tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/nuclear-energy-182/articlesNuclear energy – The Conversation2024-02-29T21:22:20Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2240542024-02-29T21:22:20Z2024-02-29T21:22:20ZThermal networks: The missing infrastructure we need to help enable carbon-free heating<p>Most of us who live in the Northern Hemisphere have a fundamental problem: we want to reduce our carbon emissions, but we also need to heat our homes.</p>
<p>The good news is there is a way to do both by creating thermal networks. A thermal network is a system of insulated, underground pipes that directly distribute heat to homes and other buildings using heat generated from clean sources — including nuclear reactors.</p>
<p>Rather than using their own furnaces, boilers, fireplaces or electric baseboard heaters to heat buildings, consumers would receive heat directly from a utility. </p>
<p>It’s an opportunity that is set to grow as Canada expands its nuclear energy supply and creates more heat in the process, especially with <a href="https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Canadian-government-launches-SMR-support-programme">small modular reactors</a> expected to start coming on-stream in the next decade.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/are-small-nuclear-reactors-the-solution-to-canadas-net-zero-ambitions-217354">Are small nuclear reactors the solution to Canada’s net-zero ambitions?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Scaling up</h2>
<p>Our research collaboration has produced — with the help of experts from McMaster University, The Boltzmann Institute and Canadian Nuclear Association — a <a href="https://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/mcmaster-institute-for-energy-studies/featured-publications/#thermal-networks-position-paper">position paper</a> presenting the case for large-scale thermal networks to be created across Canada, with nuclear power plants potentially providing up to half of the heat. </p>
<p>Similar technology using heat from non-nuclear sources is <a href="https://cieedacdb.rem.sfu.ca/district-energy-inventory">already a reality in Canada</a> in the form of <a href="https://toolkit.bc.ca/tool/district-energy-systems-2/">district energy systems</a>. </p>
<p>Many buildings in <a href="https://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/ceedc/publications/facilities/CEEDC%20-%20District%20Energy%20Report%202023.pdf">Toronto, Hamilton, Vancouver</a> and on university campuses, such as McMaster University, are served by hot water or steam-based central heating plants, using heat that is purpose-made and piped across campus. What’s more, Canada already <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/interactive/2021/toronto-deep-latke-water-cooling-raptors/">leads the world in district cooling networks</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U2nOQnGfgf8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An overview of the basic principle of Toronto’s Deep Lake Water Cooling System produced by the Canada Green Building Council. Thermal networks will move thermal energy similar to the way networked water pipes do, except they will move heat from producer to consumer across a shared system.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/04/1080795/us-thermal-energy-networks/">Thirteen states in the United States</a> are implementing a thermal networks utility model. In <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/district-heating-and-cooling-is-one-of-europes-top-solution-to-reduce-fossil-imports-but-we-need-decisive-eu-action-to-tap-into-this-potential/">Europe</a>, 67 million people enjoy heating from thermal networks and district heating systems supplied by a variety of sources in a mix that is increasingly <a href="https://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/heat-roadmap-europe-4-quantifying-the-impact-of-low-carbon-heatin">less reliant on carbon</a>.</p>
<p>The idea is catching on, and it’s time to scale up.</p>
<h2>Leftover heat</h2>
<p>As many as 70 per cent of Canadians live in communities that could be warmed by thermal networks. The networks would deliver heated water that warms buildings in the same way household radiators distribute heat — but on a much <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.12.001">larger public scale</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/zibi-waste-heat-recovery-1.7117832">Such systems</a> are capable of efficiently sending heat through buried pipelines to homes, schools, hospitals, office buildings, shopping malls and other structures, greatly reducing the demand for electricity and heating fuel and making space on the electrical grid to accommodate growing electricity demand from electric vehicle chargers and heat pumps. </p>
<p>One of the most appealing aspects of this opportunity is that most of the required heat is already available and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121291">going unused</a>. Heat from major sources, such as <a href="https://www.powermag.com/district-heating-supply-from-nuclear-power-plants/">nuclear power plants</a>, can be transmitted as far as 100 km to where it is needed. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-nuclear-reactor-gentilly-2-1.6932355">Québec</a>, <a href="https://www.opg.com/releases/capital-power-and-opg-partner-to-advance-new-nuclear-in-alberta/">Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick</a> are all considering building new or re-starting existing reactors. Together with existing reactors, much of Canada’s population would fall within this range.</p>
<p>In the case of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119546">reactors</a>, thermal networks could share their useful leftover heat instead of releasing it into the environment as is typically done today. This water, used in coiling, gathers heat but does not come into contact with nuclear material and is in no way contaminated. </p>
<p>The recent joint declaration at the <a href="https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_88702/countries-launch-joint-declaration-to-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-by-2050-at-cop28">UN climate conference COP28</a> to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050 means there will be significantly more heat from large reactors, such as the <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-darlington-nuclear-plant-1.6899969">new nuclear fleet proposed in Ontario</a>, which could supply warmth to homes in the Greater Toronto Area.</p>
<p><a href="https://smrroadmap.ca/">Small modular reactors</a>, which are expected to come on-stream widely as local alternatives to fuel-burning sources of electricity, could supply heat locally while also generating revenue from heat that would otherwise be wasted.</p>
<p>Alternatively, residual heat from <a href="https://www.ngif.ca/harvest-systems-successfully-demonstrates-waste-heat-recovery-from-pizza-pizza-ovens/">restaurants</a>, commercial and industrial processes, water heated by solar or geothermal energy, or the combustion of dried biomass can do exactly the same thing with <a href="https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/March/Integrating-low-temperature-renewables-in-district-energy-systems">little to no greenhouse gas emissions</a>.</p>
<h2>Funding the change</h2>
<p>Though our appetite for thermal networks is growing, apprehension over the cost of creating large-scale public systems has stifled enthusiasm for implementing them here.</p>
<p>Certainly, the challenge of laying new pipelines to every urban home is daunting, but that need not be a barrier. It’s not that long ago that water, electricity and natural gas were not delivered directly to homes and other buildings, either. </p>
<p>The managers of those utilities, both public and private, developed efficient methods for deployment, balanced the <a href="https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/UTAustin_FCe_History_2016.pdf">cost of their infrastructure</a> over decades and included the financing costs in customers’ bills. All of these techniques could help build thermal networks across Canada. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-need-to-reuse-waste-energy-to-achieve-net-zero-heating-systems-209416">Why we need to reuse waste energy to achieve net-zero heating systems</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://www.cga.ca/energy-magazine-post/when-was-canadas-natural-gas-distribution-system-built-and-what-is-it-made-of/">Natural gas only started to become commonly available in Canada</a> in the 1950s, with networks of buried pipes being extended to the most populated areas of the country through the 1980s. <a href="https://brilliantio.com/how-were-homes-heated-in-the-1960s/">Before then</a>, people had oil, coal or wood delivered, or used electricity from coal-fired plants — all of them significant sources of greenhouse gases. </p>
<p>The conversion made heating <a href="https://www.fortisbc.com/services/natural-gas-services/considering-upgrading-to-gas-up-to-2700-in-appliance-rebates-available-for-a-limited-time/annual-fuel-cost-comparison">cheaper and cleaner</a>. It <a href="https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/canadas-energy-transition/canadas-energy-transition-historical-future-changes-energy-systems-update-energy-market-assessment-global-energy.html">halved our carbon emissions</a>. It required a huge effort, but it happened, and it can happen again.</p>
<p>Thermal networks present an opportunity to harvest heat from natural sources or <a href="https://futurium.ec.europa.eu/en/urban-agenda/energy-transition/library/action-2-recommendation-paper-maximising-use-waste-heat-cities">heat that would otherwise be wasted</a> and use it for a vital purpose of keeping Canadians warm while helping to reduce carbon emissions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224054/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jim Cotton is the founder and CEO of Harvest Systems Inc. He receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Ontario Centre of Innovation and Boltzmann Institute. </span></em></p>Underground thermal networks have the potential to revolutionize how Canadians heat their homes while helping to reduce carbon emissions.James (Jim) S. Cotton, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, McMaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2245132024-02-28T04:09:29Z2024-02-28T04:09:29ZDutton wants a ‘mature debate’ about nuclear power. By the time we’ve had one, new plants will be too late to replace coal<p>If you believe Newspoll and the Australian Financial Review, Australia wants to go nuclear – as long as it’s small. </p>
<p>Newspoll this week <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/most-australians-would-back-a-move-to-small-scale-nuclear-power/news-story/88589682d1d46b8257c0386f61d51aa6">suggests a majority</a> of us are in favour of building small modular nuclear reactors. A <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/afr-readers-want-small-nuclear-reactors-considered-20230723-p5dqi9">poll of Australian Financial Review readers</a> last year told a similar story.</p>
<p>These polls (and a more general question about nuclear power in a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/voters-warm-to-nuclear-as-billionaire-andrew-forrest-slams-coalition-bulldust-20240226-p5f7wo.html">Resolve poll</a> for Nine newspapers this week) come after a concerted effort by the Coalition to normalise talking about nuclear power – specifically, the small, modular kind that’s meant to be cheaper and safer. Unfortunately, while small reactors have been around for decades, they are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544223015980">generally costlier</a> than larger reactors with a similar design. This reflects the economies of size associated with larger boilers. </p>
<p>The hope (and it’s still only a hope) is “modular” design will permit reactors to be built in factories in large numbers (and therefore at low cost), then shipped to the sites where they are installed.</p>
<p>Coalition enthusiasm for talking about small modular reactors has not been dented by the failure of the only serious proposal to build them: that of NuScale, a company that designs and markets these reactors in the United States. Faced with long delays and increases in the projected costs of the <a href="https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/products/voygr-smr-plants">Voygr reactor</a>, the intended buyers, a <a href="https://www.uamps.com/">group of municipal power utilities</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/09/small-modular-nuclear-reactor-that-was-hailed-by-coalition-as-future-cancelled-due-to-rising-costs">pulled the plug</a>. The project had a decade of development behind it but had not even reached prototype stage. </p>
<p>Other proposals to build small modular reactors abound but none are likely to be constructed anywhere before the mid-2030s, if at all. Even if they work as planned (<a href="https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/small-nuclear-reactors-come-with-big-price-tag-report/">a big if</a>), they will arrive too late to replace coal power in Australia. So Opposition Leader Peter Dutton needs to put up a detailed plan for how he would deliver nuclear power in time.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1761878125166932135"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-nuclear-the-answer-to-australias-climate-crisis-216891">Is nuclear the answer to Australia's climate crisis?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>So why would Australians support nuclear?</h2>
<p>It is worth looking at the claim that Australians support nuclear power. This was the question the Newspoll asked:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is a proposal to build several small modular nuclear reactors around Australia to produce zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations once they are retired. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This question assumes two things. First, that small modular reactors exist. Second, that someone is proposing to build and operate them, presumably expecting they can do so at a cost low enough to compete with alternative energy sources. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, neither is true. Nuclear-generated power <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-nuclear-the-answer-to-australias-climate-crisis-216891">costs up to ten times as much</a> as solar and wind energy. A more accurate phrasing of the question would be:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is a proposal to keep coal-fired power stations operating until the development of small modular reactors which might, in the future, supply zero-emissions energy. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It seems unlikely such a proposal would gain majority support.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1762312474165227964"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/military-interests-are-pushing-new-nuclear-power-and-the-uk-government-has-finally-admitted-it-216118">Military interests are pushing new nuclear power – and the UK government has finally admitted it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Building nuclear takes a long time</h2>
<p>When we consider the timeline for existing reactor projects, the difficulties with nuclear power come into sharp focus.</p>
<p>As National Party Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie has <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/that-is-rubbish-bridget-zali-steggall-and-bridget-mckenzie-clash-over-nuclear/video/652fb62845ef39da803325f0f14bd49d">pointed out</a>, the most successful recent implementation of nuclear power has been in the United Arab Emirates. In 2008, the UAE president (and emir of Abi Dhabi), Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, announced a plan to build four nuclear reactors. Construction started in 2012. The last reactor is about to be connected to the grid, 16 years after the project was announced.</p>
<p>The UAE’s performance is better than that achieved recently <a href="https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time">in Western countries</a> including the US, UK, France and Finland.</p>
<p>In 16 years’ time, by 2040, most of Australia’s remaining coal-fired power stations will have shut down. Suppose the Coalition gained office in 2025 on a program of advocating nuclear power and managed to pass the necessary legislation in 2026. If we could match the pace of the UAE, nuclear power stations would start coming online just in time to replace them. </p>
<p>If we spent three to five years discussing the issue, then matched the UAE schedule, the plants would arrive too late.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dutton-wants-australia-to-join-the-nuclear-renaissance-but-this-dream-has-failed-before-209584">Dutton wants Australia to join the "nuclear renaissance" – but this dream has failed before</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>It would take longer in Australia</h2>
<p>Would it be possible to match the UAE schedule? The UAE had no need to pass legislation: it doesn’t have a parliament like ours, let alone a Senate that can obstruct government legislation. The necessary institutions, including a regulatory commission and a publicly owned nuclear power firm, were established by decree.</p>
<p>There were no problems with site selection, not to mention environmental impact statements and court actions. The site at Barakah was conveniently located on an almost uninhabited stretch of desert coastline, but still close enough to the main population centres to permit a connection to transmission lines, access for workers, and so on. There’s nowhere in Australia’s eastern states (where the power is needed) that matches that description.</p>
<p>Finally, there are no problems with strikes or union demands: both are illegal in the UAE. Foreign workers with even less rights than Emirati citizens did almost all the construction work.</p>
<p>Despite all these advantages, the UAE has not gone any further with nuclear power. Instead of building more reactors after the first four, it’s <a href="https://www.khaleejtimes.com/energy/uae-new-1500mw-solar-plant-to-be-developed-in-abu-dhabi-will-power-160000-homes">investing massively</a> in solar power and battery storage.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-minister-chris-bowen-says-replacing-coal-fired-power-stations-with-nuclear-would-cost-387-billion-213735">Climate minister Chris Bowen says replacing coal-fired power stations with nuclear would cost $387 billion</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Time to start work is running out</h2>
<p>The Coalition began calling for a “<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/peter-dutton-calls-for-mature-debate-over-nuclear-energy/news-story/bb023ce4ee8691c1709b772876f6beca">mature debate</a>” on nuclear <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/06/the-coalition-didnt-do-much-on-nuclear-energy-while-in-office-why-are-they-talking-about-it-now">immediately after losing office</a>. </p>
<p>But it’s now too late for discussion. If Australia is to replace any of our retiring coal-fired power stations with nuclear reactors, Dutton must commit to this goal before the 2025 election. </p>
<p>Talk about hypothetical future technologies is, at this point, nothing more than a distraction. If Dutton is serious about nuclear power in Australia, he needs to put forward a plan now. It must spell out a realistic timeline that includes the establishment of necessary regulation, the required funding model and the sites to be considered.</p>
<p>In summary, it’s time to put up or shut up.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224513/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Quiggin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Small modular reactors are popular among conservative politicians and supposedly the Australian public. But they’re nowhere near ready to power Australia in time to replace coal-powered stations.John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2180462023-12-07T14:15:16Z2023-12-07T14:15:16Z4 east African countries are going for nuclear power – why this is a bad idea<p>The east Africa region has the fastest growing population in Africa. Between 2013 and 2017, its growth rate was <a href="https://rwanda.un.org/en/3063-east-africa-fastest-growing-region-africa-people-leading-longer-and-healthier-lives">twice the African average</a>. The region is also experiencing strong <a href="https://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/press-releases/east-africa-regional-economic-outlook-2023-mid-term-growth-east-africa-region-projected-highest-continent-2023-4-63483">economic growth</a>. It’s sub-Saharan share of GDP has <a href="https://www.euromonitor.com/article/east-africa---the-rising-economic-jewel-of-sub-saharan-africa#:%7E:text=By%202040%2C%20East%20Africa%20is,infrastructure%20and%20non%2Dservice%20sectors.">risen</a> from 14% in 2000 to 21% in 2022. </p>
<p>Such growth translates to higher electricity demand. Among a variety of new energy proposals is building nuclear power plants. Earlier this year, Uganda announced plans to construct a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/uganda-plans-start-nuclear-power-generation-by-2031-minister-2023-03-09/">2,000MW nuclear plant</a> 150km north of Kampala, with the first 1,000MW operational by 2031. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/rwanda-signs-agreement-build-test-nuclear-power-reactor-2023-09-12/">Rwanda</a> also recently signed up to a deal to build a nuclear reactor, while <a href="https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/business/kenya-to-build-nuclear-power-plant-from-2027-4380566">Kenya</a> and <a href="https://theexchange.africa/industry-and-trade/government-unveils-tanzanias-nuclear-plan-at-summit/">Tanzania</a> have made more or less similar announcements.</p>
<p>It is in many ways tempting for these countries to pursue a nuclear power plant build. Even a single large-scale <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/are-there-different-types-of-reactor.aspx">nuclear reactor</a> would typically double national electricity generation capacity. In addition, it is technology that is – in theory at least – able to provide a constant electricity output independent of weather, season or time of day.</p>
<p>Another factor that motivates many potential entrants to nuclear power is that it has historically been perceived in many quarters as <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/2005/03/23/for-tehran-nuclear-program-is-matter-of-national-pride-pub-16694">confirmation of high technological status</a> and proof of national respectability. This is despite many of the world’s technologically and economically strongest nations now having shut down their nuclear plants. <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/15/europe/germany-nuclear-phase-out-climate-intl/index.html">Germany</a> and <a href="https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/italian-referendum/#gref">Italy</a> are examples.</p>
<p>But there are several risks of choosing the nuclear path. The biggest in my view is financial. The costs of constructing, maintaining and later decommissioning a nuclear plant make this one of the <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2023/04/15/wind-solar-power-now-the-clear-champions-on-cost/">most expensive forms of electricity generation</a>. The actual cost is invariably a lot <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-25987-7_5">higher than originally announced</a>.</p>
<p>Along with that, the construction period is usually <a href="https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2022-.html">many years longer</a> than declared at the start.</p>
<p>In addition, safety issues can never be discounted when dealing with nuclear energy, as the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident">2011 Fukushima disaster</a> in Japan amply illustrated. </p>
<h2>The perilous path to nuclear</h2>
<p>There are two arguments against new nuclear as currently considered by east African countries.</p>
<p>The first is financial. The construction cost of a new nuclear plant typically stands at about US$5 billion per 1,000MW. The cost of a 2,000MW build in Uganda would be of the order of that country’s <a href="https://www.gtuganda.co.ug/globalassets/1.-member-firms/uganda/media/pdf-documents/grant-thornton_budget-booklet_-2023-24.pdf#page=10">annual total tax revenue</a>. As such, the project would rely on massive loans, which also come with considerable interest.</p>
<p>The second is the risk of complete political and economic dependence on the nuclear build sponsor country. France, South Korea and China are building a small number of nuclear plants outside their borders. China is now part of the <a href="https://theexchange.africa/business/uganda-nuclear-power-plant-a-realization-with-first-plant-under-construction/">Ugandan nuclear project</a>.</p>
<p>But the country that has been by far most aggressive in promoting itself as an international nuclear plant developer is <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/russias-nuclear-play-for-power-in-africa/a-54004039">Russia</a>. In 2019 it had already secured nuclear cooperation agreements with <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-10-29-african-countries-rush-to-sign-nuclear-deals-with-russia/">18 African countries</a>, with several more concluded <a href="https://rosatomnewsletter.com/2023/08/30/africa-learns-russian-atoms/">more recently</a>. </p>
<p>To circumvent the prohibitive costs, Russian nuclear developers have offered to provide comparatively low interest <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421518304245">financing</a> where repayments only kick in several years after the start of construction, and continue for several decades thereafter. The drawback is that the country develops a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01228-5">strong long-term dependence on Russia</a> to meet one of its most basic needs: electricity provision. </p>
<p>The situation has been made more risky by the uncertainty of Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine. The fallout from this war may well ruin and lead to the complete overhaul of the Russian state. This would result in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/russias-nuclear-power-exports-will-they-stand-the-strain-of-the-war-in-ukraine-178250">disruption and ultimate termination</a> of projects already in progress, with the concurrent loss of all funding and resources invested up to that point. </p>
<h2>East Africa’s likely future energy mix</h2>
<p>In view of the financial risk and high cost, and as global experience has shown that it typically requires <a href="https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2022-.html">ten or more years to set up a new nuclear plant</a> from project approval to electricity production, east African countries should pursue alternatives for electricity production.</p>
<p>New medium-scale solar, wind and geothermal power-generating facilities would likely dominate the expansion of east African electricity generation capacity in the coming decade as they are cheap in comparison. Typical construction timescales are also much lower than nuclear or hydro megaprojects. </p>
