of 13 /13
The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist The Journey & The Destination Ben Heard Founding Director – ThinkClimate Consulting Founder- Decarbonise SA June 2012

The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

  • Upload
    kasie

  • View
    40

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist. The Journey & The Destination. Ben Heard Founding Director – ThinkClimate Consulting Founder- Decarbonise SA June 2012. Where I came from. Where I am coming from now . The climate crisis is very, very bad. Very, very urgent - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

The Pro-Nuclear EnvironmentalistThe Journey & The Destination

Ben HeardFounding Director – ThinkClimate Consulting

Founder- Decarbonise SA June 2012

Page 2: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

Where I came from...

Page 3: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

Where I am coming from now • The climate crisis is 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)

New Artic sea ice minimum. Sept 2011

Page 4: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

1. Energy Efficiency• Supportive, but risky to rely on high levels of implementation• Long-term impact is wealth generation, not emission reduction (Jervons Paradox)

Any honest strategy to tackle climate change will be one of “energy efficiency, plus renewables,

plus...” otherwise we cannot meet the challenge in the necessary time frame

• SA has 1,150 MW installed • Emissions from electricity 1990/2006/2011 (Mt CO2-e): 6.5/10/8 • No fossil closure, more peaking gas• An inadequate solution on its own to replace fossil

• Cost, area and resource requirements, storage limitations, back-up requirements are too great for major, rapid roll out

• An inadequate solution on its own to replace fossil in the necessary timeframe

2. Wind3. Solar

What about the non-nuclear solutions?

4. Enhanced Geothermal (HDR)• Progressing, but slowly. Hard, expensive, distant, immature• An inadequate solution on its own to replace fossil in the necessary timeframe

Page 5: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

So why not nuclear?1. It’s dangerous

– Operations– Waste

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

Page 6: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

1 (a). Nuclear power operation: a constant risk with catastrophic consequences

Nation % Electricity from Nuclear Death from radiation incident

USA 20 0

France 80 0

Japan 30 0

Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986)

ARS Fatalities 28

Latent cancer fatalities (thyroid) 15

Other radiological impact Nil detectable

Other major impact Psychological trauma

Data Sources United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR); United Nations Information Service)

Page 7: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

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  

 

Nuclear power is exceptionally safe and only getting safer

Page 8: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

1 (b). Nuclear Waste is deadly, long lived and impossible to manage

National Hazardous Waste (Annual) (t)

Annual Coal Waste: Loy Yang 2.2 GW Annual HLW 2.2 GW Nuclear Power (t)/m3

1.1 million 577,800m3 of fly ash 10/ 309,079 ML of wastewater

2,070 tons of fly ash

56,428 tons of SO2

29,398 tons of NOx

2,577 tons of CO

18,232,826 tCO2e

Source: National Waste Report 2010

Source: LYP 2009 Annual Report Source: Comm. Of Aust. 2006

Page 9: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

• 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

Page 10: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

South Australia’s Base Load Generation Stock 2011Name Fuel Type Capacity (MW) Reported Emissions

2009 (tCO2-e)Commissioned Comments

BASELOAD 2,969 8.71 millionTorrens 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

Page 11: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

Incremental, Small ModularName Fuel Type Capacity (MW) Reported Emissions

(tCO2-e)Commissioned Comments

BASELOAD 2,840 952,000Torrens 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?)

Page 12: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

So what now?What’s missing?

People

Page 13: The Pro-Nuclear Environmentalist

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