

Funding

Communityengagement andcommunication

Curricula

Politics

Newtechnology risk

Greenhouse gasemissions

Climate change

Weather patterns Energy securityneeds

Capital investment

Renewabletechnologies

Energy securityfor industry Labour unions

Fossil fuel firms

Reliance on othersApathy to politics Short term focus

self interest

Level ofengagement

Cultural mix

Predisposition todrama

Self interest

Paid commentary

Internet andsocial media

Revenue andfunding

Political leadership

Unions Energy security Uranium exports

employment

InternationalobligationsCulture

Communicationsand engagement



13

The centre point of the cluster model shown in Figure 1 is ‘Public perception / opinion’

within the context of nuclear power. All of the clusters examined contain problems that feed

into and shape the Australian publics perception and opinion on nuclear power. In many

instances these relationships feed back into the cluster problems, where the evolving and

changing public perception can magnify or lessen these problems. Section 3.1.1 through to

section 3.1.7 will examine in detail the elements of each problem cluster.

3.1.1. Government

Figure 2. Government Problem Cluster

• Revenue and funding – the inability to fund programs and projects is an impediment

to progress.

• Energy security – the challenge of providing the energy needs of existing and future

generations.

• Culture – influences individual, group, communities and society’s perspective on

issues, which influences government decision making.

• Political leadership – Australia’s government needs to adopt a proactive position and

lead from the front for what is best for the Australian people, as opposed to being

reactive to news polls, media commentary and the influence of lobby groups.

• International obligations – Australian government is required to have policy responses

that may be inconsistent with traditional government policy and community opinions.

• Employment (standard of living) – No matter what domestic or international issue that

the government may be dealing with, there remains an underlying expectation from


GOVERNMENT

Revenue andfunding

Political leadership

Unions Energy security Uranium exports

employment

InternationalobligationsCulture

Communicationsand engagement



14

the community that employment and living standards will be maintained. There

appears to be little scope for social sacrifice in the interest of the nation.

• Uranium exports – Australia’s policy on uranium is a paradox. We export the fuel to

others for financial gain, but will not use it ourselves for fear of the risks. This

position confuses both the Australian people and the international community.

• Communication and engagement – the quality of government communication and

engagement on important future issues has a direct impact on public perceptions and

opinions.

• Unions – A disproportionate influence is exerted by Unions on the government, in

particular, by the ALP.

3.1.2. Industry

Figure 3. Industry Problem Cluster

• Renewables technologies – Australian industry has launched itself into, renewable

technologies to take advantage of the commercial opportunities seen as a result of

Australia needing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition from fossil fuels.

In many cases the race for first entry and market share has been without prudent

consideration and planning. While renewable energy will make a significant

contribution to Australia’s future energy needs there is a litany of businesses that have

failed due to poor business planning.


INDUSTRY

Capital investment

Renewabletechnologies

Energy securityfor industry Labour unions

Fossil fuel firms



15

• Labour unions - A disproportionate influence is exerted by Unions on the government,

in particular, by the ALP.

• Capital investment – stable government policy and supportive public opinion is a

necessary ingredient for investors to consider any capital project, including nuclear

projects.

• Fossil fuel firms – existing fossil fuel firms have significant investments still in the

ground. Accordingly, they are resisting the transition to new energy technologies.

Much of this resistance is through lobby groups and media influence.

• Energy security for industy - the challenge to provide the energy needs of the existing

and future generations.

3.1.3. Society

Figure 4. Society Problem Cluster

• Cultural mix - influences individual, group, communities and society’s perspective on

issues.

• Short-term focus/self-interest – individuals generally make rational decision for their

own interest.

• Apathy to politics and media – politics and media are not held in high regard.

• Critical reasoning ability – the public general apathy to issues outside of their direct

interest results in very little, if any, critical reasoning on important national issues.

• Reliance on others (letting politics and media interpret and re-frame opinions) – again

general apathy and self-interest has resulted in the public letting politics and the media


SOCIETY

Reliance on othersApathy to politics Short term focus

self interest

Level ofengagement

Cultural mix



16

interpret and re-frame opinions on important national issues. The public is less

inclined to question a position on any issue, other than at a superficial level.

