Safe and Clean?Understanding nuclear energy: An

evidentiary review

Ben HeardFounding Director – ThinkClimate Consulting

Founder- Decarbonise SAPhD Candidate - University of Adelaide

May 2014

So why not nuclear?1. It’s dangerous

– Operations– Waste

2. It leads to proliferation3. It produces to much GHG across the lifecycle4. Uranium mining is really horrible5. It’s too expensive6. It takes too long7. Environmentalists say no

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?

Safety Record of Nuclear Power: Accidents and air pollution

Figure are from ExternE project cited in Lancet

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  

 

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

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

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?

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.

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 weapons3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle4. There is not enough uranium5. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable6. Nuclear power is too expensive7. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference8. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

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 waste from electricity production

from coal?

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

HL Nuclear waste: Short-term storage

Compare with coal waste2.2GW Loy Yang, 60,000 tons of coal per day:

• 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)

Pollutant Electricity generation (ranking by national source)

Coal mining (ranking by national source)

PM 10 6th largest 2nd largest PM 2.5 Largest 2nd largest Sulphur dioxide Equal largest N/A Oxides of Nitrogen Largest 5th largest Contribution of coal to major Australian air pollutants. Source: National Pollutant Inventory

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 weapons3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle4. There is not enough uranium5. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable6. Nuclear power is too expensive7. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference8. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

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?

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)

Nuclear Powered/Nuclear Armed

Nuclear Powered TOTAL0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0.223

0.1991

0.05500000000000010.0524000000000001

0.0184

4.28%

0.7873

% Global CO2 Emissions (Fuel Only) by Nuclear Status

Nuclear Status

% Global CO2 Emissions (Fuel

Only)

China

USA

RussiaIndia

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

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

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 weapons3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle4. There is not enough uranium5. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable6. Nuclear power is too expensive7. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference8. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

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?

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)

How bad does the lifecycle need to be?

Victoria

South Austr

alia

Denmark

(Reco

nstructe

d)

Denmark

(Rep

orted)

Tasm

ania

France

0200400600800

1000120014001600

1230

680 650 547320

90

140

80

0.03

Comparative intensity of GHG in electricity

gCO2-e/kWh

Sources: NGA Factors 2010 for Australian figuresBarry Brook (2010) for Denmark (Reconstructed)Danish Energy Agency (2009) for Denmark (Reported)International Energy Agency (2010, 2008 figures) for France

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

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 weapons3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle4. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable5. Nuclear power is too expensive6. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference7. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

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?

Examples of non-uranium mining

Morwell coal mine fire

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...

A method of uranium mining: Acid in-situ leaching

In situ leaching of uranium (Source: Uranium SA)

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)

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,

OR420,000-675,000 GJ/t !!!(Source: World Energy Council conversion factors)

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

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 weapons3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle4. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable5. Nuclear power is too expensive6. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference7. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

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

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

How do we compare?

Nation Emissions

intensity

(kg CO2-e kWh-1)

% nuclear Residential price

(AU$ MWh-1)

Industry price

(AU$ MWh-1)

Australia 847 0 271 -

Denmark 385 0 450 $127

Germany 468 23 282 $126

Switzerland 27 40 269 $156

Sweden 22 40 241 $101

France 77 76 157 $102

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• Capital costs are competitive with any other new generation• 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 weapons3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle4. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable5. Nuclear power is too expensive6. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference7. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

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)

Would nuclear power take too long to make a difference?

1. Nuclear power is dangerous • 1(a). Operations • 1(b). Waste

2. Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle4. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable5. Nuclear power is too expensive6. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference7. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

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

The world has changed

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 weapons3. Nuclear power produces too much GHG across the lifecycle4. Uranium mining is harmful and unsustainable5. Nuclear power is too expensive6. Nuclear power takes too long to make a difference7. People I like and respect are anti-nuclear

“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