Stephen Gloor

Intermittant Nuclear Power

Wind and Solar critics constantly point to the intermittent nature of renewables as one of the reasons that renewables are not a viable 24 X 7 power source.  While this is not absolutely true it is also not true that fossil fuels and nuclear are always available.  All generating systems have capacity factors.  Wind varies from 20% for turbines placed in unsuitable locations to 40% for offshore wind.

Nuclear power also has a capacity factor and in the US they have achieved remarkable reliability:
Download u.s._capacity_factors_by_fuel_type.ppt

If you have a look at the attached table nuclear is at 89.8% however the effect on the grid when a nuclear plant drops out is quite dramatic.  The problem is that nuclear reactors need cooling water and as global warming really starts to kick in this commodity is going to be in short supply as evidenced by this news report.

ATHENS, ALA. — The Tennessee Valley Authority shut down one of three units at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant Thursday because water drawn from a river to cool the reactor was too hot, a spokesman said.

The nation's largest public utility shut down Unit 2 about 5:42 p.m. CDT because water drawn from the Tennessee River was exceeding a 90-degree average over 24 hours, amid a blistering heat wave across the Southeast.

"We don't believe we've ever shut down a nuclear unit because of river temperature," said John Moulton, spokesman for the Knoxville, Tenn.-based utility.

He said TVA would compensate for the loss of power by buying power elsewhere. The utility announced earlier Thursday that it was imposing a fuel surcharge on customers because of lower hydroelectric power production caused by drought conditions."

There are two problems here.  One the nuclear plant had to shut down because the river was too warm AND secondly there is not enough hydro to make up the difference.  In this situation a Solar CSP plant would be at it's best performance.

Perhaps we need to figure into nuclear power the cost of the solar CSP plant to back up the intermittent nuclear power.

Pure Howard Hypocricy

So India has a good non-proliferation record does is Mr Howard?

Mr Howard will be speaking to his Indian counterpart today about the possible supply of uranium.

He has told Parliament that he does not believe Australia should refuse to sell uranium to India when it sells to China.

But Mr Howard says there would be conditions including that India agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"India does have a very good non-proliferation track record [and] it has indicated that it does not intend to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.

So apart from BUILDING ILLEGAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS is has a great non proliferation record.  What does a country have to do to get a bad non proliferation record.  This is what it takes to NOT sell uranium to a country:

THERE'S no prospect in the near future of Australia exporting uranium to Pakistan, says Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

The Federal Government yesterday confirmed it was considering selling uranium to Pakistan nuclear rival India.

Apparently Pakistan illegally constructed nuclear weapons so of course we will not sell uranium to them.

I wonder if Iran needs uranium?

Is This Really Where we Want to Sell Our Uranium?

To illustrate the lunacy of selling our uranium to really anybody who will buy it consider this:

Pakistan warned Thursday that a civilian nuclear accord between India and the United States threatens regional stability, saying it would allow its arch rival to produce more atomic bombs. The caution came at a meeting of Pakistan's National Command Authority (NCA) chaired by President Pervez Musharraf, a statement said. The body oversees the country's nuclear strategy. The long-delayed deal announced in July in Washington allows US exports of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India for the first time in 30 years.

So Pakistan considers that India is a nuclear rival - no surprises there.  However we will be contributing to this instability.  We are going to be selling uranium to India.

CANBERRA, Australia -

Australia might lift its ban on selling uranium to India if New Delhi forms the nuclear partnership it is negotiating with the United States, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Thursday.

Australia, which holds 40 percent of the world's known uranium reserves, currently won't sell uranium to India because New Delhi is developing nuclear weapons and refuses to join an international nonproliferation treaty.

But Downer said India's dramatic economic expansion and the threat of global warming has forced the government to reconsider that ban.

Australia will take its cue from the civilian nuclear partnership deal that Washington and New Delhi have been negotiating for the past two years, Downer said.