<p>Take hydropower generation, which uses the natural flow of moving water to produce electricity. This source of power has been the most significant in east Africa for decades. Building more dams is both time consuming and at times controversial. Nevertheless, major projects using this technology are currently still being built. An example is the <a href="https://www.world-energy.org/article/28655.html">2,115MW Julius Nyerere hydropower station</a> in Tanzania.</p>
<p>Solar power – the conversion of energy from sunlight into electricity – has an extremely low footprint in the region at the moment. Yet it is now one of the cheapest forms of electricity generation. Most countries in the region have extensive areas <a href="https://solargis.com/maps-and-gis-data/download/sub-saharan-africa">suitable</a> for harnessing this source. </p>
<p>While not enjoying the wind resources of the Earth’s oceans and mid-latitudes, wind farms can be considered in places, and are already in operation, such as in Kenya’s <a href="https://ltwp.co.ke/">Lake Turkana</a> region.</p>
<p>East Africa furthermore has the Rift Valley and its volcanic activity in places. This offers the opportunity for <a href="https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/geothermal-energy/">geothermal power</a>, a technology that converts the intense underground heat associated with cracks in the Earth’s crust to electricity. This is already the <a href="https://www.iea.org/countries/kenya">leading electricity generation mode in Kenya</a> and could be developed elsewhere.</p>
<p>Given all these factors, investing in a large and expensive nuclear build with uncertain completion timeframes that may end up being way more expensive than projected is ultimately simply not worth it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218046/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hartmut Winkler receives funding from the South African National Research Foundation. He is a contributor to the 2023 edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report. </span></em></p>There are several risks in choosing the nuclear path – the biggest being financial.Hartmut Winkler, Professor of Physics, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2168912023-11-02T19:14:00Z2023-11-02T19:14:00ZIs nuclear the answer to Australia’s climate crisis?<p>In Australia’s race to net zero emissions, nuclear power has surged back into the news. Opposition leader Peter Dutton <a href="https://ipa.org.au/research/climate-change-and-energy/peter-dutton-address-to-ipa-members-sydney-7-july-2023">argues</a> nuclear is “the only feasible and proven technology” for cutting emissions. Energy Minister Chris Bowen insists Mr Dutton is promoting “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-18/energy-minister-says-nuclear-power-too-expensive/102868218">the most expensive form of energy</a>”.</p>
<p>Is nuclear a pragmatic and wise choice blocked by ideologues? Or is Mr Bowen right that promoting nuclear power is about as sensible as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/-unicorn-and-a-fantasy-energy-minister-slams-nuclear-energy/102866944">chasing “unicorns”</a>?</p>
<p>For someone who has not kept up with developments in nuclear energy, its prospects may seem to hinge on safety. Yet by any hard-nosed accounting, the risks from modern nuclear plants are orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Deep failures in design and operational incompetence caused the Chernobyl disaster. Nobody died at Three Mile Island or from Fukushima. Meanwhile, a Harvard-led study found <a href="https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought">more than one in six deaths globally</a> – around 9 million a year – are attributable to polluted air from fossil combustion.</p>
<p>Two more mundane factors help to explain why nuclear power has halved as a share of global electricity production since the 1990s. They are time and money.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-973" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/973/534c98def812dd41ac56cc750916e2922539729b/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The might of Wright’s law</h2>
<p>There are four arguments against investment in nuclear power: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant">Olkiluoto 3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3">Flamanville 3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station">Hinkley Point C</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant">Vogtle</a>. These are the four major latest-generation plants completed or near completion in Finland, the United States, the United Kingdom and France respectively. </p>
<p>Cost overruns at these recent plants average over 300%, with more increases to come. The cost of Vogtle, for example, soared from US$14 billion to $34 billion (A$22-53 billion), Flamanville from €3.3 billion to €19 billion (A$5-31 billion), and <a href="https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/nuclear-economics-lessons-from-lazard-to-hinkley-point-c">Hinkley Point C</a> from £16 billion to as much as £70 billion (A$30-132 billion), including subsidies. Completion of Vogtle <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vogtles-troubles-bring-us-nuclear-challenge-into-focus-2023-08-24/">has been delayed</a> by seven years, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-18-years-europes-largest-nuclear-reactor-start-regular-output-sunday-2023-04-15/">Olkiluoto</a> by 14 years, and <a href="https://www.nucnet.org/news/decree-sets-startup-deadline-of-2024-4-3-2020">Flamanville</a> by at least 12 years.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-beat-rollout-rage-the-environment-versus-climate-battle-dividing-regional-australia-213863">How to beat 'rollout rage': the environment-versus-climate battle dividing regional Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A fifth case is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station">Virgil C</a>, also in the US, for which US$9 billion (A$14 billion) was spent before cost overruns led the project to be abandoned. All three firms building these five plants – Westinghouse, EDF, and AREVA – went bankrupt or were nationalised. Consumers, companies and taxpayers <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/18/hinkley-points-cost-consumers-surges-50bn/">will bear the costs</a> for decades.</p>
<p>By contrast, average cost overruns for wind and solar are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/we.2069">around zero</a>, the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629614000942">lowest</a> of all energy infrastructure.</p>
<p><a href="https://ark-invest.com/wrights-law/">Wright’s law</a> states the more a technology is produced, the more its costs decline. Wind and especially solar power and <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline">lithium-ion batteries</a> have all experienced <a href="https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2023/Aug/Renewables-Competitiveness-Accelerates-Despite-Cost-Inflation">astonishing cost declines</a> over the last two decades.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-urgently-needs-a-climate-plan-and-a-net-zero-national-cabinet-committee-to-implement-it-213866">Why Australia urgently needs a climate plan and a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee to implement it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For nuclear power, though, Wright’s law has been inverted. The more capacity installed, the more costs have increased. Why? This <a href="https://www.cell.com/joule/pdf/S2542-4351(20)30458-X.pdf">2020 MIT study</a> found that safety improvements accounted for around 30% of nuclear cost increases, but the lion’s share was due to persistent flaws in management, design, and supply chains.</p>
<p>In Australia, such costs and delays would ensure that we miss our emissions reduction targets. They would also mean spiralling electricity costs, as the grid waited for generation capacity that did not come. For fossil fuel firms and their political friends, this is the real attraction of nuclear – another decade or two of sales at inflated prices.</p>
<h2>Comparing the cost of nuclear and renewables</h2>
<p>Nevertheless, nuclear advocates tell us we have no choice: wind and solar power are intermittent power sources, and the cost of making them reliable is too high.</p>
<p>But let’s compare the cost of reliably delivering a megawatt hour of electricity to the grid from nuclear versus wind and solar. According to both <a href="https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP2022-5511&dsid=DS1">the CSIRO</a> and respected energy market analyst <a href="https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf">Lazard Ltd</a>, nuclear power has a cost of A$220 to $350 per megawatt hour produced.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-juukan-gorge-how-first-nations-people-are-taking-charge-of-clean-energy-projects-on-their-land-213864">Beyond Juukan Gorge: how First Nations people are taking charge of clean energy projects on their land</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Without subsidies or state finance, the four plants cited above generally hit or exceed the high end of this range. By contrast, Australia is already building wind and solar plants at under <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/act-starts-to-bank-its-cheapest-wind-power-yet-in-next-stage-to-kick-out-fossil-fuels/">$45</a> and <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-gets-stunning-low-price-for-wind-and-solar-in-biggest-renewables-auction/">$35 per megawatt hour</a> respectively. That’s a tenth of the cost of nuclear.</p>
<p>The CSIRO has <a href="https://www.csiro.au/-/media/EF/Files/GenCost/GenCost2022-23Final_27-06-2023.pdf">modelled the cost</a> of renewable energy that is firmed – meaning made reliable, mainly via batteries and other storage technologies. It found the necessary transmission lines and storage would add only $25 to $34 per megawatt hour.</p>
<p>In short, a reliable megawatt hour from renewables costs around a fifth of one from a nuclear plant. We could build a renewables grid large enough to meet demand twice over, and still pay less than half the cost of nuclear.</p>
<h2>The future of nuclear: small modular reactors?</h2>
<p>Proponents of nuclear power pin their hopes on <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs#:%7E:text=Small%20modular%20reactors%20(SMRs)%20are,of%20traditional%20nuclear%20power%20reactors.">small modular reactors</a> (SMRs), which replace huge gigawatt-scale units with small units that offer the possibility of being produced at scale. This might allow nuclear to finally harness Wright’s law.</p>
<p>Yet commercial SMRs are years from deployment. The US firm <a href="https://www.nuscalepower.com/en">NuScale</a>, scheduled to build two plants in Idaho by 2030, has not yet broken ground, and on-paper costs have already <a href="https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor">ballooned</a> to around A$189 per megawatt hour.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-original-and-still-the-best-why-its-time-to-renew-australias-renewable-energy-policy-213879">The original and still the best: why it's time to renew Australia's renewable energy policy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>And SMRs are decades away from broad deployment. If early examples work well, in the 2030s there will be a round of early SMRs in the US and European countries that have existing nuclear skills and supply chains. If that goes well, we may see a serious rollout from the 2040s onwards.</p>
<p>In these same decades, solar, wind, and storage will still be descending the Wright’s law cost curve. Last year the Morrison government was spruiking the goal of getting solar below <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/ultra-low-cost-solar-power-a-priority-for-australia-20220108-p59msj.html">$15 per megawatt hour by 2030</a>. SMRs must achieve improbable cost reductions to compete.</p>
<p>Finally, SMRs may be necessary and competitive in countries with poor renewable energy resources. But Australia has the richest combined solar and wind resources in the world.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/too-hard-basket-why-climate-change-is-defeating-our-political-system-214382">Too hard basket: why climate change is defeating our political system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Should we lift the ban?</h2>
<p>Given these realities, should Australia lift its ban on nuclear power? A repeal would have no practical effect on what happens in electricity markets, but it might have political effects. </p>
<p>A future leader might seek short-term advantage by offering enormous subsidies for nuclear plants. The true costs would arrive years after such a leader had left office. That would be tragic for Australia. With our unmatched solar and wind resources, we have the chance to deliver among the cheapest electricity in the developed world.</p>
<p>Mr Dutton may be right that the ban on nuclear is unnecessary. But in terms of getting to net zero as quickly and cheaply as possible, Mr Bowen has the relevant argument. To echo one assessment from the UK, nuclear for Australia would be “<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-30/u-k-risks-looking-economically-insane-with-edf-nuclear-deal?">economically insane</a>”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216891/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Reuben Finighan is a research fellow at the Superpower Institute.</span></em></p>When Australia’s government and opposition argue over how to get to net zero emissions, nuclear power is the flashpoint. The argument against nuclear is stronger, but not for the obvious reason.Reuben Finighan, PhD candidate at the LSE and Research Fellow at the Superpower Institute, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2113462023-08-10T10:37:42Z2023-08-10T10:37:42ZGrattan on Friday: The Coalition’s likely embrace of nuclear energy is high-risk politics<p>Crazy brave, or just crazy? If, as seems likely, the opposition embraces nuclear power in its 2025 election policy, it will be taking a huge political gamble. </p>
<p>The Coalition might argue this would be the best (or only) way to ensure we achieve net zero by 2050. But “nuclear” is a trigger word in the political debate, and the reactions it triggers are mostly negative. </p>
<p>Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been open since the election about nuclear energy being on the Coalition’s agenda. It’s a “no surprises” tactic – but one that has allowed the government, especially Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen, to regularly attack and ridicule the idea. </p>
<p>This week opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O'Brien was spruiking nuclear power, writing in The Australian about the US state of Wyoming’s plans for a coal-to-nuclear transition. </p>
<p>O'Brien visited some months ago. “What struck me was the extent to which residents were embracing their nuclear future,” he wrote. “Four coal communities had gone head-to-head in a competitive bid to host the state’s first nuclear plant.”</p>
<p>O'Brien, a Queensland Liberal, has been a vociferous nuclear advocate; he chaired a parliamentary inquiry under the former government that recommended work to deepen understanding of nuclear technology and a partial lifting of the present moratorium, dating from 1998, on nuclear energy. </p>
<p>Nationals leader David Littleproud has also been central to the push for the Coalition to back nuclear energy.</p>
<p>The Nationals, by their climate scepticism and their deep attachment to coal, held back the Coalition on climate policy for more than a decade. Ahead of the 2022 election they were dragged by Scott Morrison to agree to the 2050 target with a massive financial bribe (some of which they didn’t receive because of the change of government). </p>
<p>Now, in opposition, some of the Nationals’ rump would like the party to ditch the 2050 commitment. The nuclear option would be one means of keeping them in the tent. </p>
<p>The “nuclear” the Coalition is talking about doesn’t involve old-style plants, but “new and emerging technologies” including small modular reactors. </p>
<p>That’s one of the problems for the policy – this is an emerging technology, not a quick fix to Australia’s challenges in transiting from fossil fuels. </p>
<p>That is, however, nothing compared with the challenge of public opinion. Notably, the 2019 parliamentary report was titled Nuclear Energy - Not without your approval. </p>
<p><a href="https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/report/2022/">A 2022 Lowy poll</a> found Australians divided on the issue of nuclear power, although opinion appeared to be softening. Some 52% supported removing the ban, which was a five-point rise from 2021; 45% opposed this – six points down on the year before.</p>
<p>The government would have a ready-made “not in my backyard” campaign to launch against the Coalition’s policy. Whether the Wyoming experience suggests feeling could be different in coal communities – which might see future jobs on offer – is, however, an interesting question. </p>
<p>Another extremely hard issue is that of waste. We only have to think of the massive difficulty in finding a disposal site for the waste from the Lucas Heights facility, which is from nuclear medicine. </p>
<p>The point was highlighted on Thursday when the Albanese government abandoned its plan for a waste dump near Kimba in South Australia. This followed an adverse federal court judgement, which upheld a challenge by local Indigenous people. </p>
<p>The government has decided not to appeal, presumably influenced by the delicate stage of the Voice referendum. </p>
<p>Resources Minister Madeleine King said: “The judgement was clear, and the government is listening”. She had visited Kimba in January and saw “a town divided” on the issue. The search will continue for another site. </p>
<p>The opposition called the failure to appeal “gutless”. Shadow foreign minister Simon Birmingham said a “strong majority” of the Kimba community had expressed a willingness to host the dump.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1689417118289473536"}"></div></p>
<blockquote>
<p>The failure to deliver this site creates huge uncertainties for nuclear medicines, leaves waste at temporary city sites all over Australia and undermines confidence that Labor is capable of the difficult decisions required to deliver nuclear powered submarines under AUKUS.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The opposition argues the planned nuclear submarine program provides a foot in the door to advance its case for nuclear energy. It will require limited onshore nuclear capability, and eventually Australia will have to deal with the waste from its boats. </p>
<p>But more persuasive, one would think – if people can be persuaded – would be high power prices and the difficulties of the energy transition, which we are already seeing as baseload power goes out of the system. </p>
<p>For that argument to work, however, the economics of nuclear power would have to stack up, and at present they don’t (although O'Brien disputes that).</p>
<p>Tony Wood, Director of the Energy Program at the Grattan Institute, lists some of the arguments against nuclear that the Coalition will have to deal with. </p>
<p>“There are doubts whether a small modular reactor could provide dispatchable power similar to a gas peaking plant,” Wood says. </p>
<p>There is also little real-world evidence these reactors would deliver cheaper prices, he says. “The SMRs are still in the early stages of development and already costing more than the proponents had expected.”</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Nuclear in Australia is many years away, given the status of the technology and the fact we would have to train an entirely new workforce from scratch. </p>
<p>Lift the ban by all means. Nothing would change today. But the evidence that a social licence could be gained is minimal. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Coalition might believe it is ahead of the curve on the potential for small nuclear reactors for Australia. Whether or not that’s so, only technology and history will tell. </p>
<p>But even if it is right, sometimes you can be too far ahead of the political curve. Bill Shorten’s climate policy in 2019 was only a very little ahead, but it turned into one of the obstacles for his campaign when he couldn’t convincingly answer all the questions about it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211346/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Peter Dutton has been open since the election about nuclear energy being on the Coalition’s agenda - but that has allowed the government, especially Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen, to attack the ideaMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1967582023-06-27T19:08:47Z2023-06-27T19:08:47ZNuclear fusion breakthrough: Decades of research are still needed before fusion can be used as clean energy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533809/original/file-20230623-2542-tun5fo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=20%2C4%2C2681%2C1786&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A technician conducting a review at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Damien Jemison/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory via AP)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. Department of Energy reported a <a href="https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-national-laboratory-makes-history-achieving-fusion-ignition">major scientific breakthrough in nuclear fusion science</a> in December 2022. For the first time, more energy was released from a fusion reaction than was used to ignite it.</p>
<p>While this achievement is indeed historic, it’s important to pause and reflect on the way ahead for fusion energy. </p>
<p>We are professors of sustainable and renewable energy engineering at Carleton University, where we research alternative energy technologies and systems that can move us to a low-carbon future. </p>
<p>We also teach our students how to navigate the treacherous terrain from lab-based findings to real-world applications.</p>
<h2>Defining system boundaries</h2>
<p>The efficiency of a potential fusion energy power plant remains to be seen. The reported fusion net gain actually required about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04440-7">300 megajoules of energy input</a>, which was not included in the energy gain calculation. This energy input, needed to <a href="https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-ignition-facility-achieves-fusion-ignition">power 192 lasers</a>, came from the electric power grid. </p>
<p>In other words, the experiment used as much energy as the typical Canadian household does in two days. In doing so, the fusion reaction output enough energy to light just 14 incandescent bulbs for an hour.</p>
<p>The same is true of nuclear fission, which is the reaction inside current nuclear power plants. The complete fission of one kilogram of Uranium-235 — the fissile component of nuclear fuel — can generate about <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/highereducation/books/physics-of-energy/7FE67626190E6D164A71B0D61E061E63#overview">77 terajoules</a>. But we cannot convert all of that energy into useful forms like heat and electric power. </p>
<p>Instead, we have to engineer a complex system that can control the nuclear fission chain reaction and convert the generated energy into more useful forms. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Three women people in business attire stand in front of a screen that says 'Energy.Gov.' The women in the centre speaks into a microphone from behind a podium." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533811/original/file-20230623-15-5f29u8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533811/original/file-20230623-15-5f29u8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533811/original/file-20230623-15-5f29u8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533811/original/file-20230623-15-5f29u8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533811/original/file-20230623-15-5f29u8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533811/original/file-20230623-15-5f29u8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533811/original/file-20230623-15-5f29u8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kim Budil, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, center, is flanked by Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, left, and Arati Prabhakar, the president’s science advisor, as they announce a major scientific breakthrough in fusion research at the Department of Energy in Washington on Dec. 13, 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is what nuclear power plants do — they harness the heat generated during nuclear fission reactions to make steam. This steam drives a turbine connected to an electric power generator, which produces electricity. The overall efficiency of the cycle is less than 40 per cent.</p>
<p>In addition, not all of the uranium in the fuel is burned. Used fuel still contains about 96 per cent of its total uranium, and about a fifth of its fissile Uranium-235 content. </p>
<p>Increasing the amount of uranium spent in our current fleet is possible — it’s an ongoing sphere of work — but it poses enormous engineering challenges. The huge energy potential of nuclear fuel is currently mitigated by the engineering challenges of converting that energy into a useful form. </p>
<h2>From science to engineering</h2>
<p>Until recently, fusion has been seen primarily as a scientific experiment, not as an engineering challenge. This is rapidly changing and <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2225/ML22252A192.pdf">regulators are now investigating</a> how deployment might unfold in the real world. </p>
<p>Regardless of the efficiency of a future fusion power plant, taking energy conversions from basic science to the real world will require overcoming a multitude of challenges. </p>
<p>Because fission faced many of the same challenges as fusion now does, we can learn a lot from its history. Fission also had to move from science to engineering before the commercial industry could take off.</p>
<p>The science of fusion energy, as with nuclear fission, is rooted in efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Notably, several nuclear physicists who helped develop the nuclear bomb wanted to “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691651002/change-hope-and-the-bomb">prove that this discovery was not just a weapon</a>.” </p>
<p>The early history of nuclear power <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1613/ML16131A120.pdf">was one of optimism</a> — of declarations the technology would advance and be able to meet our need for ever-increasing amounts of energy. Eventually, fusion power would come along and electricity would become “too cheap to meter.”</p>
<h2>Lessons learned</h2>