• Level of engagement – a portion of the Australian public do not engage with topical

and current events.

3.1.4. Education system

Figure 5. Education System Problem Cluster

• Academic leadership – academic institutions needs to adopt a proactive position and

lead from the front and not wait for industry or politics.

• Opinion leaders – the absence of eminent educational figures engaging national issues

in debates is allowing minority proponents to disseminate information unchallenged.

• Funding - the inability to fund programs and projects is an impediment to progress.

• Community engagement and communication – educational institutions’ primary focus

is to engage with industry. There is little or no communication, or engagement with

the general community on broader issues.

• Politics – instrumental in setting the educational agenda.

• Curricula (secondary and tertiary) – There is an absence of courses available within

the education system to both educate and better inform new generations of Australian

as to the challenges and opportunities of nuclear power. In addition, there are no

training programs to provide the necessary skills sets should Australia seek to pursue

nuclear power.


EDUCATIONSYSTEM

Academicleadership

Opion leaders

Funding

Communityengagement andcommunication

Curricula

Politics



17

3.1.5. Media

Figure 6. Media Problem Cluster

• Self interest (ownership agenda) – There is a significant risk that media ownership

will run bias commentary.

• Paid commentary – the media has no filter for the quality of information. As a

commercial venture, any paying client can use the media platform to disseminate

incorrect information.

• Predisposition to drama – Commercial ventures are the primary objective to drive

profits on the sale and distribution of content. Accordingly, there is an implicit

predisposition in the Australian media to generate an atmosphere of drama through the

use of carefully chosen words to elicit a positive commercial impact in addition to

elevating their position in any given debate.

• Internet/Social media – can make a disruptive and negative contribution to public

perceptions due to the quantity, and quality of information.


MEDIA

Predisposition todrama

Self interest

Paid commentary

Internet andsocial media



18

3.1.6. History/Legacy

Figure 7. History/Legacy Problem Cluster

• Cultural impact - influences individual, group, communities and society’s perspective

on issues.

• Radioactive waste – reinforces negative public perceptions.

• Weapons proliferation – reinforces negative public perceptions.

• Accidents – reinforces negative public perceptions.

• Manhattan project – It was the establishment of the Manhattan project by the USA

army 70 years ago and their selection of reactor technology and fuel type that has left

the world with a legacy of radioactive waste and weapons proliferation. It is only now

that new designs, fuels and fusion are being pursued to stop that legacy increasing.

3.1.7. Environmental consciousness

Figure 8. Environmental Consciousness Problem Cluster


HISTORYLEGACY

Cultural impact Radioactive waste

Weaponsproliferation

Accidents Manhattan project



Newtechnology risk

Greenhouse gasemissions

Climate change

Weather patterns Energy securityneeds



19

• Greenhouse gas emissions – elevated levels of fear and public concern.

• Climate change – elevated levels of fear and public concern.

• New technology risks – elevated levels of fear and public concern for new technology

based on historical track record.

• Weather patterns – concerns about national mitigation, adaptive and resilience

preparedness.

• Energy security needs – uncertainty, as to whether new renewable technologies can

satisfactorily replace fossil fuel energy generation.

4. PRIORITY ESTABLISHMENT To establish a priority list from the problem cluster analysis, a matrix will be used to measure

the following elements:

• Management sensitivity

• System sensitivity

• Organisational impacts

• Reversibility assessment.

The matrix will be rated using a sensitivity score card that scores elements from ‘low’ (1) to

‘very high’ (5). The scores from the analysis tables will be totalled to determine the priority of

the problem clusters.