So despite the inconvenient fact that India has not signed the NPT we will still sell uranium to them in direct contravention of the policies of selling uranium.  However we will not sell our uranium to Pakistan, our brothers in arms in the GWOT.

THERE'S no prospect in the near future of Australia exporting uranium to Pakistan, says Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

The Federal Government yesterday confirmed it was considering selling uranium to Pakistan nuclear rival India.

That prompted Pakistan's Minister For Religious Affairs Ejaz ul-Haq to call on Australia to also consider selling uranium to Islamabad.

Neither Pakistan nor India have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Mr Downer today said Pakistan had shown no interest in negotiating with the International Atomic Energy Agency a system of safeguards and inspections for its two non-military nuclear power stations.

Oh I see it is OK to sell it to a nation that will not sign the NPT however as long as it's reactors are inspected it is OK.  Why does India not sign the NPT if it's reactors are kosher?

The double standards and hypocrisy of this government is beyond belief.  Nuclear is safe and clean and uranium sales are OK and we will only sell to people that sign the NPT.  No wait - nuclear is safe and clean and we now co-incidently believe in global warming, so we will sell uranium to anybody to help the Earth.  No wait again we don't want to help the Earth so much as to sell uranium to a Muslim country because nuclear is so safe and clean that we would not want it to get it into the hands of a possible enemy because it is so safe.  C o n t r a d i c t i o n   h e r e - self destructing ........

Anyone else see the problem here?

Uranium From Sea Water

I think that this analysis finally puts the nail in the coffin of the sustainable nuclear crowd who think that the answer to all our long term energy problems is to mine the ocean for uranium.  This was posted at the Energy Blog.

Paul - "But even ignoring that, I don't understand the source of your resistance to the idea."

Ok lets have another look at this. The amount of uranium in seawater is 3 mg U/m3. So lets consider a column of water 1m X 1m X 1000m that contains 1000 m3 of water and would contain 3 grams of uranium. From the previous example 150t of yellowcake would result in the fuel for a 1GW reactor for a year. A 1GW reactor would produce in that year 365 * 24 * .85 X 1GW = 7446 GWh of electricity. So therefore .003 kg or .000003 tons of uranium would produce .000003/150 * 7446 = 149kWh of electricity.

Now a solar panel 1M X 1M at the tropics will produce at a capacity factor of 30% in the same year 1000W * .15 * 365 * 24 * .3 = 394 kWh of electricity. Also it will do it without the extraction plant, the enrichment facility, the fuel assembly plant, the nuclear power plant and waste disposal facility. Just a solar panel in the sun. For 24 X 7 power just add a battery.

Even if you consider electrolysing the sea water to hydrogen you are almost as well off. At a 30% conversion rate of electricity from sunlight to hydrogen back to electricity again you would have approx 113 kWh of electricity from the solar panel. The hydrogen could be stored and used 24 X 7 if that is really what you want.

The problem I have is that yes it is feasible to extract uranium from seawater and make it work however it is disingenuous to suggest that this makes a fundamentally flawed power source like nuclear sustainable. The amount of effort and cost to access this uranium resource dwarfs the much smaller and truly green alternatives that are available. The energy on offer in the ocean water is more than twice as diffuse than the energy that bathes the top of the resource you are mining.

To suggest that nuclear is sustainable because we can mine the ocean is flogging a very dead horse. Also diversion of resources to support such a hare brained scheme, where reasonable alternatives exist, would be a traversity and only serve to strengthen the ties of corporations on our lives.

Nuclear Power as a Problem Converter

I think that I have nailed the attraction of nuclear power and to a lesser extent 'clean' coal.  They are both problem shifters.

Human beings are very adept at solving short term problems.  This probably stems from the savanna where a lion in front of you needed immediate action however the waterhole drying up was not something that could be responded to with fight or flight.  The majority of us tend to concentrate on local short term problems like paying the mortgage, feeding the children and life's other problems rather than really
tackling long term problems like climate change.  I do it myself.  My pool, yes I have a pool, had algae in yesterday so I treated it with chemicals and turned on the pool pump.  I did not think that I would not turn on the pool pump because this would contribute to global warming, I just responded to the immediate problem and turned on the pump.