<p>What have we learned over the past 70 years since the onset of nuclear power? First, we’ve learned about <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2122817">the potentially devastating risk of technology lock-in</a>, which occurs when an industry becomes dependent on a specific product or system.</p>
<p>Today’s light-water fission reactors — reactors that use normal water as opposed to water enriched with a hydrogen isotope — are an example of this. They were not chosen because they were the most desirable, but for other reasons.</p>
<p>These factors include government subsidies that favoured these designs; the U.S. Navy’s interest in <a href="https://uploads.fas.org/2015/08/Advanced-nuclear-energy-technologies-report-August-2015_final_version.pdf">developing smaller-scale pressurized water reactors</a> for submarines and surface warships; advances in uranium enrichment technology as a result of the U.S. nuclear weapons program; uncertainties regarding nuclear costs that led to the assumption that large light-water reactors are simply scaled-up versions of smaller ones; and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.05.049">conservatism regarding design choices</a> given the high costs and risks associated with nuclear power development.</p>
<p>We have been struggling to move to other technologies ever since. </p>
<p>Second, we’ve learned that size matters. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.003">Large reactors cost more to build per unit of capacity</a> than smaller units. In other words, engineers misunderstood the concept of economies of scale and doomed their industry in the process. </p>
<p>Large infrastructure projects are extremely complex systems that rely on enormous work forces and co-ordination. They can be managed, but they usually go over-budget and fall behind schedule. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8060">Modular technologies exhibit better affordability</a>, cost control and economies, but micro and small nuclear reactors will also be economically challenged.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A person in a bright yellow construction uniform and hardhat walks on a small bridge inside a nuclear reactor that is under constriction." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533812/original/file-20230623-19-jtc4r2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533812/original/file-20230623-19-jtc4r2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533812/original/file-20230623-19-jtc4r2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533812/original/file-20230623-19-jtc4r2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533812/original/file-20230623-19-jtc4r2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533812/original/file-20230623-19-jtc4r2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533812/original/file-20230623-19-jtc4r2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A worker walks at the construction site of a nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset, England, on Oct. 11, 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Kin Cheung)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Third, regulatory regimes must be developed for fusion. If the industry coalesces too quickly around a first-generation design, the consequences for the regulation of future reactors could be severe. </p>
<p>Fourth, choosing locations for new power plants and societal acceptance are key. Fusion has an advantage because its technology is more of a blank slate than fission when it comes to public opinion. The positive associations the public has with fusion must be maintained by prudent design decisions and adopting <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/26606">best practices for community engagement</a>. </p>
<p>The same is true of how the industry will choose to handle the waste challenge. Fusion reactors generate large amounts of waste, though <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-3796(97)00150-6">not the same kind fission does</a>.</p>
<h2>A call to action</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7f10">Our research on nuclear energy innovation</a> reveals that challenges facing nuclear fusion can be overcome, but they require prudent leadership, decades of research, significant amounts of funding and focus on technology development.</p>
<p>Billions of dollars are needed to advance nuclear fission technology, and we have far more experience with fission than with fusion. An appetite for funding must be demonstrated by governments, electric utility companies and entrepreneurs.</p>
<p>Fusion’s promise is vast and there is exciting work being done to advance it outside of this recent breakthrough, including by <a href="https://www.princetonstellarators.energy">private companies</a>. Decades of research and development are needed before fusion can meaningfully contribute to our energy system.</p>
<p>Our central message is a call to action: fusion engineers, researchers, industry and government must organize to investigate and mitigate the challenges that face fusion, including in the design of the first generation of power plants.</p>
<p>There is no substitute to deep and rapid decarbonization of the energy system if we want to save our planet from climate catastrophe. We are proud to be training the next generation of energy engineers to design new and better energy solutions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196758/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kristen Schell receives funding from NSERC, ECCC and the US Department of Energy. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ahmed Abdulla receives funding from NSERC, ECCC and Carleton University</span></em></p>While the nuclear fusion scientific breakthrough is indeed historic, it’s important to pause and reflect on the way ahead for fusion energy.Kristen Schell, Assistant Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton UniversityAhmed Abdulla, Assistant Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2034162023-04-06T07:49:12Z2023-04-06T07:49:12ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Simon Birmingham on the Voice, Aston, the Liberals, Uranium<p>The Liberals have formally decided to oppose the Voice. Peter Dutton has declared he will campaign against it, a high risk strategy when polls are showing a majority of Australians currently support a “yes” vote.</p>
<p>Noel Pearson was scathing of the Liberal Party, calling the decision not to support the Voice “a Judas betrayal of our country”. Moderate Liberal MP Bridget Archer will campaign for the “yes” case. </p>
<p>In this podcast, Michelle Grattan and Senator Simon Birmingham, leader of the opposition in the senate, and one of the few remaining moderates in the party, discuss the Voice, the Aston byelection defeat and “where to now?” for the Liberal Party. </p>
<p>Birmingham wishes more had been done by previous governments, “in the Rudd, Gillard, or Abbott years,” to advance Indigenous recognition.</p>
<p>“If we look at the substance of recognition and Voice, there are vexing issues.”</p>
<p>“They’re also vexing in regards to how you apply them against certain philosophical traits as to whether embedding a different platform for one part of the community in terms of engagement is a liberal or an illiberal concept […] I think there are serious questions there around this.”</p>
<p>“And sadly, as I look at it, I think that achieving national consensus on this topic has only gotten harder and harder over the many years since constitutional recognition was first discussed actively in the Howard government. And in many ways I wish it had been acted upon back then in the Rudd, Gillard or Abbott years.”</p>
<p>Birmingham doesn’t see the Liberal Party being on the wrong side of history in the referendum, but wants to see an open debate. “Australians will make their own mind up and that is at least the beauty of a referendum – we’ll get a clear and decisive result one way or the other as to where Australians stand.”</p>
<p>When asked if a pollster were to call him asking which way he would vote, Birmingham avoids a straight answer, but says he is open to “bipartisanship in working through the details in any referendum”. </p>
<p>“I hope that if there is something that can still be salvaged for national unity out of having a clear bipartisan constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, that that is achieved.” </p>
<p>“I hope if clear evidence comes forward during the parliamentary committee process to narrow the scope of the constitutional change that the government has put forward, that I listen to that evidence and try to convince a reconsideration around some of those factors.” </p>
<p>Birmingham concedes the Liberal Party has a lot of rebuilding to do, a point reinforced by the Aston trouncing. Areas needing attention include the migrant vote, women, and the younger generations, he says. </p>
<p>“We do face a vastly different electorate today to the one of some decades ago, and even not that long ago. If you look at some of the rate of change, the fastest growing segment of the workforce are professional women. And urbanisation has only continued to occur at a higher rate, particularly driven by waves of migration with significant numbers of Chinese Australians, Indian Australians and other cohorts growing in number.” </p>
<p>“Now those changes don’t mean that Liberal values are any less relevant today than they have been in the past […] but we do have to make sure that they are framed in a way that is relevant and engaging to electorates and to the modern electorate that we need to appeal to.”</p>
<p>“I think that means looking at how we can engage younger families and younger voters with effective policies about their economic security and especially in relation to the pursuit of home ownership.”</p>
<p>“That means ensuring that in all of those cases about job security, home ownership aspirations, the other aspirations they have that need to be underpinned by a strong economy. We also need to make sure that all feel included in those discussions, regardless of the background they come from, the migrant background or the construct or nature of their family”.</p>
<p>There’s a big push within the Coalition at the moment to embrace nuclear energy. </p>
<p>Birmingham sees the acceptance of nuclear-powered submarines as pointing to a wide change in attitudes towards nuclear technology. </p>
<p>He says: “I was surprised to be honest, when the AUKUS announcement was first made by the Morrison Government and of course with the recent announcements […] just how accepting and supportive the electorate has been of the use of nuclear technologies in the propulsion of our submarine fleet.”</p>
<p>“From a South Australian perspective, the reality [is] that that will mean work on the installation of the nuclear reactor component of submarines taking place at Osborne in suburban Adelaide moving forward. So I think there is a degree of maturity and understanding attached to these debates, but obviously there are lots of safeguards that need to be attached to any nuclear consideration”.</p>
<p>“Way back in my first speech, [I] was clear that I thought nuclear technology should be on the table with how we tackle some of the challenges of our time and how much has happened in the intervening sixteen years. The affordability and growth of renewable energies has changed dramatically and changed the energy landscape dramatically in that time.”</p>
<p>“I don’t think it makes sense per se to just have a ban on nuclear technologies.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203416/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this podcast, Michelle Grattan and South Australian senator Simon Birmingham discuss the Voice, the Aston byelection defeat and "where to now?" for the Liberal PartyMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2017812023-03-15T05:02:52Z2023-03-15T05:02:52ZAustralia hasn’t figured out low-level nuclear waste storage yet – let alone high-level waste from submarines<p>Within ten years, Australia could be in possession of three American-made Virginia-class nuclear submarines under the AUKUS agreement with the United States and United Kingdom. The following decade, we plan to build five next-generation nuclear submarines. </p>
<p>To date, criticism of the deal has largely <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-aukus-australia-has-wedded-itself-to-a-risky-us-policy-on-china-and-turned-a-deaf-ear-to-the-region-201757">focused on</a> whether our unstable geopolitical environment and China’s military investment means it’s worth spending up to A$368 billion on eight submarines as a deterrent. </p>
<p>But nuclear submarines mean nuclear waste. And for decades, Australia has failed to find a suitable place for the long-term storage of our small quantities of low and intermediate level nuclear waste from medical isotopes and the Lucas Heights research reactor. </p>
<p>With this deal, we have committed ourselves to managing highly radioactive reactor waste when these submarines are decommissioned – and guarding it, given the fuel for these submarines is weapons-grade uranium. </p>
<p>Where will it be stored? The government says it will be on defence land, making the most <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-15/will-nuclear-waste-from-aukus-subs-end-up-in-sa/102096174">likely site</a> Woomera in South Australia.</p>
<h2>What nuclear waste will we have to deal with?</h2>
<p>Under this deal, Australia <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/new-fleet-of-eight-nuclear-submarines-to-be-built-in-australia-in-368-billion-deal-20230314-p5crt9.html">will not manufacture</a> nuclear reactors. The US and later the UK will give Australia “complete, welded power units” which do not require refuelling over the lifetime of the submarine. </p>
<p>In this, we’re following the US model, where each submarine is powered by a reactor with fuel built in. When nuclear subs <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150330-where-nuclear-subs-go-to-die">are decommissioned</a>, the reactor is pulled out as a complete unit and treated as waste.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/radioactive-waste-isnt-going-away-weve-found-a-new-way-to-trap-it-in-minerals-for-long-term-storage-200255">Radioactive waste isn't going away. We've found a new way to trap it in minerals for long-term storage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>An official <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/13/fact-sheet-trilateral-australia-uk-us-partnership-on-nuclear-powered-submarines/">fact sheet</a> about this deal states Australia “has committed to managing all radioactive waste generated through its nuclear-powered submarine program, including spent nuclear fuel, in Australia”. </p>
<p>What does this waste look like? When Virginia-class submarines are decommissioned, you have to pull out the “small” reactor and dispose of it. Small, in this context, is relative. It’s small compared to nuclear power plants. But it weighs over 100 tonnes, and contains around 200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, which is nuclear weapons-grade material. </p>
<p>So, when our first three subs are at the end of their lives – which, according to defence minister Richard Marles, will be in about <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-15/aukus-nuclear-submarines-reactor-disposal/102092146">30 years time</a> – we will have 600kg of so-called “spent fuel” and potentially tonnes of irradiated material from the reactor and its protective walls. Because the fuel is weapons-grade material, it will need military-scale security.</p>
<h2>Australia has no long-term storage facility</h2>
<p>There’s one line in the fact sheet which stands out. The UK and US “will assist Australia in developing this capability, leveraging Australia’s decades of safely and securely managing radioactive waste domestically”. </p>
<p>This statement glosses over the tense history of our efforts to manage our much less dangerous radioactive waste. </p>
<p>For decades, the Australian government has been trying to find a single site for disposal of low-level radioactive waste. These are the lightly contaminated items produced in nuclear medicine and laboratory research. The low levels of ionising radiation these items produce means burying them under a few metres of soil is enough to reduce the radiation until it’s little more than the <a href="https://www.ansto.gov.au/education/nuclear-facts/what-is-radiation#:%7E:text=Average%20exposures%20to%20background%20radiation,background%20level%20is%20not%20harmful.">background radiation</a> we all receive from the rocks under our feet, the buildings we live and work in and the technologies we use. </p>
<p>Even though these wastes are comparatively benign, every single proposal has run into strong local opposition. The most recent plans to locate a dump at Kimba, on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula is still <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-05/barngarla-women-protest-against-nuclear-waste-at-kimba/102053982">bogged down</a> in the legal system due to opposition by local communities and First Nations groups</p>
<p>And we’re still dithering about what to do with the intermediate level waste produced by the <a href="https://www.ansto.gov.au/facilities/opal-multi-purpose-reactor">OPAL research reactor</a> at Lucas Heights in Sydney. At present, spent fuel is sent to France for reprocessing while nuclear waste is now being returned to Australia, where it is held in a temporary store near the reactor. </p>
<p>This waste needs to be <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html">permanently isolated</a> from ecosystems and human society, given it will take tens of thousands of years for the radiation to decay to safe levels. </p>
<h2>Our allies have not figured out long-term waste storage either</h2>
<p>But while Sweden and Finland <a href="https://www.government.se/articles/2022/01/final-disposal-of-spent-nuclear-fuel/#:%7E:text=The%20final%20repository%20in%20Forsmark,leading%20nuclear%20waste%20management%20technology.">are building</a> secure storage systems in stable rock layers 500 metres underground, neither the UK nor the US have moved beyond temporary storage. </p>
<p>UK efforts to manage waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines is still at the community consultation stage. At present, high-level waste from sub reactors is removed and taken to Sellafield, a long-established nuclear site near the border with Scotland. But each submarine still holds around one tonne of intermediate level waste, which, <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/375698/Factsheet_11_Managing_Radioactive_Waste_20141113_V1_0.pdf">according to</a> the UK government, has to be temporarily stored until a long-term underground storage facility is built some time after 2040. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/aukus-submarine-plan-will-be-the-biggest-defence-scheme-in-australian-history-so-how-will-it-work-199492">AUKUS submarine plan will be the biggest defence scheme in Australian history. So how will it work?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the US, spent fuel and intermediate waste from nuclear submarines is still in temporary storage. After the Obama administration scrapped the long-debated plan to store waste underneath <a href="https://ag.nv.gov/Hot_Topics/Issue/Yucca">Yucca Mountain</a> in Nevada, no other option has emerged. As a result, nuclear waste from their military and civilian reactors is just piling up with no long-term solution in sight. Successive administrations have kicked the can down the road, assuring the public a permanent geological disposal site will be developed some time in the future.</p>
<p>This should be concerning. To manage the waste from our proposed nuclear submarines properly, we’ll have to develop systems and sites which do not currently exist in Australia. </p>
<p>In 2016, South Australia’s Royal Commission on nuclear fuel <a href="https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-281452879/view">suggested</a> Australia’s geological stability and large areas of unpopulated land would position us well to act as a permanent place to store the world’s nuclear waste. </p>
<p>This hasn’t come to pass in any form. An almost intractable problem is that any proposed site will be on the traditional land of a First Nations group. Every site suggested to date has been opposed by its Traditional Owners.</p>
<p>What if we send the high-level waste overseas for processing and bring it back as less dangerous intermediate waste? It’s possible, given it’s what we already do with waste from the OPAL reactor. But that still leaves us with the same problem: where do you permanently store this waste. That’s one we haven’t solved in the 70 years since Australia first entered the nuclear age with our original HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-nuclear-waste-whats-the-plan-and-can-it-be-safe-181884">The future of nuclear waste: what’s the plan and can it be safe?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201781/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Lowe was a member of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory council for twelve years and was a member of the Expert Advisory Committee for the South Australia Royal Commission on the Nuclear Industry</span></em></p>Nuclear submarines may offer protection – but they will leave us with a high-level nuclear waste headacheIan Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2009022023-03-05T19:20:09Z2023-03-05T19:20:09ZNo, the Fukushima water release is not going to kill the Pacific Ocean<p>Japanese authorities are preparing to release treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, nearly 12 years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. This will relieve pressure on more than 1,000 storage tanks, creating much-needed space for other vital remediation works. But the plan has attracted controversy. </p>
<p>At first glance, releasing radioactive water into the ocean does sound like a terrible idea. <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/blog/6540/a-quick-read-on-the-radioactive-water-in-fukushima-what-makes-it-different/">Greenpeace</a> feared the radioactivity released <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54658379">might change human DNA</a>, <a href="https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202208/1272148.shtml">China</a> and <a href="https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210825001034">South Korea</a> expressed disquiet, while <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/2022/03/14/release-pacific-appoints-panel-of-independent-global-experts-on-nuclear-issues">Pacific Island nations</a> were concerned about further nuclear contamination of the Blue Pacific. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106296">One academic publication</a> claimed the total global social welfare cost could exceed US$200 billion. </p>
<p>But the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/15/fukushima-japan-insists-release-of-treated-water-is-safe-nuclear-disaster">Japanese government</a>, the International Atomic Energy Agency (<a href="https://www.iaea.org/topics/response/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident/fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water-discharge">IAEA</a>) and <a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-to-release-wastewater-an-expert-explains-why-this-could-be-the-best-option-198173">independent scientists</a> have declared the planned release to be reasonable and safe. </p>
<p>Based on our collective professional experience in nuclear science and nuclear power, we have reached the same conclusion. Our assessment is based on the type of radioactivity to be released, the amount of radioactivity already present in the ocean, and the high level of independent oversight from the IAEA. </p>
<h2>How much water is there, and what’s in it?</h2>
<p>The storage tanks at Fukushima contain <a href="https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/decommission/progress/watertreatment/alps01/index-e.html">1.3 million tonnes of water</a>, equivalent to around 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools. </p>
<p>Contaminated water is produced daily by ongoing reactor cooling. Contaminated groundwater also collects in the basements of the damaged reactor buildings. </p>
<p>The water is being cleaned by a technology called ALPS, or Advanced Liquid Processing System. This removes the vast majority of the problematic elements. </p>
<p>The ALPS treatment can be repeated until concentrations are below regulatory limits. Independent monitoring by the IAEA will ensure all requirements are met before discharge. </p>
<p>The main radioactive contaminant remaining after treatment is tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen (H) that is difficult to remove from water (H₂O). There is no technology to remove trace levels of tritium from this volume of water.</p>
<p>Tritium has a half-life of <a href="http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/tritium.cfm">12.3 years</a>, meaning 100 years passes before the radioactivity is negligible. It is unrealistic to store the water for such a long time as the volumes are too great. Extended storage also increases the risk of accidental uncontrolled release. </p>
<p>Like all radioactive elements, international standards exist for safe levels of tritium. For liquids, these are measured in Bq per litre, where one Bq (<a href="https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Becquerel">becquerel</a>) is defined as one radioactive decay per second. At the point of release, the Japanese authorities have chosen a conservative concentration limit of <a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">1,500Bq per litre</a>, seven times smaller than the World Health Organization’s recommended limit of <a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44584/9789241548151_eng.pdf">10,000Bq per litre</a> for drinking water. </p>
<h2>Why is it acceptable to release tritium into the ocean?</h2>
<p>One surprising thing about radiation is how common it is. Almost everything is radioactive to some degree, including air, water, plants, basements and granite benchtops. Even a long-haul airline flight supplies a few chest X-rays worth of radiation to everyone on board.</p>
<p>In the case of tritium, natural processes in the atmosphere generate <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/Research/publications-documentation/radionuclides-sheets/environment/Pages/Tritium-environment.aspx">50-70</a> <a href="https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html">peta-becquerels (PBq)</a> of tritium every year. This number is difficult to grasp, so it’s helpful to think of it as grams of pure tritium. Using the conversion factor of 1PBq = 2.79g, we see that <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/Research/publications-documentation/radionuclides-sheets/environment/Pages/Tritium-environment.aspx">150-200g</a> of tritium is created naturally each year.</p>
<p>Looking at the Pacific Ocean, around 8.4kg (<a href="https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02336283">3,000PBq</a>) of tritium is already in the water.