Low Moderate Substantial High VeryHigh1 2 3 4 5

SensitivityScoreCard

Table 1. Sensitivity Score card (represents the degree of problem element difficultly)



20

Managementsensitivity Government Industry Society Education Media History EnvironmentPhysicalgeography 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Problemtrajectory 4 3 4 3 4 2 2Legalsituation 2 2 1 2 3 1 1Jurisdictionalsituation 2 3 1 2 2 1 1Landusedynamics 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Socialdynamics 5 4 5 3 3 2 1Economicchangepatterns 4 4 4 3 3 2 2Socialchangepatterns 5 3 4 4 4 2 4Politicallandscape 4 4 4 3 4 3 3Organisationalcultureandpolitics 5 4 4 3 4 3 4Levelofrisk 4 3 3 3 4 2 4Total 37 32 32 28 33 20 24

Table 2. Management sensitivity Systemsensitivity Government Industry Society Education Media History EnvironmentOrganisationalsurvial 5 4 4 4 5 1 5Competitiveposition 3 4 2 4 4 1 5Infrastructuremaintenance 1 1 2 2 2 1 4Infrastructuredevelopment 1 1 1 2 2 1 4Solutionsustainability 4 2 4 3 2 3 4Solutionspin-offs 4 2 3 3 3 3 4Economicbenefits 4 3 3 4 3 1 4Strategicbenefits 4 3 3 3 3 3 4Policyeffectiveness 5 2 3 3 4 3 4Perceivedpoliticalpositioning 5 2 4 3 3 3 4Actualpoliticalpositioning 5 2 4 2 3 3 4Publicperceptions 5 4 4 4 4 3 4Peerperceptions 5 4 3 4 3 2 4Total 51 34 40 41 41 28 54

Table 3. System sensitivity OrganisationalImpacts Government Industry Society Education Media History EnvironmentOrganisationaldevelopmentimpact 4 3 4 4 4 1 4Organisationalobjectivesimpact 4 4 5 3 4 1 4Organisationalsurvivalimpact 5 3 4 4 4 1 3Organisationalresilience 4 4 3 3 4 1 4Organisationalcultureimpact 4 4 4 4 3 3 4Organisationalstructuralimpact 4 4 3 3 3 1 4Organisationalpowerdynamicimpact 3 3 3 3 4 2 3Total 28 25 26 24 26 10 26

Table 4. Organisational Impacts

ReversibilityAssessment Government Industry Society Education Media History EnvironmentProblemreversibility 4 3 3 3 2 1 2Deceleratingcapability 2 2 2 2 3 1 3Deteriorationprobability 2 2 2 1 2 1 3Worseningpatternofchange 3 2 2 2 2 1 3Pointofirreversibility 2 2 2 2 2 1 3Total 13 11 11 10 11 5 14

Table 5. Reversibility Assessment



21

ClustersManagement System Organisational Reversibility Totalsensitivity sensitivity impacts assessment

Government 37 51 28 13 129Industry 32 34 25 11 102Society 32 40 26 11 109Education 28 41 24 10 103Media 33 41 26 11 111History 20 28 10 5 63Environment 24 54 26 14 118

PrescribedCriteria

Table 6. Prescribed Criteria Totals

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Government Industry Society Education Media History Environment

129

102109

103

111

63

118

Problem Cluster Sensitivity, Impact and Reversibility Analysis

Chart 3. Problem Cluster Sensitivity, Impact and Reversibility Analysis

The priority establishment analysis has identified the Government problem cluster as the

priority focus. For the remainder of this paper, the problem environment, system, option

generation and evaluation will focus on the government problem cluster.



22

5. PROBLEM ENVIRONMENT

Figure 9. Management Environment

Given the nature of the environmental problem discussed in this paper, the scope of the

problem environment is large. In essence, this presentation to the Energy Supply Association

of Australia is designed as a call to action to consider the issue of nuclear power and its

application for Australia’s future energy security. Implicit in the idea of this presentation is

the notion that solutions be identified to the objections that presently have nuclear power,

within the Australian context, sitting on the bench, to use a football analogy.

The priority analysis has identified the Australian government problem cluster as the area to

focus on for options. The problem environment for this problem is expansive. This

environment is inclusive of every Australian citizen and all the groupings that define each

individual. Whether you are a consultant for an industry peak body, a head of industry,

factory worker or a mother raising a family at home, the notion to put nuclear power on the

table for consideration in Australia’s future energy supply mix has a direct relationship.