While, perhaps (perhaps not considering my views), I can be excused for this short mindedness governments should not be.  However they are composed of short term problem solvers getting voted in by other short term problem solvers.  It is perhaps no wonder then that short term problems get precedence and long term problems like climate change get bumped in priority with money making being the first and main priority.

Now consider the short term problem of supplying sufficient electricity to people that are used to their comforts.  This is a short term problem that is solved most easily by just increasing supply.  This solution does not involve any changes or cutbacks and will keep money making short term problem solvers happy.  Nuclear power in this light is manna from heaven.  Nuclear Power CONVERTS the short term problem of insufficient electricity into a long term problem of waste management that can be ignored.  Better yet the saved up problem of waste can be ignored until after I, the person using the power or installing the nuclear reactor, is safely dead at which point it becomes a non-problem.  This is actually one of the favourite tactics of short term problem solvers - ignore the long term problem as long as possible as it either will go away or not require a solution in the short term problem solvers' lifetime - Perfect!!!!!

In this way nuclear power is the perfect problem converter.  Clean coal is a close second because it has caught the attention of short-term problem solvers that climate change a problem that may actually affect the lives of people presently alive so therefore it is actually a problem so we need to start converting this problem into a long term problem that we can ignore.  Along comes carbon sequestration.  Never mind that there are no CCS capture plants in operation nor has the required scale of CCS necessary been demonstrated anywhere in the world we now have the perfect problem converter.  The short term problem of dirty coal is converted into the long term problem of what happens if the billions of tons of CO2 that has been sequestered ever escapes.  That is a long term problem that can be easily ignored as chances are pretty good that none will escape while anyone living today is alive so it is a non-problem.  So right now polititians can use these problem converters to go on allowing society to make lots of money and voting them back in with the sure knowledge that the short term problems of energy supply have been safely converted to long term problems that the short term politians know the short term problem solving populace will accept and ignore.

Response to a Thread on Nuclear Power

I wrote this comment in this thread on the Energy Blog.  I thought it contained some good writing so I am posting it here.

Question posed

"So what do you mean by "following natures flows" exactly?"

My Response

Natures flows are what the ecosystems of the planet have used for the last billion or so years to sustain life on the planet.  We are all solar powered as we have self assembling nano machines called plants that make all food from solar energy and raw materials.  The only long term sustainable way forward is to fit in with this and also get enough energy, and there is still plenty to go around, from systems that are not stored energy.  Fossil fuels are concentrated solar energy that are convenient and easy to transport and use.  Uranium is store of energy that can be released - when it is gone that is the end of it.  Even thorium, if you take a long term view is limited eventually.  You have to take a really really long term view to find the end of solar energy.

We can only do this by becoming vastly more efficient in the way we use energy.  We need to find ways to get along doing the same things we are doing now with lots less input.  It can be done it just requires changes - ones we in the first world are reluctant to make because for some reason our lifestyles are non-negotiable.  We are exporting this non negotiable, highly wasteful lifestyle to other countries like China where up until now they have been quite energy efficient consuming only a tenth or a twentieth of the per capita energy of the USA or Australia.

You cannot build enough nuclear reactors to give each person in the world the lifestyle we have now.  So therefore the nuclear/clean coal route of increasing supply at all costs will always only be for the first world leaving billions much as they are today without energy and scraping as best they can with what they have while we in the First World continue to use most of the Earth's energy.  This will continue until the last one runs out then we will all be stuffed.

If we do not go down this route and make wholesale changes to the way we use energy and make big cuts ourselves, while still preserving most of the advantages of our first world lifestyles, we can adapt to working within what energy is given to us from the sun and not drawing on limited stores and/or creating millions of tons of waste that has to be guarded for longer than humans have been farming.