By comparison, the total amount of tritium in the Fukushima wastewater is vastly smaller, at around 3g (<a href="https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abc1507">1PBq</a>).</p>
<p>Japanese authorities are not planning to release the water all at once. Instead, just 0.06g (<a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">22TBq</a>) of tritium is scheduled for release each year. Compared with the radioactivity already present in the Pacific, the planned annual release is a literal drop in the ocean.</p>
<p>The current levels of tritium radioactivity in the Pacific are not of concern, and so the small amount to be added by the Fukushima water won’t cause any harm. </p>
<p>What’s more, tritium only makes a tiny contribution to the total radioactivity of the oceans. Ocean radioactivity is mostly due to potassium, an element <a href="https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/potassium">essential for life</a> and present in all cells. In the Pacific Ocean there is <a href="http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Po-Re/Radionuclides-in-the-Ocean.html">7.4 million PBq</a> of radioactivity from potassium, more than 1,000 times greater than the amount due to tritium.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-how-might-radioactive-waste-water-affect-the-environment-159483">Nuclear power: how might radioactive waste water affect the environment?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How do other countries manage the discharge of tritium?</h2>
<p>All nuclear power plants produce some tritium, which is routinely discharged into the ocean and other waterways. The amount generated depends on the type of reactor. </p>
<p>Boiling water reactors, such as at Fukushima, produce relatively low quantities. When Fukushima was operating, the tritium discharge limit was set at <a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">22TBq per year</a>. That figure is <a href="https://www.nra.go.jp/data/000418886.pdf">far below</a> a level that could cause harm, but is reasonably achievable for this type of power plant. </p>
<p>In contrast, the UK Heysham nuclear power plant has a limit of <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/932885/Radioactivity_in_food_and_the_environment_2019_RIFE_25.pdf">1300TBq per year</a> because this type of gas-cooled reactor produces a lot of tritium. Heysham has been discharging tritium for 40 years without harm to people or the environment.</p>
<p>Annual tritium discharge at <a href="https://japan-forward.com/china-and-south-korea-too-release-nuclear-plant-wastewater-into-the-oceans/">nearby nuclear power plants</a> far exceeds what is proposed for Fukushima. The Fuqing plant in China discharged 52TBq in 2020, while the Kori plant in South Korea discharged 50TBq in 2018. </p>
<p>Each of these power plants releases more than twice the amount to be released from Fukushima.</p>
<h2>Are there other reasons for not releasing the water?</h2>
<p>Objections to the planned release have been the subject of widespread media coverage. <a href="https://time.com/6250415/fukushima-nuclear-waste-pacific-islands/">TIME</a> magazine recently explained how Pacific Island nations have been grappling for decades with the legacy of Cold War nuclear testing. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/26/if-its-safe-dump-it-in-tokyo-we-in-the-pacific-dont-want-japans-nuclear-wastewater">The Guardian</a> ran an opinion piece from Pacific activists, who argued if the waste was safe, then “dump it in Tokyo, test it in Paris, and store it in Washington, but keep our Pacific nuclear-free”.</p>
<p>But the Pacific has always contained radioactivity, from potassium in particular. The extra radioactivity to be added from the Fukushima water will make the most miniscule of differences. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-ten-years-on-from-the-disaster-was-japans-response-right-156554">Fukushima: ten years on from the disaster, was Japan's response right?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Striking a different tone, The Pacific Island Forum <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/2022/03/14/release-pacific-appoints-panel-of-independent-global-experts-on-nuclear-issues/">commissioned a panel of experts</a> to provide independent technical advice and guidance, and help address concerns on the wastewater. The panel was critical of the quantity and quality of data from the Japanese authorities, and advised that <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/2022/11/16/release-expert-advises-deferment-on-japan-fukushima-discharge-dates/">Japan should defer</a> the impending discharge.</p>
<p>While we are sympathetic to the view that the scientific data could be improved, our assessment is the panel is unfairly critical of ocean release. </p>
<p>The main thing missing from the <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Annex-4-Expert-Panel-Memorandum-Summarizing-Our-Views-...-2022-08-11.pdf">report</a> is a sense of perspective. The public seminar from the expert panel, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzTjCgWlFRU">available on YouTube</a>, presents only a portion of the context we provide above. Existing tritium in the ocean isn’t discussed, and the dominance of potassium is glossed over. </p>
<p>The most reasonable comments regard the performance of ALPS. This is largely in the context of strontium-90 and cesium-137, both of which are legitimate isotopes of concern. </p>
<p>However, the panel implies that the authorities don’t know what is in the tanks, and that ALPS doesn’t work properly. There actually is a lot of public information on both topics. Perhaps it could be repackaged in a clearer way for others to understand. But the inferences made by the panel give the wrong impression. </p>
<p>The most important thing the panel overlooks is that the contaminated water can be repeatedly passed through ALPS until it is safe for release. For some tanks a single pass will suffice, while for others additional cycles are required.</p>
<h2>The big picture</h2>
<p>The earthquake was the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222972/">primary environmental disaster</a>, and the planet will be dealing with the consequences for decades. In our view, the release of Fukushima wastewater does not add to the disaster.</p>
<p>It’s easy to understand why people are concerned about the prospect of radioactive liquid waste being released into the ocean. But the water is not dangerous. The nastiest elements have been removed, and what remains is modest compared with natural radioactivity.</p>
<p>We hope science will prevail and Japan will be allowed to continue the recovery process. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/radioactive-waste-isnt-going-away-weve-found-a-new-way-to-trap-it-in-minerals-for-long-term-storage-200255">Radioactive waste isn't going away. We've found a new way to trap it in minerals for long-term storage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200902/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Marks is an Associate Professor in the Physics department at Curtin University. In 1996/97 he worked at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology (ANSTO) in the reactor division. He has received grants from the Australian Research Council, ANSTO and Los Alamos National Laboratory to study radiation processes in solids.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendan Kennedy is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Sydney. He is a past president of the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering. He is a long time user of advanced nuclear facilities in Europe, USA and Japan.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Irwin is a Chartered Engineer and Honorary Associate Professor ANU with extensive experience of reactor operations in the UK and Australia. Tony was the first Reactor Manager for ANSTO's OPAL reactor.</span></em></p>An independent assessment of Japan’s plan to release treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, nearly 12 years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, finds it safe and reasonable.Nigel Marks, Associate Professor of Physics, Curtin UniversityBrendan Kennedy, Professor of Chemistry, University of SydneyTony Irwin, Honorary Associate Professor, Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1964752022-12-14T01:03:03Z2022-12-14T01:03:03ZWhy fusion ignition is being hailed as a major breakthrough in fusion – a nuclear physicist explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500838/original/file-20221213-20406-ts9sxm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=106%2C121%2C3260%2C2549&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The target chamber at the National Ignition Facility has been the site of a number of breakthroughs in fusion physics.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/departmentofenergy/17974887118/">U.S. Department of Energy/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>American scientists have announced what they have called a major breakthrough in a long-elusive goal of creating energy from nuclear fusion.</em></p>
<p><em>The U.S. Department of Energy said on Dec. 13, 2022, that for the first time – and after several decades of trying – scientists have managed to get more energy out of the process than they had to put in.</em></p>
<p><em>But just how significant is the development? And how far off is the long-sought dream of fusion providing abundant, clean energy? <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=impfKfgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Carolyn Kuranz</a>, an associate professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan who has worked at the facility that just broke the fusion record, helps explain this new result.</em></p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/why-fusion-ignition-is-being-hailed-as-a-major-breakthrough-in-fusion-a-nuclear-physicist-explains-196475&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="An image of the Sun." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500839/original/file-20221213-22736-wtuffc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500839/original/file-20221213-22736-wtuffc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500839/original/file-20221213-22736-wtuffc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500839/original/file-20221213-22736-wtuffc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500839/original/file-20221213-22736-wtuffc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500839/original/file-20221213-22736-wtuffc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500839/original/file-20221213-22736-wtuffc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fusion is the same process that powers the Sun.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_prominence_from_STEREO_spacecraft_September_29,_2008.jpg#/media/File:Solar_prominence_from_STEREO_spacecraft_September_29,_2008.jpg">NASA/Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What happened in the fusion chamber?</h2>
<p>Fusion is a nuclear reaction that combines two atoms to create one or more new atoms with slightly less total mass. The difference in mass is released as energy, as described by Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc<sup>2</sup> , where energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Since the speed of light is enormous, converting just a tiny amount of mass into energy – like what happens in fusion – produces a similarly enormous amount of energy. </p>
<p>Researchers at the U.S. Government’s <a href="https://lasers.llnl.gov/">National Ignition Facility</a> in California have demonstrated, for the first time, what is known as “fusion ignition.” Ignition is when a fusion reaction produces more energy than is being put into the reaction from an outside source and becomes self-sustaining.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500841/original/file-20221213-24014-83uis7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A gold and plastic canister." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500841/original/file-20221213-24014-83uis7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500841/original/file-20221213-24014-83uis7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=639&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500841/original/file-20221213-24014-83uis7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=639&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500841/original/file-20221213-24014-83uis7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=639&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500841/original/file-20221213-24014-83uis7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500841/original/file-20221213-24014-83uis7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500841/original/file-20221213-24014-83uis7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The fuel is held in a tiny canister designed to keep the reaction as free from contaminants as possible.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/departmentofenergy/9571677088/">U.S. Department of Energy/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The technique used at the National Ignition Facility involved shooting 192 lasers at a <a href="https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-ignition-facility-achieves-fusion-ignition">0.04 inch (1 mm) pellet of fuel</a> made of deuterium and tritium – two versions of the element hydrogen with extra neutrons – placed in a gold canister. When the lasers hit the canister, they produce X-rays that heat and compress the fuel pellet to about 20 times the density of lead and to more than 5 million degrees Fahrenheit (3 million Celsius) – about 100 times hotter than the surface of the Sun. If you can maintain these conditions for a long enough time, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-021-01485-9">fuel will fuse and release energy</a>.</p>
<p>The fuel and canister get vaporized within a few billionths of a second during the experiment. Researchers then hope their equipment survived the heat and accurately measured the energy released by the fusion reaction.</p>
<h2>So what did they accomplish?</h2>
<p>To assess the success of a fusion experiment, physicists look at the ratio between the energy released from the process of fusion and the amount of energy within the lasers. This ratio is <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/5730/review-of-the-department-of-energys-inertial-confinement-fusion-program">called gain</a>.</p>
<p>Anything above a gain of 1 means that the fusion process released more energy than the lasers delivered.</p>
<p>On Dec. 5, 2022, the National Ignition Facility shot a pellet of fuel with 2 million joules of laser energy – about the amount of power it takes to run a hair dryer for 15 minutes – all contained within a few billionths of a second. This triggered a fusion reaction that <a href="https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-ignition-facility-achieves-fusion-ignition">released 3 million joules</a>. That is a gain of about 1.5, smashing the previous record of a gain of <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/explosive-new-result-laser-powered-fusion-effort-nears-ignition">0.7 achieved by the facility in August 2021</a>.</p>
<h2>How big a deal is this result?</h2>
<p>Fusion energy has been the “holy grail” of energy production for <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/239139a0">nearly half a century</a>. While a gain of 1.5 is, I believe, a truly historic scientific breakthrough, there is still a long way to go before fusion is a viable energy source. </p>
<p>While the laser energy of 2 million joules was less than the fusion yield of 3 million joules, it took the facility nearly <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/the-real-fusion-energy-breakthrough-is-still-decades-away/">300 million joules to produce the lasers</a> used in this experiment. This result has shown that fusion ignition is possible, but it will take a lot of work to improve the efficiency to the point where fusion can provide a net positive energy return when taking into consideration the entire end-to-end system, not just a single interaction between the lasers and the fuel. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500845/original/file-20221213-22773-ts9sxm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A hallway full of pipes, tubes and electronics." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500845/original/file-20221213-22773-ts9sxm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/500845/original/file-20221213-22773-ts9sxm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500845/original/file-20221213-22773-ts9sxm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500845/original/file-20221213-22773-ts9sxm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500845/original/file-20221213-22773-ts9sxm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500845/original/file-20221213-22773-ts9sxm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/500845/original/file-20221213-22773-ts9sxm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Machinery used to create the powerful lasers, like these pre-amplifiers, currently requires a lot more energy than the lasers themselves produce.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Preamplifier_at_the_National_Ignition_Facility.jpg#/media/File:Preamplifier_at_the_National_Ignition_Facility.jpg">Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What needs to be improved?</h2>
<p>There are a number of pieces of the fusion puzzle that scientists have been steadily improving for decades to produce this result, and further work can make this process more efficient. </p>
<p>First, lasers were only <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/284158_townes.html">invented in 1960</a>. When the U.S. government <a href="https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif-construction">completed construction of the National Ignition Facility in 2009</a>, it was the most powerful laser facility in the world, able to deliver <a href="https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-ignition-facility-achieves-unprecedented-1-megajoule-laser-shot">1 million joules of energy to a target</a>. The 2 million joules it produces today is 50 times more energetic than the <a href="https://www.lle.rochester.edu/index.php/omega-laser-facility-2/">next most powerful laser on Earth</a>. More powerful lasers and less energy-intensive ways to produce those powerful lasers could greatly improve the overall efficiency of the system.</p>
<p>Fusion conditions are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4865400">very challenging to sustain</a>, and any <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ab49f4">small imperfection in the capsule or fuel</a> can increase the energy requirement and decrease efficiency. Scientists have made a lot of progress to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04281-w">more efficiently transfer energy from the laser to the canister</a> and the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac108d">X-ray radiation from the canister to the fuel capsule</a>, but currently only about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac108d">10% to 30%</a> of the total laser energy is transferred to the canister and to the fuel.</p>
<p>Finally, while one part of the fuel, deuterium, is naturally <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2010.11.040">abundant in sea water, tritium is much rarer</a>. Fusion itself actually produces <a href="https://irp.fas.org/agency/dod/jason/tritium.pdf">tritium</a>, so researchers are hoping to develop ways of harvesting this tritium directly. In the meantime, there are <a href="https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-achieves-record-number-tritium-extraction-operations">other methods available to produce the needed fuel</a>.</p>
<p>These and other scientific, technological and engineering hurdles will need to be overcome before fusion will produce electricity for your home. Work will also need to be done to bring the cost of a fusion power plant well down from the <a href="https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/faqs#nif_cost">US$3.5 billion of the National Ignition Facility</a>. These steps will require significant investment from both the federal government and private industry. </p>
<p>It’s worth noting that there is a global race around fusion, with many other labs around the world <a href="https://theconversation.com/nuclear-fusion-hit-a-milestone-thanks-to-better-reactor-walls-this-engineering-advance-is-building-toward-reactors-of-the-future-178870">pursuing different techniques</a>. But with the new result from the National Ignition Facility, the world has, for the first time, seen evidence that the <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25991/bringing-fusion-to-the-us-grid">dream of fusion is achievable</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196475/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carolyn Kuranz receives funding from the National Nuclear Security Administration and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. She serves on a review board for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. She is a member of the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee. </span></em></p>The promise of abundant, clean energy powered by nuclear fusion is one big step closer thanks to a new experiment. The results are a historic scientific milestone, but energy production remains a ways off.Carolyn Kuranz, Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1925232022-11-17T17:51:17Z2022-11-17T17:51:17ZEnergy transitions: why countries respond differently to the same problem<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493306/original/file-20221103-17-l6lpqz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C7972%2C5940&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A country’s ability to pursue major energy reforms hinges on the government’s capacity to defuse political opposition.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/aerial-view-wind-farm-coalfired-power-2178791391">WilfriedB/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended global energy markets. Sanctions on Russian exports and the suspension of gas deliveries to several European countries sent <a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-response-ukraine-invasion/impact-of-russia-s-invasion-of-ukraine-on-the-markets-eu-response/%20-%20:%7E:text=Since%20the%20second%20half%20of,energy%20supply%20in%20the%20EU">oil and gas prices</a> skywards. </p>
<p>The magnitude of the shock is reminiscent of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/mar/03/1970s-oil-price-shock">1970s oil crisis</a>, where an embargo imposed on the sale of oil by members of the Organisation of Petrol Exporting Countries led to global fuel shortages and elevated prices. Governments sought to reduce their dependence on imported oil by transitioning their energy systems towards domestic resources. Facing the current crisis, countries are also moving away from importing energy while pursuing decarbonisation. </p>
<p>In both instances, some have been more successful than others in pursuing energy reform. My colleagues and I <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adc9973">analysed</a> the response of industrialised democracies to the 1970s crisis, climate change and to the current energy crisis. We found that a country’s ability to pursue major energy reforms hinges on the government’s capacity to defuse political opposition.</p>
<p>Reforms are costly for both households and businesses. For example, a tax on oil consumption increases the cost of energy for consumers while policies that require businesses to switch to renewable energy impose costs on firms and disrupt fossil fuel company profits. Politicians therefore tend to face strong opposition from both consumers and producers when embarking on energy transitions. </p>
<p>To defuse opposition, we find that governments have two options.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Protestors holding banners outside a government building in Brussels." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493264/original/file-20221103-22-jvdy76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493264/original/file-20221103-22-jvdy76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493264/original/file-20221103-22-jvdy76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493264/original/file-20221103-22-jvdy76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493264/original/file-20221103-22-jvdy76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493264/original/file-20221103-22-jvdy76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493264/original/file-20221103-22-jvdy76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A protest in Brussels over the cost of energy, September 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/trade-union-members-shout-wave-banners-2204707727">Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1. Insulation</h2>
<p>The first is to insulate the policymaking process from voter discontent and business interference. A country’s political institutions shape the extent to which this can be achieved.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/proportional-representation/">Proportional electoral rules</a>, where the distribution of seats corresponds with the proportion of votes for each party, can protect governments from voter backlash. The likelihood that a small change to vote shares will remove a government from power is reduced under this system.</p>
<p>In countries with strong bureaucracies, civil servants enjoy substantial discretion to intervene in the economy to achieve policy goals. Their long-term job security means they face less risk of termination or demotion for upsetting powerful interest groups. This insulates policymaking and can enable governments to enact reform over the wishes of entrenched business opposition.</p>
<p>France’s <a href="https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/data/iea-electricity-information-statistics/oecd-net-electrical-capacity_data-00460-en">production of nuclear energy</a> increased 14-fold between 1972 and 1985. Reforms were carried out by a strong and centralised public administration with the authority to implement policy change over the opposition of business and affected communities. The national utility, Electricité de France (EDF), was also owned by the state. This offered the French government additional insulation and granted it control over the direction of the country’s electricity sector.</p>
<p>Although EDF is no longer state owned, the French government holds a majority stake in the company. This allows France to pursue a similar response to the current energy crisis. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, called for the construction of <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220210-macron-calls-for-14-new-reactors-in-nuclear-renaissance">14 new nuclear reactors</a> earlier this year. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A close-up of an orange EDF sign against the backdrop of two large cooling towers." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493262/original/file-20221103-19-opqn0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493262/original/file-20221103-19-opqn0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493262/original/file-20221103-19-opqn0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493262/original/file-20221103-19-opqn0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493262/original/file-20221103-19-opqn0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493262/original/file-20221103-19-opqn0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493262/original/file-20221103-19-opqn0v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Nogent-sur-Seine nuclear power plant, France.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/nogentsurseine-france-september-1-2020-low-1815319076">olrat/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Compensation</h2>
<p>Governments can also secure support for energy reform by using compensation. Countries with developed welfare states can use existing social policy to soften the impact of energy price increases for households. Governments that enjoy close relationships with business can also negotiate with industry and exchange compensation for their support.</p>