In this analysis, the management environment is all encompassing, as it also goes beyond

Australia boarders to include the rest of the world. Australia, as a member of the global

community, has obligations it is required to comply with. Some obligations, within the

context of nuclear power are direct obligations such as treaties for non-proliferation and the


GOVERNMENT

MEDIA

SOCIETY

INDUSTRY


HISTORYLEGACY

EDUCATIONSYSTEM

GLOBALCOMMUNITY

Climate Change

InternationalObligations

Greenhouse GasEmissions

National Interest

Ongoing EnergySecurity for the

Australian People

Energy Supply Association ofAustralia (ESAA) Power

Generation Industry Peak Body



23

exportation of uranium. Other obligations, such as managing greenhouse gas emission to meet

the nations climate change target are less direct in their relationship, but equally important as

a potential solution to reducing energy generation emissions.

For Australia, the question of nuclear power and it potential use is relevant to every individual

Australian citizen and our global community.

6. PROBLEM SYSTEM

Figure 10. Problem Environment

The problem system are those parts or elements that are directly related to the problem. In this

analysis, the Australian government has been identified as the priority problem on which to

establish options.

While I could argue that the Australian community through its individual citizens is directly

related to what the government does or does not do, for this analysis the Australian

community will remain in the background. I am assuming in this analysis that the views of the

community are being directed to government through the various mechanism detailed in

Figure 10.

AUSTRALIANGOVERNMENT

Union movement policyinfluence with community

and government

National Party ofAustralia (NPA)

Liberal Party ofAustralia (LPA)

Australian LaborParty (ALP)The Greens PartyMinor Party's and

Independents

Industry direct

Industry PeakBody's

Independent andSpecial Interest Lobby

Groups

Media Interests InternationalCommunity

InternationalTrading Partners

EnvironmentClimate Change

HistoricalPerspective

AustralianCommunity

Interests Health

Education

BudgetConstraints

EconomicPerformance

IndustryTransformation

Energy SupplyAssociation of

Australia



24

In simplistic terms many of the elements in Figure 10 are a conduit for the views, needs and

aspirations of the community. Political party’s, union movements, media organisations and

industry bodies seek to directly influence government policy formulation, to satisfy the needs

of their specific constituents. At the opposite end of the problem environment spectrum is

what can be classified as the ‘realities’ of the problem environment. Elements, such as budget

constraints, economic performance, climate change, environmental issues, international

obligations are areas that the Australian government has little or no control. This is largely

due the actions of government is to work with the ‘realities’ presented to it and manage the

expectations of the influencing elements as best it can. Essentially, a case of unlimited needs

against limited resources.

It is for this problem environment that this paper seeks to identify options that can have a

positive impact on the Government and elicit a proactive response that will facilitate future

consideration of nuclear as an alternate energy option to fossil fuels.

7. OPTION GENERATION After a review of all the information analysed within researching this paper and the priority

problem cluster within the context of the management environment and problem system the

following options have been identified for evaluation:

• Do nothing – this is always an option for consideration. Doing nothing may well result

in the ‘future reality’ discussed earlier in this paper occurring when the ‘current

reality’ level of disinterest with nuclear power continued. Alternatively, other

domestic and international influence could come into play and result in Australia

considering nuclear without any direct intervention from the Energy Supply

Association of Australia.

• Energy Supply Association of Australia to adopt nuclear power generation as a

technology to promote within their industry and through their political contacts.

• Investigate, research, plan and initiate a stakeholder engagement and communication

plan designed for Australia’s political parties, with particular focus on the small

number of individuals in each party of high social standing that could be categorised

as community leaders. This strategy is to focus on changing individual political

attitudes towards nuclear power, as opposed to individual opinions.



25

8. OPTION EVALUATION

To establish an option priority from the list of options generated, a matrix will be used to

measure the following elements:

• Management level

• Operational level.

The matrix will be rated using a score card that scores elements from ‘low’ (1) to ‘very high’

(5) probability of success. The scores from the analysis tables will be totalled to determine the

priority of the options as is outlined in sections 8.1 and 8.2.