Another advantage of this is that in using less energy and resources we can export this lifestyle model and it just might be sustainable for more than just 20% or so of the world's population.  The Earth might, at this level, have enough to sustain 50% or 60% at a reasonable level of lifestyle rather than grinding poverty.

Now I mentioned Iran only because it highlights the fundamental problem of nuclear  power ie: its inseperable dark side of nuclear weapons.  If nuclear power is to be the climate change saviour that you think it could be then it will have to be rolled out to countries worse than Iran with all the attendant problems.

It would be far better for all concerned if nuclear power was just phased out, the waste we have generated up till now stored somehow, and then we just got along with what we have. I do close my mind to nuclear power as a solution to climate change much like I close my mind to murder as a solution to personal problems.  Sure killing the person would solve the issue I have with them however killing comes with so many other problems that it is not really a solution in the first place only a diversion.

I am not an "environmental fundamentalists" as you are insinuating.  I guess this is a desperate attempt to belittle my arguments by pidgeon holing me with fundamentalists that do not think about what they say but only hold positions because of some predjudice.  I am against nuclear power so vehemently because it only leads to a continuance of the unsustainable party that we find ourselves in at the end of the brief fossil fuel age.  We took at quick and easy turn with the Industrial Revolution that has brought us many advantages which I will be the first to acknowledge and use as I am using one right now.  We now need to find the wisdom to use that technology to make another turn to working with Nature again but this time at a much higher level using much more of the sun's output in many different ways.

The alternative is to arm ourselves to the teeth with whatever weapons we can make and fight over the last remaining energy resources until there is nothing left.  That is what is happening now and the drive for nuclear power and clean coal is only a mad attempt to continue this stupidity because we lack the imagination to think that there is any other way. 

Climate Change Doublespeak

This is really dangerous and demonstrates what brilliance there is still in the Howard Government for deception.  They have with clever manouvering, including a tailor made report, made nuclear power the only solution for climate change.  As well, as the leading advocates of nuclear power, they become therefore the leading lights in combating climate change.  Brilliant!!!!  Of course now anyone who opposes this push for nuclear power, like the Western Australian Government who refuse to lift the uranium mining ban, are not serious about climate change.

Listen to them talk:

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell this week said he wants the WA Labor government to overturn its "obscene" ban because the world needs uranium and nuclear power can help in the fight against climate change.

and the justification:

Senator Campbell's argument for overturning WA's uranium mining ban rests chiefly on a study by Princeton University's Robert Socolow.

The senator said nuclear energy was one of seven measures identified by Professor Socolow, including renewable energies and energy efficiencies, that could stabilise greenhouse gas emissions.

"By denying one of those technologies ... you are deciding that you want to cook the planet, Senator Campbell said.

"If you say no to exporting uranium, you are not serious about climate change."

So the postion is clearly that uranium mining means action on climate change.  So lets have a look at the OTHER wedges.

To clarify the scale of the effort, it is helpful to consider the emissions reductions needed over the next 10 years to stay on the flat path of Figures 1a and 1b, assuming the alternative is the currently predicted path. By 2014, as a point of reference, one might implement 20 percent of each of 7 wedges. There are many ways to do this.Addressing demand, to reduce electricity emissions, the world could accomplish the first 20 percent of a buildings efficiency wedge by replacing every burnt-out incandescent bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb. Addressing supply, the world could develop the first 20 percent of a wind wedge by completing 400,000 new wind turbines, or of a nuclear power wedge by building 140 new nuclear plants. It could implement CO storage projects with 700 times the capacity of the Sleipner project (see the box on carbon capture and storage on page 18). As part of an augmented strategy to displace coal with natural gas in power plants, it could build 10 natural gas pipelines having the capacity of the Alaska pipeline now under discussion.