<p>Compensatory bargaining with industry associations and labour unions allowed Germany to transition away from oil in the 1970s. From 1973 to 1985, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.004%20and%20https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/data/iea-electricity-information-statistics/oecd-net-electrical-capacity_data-00460-en">subsidy schemes</a> enabled a 30% increase in coal power and a 13-fold increase in nuclear energy generation. At the same time the government used the welfare system to ease the burden of higher energy costs for households through financial support.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An aerial shot of a power station on the bank of a river, with a plume of smoke rising from the chimney." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493299/original/file-20221103-21-van0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493299/original/file-20221103-21-van0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493299/original/file-20221103-21-van0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493299/original/file-20221103-21-van0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493299/original/file-20221103-21-van0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493299/original/file-20221103-21-van0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493299/original/file-20221103-21-van0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Coal-fired power station on the banks of the River Rhine, Germany.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rhine-river-coalfired-power-station-lower-769841080">riekephotos/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Germany is again using compensatory strategies as it transitions away from fossil fuels. The country negotiated the <a href="https://www.bmuv.de/en/topics/climate-adaptation/climate-protection/national-climate-policy/translate-to-english-fragen-und-antworten-zum-kohleausstieg-in-deutschland">“coal compromise”</a> between 2018 and 2020. The scheme provides €40 billion (£35 billion) to coal companies and coal mining regions in return for political support for the plan to phase-out coal production by 2038.</p>
<h2>Retreat</h2>
<p>When governments can pursue neither insulation nor compensation, they let markets drive change. </p>
<p>Majoritarian electoral rules, a small welfare state and limited coordination between the state and business have restricted the ability of US governments to pass costly energy reforms.</p>
<p>Attempts to reduce dependence on imported oil during the 1970s – from gasoline taxes to energy efficiency regulations – <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/675589#:%7E:text=In%20November%20of%201970%2C%20President,way%20to%20promote%20unleaded%20gasoline.">withered</a> in the face of political opposition. The case is similar for climate policy. Successive US governments have struggled to pass major reforms, whether it be an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/06/11/miscalculations-lobby-effort-doomed-btu-tax-plan/d756dac3-b2d0-46a4-8693-79f6f8f881d2/">energy tax</a> in 1993 or the then US president Barack Obama’s plan to impose <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/6/19/18684054/climate-change-clean-power-plan-repeal-affordable-emissions">emissions limits on power plants</a> in 2015.</p>
<p>In response to the current energy crisis, the focus has been on markets. The US government has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/15/fist-bumps-as-joe-biden-arrives-to-reset-ties-with-pariah-saudi-arabia?CMP=share_btn_tw">attempted to reduce energy prices</a> by expanding domestic oil production and lobbying Saudi Arabia to increase its oil output.</p>
<p>Yet even countries with a low capacity for insulation or compensation can still pursue energy reform. To do this, policies must not impose visible and direct costs on society. A recent example is the US’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/19/fact-sheet-the-inflation-reduction-act-supports-workers-and-families/">Inflation Reduction Act</a>. Instead of reducing emissions through taxation, penalties or fines, the legislation relies on subsidies for clean technologies funded by general tax revenues. By using carrots and no sticks, many of the political difficulties associated with major energy reforms can be avoided.</p>
<p>Energy transitions are deeply political processes. While the current energy crisis is an opportunity to accelerate the transition towards clean energy, the scale and pace of such change will depend on the capacity of governments to defuse political opposition.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192523/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jared Finnegan's research has received funding from the Balzan Foundation (via Professor Robert Keohane) and the European Union.</span></em></p>The current energy crisis is an opportunity to accelerate the transition towards clean energy – but some countries are better than others at pursuing major energy reform.Jared J. Finnegan, Lecturer in Public Policy, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1881492022-08-08T20:03:15Z2022-08-08T20:03:15ZUranium prices are soaring, and Australia’s hoary old nuclear debate is back in the headlines. Here’s what it all means<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/477586/original/file-20220804-23-gxlkvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C15%2C2020%2C1327&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Uranium concentrate, known as yellowcake </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nuclear Regulatory Commission/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last week, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/peter-dutton-presses-button-on-the-nuclear-energy-debate/news-story/f0018e185a33c06175bbf3d773b3a69f">sought to revive</a> the hoary old debate of nuclear power in Australia, announcing an internal review into whether the Liberals should back the controversial technology. </p>
<p>Dutton said the review would examine whether nuclear technologies could help shore up Australia’s energy security and reduce power prices. His call comes as prices soar for uranium, which is vital to nuclear power and nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>Australia’s powerful <a href="https://www.minerals.org.au/minerals/uranium">mining lobby</a> has long pushed for Australia to both lift its nuclear ban and expand its uranium mining industry, to help provide apparently zero-emissions energy. </p>
<p>All this comes as Australia embarks on an ambitious maritime defence transition to nuclear-powered submarines. History suggests as the nuclear debate heats up in Australia, so will the pressure to expand our uranium exports. So where will all this lead? </p>
<h2>Uranium is back in vogue</h2>
<p>Australia has the world’s largest reserves of uranium and is the world’s fourth largest uranium exporter. Two uranium mines operate here – BHP’s Olympic Dam and Heathgate’s Beverley facility, both in South Australia. A third mine, Boss Energy’s Honeymoon project, is set to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-01/production-to-recommence-at-honeymoon-uranium-mine/101116514">restart</a> production. </p>
<p>Russia’s war on Ukraine – and its willingness to shut off gas supplies to Europe – means uranium is in high demand. In March this year, refined uranium was A$86 a pound, up from A$27 a pound in late 2017. </p>
<p>As countries scramble to shore up energy security, some are turning to nuclear. Japan plans to reopen <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-14/japan-s-kishida-orders-restart-of-up-to-nine-nuclear-reactors">closed nuclear reactors</a>. France is planning new reactors to begin replacing its <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/business/france-nuclear-power-russia.html">ageing and troublesome</a> fleet of 56 reactors. Belgium has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/04/15/nuclear-energy-europe-ukraine-war/">kept reactors</a> from closing while Poland is planning new ones. </p>
<p>This is triggering fresh uranium investment. That includes in Queensland’s sparsely populated northwest, where Australian and Canadian mining companies are acquiring <a href="https://www.nsspl.com.au/news/2446-consolidated-uranium-adds-more-qld-sites-to-portfolio.html">new mineral leases</a> and quietly adding uranium to their ore inventories.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/if-the-opposition-wants-a-mature-discussion-about-nuclear-energy-start-with-a-carbon-price-without-that-nuclear-is-wildly-uncompetitive-184471">If the opposition wants a mature discussion about nuclear energy, start with a carbon price. Without that, nuclear is wildly uncompetitive</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Australia is unusual in being a major uranium exporter while also <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/AustralianElectricityOptionsNuclear">explicitly ruling out</a> using nuclear power. Some nuclear proponents, such as the influential Minerals Council of Australia, are quick to point out this apparent contradiction. </p>
<p>The council is lobbying for an expansion of uranium exports. It <a href="https://www.minerals.org.au/minerals/uranium#:%7E:text=About%20the%20Minerals%20Council%20of%20Australia&text=Australia%20generated%20%24606%20million%20in,countries%20like%20China%20and%20Indiahttps://www.minerals.org.au/minerals/uranium">says</a> the existing industry is one of several factors making Australia “a partner of choice for private venture capital-funded new nuclear power”. </p>
<p>And Boss Energy managing director Duncan Craib said in May the opportunities to expand Australia’s uranium mining industry are “immense” and would help decarbonise our energy sector. He told the ABC:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Last year, we exported about 6,000 tonnes of uranium. That’s enough to provide for 75 per cent of Australia’s national energy market with zero emissions.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/477567/original/file-20220804-21-crz7lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="yellowcake" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/477567/original/file-20220804-21-crz7lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/477567/original/file-20220804-21-crz7lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/477567/original/file-20220804-21-crz7lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/477567/original/file-20220804-21-crz7lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/477567/original/file-20220804-21-crz7lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/477567/original/file-20220804-21-crz7lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/477567/original/file-20220804-21-crz7lm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The US is looking at expanding its domestic uranium production. This 1975 image shows production of yellowcake uranium concentrate in the US.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Getty</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A politically fraught topic</h2>
<p>The issues of uranium mining and nuclear energy surface regularly in Australia’s political debate.</p>
<p>Australia’s uranium industry flourished over the many years of the Menzies government. Menzies even sought to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2639906">possess nuclear weapons</a> in the 1950s. And one of his successors, John Gorton, pushed to build a <a href="https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-2068">major nuclear reactor</a> at the Jervis Bay Territory in the late 1960s.</p>
<p>The Whitlam government did not pursue the Jervis Bay plan. It initially supported uranium mining and even the possibility of domestic uranium enrichment, necessary to produce nuclear fuel. But as the Cold War heated up, the party became divided on its nuclear stance, due to concerns about weapons proliferation.</p>
<p>Bob Hawke <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5263/labourhistory.102.0177">played a key role</a> in overcoming this anti-nuclear sentiment while as a union chief and then as Labor prime minister. By 1984, Labor <a href="https://www.academia.edu/download/31314399/McCausland_1999_PhD_Leave_it_in_the_ground.pdf">agreed</a> to accept more uranium mines and international customers if domestic reactors did not expand beyond the Lucas Heights research facility in Sydney. </p>
<p>As recently as last year, Labor’s election platform walked a similar line: no nuclear reactors or waste dumps, but yes to mining and selling uranium, with safeguards around inspection and non-proliferation. </p>
<p>In recent years, the Coalition’s strongest support for nuclear came in 2006 when then prime minister John Howard established a <a href="https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-22314">nuclear taskforce</a> to examine uranium mining and processing, and the feasibility of a domestic nuclear industry. The taskforce found it was possible to build a reactor in 10 to 15 years – assuming the public supported it and regulations were in place. </p>
<p>The Coalition did not pursue nuclear energy during its last nine years in government, despite Howard <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/election-2022-john-howard-stands-by-fossil-fuels-and-nuclear-energy/news-story/d7985d5e9b60b26116b93b27993b1fed">continuing to call</a> for more uranium mines and investigation of domestic nuclear energy. But since losing government, the Coalition has <a href="https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-peter-dutton-puts-nuclear-power-on-oppositions-agenda-188076">warmed</a> to the technology.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-australia-is-buying-a-fleet-of-nuclear-submarines-but-nuclear-powered-electricity-must-not-come-next-168110">Yes, Australia is buying a fleet of nuclear submarines. But nuclear-powered electricity must not come next</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/477565/original/file-20220804-11251-5kgi2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="uranium mine" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/477565/original/file-20220804-11251-5kgi2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/477565/original/file-20220804-11251-5kgi2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/477565/original/file-20220804-11251-5kgi2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/477565/original/file-20220804-11251-5kgi2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/477565/original/file-20220804-11251-5kgi2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/477565/original/file-20220804-11251-5kgi2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/477565/original/file-20220804-11251-5kgi2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Mary Kathleen uranium mine has been shut since 1982.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Where to now?</h2>
<p>So where does all this leave the prospect of nuclear power in Australia? And how likely is expansion of the uranium industry?</p>
<p>Some elements of Labor <a href="https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/epc-lc/article/4349">support</a> nuclear energy. And Labor will be aware of US efforts to revive its own uranium mining industry.</p>
<p>The AUKUS deal struck under the Morrison government would see Australia acquire nuclear-powered but conventionally armed submarines. It raised the obvious <a href="https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/nuclear-submarines-could-lead-to-nuclear-power-for-australia/">question</a> of whether nuclear power would follow.</p>
<p>But before being elected, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese <a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/election-2022-anthony-albanese-says-john-howard-is-wrong-about-australias-nuclear-future/news-story/535baf51f90a399dacd2394cc06642fd">said</a> Labor supported the AUKUS agreement only if it did not require a domestic civil nuclear industry. </p>
<p>Albanese is also a long-time opponent of uranium mining in Australia – as shown in 2006 when he opposed Labor’s decision to dump a policy that banned new uranium mines.</p>
<p>And while uranium prices may be surging, nuclear energy remains a risky economic prospect for Australia. Large reactors like the UK’s Hinkley C have struggled with <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-the-opposition-wants-a-mature-discussion-about-nuclear-energy-start-with-a-carbon-price-without-that-nuclear-is-wildly-uncompetitive-184471">enormous cost overruns</a> while the small modular reactors pitched as the future of nuclear power are <a href="https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/small-nuclear-reactors-come-with-big-price-tag-report/#:%7E:text=In%202019%20the%20Rolls%20Royce,the%20end%20of%20the%20decade.">still expensive</a> and still far away. Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-releases/2022/gencost-2022">wind and solar</a> remain the cheapest new build option. </p>
<p>The Coalition may, after its internal review, decide to adopt nuclear energy as part of its 2025 federal election pitch. But for this term of government at least, those wanting progress on nuclear power or expanded uranium mining are likely to be left disappointed. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/uranium-what-the-explosion-in-prices-means-for-the-nuclear-industry-168442">Uranium: what the explosion in prices means for the nuclear industry</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188149/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Erik Eklund does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the world’s energy crisis intensifies, there’s renewed interest in uranium and nuclear power.Erik Eklund, Professor of History, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1818842022-05-09T14:56:21Z2022-05-09T14:56:21ZThe future of nuclear waste: what’s the plan and can it be safe?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462010/original/file-20220509-14-ed0zvv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Inside the world's first nuclear waste repository in Onkalo, Finland.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/50663382068">IAEA Imagebank</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK is planning to significantly expand <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nuclear-energy-what-you-need-to-know">its nuclear capability</a>, in an effort to decrease its reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels. The government is aiming to construct up to eight new reactors over the next couple of decades, with a view to increasing power capacity from approximately 8 gigawatts (GW) today to 24GW by 2050. This would meet around 25% of the forecast UK energy demand, compared to around <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032260/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2021.pdf">16% in 2020</a>. </p>
<p>As part of this plan to triple nuclear capacity, also in the works is a £210 million investment for Rolls-Royce to develop and produce a fleet of <a href="https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Rolls-Royce-SMR-design-accepted-for-review">small modular reactors</a> (SMRs). SMRs are cheaper and can be used in locations which can’t host traditional, larger reactors, so this will give more options for future nuclear sites. </p>
<p>New reactors will inevitably mean more radioactive waste. Nuclear waste decommissioning, as of 2019, was already estimated to cost UK taxpayers <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy">£3 billion</a> per year. The vast majority of our waste is held in storage facilities at or near ground level, mostly at <a href="https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/07/what-is-sellafield/">Sellafield nuclear waste site</a> in Cumbria, which is so large it has the infrastructure of a small town.</p>
<p>But above-ground nuclear storage isn’t a feasible long term plan – governments, academics and scientists are in agreement that permanent disposal below ground is the only long-term strategy that satisfies security and environmental concerns. So what plans are underway, and can they be delivered safely? </p>
<h2>The way forward</h2>
<p>It has taken many decades of international collaboration between academic and scientific institutions and government regulators to identify a feasible route towards the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste. Previous ideas have included disposing of the extra waste <a href="https://space.nss.org/wp-content/uploads/Space-Manufacturing-conference-12-111-Disposal-Of-High-Level-Nuclear-Waste-In-Space.pdf">in space</a>, in <a href="https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/31404684750.pdf">the sea</a> and below <a href="https://www.nwmo.ca/%7E/media/Site/Reports/2015/11/11/06/32/1287_baird-submissiononthetopic_cho.ashx#:%7E:text=Subduction%20zones%20are%20the%20coolest,for%20a%20nuclear%20waste%20repository.&text=Subduction%20zones%20are%20usually%20associated%20with%20deep%20ocean%20trenches.">the ocean floor</a> where tectonic plates converge, but each has been shelved as too risky. </p>
<p>Now, almost every nation plans to isolate radioactive waste from the environment in an underground, highly engineered structure called a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/geological-disposal">geological disposal facility</a> (GDF). Some models see GDFs constructed at 1,000 metres underground but 700 metres is more realistic. These facilities will receive low, intermediate or high level nuclear wastes (classified as such according to radioactivity and half-life) and store them safely for up to hundreds of thousands of years. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461013/original/file-20220503-24-lrqpe7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461013/original/file-20220503-24-lrqpe7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461013/original/file-20220503-24-lrqpe7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461013/original/file-20220503-24-lrqpe7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461013/original/file-20220503-24-lrqpe7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461013/original/file-20220503-24-lrqpe7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461013/original/file-20220503-24-lrqpe7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What a GDF might look like.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/why-underground">www.gov.uk</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The process for creating such a facility is not simple. The organisation responsible for delivering the GDF, which in the UK is <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/nuclear-waste-services">Nuclear Waste Services</a> (NWS), must not only overcome huge environmental and technical issues but also earn the public’s support. </p>
<h2>Will all GDFs look the same?</h2>
<p>Although generic design concepts do exist, each GDF will have unique aspects based on the size and constitution of the waste inventory and the geology of where it is installed. Every nation will tailor its GDF to its individual needs, under the scrutiny of regulators and the public. </p>
<p>Underpinning all GDFs, however, will be what is known as the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/654537/3._The_multi-barrier_approach_Proof_6__1_.pdf">multi-barrier concept</a>. This combines man-made and natural barriers to isolate nuclear waste from the environment, and allow it to steadily decay.</p>
<p>The system for preparing high-level waste for storage in such a system will start with spent nuclear fuel rods from reactors. First, any uranium and plutonium that is still usable for future reactions will be recovered. The residual waste will then be dried and dispersed into a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211812814010463">host glass</a>, which is used because glass is tough, durable in groundwater and resistant to radiation. The molten glass will then be poured into a metal container and solidified, so that there are two layers of protection. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461012/original/file-20220503-17-bybdb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461012/original/file-20220503-17-bybdb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461012/original/file-20220503-17-bybdb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461012/original/file-20220503-17-bybdb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461012/original/file-20220503-17-bybdb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461012/original/file-20220503-17-bybdb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461012/original/file-20220503-17-bybdb6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The multi-barrier concept.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/why-underground">www.gov.uk</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This packaged waste will then be surrounded by a backfill of clay or cement, which seals the excavated rock cavities and underground tunnel structures. Hundreds of metres of rock itself will act as the final layer of containment.</p>
<h2>How is the UK programme going?</h2>
<p>The UK GDF programme is in its early stages. The siting process operates on a so-called volunteerism approach, in which communities can put themselves forward as potential sites to host the facility. At present, a working group (<a href="https://theddlethorpe.workinginpartnership.org.uk/">Theddlethorpe</a>, Lincolnshire) and three community partnerships (<a href="https://allerdale.workinginpartnership.org.uk/">Allerdale</a>, <a href="https://midcopeland.workinginpartnership.org.uk/">Mid Copeland</a> and <a href="https://southcopeland.workinginpartnership.org.uk/">South Copeland</a> in Cumbria) have formed. Whilst working groups are at earlier stages of the siting process, the next steps for community partnerships are to begin more extensive geological surveys, followed by drilling boreholes to assess the underlying rock. </p>
<p>Public support is the basis of the entire GDF programme. While some nations may take a more heavy-handed approach and choose a site regardless of public support, the UK GDF misson has community and stakeholder engagement at its core. </p>
<p>Why would residents volunteer? This is a 100+ year project that will require a lot of people working very close by. At the community partnership stage, an investment of up to £2.5million per year, per community, is expected. </p>
<p>The UK programme is some way behind certain other nations. The world leader is Finland, which has almost finished the world’s first GDF at <a href="https://www.posiva.fi/en/index/news/pressreleasesstockexchangereleases/2021/trialrunoffinaldisposaltostartby2023.html">Onkalo</a>, several hundred kilometres west of Helsinki. <a href="https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx">Preferred sites</a> for GDFs have also been selected in the US, Sweden and France. </p>
<p>The UK government aims to identify a suitable site within the next 15-20 years, after which construction can start. The timescale from siting to closing and sealing the first UK GDF is 100 years, making this the largest UK infrastructure project ever. The technology to deliver the GDF is ready; all that remains is to find a willing community with a suitable geology.</p>
<h2>Is there another way?</h2>
<p>It is the scientific consensus, internationally, that the GDF approach is the most technically feasible way to permanently dispose of nuclear waste. Onkalo is an example to the world that scientific collaboration and open engagement with the public can make safe disposal of nuclear waste possible. </p>
<p>The only other approach that has received any traction is the <a href="https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Deep-borehole-disposal-suitable-for-ERDO-countries">deep borehole disposal</a> (DBD) concept. At face value, this is not too dissimilar from a GDF approach; drilling boreholes much deeper than a GDF would be (up to several kilometers) and putting waste packages at the bottom. Countries such as Norway are considering this approach.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181884/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lewis Blackburn receives funding from EPSRC through the provision of a Doctoral Prize Fellowship.</span></em></p>Scientists have been working on a solution for decades.Lewis Blackburn, EPSRC Doctoral Prize Fellow in Materials Science, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1785992022-03-07T20:19:39Z2022-03-07T20:19:39ZHow the war in Ukraine will shape Canada’s energy policy — and climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450469/original/file-20220307-123005-ux04ft.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=71%2C53%2C3916%2C2568&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The war in Ukraine will have major implications for energy and climate change, in Canada and the rest of the world, far into the future. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Frank Gunn</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 175px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/how-the-war-in-ukraine-will-shape-canada-s-energy-policy-—-and-climate-change" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Major wars are often watershed moments in history. Their outcomes define governance structures, politics and policy directions for decades, even centuries, to come. Russia’s <a href="https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine">invasion of Ukraine</a> already seems certain to have these kinds of effects at the national, regional and global scales.</p>