8.1 MANAGEMENT LEVEL

Low Moderate Substantial High VeryHigh1 2 3 4 5

ScoreCard

Table 7. Score Card - Management level option evaluation (represents the degree of problem element difficultly/complexity)

OptionEvaluation-ManagementLevel DoNothing Endorsement EngagementMissionindicators(strategicposition) 2 4 3Economic(cost-benefitassessment) 2 3 3Publicrelations 1 4 3Political 2 4 3Technological(lifeofsolution) 2 3 4Environmentalimpacts 2 3 4Physicalcapital 1 3 3Humancapital 2 3 3Socialcapital 1 4 3Knowledgecapital 2 3 3Psychologicalcapital 1 3 3Total 18 37 35

Table 8. Option Evaluation – Management Level



26

8.2 OPERATIONAL LEVEL

OptionEvaluation-OperationalLevel DoNothing Endorsement EngagementNaturalconstraints-climate 1 1 1Fundingsystem 2 3 3Personnel-skills 2 3 3Culture 1 4 3Communicationstructure 2 4 2Policy&Regulations 1 3 2Communitystructure 1 3 3Technologycapability 1 4 3Total 11 25 20

Table 9. Option Evaluation – Operational Level

OptionEvaluation

Management Operational TotalLevel Level

DoNothing 18 11 29ESAAEndorsement 37 25 62PoliticalStakeholderengagement 35 20 55

PrescribedCriteria

Table 10. Option Evaluation - Scores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Do Nothing ESAA Endorsement Political Stakeholder engagement

29

62

55

Option Evaluation Scores

Chart 4. Option Evaluation Scores



27

9. CONCLUSION

The best option to progress Australia’s engagement with nuclear power as an energy

generation options is for Energy Supply Association of Australia to adopt nuclear power

generation as a technology to promote within their industry and through their political

contacts.



28

REFERENCES CSIRO: efuture sensitivity analysis 2013. Retrieved from:

http://efuture.csiro.au/docs/efuture_summary_report_26-06-2013.pdf;jsessionid=28B5DC10CE5F16C977FC1B315C31D6C0

Khripunov, I. (2007). How safe is Russia? Public risk perception and nuclear security.

Problems of Post-Communism, 54(5), 19-29. Labor – National Platform: A smart, modern, fair Australia. Retrieved from:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/australianlaborparty/pages/121/attachments/original/1439953357/ALP_National_Platform___Constitution.pdf?1439953357

Origin Energy: Energy in Australia. Retrieved from:

https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/about-energy/energy-in-australia.html OUR PLAN- Real Solutions for all Australians: The direction, values and policy priorities of

the next coalition government. Retrieved from: http://lpa.webcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/realsolutions/LPA%20Policy%20Booklet%20210x210_pages.pdf

Reiner, D. M., & Nuttall, W. J. (2011). Public acceptance of geological disposal of carbon

dioxide and radioactive waste: similarities and differences. In Geological disposal of carbon dioxide and radioactive waste: A comparative assessment (pp. 295-315). Springer Netherlands.

The Australian, August 2008: Liberal Party Policy ‘mixed up on nuclear energy’. Retrieved

from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/libs-mixed-up-on-nuclear/story-e6frg6xf-1111117244409

The Greens – Standing up for what matters: The Greens plan for a better Australia. Retrieved

from: http://greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/election_platform_screen.pdf The Shift Project Data Portal: Breakdown of Electricity Capacity by Energy Source in 2012.

Retrieved from: http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Capacity-by-Energy-

Source#tspQvChart Waughray, D. (Ed.). (2011). Water security: the water-food-energy-climate nexus. Island

Press. World Nuclear Association: Plans for new reactors. Retrieved from

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Plans-For-New-Reactors-Worldwide/

World Nuclear Association: Australia’s Electricity – Appendix to Australia’s Uranium paper.

Retrieved from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/Appendices/Australia-s-Electricity/

australian nuclear technology engagement

Documents