• To reduce transport emissions, again addressing demand, the world could improve average vehicle fuel economy by 25 percent with the assumption that the amount of driving also increases by 25 percent. Addressing supply, the world could convert 50 million hectares (200,000 square miles) to crops like sugar cane that can be converted to ethanol with modest fossil fuel inputs. It could accelerate the arrival of hydrogenpowered vehicles and the production of low-carbon hydrogen.

• To reduce emissions from the spaceheating and -cooling of buildings, the world could embark on a campaign of implementing best-available design and construction practices, especially for new buildings but also for the retrofit of buildings.

The world could take some pressure off the energy system by modifying the agricultural practices on nearly one-fifth of all cropland to bring about conservation tillage. It could create 60 million hectares of sustainable plantations on nonforested land and set a new course to eliminate tropical deforestation within 50 years. It is hard not to feel overwhelmed by this menu. Are there ways out? Perhaps an optimum pace for a 50-year campaign would result in bringing some of these wedges forward more slowly, accomplishing less than 20 percent of the job in the first 10 years. But how much more slowly?

Perhaps the number of parallel efforts can be reduced by getting two or three wedges from a single strategy; energy efficiency is the most likely area. But for many of the other strategies, bringing on two wedges is more than twice as hard as bringing on one because cheap and easy opportunities will be used up early on. Perhaps the stabilization triangle will turn out to be smaller: The world economy might grow more slowly, and green plants, in response to elevated CO2 levels, might store more carbon than predicted. But the stabilization triangle could just as easily be larger (see the box on pages 14 and 15). In this case, getting onto a path that avoids doubling the preindustrial CO concentration might require more than seven wedges.

So what after taking SO much notice of Professor Scowscroft's work what else is the government doing to combat climate change?  Has it raised the MRET to encourage further investment in renewable power?  No it has refused on many occasions to do this citing the impact of the economy.  Has the government introduced energy efficiency standards in either cars or houses? No it has been the states that have done this usually against the Federal Government's wishes. 

Senator Campbell has stated that to ignore one type of wedge is not to be serious about climate change.  Nuclear Power and Carbon Capture and Storage are only one part of one of the wedges.  Energy efficiency, land use changes and renewable energy are all just as important and being ignored and sidelined in this insane push to line the pockets of Liberal Party friends by mining more uranium.

Senator Campbell thinks that by denying uranium mining is cooking the planet.  What about denying renewable power and trying to sell more coal?  How about not helping an electric car to be licensed that can cut transport emissions - is that cooking the planet as well?  We can do as much for one wedge simply by banning incandescent light globes and subsidising compact fluorescents than building nuclear power at a lower cost and more easily.  We can stabilise another wedge by raising the MRET to 10%.  We can legislate that all new houses and houses that are sold must have a solar hot water system.  We can introduce a Zero Emission Vehicle mandate on car makers that sell cars in Australia to force them to sell electric cars here.  We can introduce London style congestion taxes in the centers of our most congested cities.  That has already encouraged people to buy electric cars as they are exempt from the tax.

But apparently to be serious about climate change the only option is to sell uranium as Ziggy has said.

Nuclear Logic

So here is the new logic.  Nuclear Power is the salvation of mankind because it will save us from global warming.  So of course any obstruction to this greenhouse saving plan is now 'obscene'.  Senator Campbell now has labelled the opposition to mining uranium in Western Australia obscene.  Obviously we are not doing enough to reduce greenhouse gases over here because we will not mine enough uranium to contribute to the 15 year plan of doing nothing.

Never mind the wind farms at Esperance or at Geraldton.  No to save producing greenhouse gases we must mine uranium for 15 years while we build the only alternative - nuclear power.

Whereas of course solar power is only for hippies.  Must be a lot of hippies in California with this massive expansion of solar PV.

Soaring energy costs, environmental consciousness and financial incentives have combined to make solar panels part of the California housing landscape. Homeowners see solar panels as a way to be green and save some green, The New York Times said. Architects are incorporating solar systems into custom home designs and developers can provide solar systems and solar-ready wiring in new construction.