<p>The invasion has quickly come to dominate political and policy agendas, displacing the focus from the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. But the war in Ukraine will have major implications for these questions, particularly around energy and climate change, for Canada and the rest of the world, far into the future.</p>
<p>Beyond the immediate horror of Russia’s assault on Ukraine, perhaps its most obvious effects in climate and energy policy terms have been to provide Europe with a powerful imperative to accelerate the process of decarbonizing its economies. </p>
<p>The risks associated with European dependence on Russian oil and gas have <a href="https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/25/europe-s-reliance-on-russian-fossil-fuels-may-push-it-towards-energy-independence-says-ger">always been an underlying rationale for energy transitions in Europe</a>. A ban on Russian oil and gas imports, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/58888451">a significant portion of Europe’s energy supplies</a>, may be one of the few measures left, short of direct military action, that could cause Putin to pause his attack. </p>
<p>While Canada faces no immediate threat to its energy security, it will likely face pressure to expand its role as a geopolitically stable and secure source of fossil fuels, reinforced by the economic opportunities offered by rising oil and natural gas prices. These developments could present significant challenges for Canada’s current efforts to <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2021/07/government-of-canada-confirms-ambitious-new-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reduction-target.html">reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 per cent relative to 2005 by 2030</a> and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.</p>
<h2>Not sure on nuclear</h2>
<p>Europe stands to see further increases in energy prices and potential shortages if it cuts off Russian oil and gas. But there is already <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/9e9e4710-cf90-41dd-8370-b2949ca2d2e2">strengthened interest</a> in renewables, energy storage and other technologies that reduce Europe’s dependence on fossil fuels for space heating, transportation, industry and electricity generation.</p>
<p>There might also be renewed interest in <a href="https://www.iea.org/news/how-europe-can-cut-natural-gas-imports-from-russia-significantly-within-a-year">nuclear energy</a>, but that path is far from certain. The <a href="https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2021-.html">economics of new nuclear facilities remain profoundly unattractive</a> even with massive governmental support. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-push-europe-towards-energy-independence-and-faster-decarbonisation-177914">Will Russia's invasion of Ukraine push Europe towards energy independence and faster decarbonisation?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In addition, <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/chernobyl-disaster">Russia’s seizure of Chernobyl</a>, its attack on the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-fire-after-russian-attack-mayor-2022-03-04/">Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant</a> and President Vladimir Putin’s thinly veiled <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/putin-ukraine-nato-russia-nuclear-1.6367706">nuclear threats</a> have provided stark reminders of the <a href="https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/05/25/news/opposition-grows-small-nuclear-reactors-over-alarming-risks">security, safety and weapons proliferation risks</a> associated with a nuclear-heavy pathway to decarbonization and energy security. </p>
<h2>Pressure at home and abroad</h2>
<p>For Canada, the implications of these developments are quite different. <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-gas-prices-canada-russia-ukraine-oil/">Prices for gasoline</a> and other fuels have surged in response to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60557077">concerns about global oil and gas supplies</a>. <a href="https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/petroleum-and-other-liquids/annual-petroleum-and-other-liquids-production?pd=5&p=0000000000000000000000000000000000vg&u=0&f=A&v=mapbubble&a=-&i=none&vo=value&t=C&g=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001&l=249-ruvvvvvfvtvnvv1vrvvvvfvvvvvvfvvvou20evvvvvvvvvvnvvvs0008&s=94694400000&e=1609459200000&">Russia is the world’s second-largest crude oil producer</a>, contributing about 13 per cent of world oil production in 2020.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A gas station sign displaying prices." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450463/original/file-20220307-83891-15krn3o.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450463/original/file-20220307-83891-15krn3o.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450463/original/file-20220307-83891-15krn3o.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450463/original/file-20220307-83891-15krn3o.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450463/original/file-20220307-83891-15krn3o.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450463/original/file-20220307-83891-15krn3o.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450463/original/file-20220307-83891-15krn3o.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The price for a litre of gasoline hit record highs in much of Canada during the first week of March 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Doug Ives</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Governments need to be vigilant around the possibilities of the old problem for war profiteering. The fuel now being sold at elevated prices was made from supplies bought and paid for long before Putin’s invasion. Russian oil is an <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60564781">utterly marginal</a> element of Canada’s energy supply, and should be terminated immediately, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-prepared-move-alone-banning-russian-oil-imports-sources-2022-03-07/">as the United States is considering</a>. </p>
<p>More likely, <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/8654840/canada-oil-exports-energy-security-ukraine-war/">Canada will face both domestic and international pressures</a> to expand its role as a secure source of fossil fuels for Western Europe and other consumers of Russian oil and gas. But moves to increase the country’s output of oil and natural gas will pose direct challenges to Canada’s existing climate change commitments and policies.</p>
<p>Canada’s current <a href="https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/energy-sources-distribution/crude-oil/oil-resources/18085">oil reserves</a> are overwhelmingly concentrated in the western Canadian oilsands. Their extraction is highly <a href="https://www.pembina.org/blog/real-ghg-trend-oilsands">energy and carbon intensive</a>, and the federal government’s current climate policy trajectory is to move the upstream oil and gas sector towards <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html">net-zero emissions</a> by 2050. </p>
<h2>New export infrastructure</h2>
<p>At the same time, there is currently no direct route for a major expansion of exports of Canadian oil to Europe. Additional exports would have to move through the U.S. Gulf Coast, but that option is now constrained by, among other things, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57422456">President Joe Biden’s rejection</a> of the Keystone XL pipeline. </p>
<p>The situation may lead to calls for new export infrastructure. <a href="https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-why-its-time-to-resurrect-energy-east">There are already calls</a> for the revival of the Alberta to New Brunswick <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/transcanada-energy-east-1.4338227">Energy East pipeline</a> — a pathway that could lead to renewed conflict between Québec and Alberta.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A ship sitting several hundreds of metres offshore connected to an industrial facility by a long pipeline." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450461/original/file-20220307-85648-1s2kl38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450461/original/file-20220307-85648-1s2kl38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450461/original/file-20220307-85648-1s2kl38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450461/original/file-20220307-85648-1s2kl38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450461/original/file-20220307-85648-1s2kl38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450461/original/file-20220307-85648-1s2kl38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450461/original/file-20220307-85648-1s2kl38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The tanker Sun Arrows loads its cargo of liquefied natural gas from the Sakhalin-2 project in the port of Prigorodnoye, Russia, in October 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Canada’s <a href="https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/canada-energy-future/2017-naturalgas/index.html">conventional natural gas production has already been in decline</a>, but the geopolitical situation and rising world prices may renew interest in <a href="https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-last-lng-project/">British Columbia’s largely stalled</a> liquid natural gas export initiatives. Such developments would further complicate the national climate policy landscape, as accessing B.C.’s gas resources would be highly <a href="https://www.policyalternatives.ca/bc-carbon-conundrum">carbon-intensive</a>. Proposals may also re-emerge for LNG export facilities in Canada’s <a href="https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/ukraine-crisis-puts-east-coast-lng-back-on-the-map">East Coast</a>. </p>
<p>None of this could happen quickly enough to affect the immediate global energy security situation, and the economic viability of such projects would remain uncertain against the ongoing backdrop of widespread decarbonization in response to climate change.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-chinas-plans-to-decarbonize-its-economy-mean-for-canadas-energy-exports-172349">What China's plans to decarbonize its economy mean for Canada's energy exports</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html">trajectory of Canada’s recent greenhouse gas emissions has already been drifting upwards</a>, making the achievement of the federal government’s 2030 and 2050 goals increasingly difficult. The pressures to expand fossil fuel exports will deepen these challenges, even as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has again <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/">highlighted the growing impacts of a changing climate</a>. </p>
<p>One potential positive aspect at this stage may be that the prospect of oil and gas prices remaining elevated for the long term will accelerate public interest in Canada’s own energy transition, particularly around <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/gas-prices-fuel-newfoundland-electric-cars-vehicles-driving-costs-1.6374799">electric vehicles</a>. </p>
<p>The new relationships between energy, geopolitical security and climate change policy flowing from the invasion of Ukraine are only beginning to emerge. Their ultimate directions — along with the outcome of the war — remain uncertain, but the implications for Canada, particularly in terms of reconciling the goals of security, energy and climate change policy, may be enormous.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178599/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Winfield receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>New relationships between energy, geopolitical security and climate change policy flowing from the invasion of Ukraine are beginning to emerge, and the implications could be enormous.Mark Winfield, Professor, Environmental and Urban Change, York University, CanadaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1752672022-02-11T13:38:53Z2022-02-11T13:38:53ZWe’re all radioactive – so let’s stop being afraid of it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445935/original/file-20220211-23-1fgmdap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C8%2C5751%2C3819&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Drink up: carrot juice contains a small amount of radioactive potassium.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Africa Studio / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many people are frightened of radiation, thinking of it as an invisible, man-made and deadly force, and this fear often underpins opposition to nuclear power. In fact, most radiation is natural and life on Earth wouldn’t be possible without it. </p>
<p>In nuclear power and nuclear medicine we’ve simply harnessed radiation for our own use, just as we harness fire or the medical properties of plants, both of which also have the power to harm. Unlike some toxins found in nature, humans have evolved to live with exposure to low doses of radiation and only relatively high doses are harmful. A good analogy for this is paracetamol – one tablet can cure your headache, but if you take a whole box in one go it can kill you. </p>
<p>The Big Bang, nearly 14 billion years ago, generated radiation in the form of atoms known as primordial radionuclides (primordial meaning from the beginning of time). These now are part of everything in the universe. Some have very long physical half-lives, a measure of how long it takes for half of their radioactivity to decay away: for one radioactive form of thorium it is 14 billion years, for one of uranium 4.5 billion and one of potassium 1.3 billion. </p>
<p>Primordial radionuclides are still present in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780081027028/an-introduction-to-nuclear-waste-immobilisation">rocks, minerals and soils today</a>. Their decay is a source of heat in the Earth’s interior, turning its molten iron core into a convecting dynamo that maintains a magnetic field strong enough to shield us from cosmic radiation which would otherwise eliminate life on Earth. Without this radioactivity, the Earth would have gradually cooled to become a dead, rocky globe with a cold, iron ball at the core and life would not exist.</p>
<p>Radiation from space interacts with elements in the Earth’s upper atmosphere and some surface minerals to produce new <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-14651-0_21">“cosmogenic” radionuclides</a> including forms of hydrogen, carbon, aluminium and other well-known elements. Most decay quickly, except for one radioactive form of carbon whose 5,700-year half-life enables archaeologists to use it for <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/radiocarbon-dating-1839">radiocarbon dating</a>.</p>
<p>Primordial and cosmogenic radionuclides are the source of most of the radiation that surrounds us. Radiation is taken up from the soil by plants and occurs in food such as bananas, beans, carrots, potatoes, peanuts and brazil nuts. Beer for instance contains a radioactive form of potassium, but only about a tenth of that found in <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/common-naturally-radioactive-foods-607456">carrot juice</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Nuts" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445937/original/file-20220211-17-s9vvg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Brazil nuts are the most radioactive common food.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">New Africa / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Radionuclides from food largely pass through our bodies but some remain for periods of time (their biological half-life is the time for our bodies to remove them). That same radioactive form of potassium emits high energy gamma rays as it decays which escape the human body, ensuring that we are all slightly radioactive.</p>
<h2>Living with radioactivity</h2>
<p>Historically, we have been oblivious to the presence of radioactivity in our environment but our bodies naturally evolved to live with it. Our cells have developed protective mechanisms that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4834965">stimulate DNA repair in response to damage by radiation</a>.</p>
<p>Natural radioactivity was first discovered by French scientist Henri Becquerel in 1896. The first artificial radioactive materials were produced by Marie and Pierre Curie in the 1930s, and have since been used in science, industry, agriculture and medicine.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Black and white photo of bearded old man" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1112&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1112&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445936/original/file-20220211-13-e8akn9.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1112&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Becquerel in the lab.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Becquerel_in_the_lab.jpg">unknown / wiki</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For instance, radiation therapy is still one of the most important methods for treatment of cancer. To increase the potency of therapeutic radiation, researchers are currently trying to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31649878/">modify cancer cells</a> to make them less able to repair themselves.</p>
<p>We use radioactive material for both diagnosis and treatment in “nuclear medicine”. Patients are injected with specific radionuclides depending on where in the body the treatment or diagnosis is needed. Radioiodine, for example, collects in the thyroid gland, whereas radium accumulates chiefly in the bones. The emitted radiation is used to diagnose cancerous tumours. Radionuclides are also used to treat cancers by targeting their emitted radiation on a tumour.</p>
<p>The most common medical radioisotope is 99mTc (technetium), which is used in 30 million procedures each year worldwide. Like many other medical isotopes, it is manmade, derived from a parent radionuclide that itself is created from fission of uranium in a nuclear reactor.</p>
<h2>Radiation fear could boost fossil fuels</h2>
<p>Despite the benefits that nuclear reactors offer us, people fear the radiation they create either due to nuclear waste, or accidents such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. But very few people have died due to nuclear power generation or accidents in comparison to <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy">other primary energy sources</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Chart showing death rates from energy production per TWh" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445909/original/file-20220211-21-16z696g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Despite high-profile accidents, nuclear is responsible for a tiny fraction of the deaths caused by fossil fuels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy">Our World In Data</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We worry that fear of radiation is harming climate mitigation strategies. For instance, Germany currently generates about a quarter of its electricity from coal, but considers nuclear dangerous and is closing down its remaining <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/3/germany-calls-nuclear-power-dangerous-rejects-eu-plan">nuclear power stations</a>. </p>
<p>But modern reactors create minimal waste. This waste, along with legacy wastes from old reactors, can be immobilised in cement and glass and disposed of <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916682/A_Permanent_Solution_for_Higher_-_Activity_Radioactive_Waste.pdf">deep underground</a>. Radioactive waste also generates no carbon dioxide, unlike coal, gas or oil.</p>
<p>We now have the understanding to harness radiation safely and use it to our and our planet’s benefit. By fearing it too much and rejecting nuclear power as a primary energy source, we risk relying on fossil fuels for longer. This – not radiation – is what puts us and the planet in the greatest danger.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175267/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bill Lee currently receives funding from the Welsh Government and the European Regional Development Fund for his Ser Cymru Chair at Bangor University. He has previously received BNFL, EPSRC and NDA funding for research into radioactive wasteforms and EPSRC for a Centre for Doctoral Training in Nuclear Energy. He was previously Deputy Chair of the UK Government advisory Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) and a member of its Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board (NIRAB). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerry Thomas currently receives funding from the National Cancer Institute of the US and the Sasakawa Health Foundation of Japan to support the Chernobyl Tissue Bank. She is also a member of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management.</span></em></p>Experts in nuclear power and nuclear medicine worry that fears of radiation will keep us relying on fossil fuels for longer.Bill Lee, Ser Cymru Professor of Materials in Extreme Environments, Bangor UniversityGerry Thomas, Chair in Molecular Pathology, Imperial College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1691852021-10-06T14:21:20Z2021-10-06T14:21:20ZHow nuclear energy can help make all UK electricity green by 2035<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424796/original/file-20211005-26-4sgs37.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3199%2C2136&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/nuclear-power-plant-out-focus-on-1792784392">Pyty/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Boris Johnson is set to announce at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester that all of Britain’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2035, according to a recent report <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/all-britains-electricity-to-be-green-by-2035-ns76tl7vm">in the Times</a>.</p>
<p>The government suspects that the British public – tired of petrol station queues and dreading winter gas bills – will like the idea of moving away from fossil fuels. But the nature of this energy crisis, stoked by a late summer lull in wind power generation, high wholesale gas prices and Britain’s meagre prospects for storing energy, demands a careful response.</p>
<p>And what energy technology offers low-carbon credentials and a reliable base supply? The UK government’s emphatic answer appears to be nuclear power. </p>
<p>Only three years ago, UK ambitions for new nuclear power plants were in trouble. Major Japanese conglomerates Toshiba and Hitachi had pulled the plug on their separate nuclear projects in the country. But with renewed support from Boris Johnson’s government, one of these now appears to be back on the table. </p>
<p>It was recently revealed that there are ongoing discussions between the government and American partners about US nuclear engineering firm Westinghouse building a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-58668704">new nuclear power plant</a> on the island of Anglesea in north Wales. There is even talk of government support for Derby-based industrial giant Rolls-Royce to develop a series of smaller modular nuclear reactors. These are, in essence, scaled-down versions of traditional power plants that will generate 470 megawatts of electricity compared with the 1,000 megawatts from their larger equivalents. Importantly, with these new designs, true factory-based manufacture becomes possible. The factories produce modules for rapid assembly on-site.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-mini-nuclear-reactors-56647">Everything you need to know about mini nuclear reactors</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are likely to be benefits for British businesses in the government’s approach. But how would a new generation of nuclear plants help keep the lights on while cutting emissions from the energy sector?</p>
<h2>The nuclear option</h2>
<p>The reactors in nuclear power stations convert the heat generated by splitting atoms (a process known as nuclear fission) to electricity, and can usually run at maximum power for months, whatever the weather. This process doesn’t emit greenhouse gases – although there are likely to be emissions during the construction of the plant itself. The vapour that rises from the iconic cooling towers of a nuclear power plant is water, not carbon dioxide. </p>
<p>Large nuclear power stations have huge turbine generators spinning at high speed. These hold their speed in the face of small national fluctuations, providing stability to the grid. A constant base supply of nuclear power could continue to meet demand when renewable generation falters because the wind isn’t blowing and the Sun isn’t shining. </p>
<p>There are other ways nuclear energy can aid decarbonisation. Heat generated in nuclear reactors might be pumped into the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-nuclear-power-stations-could-make-hydrogen-heat-homes-and-decarbonise-industry-148445">central heating systems</a> of homes and other buildings, replacing fossil gas boilers. Nuclear energy could even go towards producing hydrogen fuel – a form of stored energy with potential benefits in heating and transport. And because nuclear fuel like uranium is what’s called energy-dense, even relatively small amounts can offer an ample supply. The UK also has its own <a href="https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/springfields/">fuel factory</a> and <a href="https://www.urenco.com/global-operations/urenco-uk">plant for enriching uranium</a>, allowing greater national control over the entire process.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-nuclear-power-stations-could-make-hydrogen-heat-homes-and-decarbonise-industry-148445">The future of nuclear: power stations could make hydrogen, heat homes and decarbonise industry</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There remain concerns about the cost and safety of nuclear power. But these should now be placed in the context of climate change. Fossil fuels in power generation must end, and the stable and continuous operation of nuclear power plants is a useful complement to the varying output of renewable sources such as wind and solar. This appears to be the government’s logic, favouring a boost to both nuclear and renewables investment. </p>
<p>UK governments have pushed to rebuild British’s nuclear capacity more than once in the last two decades. When Tony Blair was prime minister, he aimed for a series of very large nuclear power plants. The construction of the first of these, Hinkley Point C, is well underway. The pandemic and other problems have caused delays, but the first electricity generated from its two large reactors is expected in <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclearpower-edf-idUSKBN29W0NV">the summer of 2026</a>.</p>
<p>Hinkley Point C is underpinned by a finance deal with China, struck by former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne. The days when, in 2015, Osborne said “Britain should run towards China” are fading. So too is the rhetoric of a nuclear renaissance that coincided with a post-cold war optimism for globalisation and market liberalisation. First it became clear that competitive electricity markets struggled with the challenge of replacing old nuclear with new. Then globalisation faltered with the return of great power nationalism. </p>
<p>Nuclear technology is back in the government’s sights, but this time it will involve more British money and technology. Talk of a green future has been joined with voices on the right clamouring for a new sense of national self-reliance, free from the vicissitudes of global fossil-fuel supply. Despite such realities, and the many difficulties encountered along the way, the UK nuclear renaissance remains internationalist in outlook. It is a strength that should be defended.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169185/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Nuttall is a co-investigator on grants from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council relating to nuclear energy.