The trend began after the state legislature approved the California Solar Initiative, a solar program that offers homeowners rebates in addition to the federal tax credit of up to $2,000 available since 2006.

If it works as planned, the initiative will spark the installation of 3,000 megawatts of solar electrical generating capacity over the next 10 years, said J.P. Ross, policy director for Vote Solar, an advocacy group. That's equivalent to 30 small natural gas-fired power plants.

Here we are scaling down the PV rebate and perhaps not funding it after June this year.

In May 2005, the programme received an extension for a further two years to June 2007, with additional funding of $11.4 million. Following the extension, the programme guidelines have been reviewed, and as a result of the review, several changes have been made. This programme is currently being re-evaluated and an announcement on the next phase will be made in the 2007 budget context.

• The present residential rebate will be gradually reduced from $4.00 to $3.50 ppW over the remaining life of the programme. The reduction in rebate level will be in a series of 10 cent steps, with advanced warning given before each reduction.

Good isn't it?

Nuclear Power in Australia

Unsurprisingly the nuclear power committee has concluded that nuclear power is needed for Australia.  Of course Mr Howard has promised to move swiftly on the recommendations.  Now swiftly for Mr Howard is the 15 years that the report suggests it would take for nuclear power to get up and running.

Mr Howard said the Government would respond quickly to the board's recommendations.

"Nuclear power is part of the solution both to Australia's energy and climate change challenges," Mr Howard said.

However, he admitted nuclear power was not a "silver bullet" and was not economically feasible at the moment.

"It's not going to come immediately because it's not economic at present, but it will become increasingly economic as we clean up the use of coal," Mr Howard said.

So we need to clean up coal which will also take about 15 years before this useless government will take any action on climate change, which it really does not believe in.

Contrast this with what the party I belong to, the next government of Australia, thinks and says.

Nuclear power will do nothing to protect the Australian economy and environment from climate change, says Labor's treasury spokesman Wayne Swan.

Prime Minister John Howard has released the final report of the government's Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy Task Force, saying nuclear energy could help stem the rise in electricity prices as the nation attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But Mr Swan says the economics of nuclear energy do not add up.

"The Howard government's fixation on nuclear energy is a massive distraction from the main game of protecting our economy and environment from the dangerous effects of climate change," he said in a statement.

"Even if Australia were to adopt and implement the report's recommendations, it would come too late to be of any practical use in the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next 10 to 15 years," he said.

Mr Swan said the Switkowski report confirms 25 nuclear power stations would only be feasible in Australia with massive government subsidies and would be at least 50 per cent more expensive than existing alternatives.

Renewable energies would be more commercially viable, he said, and would also reduce emissions and meet Australia's energy needs.

"John Howard must face up to the fact that nuclear power costs too much, takes too long and produces dangerous radioactive waste for future generations to manage.

"It is not a solution, it's the creation of a further problem," he said.

This is what I am in total agreement.  Not just because I am a member.  I am a member of the Labor party precisely because this is what the Labor party stands for.  Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from the solutions that will work in the order of importance.

1.    Reduce energy use

2.    Use the energy more wisely with efficiency gains

3.    Use more and more renewable energy to replace fossil fuels.

4.    Replace fossil fuel transport with electric transport enabled for V2G.

5.   Enhance the present dinosaur grid with micro-grids with local generation and storage.

Nuclear power only addresses the supply side and allow us to ignore the demand side which is a lot more important.

Ziggy Brings Home the Bacon (or Pork)

As anticipated Dr Ziggy Switkowski has handed down his report into nuclear power and it concludes that nuclear power will be economic in 15 years - Surprise Surprise.  Gee you make a nuclear scientist the head of an inquiry into nuclear power and he concludes that it is OK - that is a real shock.

However even though the inquiry was completely stacked toward nuclear power and the conclusions were pre written, nuclear power is STILL not economic enough for even this gang to say that it can go ahead right away.  We have to wait 15 years and have a carbon tax for the privilege of nuclear power. Apparently according to Ian McFarlane we will also have to pay 30% more for our electricity just for the honour of having our coal and uranium mining government's pathetic crawlings toward CO2 free power:

Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane says nuclear power and more immediately, clean coal technologies, will increase power costs by as much as 30 per cent.

"It would be sometime in the next decade and they will see the cost of electricity rise by perhaps as much as 20 to 30 per cent," he said.

He says nuclear power will become more commercially viable relative to coal power.

So we have to have a carbon tax so nuclear is competitive?  Is it just me or does anyone else find this really really screwy.  We have to pay more for technology that will not be ready for 15 or 20 years, far too long to have in impact on Global Warming, and that most people really do not want.

Two recent polls demonstrate consistently high support for clean   energy such as wind, even if it means paying more for electricity. A poll by   Australian Research Group Pty and commissioned by AusWEA shows that 95% of respondents   support the use of wind power, while 50% support the use of gas and just 21%   support the use of new coal plant. 76% of respondents said they would be prepared   to pay 5% more on their electricity bill if it meant that they would be purchasing   10% more clean energy. A separate poll (by Newspoll and commissioned by Greenpeace)   found that 83% of Australians would be willing to pay $3.50 more on their monthly   energy bills if it meant that 10% of Australia's electricity would come from   new renewable sources by 2010.

And the result of Ziggy's plan in 2050:

Under a scenario in which the first reactor comes on line in 2020 and Australia has in place a fleet of 25 reactors by 2050, it is clear that nuclear power could enhance Australia’s ability to meet its electricity needs from low-emission sources. Nuclear power
could then be delivering more than one third of Australia’s electricity needs and reducing Australia’s total emissions by approximately 18 per cent relative to business as usual. This represents roughly onequarter to one-half of the projected emissions from
electricity generation (see figure S3).

25 Reactors will reduce Australia's emissions by 18% - WOW.  100 billion dollars later and we reduce emissions by 18% -  what a result.  What about transport emissions?  What about efficiency gains?  The is the main problem with an exclusively supply side solution.  So nuclear can supply heaps of base load power - this gives us license to keep wasting power the way we do currently.  Renewable power is not a drop in replacement for the current situation and demands stringent demand management as well as supply management.  This short sighted government is running with the supply side as if this was all there is to it.

Here are some questions Ziggy that were not answered:

1. Where is the waste dump going to be.  I bet that it will be nowhere you are living.  Lets foister this one on somewhere that does not use the electricity.  Lets make sure consumers have no idea of the consequences of their power use.
2. Where are the nuclear reactors going to be.  Apparently Mr McFarlane thinks that we can put them out of site and out of mind.  If they are so safe why do they have to be away from population centres.  Coal plants have to be to be close to the coal mine however nuclear plants should be close to to major loads to minimise losses.  If they are safe what is the problem????
3. Where is the peaking power going to come from for all this extra base load?
4. Where is the money going to come from for 25 X 2 billion dollar reactors?????????
5. Where is the personnel going to come from??
6. and so on

Finally even if the States object to a nuclear power plant they apparently be overridden by the Commonwealth Government.

A constitutional expert says the Federal Government could override state legislation banning nuclear power plants.

The Federal Government will consider constructing 25 nuclear power plants after a report found it was a viable alternative energy source.

Dr Ziggy Switkowski's nuclear review has found that Australia could start producing nuclear power within 15 years.

Premiers and Opposition leaders have said they will not allow nuclear power plants to be built in their states.

But Curtin University Professor Greg Craven says the recent High Court decision on the WorkChoices legislation paves the way for the Federal Government to overrule the states.

"The reality is that the only organisation that is ever going to build a nuclear power plant of any sort is going to be a corporation and the effect of the WorkChoices decision is pretty much that the Commonwealth can stop or allow a corporation to do almost anything it wants, simply by making a law addressed to a corporation," he said.

I guess the only way to stop this filthy move by a totally out of control coal and uranium mining  government is to lie in front of the bulldozers - who's with me????