He is currently finalising the second edition of his book "Nuclear Renaissance" (Taylor and Francis group) originally published in 2005.
Professor Nuttall has recently contributed to work by Policy Connect relating to energy matters.</span></em></p>The UK government sees a reliable and low-carbon solution to future energy crises in nuclear power.William Nuttall, Professor of Energy, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1670192021-09-14T16:58:57Z2021-09-14T16:58:57ZNuclear power: Why molten salt reactors are problematic and Canada investing in them is a waste<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420877/original/file-20210913-23-1cjw6qr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C5%2C3976%2C1580&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The federal government considers investment in nuclear energy as vital to address climate change, but some proposed technologies pose other challenges.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the beneficiaries of the run-up to a potential federal election has been the nuclear energy industry, specifically companies that are touting new nuclear reactor designs called <a href="https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors/research-reactors/other-reactor-facilities/small-modular-reactors.cfm">small modular reactors</a>. The largest two financial handouts have been to two companies, both developing a specific class of these reactors, called molten salt reactors (MSRs). </p>
<p>First, in October 2020, Canada’s minister of innovation, science and industry announced <a href="https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/2020/10/terrestrial-energy-receives-canadian-government-funding-for-imsr-generation-iv-nuclear-plant/">a $20-million grant to Ontario-based Terrestrial Energy and its integral molten salt reactor (IMSR) design</a>. In March 2021, New Brunswick-based Moltex received <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/feds-millions-small-nuclear-reactors-1.5955274">$50.5 million from the Strategic Innovation Fund and Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency</a>. </p>
<p>As a physicist who has analyzed <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2016.1170395">different nuclear reactor designs</a>, including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3064948">small modular reactors</a>, I believe that molten salt reactors are unlikely to be successfully deployed anytime soon. MSRs face difficult technical problems, and cannot be counted on to produce electricity consistently.</p>
<h2>How they work</h2>
<p>Molten salt reactors use melted chemicals like lithium fluoride or magnesium chloride to remove the heat produced within the reactor. In many MSRs, the fuel is also dissolved in a molten salt. </p>
<p>These designs are very different from traditional reactor designs — currently, <a href="https://cna.ca/reactors-and-smrs/how-a-nuclear-reactorworks/">the Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) design</a> dominates Canada’s nuclear energy landscape. CANDU uses heavy water (water with deuterium, the heavier isotope of hydrogen) to transport heat, slow down or “moderate” <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/nuclear-fission">neutrons produced during fission</a>, and natural uranium fabricated into solid pellets as fuel. Slower neutrons are more effective in triggering fission reactions as compared to highly energetic, or fast, neutrons. </p>
<p>Terrestrial’s IMSR is fuelled by uranium which contains higher concentrations of uranium-235, a lighter isotope as compared to uranium found in nature (natural uranium), which is used in CANDU reactors. The enriched uranium is dissolved <a href="https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/IMSR400.pdf">in a fluoride salt</a> in the IMSR. The IMSR also uses graphite, instead of heavy water used in CANDU reactors, to moderate neutrons.</p>
<p>Moltex’s <a href="https://msrworkshop.ornl.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/24_Scott_Moltex_SSR_ORNL1.pdf">Stable Salt Reactor (SSR)</a>, on the other hand, uses a mixture of uranium and plutonium and other elements, dissolved in a chloride salt and placed inside a solid assembly, as fuel. It does not use any material to slow down neutrons. </p>
<p>Because of the different kinds of fuel used, these MSR designs need special facilities — not present in Canada currently — to fabricate their fuel. The enriched uranium for the IMSR must be produced using <a href="https://fas.org/issues/nonproliferation-counterproliferation/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-enrichment-gas-centrifuge-technology/centrifuge-works/">centrifuges</a>, while the Moltex design <a href="https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/02-22-2021/docs/D7D2861170D3C589A7B079A013405581A7B99929B191">proposes</a> to use a special chemical process called <a href="https://allthingsnuclear.org/elyman/the-pyroprocessing-files/">pyroprocessing</a> to produce the plutonium required to fuel it. Pyroprocessing is <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/nuclear-power/Pyroprocessing/IAEA-CN-245-492%2Blyman%2Bfinal.pdf">extremely costly and unreliable</a>.</p>
<p>Both processes are intimately linked to the potential to make <a href="https://fissilematerials.org/library/gfmr15.pdf">fissile materials used in nuclear weapons</a>. Earlier this year, nine non-proliferation experts from the United States wrote to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressing serious concerns “<a href="http://ccnr.org/Open_Letter_to_Trudeau_2021.pdf">about the technology Moltex proposes to use</a>.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420848/original/file-20210913-25-1g2h1j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A blue and white stamp that reads PEACEFUL USES UTILISATIONS PACIFIQUES" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420848/original/file-20210913-25-1g2h1j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420848/original/file-20210913-25-1g2h1j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420848/original/file-20210913-25-1g2h1j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420848/original/file-20210913-25-1g2h1j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420848/original/file-20210913-25-1g2h1j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420848/original/file-20210913-25-1g2h1j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420848/original/file-20210913-25-1g2h1j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Canadian stamp from 1980 representing the peaceful applications of nuclear energy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Difficult questions</h2>
<p>Experience with MSRs has not been very encouraging either. All current designs draw upon the only two MSRs ever built: the 1954 Aircraft Reactor Experiment that ran for just <a href="https://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf">100 hours</a> and the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment that <a href="https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4462915-msre-systems-components-performance">operated intermittently from 1965 to 1969</a>. Over those four years, the latter reactor’s operations were interrupted 225 times; of these, only 58 were planned. The remaining were due to various unanticipated technical problems. In other words, the reactor had to be shut down at least once every four out of five weeks — that is not what one would expect of a reliable power plant. </p>
<p>Even the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission that had funded the U.S. MSR program for nearly two decades raised difficult questions about the technology in <a href="https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4372873">a devastating 1972 report</a>. Many of the problems identified <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1907/ML19077A137.pdf">continue to be technical challenges</a> confronting MSR designs. </p>
<p>Another basic problem with MSRs is that the materials used to manufacture the various reactor components will be exposed to hot salts that are chemically corrosive, while being bombarded by radioactive particles. So far, there is no material that can perform satisfactorily in such an environment. A 2018 review from the Idaho National Laboratory could only recommended that “<a href="https://art.inl.gov/ART%20Document%20Library/High%20Temperature%20Materials/45171%20Status%20of%20Metallic%20Structural.pdf">a systematic development program be initiated</a>” to develop new alloys that might work better. There is, of course, no guarantee that the program will be successful.</p>
<p>These problems and others have been identified by various research laboratories, ranging from France’s <a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Documents/IRSN_Report-GenIV_04-2015.pdf">Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire (IRSN)</a> to the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1006752/niro-217-r-01-issue-1-technical-assessment-of-amrs.pdf">Nuclear Innovation and Research Office</a> in the United Kingdom. Their conclusion: molten salt reactors are still far from proven. </p>
<p>As the IRSN put it in 2015: “<a href="https://www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Documents/IRSN_Report-GenIV_04-2015.pdf">numerous technological challenges remain to be overcome before the construction of an MSR can be considered</a>,” going as far as saying that it does not envision construction of such reactors “during the first half of this century.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420993/original/file-20210914-15-3mbzom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A distant view of the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420993/original/file-20210914-15-3mbzom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/420993/original/file-20210914-15-3mbzom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420993/original/file-20210914-15-3mbzom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420993/original/file-20210914-15-3mbzom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420993/original/file-20210914-15-3mbzom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420993/original/file-20210914-15-3mbzom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/420993/original/file-20210914-15-3mbzom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Point Lepreau nuclear generating station in New Brunswick, where Moltex proposes to build a molten salt reactor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Problematic solutions</h2>
<p>Should an MSR be built, it will also saddle society with the challenge of dealing with the radioactive waste it will produce. This is especially difficult for MSRs because the waste is in chemical forms that are “<a href="https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/burning-waste-or-playing-with-fire-waste-management-considerations-for-non-traditional-reactors/">not known to occur in nature</a>” and it is unclear “which, if any, disposal environment could accommodate this high-level waste.” The Union of Concerned Scientists has also <a href="https://ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/advanced-isnt-always-better-full.pdf">detailed the safety and security risks associated with MSR designs</a>. </p>
<p>The Liberal government’s argument for investing in molten salt reactors is that nuclear power <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/chris-hall-there-s-no-path-to-net-zero-without-nuclear-power-says-o-regan-1.5730197">is necessary to mitigate climate change</a>. There are <a href="https://www.hilltimes.com/2021/03/10/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-and-net-zero-carbon-emissions-by-2050-the-math-doesnt-add-up/287243">good reasons to doubt this claim</a>. But even if one were to ignore those reasons, the problems with MSRs laid out here show that they cannot be deployed for decades. </p>
<p>The climate crisis is far more urgent. Investing in technologies that are proven to be problematic is no way to deal with this emergency.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/167019/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>MV Ramana receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.</span></em></p>Molten salt reactors are being touted as an advanced technology for the production of nuclear energy, but their implementation is fraught with challenges.MV Ramana, Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1633712021-06-28T09:22:55Z2021-06-28T09:22:55ZNuclear energy isn’t a safe bet in a warming world – here’s why<p>The overwhelming majority of nuclear power stations active today entered service long before the science of climate change was well-established. <a href="https://www.nuclearconsult.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Climate-Change-UK-Nuclear-June-2021.pdf">Two in five</a> nuclear plants operate on the coast and at least 100 have been built just a few metres above sea level. Nuclear energy is, quite literally, on the frontline of climate change – and not in a good way.</p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/nuclear-energy-isnt-a-safe-bet-in-a-warming-world-heres-why-163371&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Recent scientific data indicates sea levels globally will rise <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1855-2">further and faster</a> than earlier predictions suggested. Even over the next couple of decades, as extreme weather events become more frequent and destructive, strong winds and low atmospheric pressure will drive bigger storm surges that could threaten coastal installations.</p>
<p>Nuclear power plants must draw from large sources of water to cool their reactors, hence why they’re often built near the sea. But nuclear plants further inland will face similar problems with flooding in a warming world. Increasingly severe droughts and wildfire only ramp up the threat.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A large nuclear facility on a hill opposite a body of water." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408377/original/file-20210625-19-ig6hht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408377/original/file-20210625-19-ig6hht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408377/original/file-20210625-19-ig6hht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408377/original/file-20210625-19-ig6hht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408377/original/file-20210625-19-ig6hht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408377/original/file-20210625-19-ig6hht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408377/original/file-20210625-19-ig6hht.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mihama Nuclear Power Plant in Japan.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hope-mihama-nuclear-power-plant-other-182404346">JenJ_Payless/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Around 516 million people worldwide live within a 50-mile (80km) radius of at least one operating nuclear power plant, and 20 million live within a ten-mile (16km) radius. These people bear the <a href="https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/glep_a_00527">health and safety risks</a> of any future nuclear accident. Efforts to build plants resistant to climate change will significantly increase the already considerable expense involved in building, operating and decommissioning nuclear plants, not to mention maintaining their stockpiles of nuclear waste.</p>
<p>Nuclear power is often credited with offering energy security in an increasingly turbulent world, but climate change will rewrite these old certainties. Extreme floods, droughts and storms which were once rare are becoming far more common, making industry protection measures, drafted in an earlier age, increasingly obsolete. Climate risks to nuclear power plants won’t be linear or predictable. As rising seas, storm surges and heavy rainfall erodes coastal and inland flood defences, natural and built barriers will reach their limits.</p>
<p>The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission concludes the vast majority of its nuclear sites were <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1713/ML17138A169.pdf">never designed to withstand</a> the future climate impacts they face, and many have already experienced some flooding. A recent US Army War College <a href="https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf">report</a> also states that nuclear power facilities are at high risk of temporary or permanent closure due to climate threats – with 60% of US nuclear capacity at risk from future sea-level rise, severe storms, and cooling water shortages.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two people look on as a motorway is engulfed by ocean water." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408378/original/file-20210625-15-fmxg0p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408378/original/file-20210625-15-fmxg0p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408378/original/file-20210625-15-fmxg0p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408378/original/file-20210625-15-fmxg0p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408378/original/file-20210625-15-fmxg0p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408378/original/file-20210625-15-fmxg0p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408378/original/file-20210625-15-fmxg0p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Even with radical action on climate change, some sea level rise is guaranteed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/global-warming-sea-levels-rising-1709550403">MainlanderNZ/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Before even thinking about building any more nuclear power stations, the industry must consider how models of future weather extremes and climate impacts are likely to affect them. Not only should they account for changing weather patterns over seasons, years and decades, but try to assume the worst in terms of the potential for sudden extreme events. Before any project is greenlit, the costings of all these necessary precautions must feed into the final forecast.</p>
<p>Nuclear power may become a significant casualty of intensifying climate impacts. As things stand, nuclear infrastructure is largely unprepared. Some reactors could soon become unfit for purpose. This should prompt a substantial reassessment of nuclear’s role in helping the world reach net zero emissions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163371/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Dorfman is founder and chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, an independent, non-profit virtual institute dedicated to providing expert research and analysis of nuclear issues.</span></em></p>The world’s nuclear power plants are on the frontline of climate change – and not in a good way.Paul Dorfman, Honorary Senior Research Associate, UCL Energy Institute, University College London, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1565542021-03-10T10:19:26Z2021-03-10T10:19:26ZFukushima: ten years on from the disaster, was Japan’s response right?<p>The world saw something never before caught on camera on March 12, 2011: an explosion ripping the roof off a nuclear power plant – Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi. The blast wasn’t actually nuclear, it was the result of hot hydrogen gas encountering the cool, outside air during the aftermath of the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. But the distinction hardly mattered – something had clearly gone terribly wrong.</p>
<p>A decade on from the tragedy, many people are still mourning the <a href="https://www.npa.go.jp/news/other/earthquake2011/pdf/higaijokyo_e.pdf">nearly 16,000 people</a> who lost their lives to the tsunami. While no-one died from the radiation after the radiation accident at Fukushima Daiichi, roughly two thousand elderly people <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146645316666707">died prematurely</a> as a result of their enforced evacuation and undoubtedly many more of the huge number of displaced people experienced distress. In order to minimise suffering in future nuclear accidents, there are important lessons from March 2011 that must be learned.</p>
<p>How should a government react when confronted by clear evidence of radioactive material being released into the environment? A precedent was set 25 years before, at Chernobyl in Ukraine. There, authorities evacuated the local population and have kept them away for decades, which was hugely expensive and disruptive for the communities involved.</p>
<p>While Japan was reeling from the natural disaster, the authorities imposed an evacuation order with a radius of 20km around the stricken nuclear plant. A total of <a href="https://www.reconstruction.go.jp/english/topics/2013/03/the-status-in-fukushima.html">109,000 people</a> were ordered to leave their homes, with a further 45,000 choosing to evacuate from places nearby, which added to the turmoil.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An empty street in Japan." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388509/original/file-20210309-19-1s93m7u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388509/original/file-20210309-19-1s93m7u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388509/original/file-20210309-19-1s93m7u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388509/original/file-20210309-19-1s93m7u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388509/original/file-20210309-19-1s93m7u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388509/original/file-20210309-19-1s93m7u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388509/original/file-20210309-19-1s93m7u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Namie, a town of 21,000 people, one month on from the nuclear disaster.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#/media/File:VOA_Herman_-_April_12_2011_Namie-04.jpg">Steven L. Herman</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We set out to determine how best to respond to a severe nuclear accident using <a href="http://www.nrefs.org/publications/">a science-led approach</a>. Could we, by examining the evidence, come up with better policy prescriptions than the emerging playbook deployed in Ukraine and Japan? Together with colleagues at the universities of Manchester and Warwick, we used research methods from statistics, meteorology, reactor physics, radiation science and economics and arrived at a surprising conclusion. </p>
<p>Japan probably didn’t need to relocate anyone, and the evacuations after Chernobyl involved five to ten times too many people. In fact, because power plants are generally <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/34/2/R1">built some distance</a> from towns and cities, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/process-safety-and-environmental-protection/vol/112/part/PA">very few</a> of even the most severe nuclear accidents would warrant long-term population relocations. </p>
<h2>The analysis</h2>
<p>Our team ran a simulation of a Fukushima-style accident at a fictional reactor in southern England and showed that, most likely, only the people in the nearest village would need to move out. That means hundreds of people relocated, rather than <a href="https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0957582017302872/1-s2.0-S0957582017302872-main.pdf?_tid=43450e06-d2c5-11e7-bb29-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1511713213_ed5cbb1bc2f9063364c42338eb312418">tens of thousands</a>. It’s difficult to argue for any relocation after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan, where the calculated loss of life expectancy from staying put in the worst-affected township, Tomioka, would have been three months – less than Londoners are currently <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582017300782">losing to air pollution</a> </p>
<p>Of course, we are not saying nothing should be done, quite the opposite. The University of Bristol researchers had developed the J-value (with “J” standing for judgement) to help arrive at objective answers for safety questions arising from nuclear plants, railways and other infrastructure that improves our lives. </p>
<p>How much should a nuclear power plant spend on protecting its workers? Is it cost-effective to install a new safety system for railway signalling? Should a government be spending more to prevent road deaths? The J-value balances the amount of life expectancy that a safety measure restores against its cost. And it takes the ethical stance that each day of life has the same value for everyone – whether a person is rich or poor, young or old. </p>
<p>In the aftermath of a nuclear accident, the J-value can help prioritise the <a href="https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0957582017302173/1-s2.0-S0957582017302173-main.pdf?_tid=6e1f0f9c-d2c4-11e7-b9fc-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1511712856_b8452e8f6846dc911ad60850784f93ba">most useful measures</a>, like cleaning roofs and gutters in towns and cities and reducing radioactive caesium uptake in farmland by adding ferrocyn to cattle feed and replacing contaminated soil.</p>
<p>Why is relocating people rarely one of those? Relocations are not just expensive, they also cause difficult-to-quantify problems for evacuees which can be equally, or more, serious than remaining. The World Health Organization <a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-accident">documented</a> the upheaval of the Chernobyl disaster among the relocated community and found a legacy of depression and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5067661/">alcoholism</a>. Across the population, a rise in suicide and substance abuse can shorten evacuees’ lives far more than might have been lost to radiation in their old homes. Similar evidence is starting to emerge from Fukushima, especially for <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6263751/">male suicide</a>.</p>
<h2>A greater threat looms</h2>
<p>Japan in 2010 was arguably the world leader in civil nuclear power, having opened the first “third generation” nuclear unit at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in 1996. Mighty conglomerates Toshiba and Hitachi were poised to deliver a nuclear renaissance worldwide. Both have since left the UK with empty spaces where new nuclear power plants were supposed to be. Hitachi’s ambitions for Taiwan (Lungmen) and the US (South Texas) also evaporated, as well as at home in Japan (Shimane). In Japan many, already built, plants remain shutdown. </p>
<p>There is a clear imbalance between the very low risk of a severe nuclear accident that can be expected to kill remarkably few people on the one hand, and the near certainty, on the other, of climate change threatening the futures of all the world’s species as a result of the continued burning of fossil fuels. Japan’s case illustrates the point. </p>
<p>Carbon-free nuclear power supplied 25% of <a href="https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics?country=JAPAN&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=ElecGenByFuel">the country’s electricity</a> in 2010, but its share dropped to less than 1% four years after the accident. The shortfall was made up by a 30% rise in the use of coal, oil and natural gas. By 2019, fossil fuels were still providing 70% of Japan’s electricity.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A graph depicting Japan's energy mix 2000-2017." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388516/original/file-20210309-21-1ftq5rh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388516/original/file-20210309-21-1ftq5rh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388516/original/file-20210309-21-1ftq5rh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388516/original/file-20210309-21-1ftq5rh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388516/original/file-20210309-21-1ftq5rh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388516/original/file-20210309-21-1ftq5rh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388516/original/file-20210309-21-1ftq5rh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nuclear power nearly disappeared from Japan’s energy mix post-Fukushima.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#/media/File:Japan_net_electricity_generation_in_2000_through_2017_(48061019128).png">US Energy Information Administration</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Analysts report that Japan could generate <a href="https://www.energyglobal.com/special-reports/19082020/japan-invests-in-wind-and-solar-power-plants/#:%7E:text=Over%20US%24100%20billion%20of,country's%20target%2C%20says%20Wood%20Mackenzie.">almost a third</a> of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. But decarbonisation could have proceeded even quicker if nuclear power had not been forced from the mix. Though the reaction is understandable – <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-years-after-fukushima-much-of-japan-has-lost-faith-in-nuclear-power-73042">trust was broken</a>.</p>
<p>The sense that something must be done can be powerful amid widespread disaster. The challenge is directing it towards finding the right solutions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156554/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Nuttall received funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK under grant reference number EP/K007580/1. He was a Co-Investigator for the NREFS project (Management of Nuclear Risk Issues: Environmental, Financial and Safety) and project lead at The Open University.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Thomas is professor of risk management at the University of Bristol and director of Michaelmas Consulting Ltd. The work reported on was carried out as part of the NREFS project, Management of Nuclear Risk Issues: Environmental, Financial and Safety, led by Philip Thomas while he was at City, University of London and then the University of Bristol, and carried out in collaboration with Manchester, Warwick and Open Universities and with the support of the Atomic Energy Commission of India as part of the UK-India Civil Nuclear Power Collaboration. The author acknowledges the support of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under grant reference number EP/K007580/1. </span></em></p>The rush to evacuate communities and abandon nuclear energy was understandable, but an error.William Nuttall, Professor of Energy, The Open UniversityPhilip Thomas, Professor of Risk Management, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1276672020-01-06T15:02:08Z2020-01-06T15:02:08ZWhy Ontario must rethink its nuclear refurbishment plans<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304956/original/file-20191203-67028-1cmc0vh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C6%2C4397%2C2442&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The costs of renewable energy, including solar photovoltaics, is declining rapidly.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ontario is working to refurbish 10 nuclear reactors at the Darlington and Bruce power plants at estimated costs of <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/darlington-nuclear-refurbishment-1.3395696">$12.8 billion</a> and <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bruce-power-1.3348633">$13 billion</a> respectively. In the months ahead, Ontario Power Generation <a href="https://www.opg.com/news/darlington-refurbishment-performance-update-q3-2019/">expects to start the refurbishment process</a> for one of the units at Darlington. </p>
<p>Because of a history of cost overruns with nuclear construction projects <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.016">around the world</a>, including Canada, this strategy comes with significant financial risks. In 2020, it’s critical to continuously re-evaluate whether proceeding with refurbishment makes economic sense. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304951/original/file-20191203-66990-b2gn2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1000%2C579&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304951/original/file-20191203-66990-b2gn2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1000%2C579&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304951/original/file-20191203-66990-b2gn2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304951/original/file-20191203-66990-b2gn2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304951/original/file-20191203-66990-b2gn2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304951/original/file-20191203-66990-b2gn2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304951/original/file-20191203-66990-b2gn2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304951/original/file-20191203-66990-b2gn2u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An aerial photo of the Bruce Power Generating Station near Kincardine, Ont., is seen in this 2006 photo.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Chuck Szmurlo/Wikimedia)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the first of these refurbishments, there is already <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/3795801/darlington-refurbishment-delays-over-budget/">evidence of cost overruns</a> <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/08/19/darlington-nuclear-power-plant-refurbishment-hits-delay.html">and delays</a>. The question of whether to refurbish them becomes even more urgent in light of the rapidly declining costs of wind and solar energy, which also deliver electricity without emitting carbon dioxide.</p>
<p>We’re researchers who have examined the economics of electricity generation in Ontario, and we’ve demonstrated that as the costs of batteries decline, the cost of supplying electricity using a combination of renewables and battery storage would be cheaper than using nuclear power. We argue that it’s critical to examine Ontario’s commitment to these refurbishment plans.</p>
<h2>Financial risks</h2>
<p>In 2017, Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office <a href="https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/NR-Statement-Nov2017">highlighted four key financial risks</a> to ratepayers.</p>
<p>They included “the risk that the cost of refurbishing the reactors will be higher or lower than planned,” “the cost of operating the reactors will be higher or lower than planned,” the “risk of insufficient electricity grid demand for nuclear generation” and the risk “that the province’s commitment to nuclear refurbishment will preclude it from taking advantage of alternative, lower cost, low emissions grid-scale electricity generation options.” </p>
<p>The Financial Accountability Office talks about costs of refurbishing being higher or lower. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304953/original/file-20191203-66986-13xqwf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304953/original/file-20191203-66986-13xqwf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304953/original/file-20191203-66986-13xqwf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304953/original/file-20191203-66986-13xqwf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304953/original/file-20191203-66986-13xqwf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304953/original/file-20191203-66986-13xqwf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304953/original/file-20191203-66986-13xqwf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304953/original/file-20191203-66986-13xqwf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pressure pipes at the Darlington nuclear facility in Courtice, Ont., in October 2014.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Frank Gunn</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the report documents that, historically, the cost for refurbishment has always been higher than initially budgeted. And there is preliminary evidence that the refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear plant will be more costly and take more time than projected.</p>
<p>The total annual demand for electricity <a href="http://www.ieso.ca/power-data/demand-overview/historical-demand">in Ontario has also declined</a> from 157 Terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2005, when the province began exploring refurbishing nuclear reactors, to 137.5 TWh in 2018. </p>
<p>To mitigate these risks, the province has some options to terminate refurbishments, called <a href="https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/FAO-NR-Report-Nov-2017">off-ramps</a>. Because the costs of refurbishment will be greater than shifting gradually to a grid that incorporates a much larger fraction of renewables, it’s time to seriously consider these off-ramps.</p>
<h2>Renewables are cheaper</h2>
<p>The main reason to reconsider refurbishment is the declining costs of renewables and batteries. Globally, the costs of solar and wind energy have fallen dramatically over the past decade.</p>
<p>According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, the average installation cost of solar photovoltaics <a href="https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/May/IRENA_Renewable-Power-Generations-Costs-in-2018.pdf">has declined</a> to US$1,210 per kilowatt (kW) from US$4,621 per kW in 2010. The installation cost of onshore wind turbines has dropped to US$1,497 per kW from US$1,931 per kW. </p>
<p>Similar reductions have been <a href="https://www.enr.com/articles/47441-renewables-projects-push-on-in-canada-despite-politics">seen in Canada</a> too. </p>
<p>In the United States, one of the largest renewable energy markets in the world and one for which reliable data is available, the Wall Street advisory firm <a href="https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf">Lazard recently recorded</a> the average construction costs of solar photovoltaics and onshore wind turbines as US$1,000 per kW and US$1,300 per kW.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304960/original/file-20191203-66990-188nyfb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304960/original/file-20191203-66990-188nyfb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304960/original/file-20191203-66990-188nyfb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304960/original/file-20191203-66990-188nyfb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304960/original/file-20191203-66990-188nyfb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304960/original/file-20191203-66990-188nyfb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304960/original/file-20191203-66990-188nyfb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304960/original/file-20191203-66990-188nyfb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wind turbines are shown at the opening of a 44-turbine wind farm near Port Alma, Ont., in 2008.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Dave Chidley</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In comparison, a Lazard 2013 report recorded US$1,750 per kW for both solar photovoltaic and wind energy. This decline in cost is corroborated by <a href="https://emp.lbl.gov/wind-technologies-market-report/">other sources</a>. Nuclear power, on the other hand, has risen to US$9,550 per kW in 2019 from US$6,792 per kW in 2013.</p>
<p>Battery costs too have <a href="https://www.lazard.com/media/450774/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-40-vfinal.pdf">come down rapidly</a> and analysts predict <a href="https://www.powermag.com/investments-in-energy-storage-grow-as-battery-costs-fall/">continued growth</a> as costs continue to decline. Large-scale batteries such as Tesla’s <a href="https://electrek.co/2018/01/23/tesla-giant-battery-australia-1-million/">Powerpack project</a> are becoming more common.</p>
<h2>Modelling and results</h2>
<p>We developed a simple model to compare the relative costs associated with the different ways of meeting Ontario’s hourly electricity demand in 2017, <a href="http://reports.ieso.ca/public/Demand/">as reported by the Independent Electricity System Operator</a>. </p>
<p>We also assumed that the electricity sector is completely decarbonized, and no fossil fuels are used in electricity generation (there would, of course, be emissions for all sources of electricity from the manufacturing processes involved).</p>
<p>With this constraint, our model showed that if the costs of batteries decline from current values to those <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/394543445/171208-Outlook-on-Storage-Cost-for-Fully-Installed-Systems-Through-202">projected for 2025</a> by McKinsey Corporation, then the cost of supplying electricity using a combination of renewables and battery storage would become cheaper than nuclear power. That’s especially true if there are cost overruns during refurbishment.</p>
<p>This cost could be further reduced if the availability of hydro power is increased. This is relevant because Ontario has been urged to <a href="https://theenergymix.com/2019/02/19/ieso-transmission-request-would-boost-ontario-hydro-imports-from-quebec/">import more hydro power</a> from neighbouring Québec.</p>
<p>While we haven’t modelled this possibility, it’s clear that a greater ability to modify demand in response to available renewables, and a greater grid capacity that could transfer more electricity between Ontario and other Canadian provinces in addition to Québec, could further lower the overall cost of electricity.</p>
<h2>Time for the off-ramps?</h2>
<p>The chief implication of our analysis is that it’s getting close to the time to use the off-ramps and abandon the nuclear reactor refurbishment process. To be sure, the conditions for employing off-ramps are complicated and require careful legal analysis that we’re not qualified to evaluate. However, our work does suggest that because it’s more expensive to continue to operate nuclear reactors, investing in refurbishment is not economically justified. </p>
<p>None of this is intended to imply that the transition to an electricity system dominated by renewables will be quick or easy. The magnitude of the shift required is immense given the overwhelming dominance of nuclear power and natural gas in Ontario’s electricity supply. </p>
<p>Yet the economic and climate reality justifies starting such a transition. Investing in old energy generation facilities moves us away, not towards, such a transition and locks consumers into high electricity costs for decades.</p>
<p>[ <em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/ca/newsletters?utm_source=TCCA&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127667/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Investing billions in refurbishing nuclear generating stations doesn’t make economic sense as the cost of renewables fall dramatically.MV Ramana, Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British ColumbiaXiao Wei, MITACS Globalink Research Intern, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1111062019-10-29T14:50:30Z2019-10-29T14:50:30ZSouth Africa’s future energy mix: wind, solar and coal, but no nuclear<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299235/original/file-20191029-183151-1ewitvz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africa has a new <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/431120196/Doe-Irp-2019-October-2019-Correct#from_embed">energy plan</a> which covers 2019 to 2030. It follows cabinet’s recent adoption of a new Integrated Resource Plan for electricity generation.</p>
<p>The plan – which builds on a relatively <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-south-africa-cant-make-a-massive-shift-to-renewables-yet-104734">well-received draft</a> announced last year – makes some significant advances in changing South Africa’s energy mix. For example, it significantly ups the contribution of wind as well as solar power to South Africa’s overall energy allocation. The production of power from wind is expected to grow by 900% by 2030, and power from solar photovoltaic by 560%. </p>
<p>In some other respects the plan is disappointing. The biggest problem is that coal power generation continues to be dominant. While coal generating capacity would drop from a current 71% to 43% in 2030, this is viewed as far too little to make a meaningful contribution to combating climate change.</p>
<p>What has <a href="https://ewn.co.za/2019/10/18/mantashe-inclusion-of-nuclear-power-in-irp-has-nothing-to-do-with-russia">dominated headlines about the plan</a>, however, is the nuclear power option. This has been very misleading as the plan effectively says nothing concrete about new nuclear. No new nuclear plants are envisaged to come on line before 2030, while the plan is deliberately non-committal for what happens afterwards. This is because there are too many unknowns and potential developments that could affect the post-2030 scenario. </p>
<p>At this stage nuclear is seen as one option for post-2030, but no more than that.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, even the mention of nuclear – and that it remains an option in government’s eyes – causes a stir. In a recent <a href="https://www.fin24.com/Economy/South-Africa/just-in-governments-new-energy-plan-gazetted-20191018">statement</a> from the Minister of Mineral and Energy Resources Gwede Mantashe, he noted that nuclear was still on the table.</p>
<p>Confusion over what role nuclear power would or woulnd’t play was made worse by the fact that an incorrect version of the plan was gazetted. It was withdrawn, but not before it had created a hue and a cry. </p>
<p>Sensitivities around nuclear power run high in South Africa. This is because former President Jacob Zuma was <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2017-11-09-zumas-last-ditch-effort-to-ram-through-a-nuclear-power-deal">committed to new plants</a> being built, with advance plans reportedly made with Russia to sign a deal. The end of his presidency led many to believe that the nuclear power debate had been laid to rest.</p>
<h2>The nuclear picture</h2>
<p>South Africa’s only nuclear power plant is a 1.8 GW facility at Koeberg in the Western Cape that was completed in 1984. It was originally expected to be decommissioned in 2024, based on the normal lifespan of nuclear plants, which is 40 years.</p>
<p>The plan proposes that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-decommissioning-south-africas-koeberg-nuclear-plant-wont-be-easy-89888">plant’s decommissioning</a> be postponed to 2044. The planned extension of Koeberg’s life cycle was however flagged in the earlier drafts of the country’s energy plan. In that sense, it doesn’t represent a new intensification of the nuclear programme in South Africa.</p>
<p>There is a fair case to be made to extend nuclear plant operations by a further 20 years. Reasons include the fact that an already operational nuclear plant produces electricity quite cheaply. In addition, nuclear energy only has minimal emissions contributing to climate change.</p>
<p>The plan also says nothing specific about moves to reactivate South Africa’s collapsed programme of trying to develop small-scale nuclear reactors. This too was something the Minerals and Energy Minister highlighted in some of his speeches. The idea of small-scale nuclear has gained traction in recent years, partly due to endorsements by influential individuals such as <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/17/bill.gates.nuclear/index.html">Bill Gates</a>. </p>
<p>South Africa took the lead on this technology 1994 and 2010 when it sought to develop what became known as the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. The project <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2010-04-23-money-rows-over-pbmr">collapsed</a> in 2010 after failing to make tangible progress or to secure a critical mass of investors. The <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/business/2010-07-18-government-pulls-plug-on-pbmr/">government terminated the programme</a> despite having invested R9 billion.</p>
<p>The failure of the project was a blow to the nuclear sector in South Africa. But calls for its revival by die-hard nuclear advocates <a href="https://www.fin24.com/Opinion/sas-nuclear-pebble-bed-reactor-could-get-second-chance-20160303">persisted</a>. These were not without success, largely because the nuclear lobby was backed by Zuma. But nothing formal has come of it.</p>
<h2>Life in the nuclear lobby?</h2>
<p>There still appears to be some life in the nuclear lobby given mentions of a plan to build new nuclear plants with a total capacity of 2.5 GW. It turns out that the version of the energy plan touting this as an alternative to the still uncertain Inga hydroelectric project on the Congo River was <a href="https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Eskom/government-gazetted-wrong-version-of-master-energy-plan-report-20191018">erroneously gazetted</a>, and was not the version approved by cabinet. </p>
<p>Mantashe’s positive pronouncements about nuclear energy are not expected to translate into new nuclear builds. It seems that his statements are largely political juggling. The South African government is trying to maintain links to Russian allies that are still angered by the collapse of a nuclear construction deal they believed they had <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2017-11-09-zumas-last-ditch-effort-to-ram-through-a-nuclear-power-deal">secured</a> from the Zuma government. Signalling a complete break with nuclear may not be politically expedient at a time when the government is desperately seeking investment from a host of countries, <a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/president-cyril-ramaphosa-concludes-visit-first-russia-africa-summit-25-oct-2019-0000">including Russia</a>.</p>
<p>It may also be an attempt to placate the still influential and vocal South African nuclear sector that sense the death of their technology. They are effectively being told that Koeberg will still be operational for another 25 years.</p>
<p>The other political factor that the governing African National Congress is considering is the antipathy that organised labour circles have <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2019-08-08-00-sparks-fly-as-labour-takes-on-eskom">towards renewable energy</a>. Trade unions see renewables as a threat to more traditional electricity generation modes, especially the strongly unionised coal sector. </p>
<p>The Minister may therefore be deliberately adopting a stance that portrays support for all forms of energy.</p>
<p>Ultimately economic realities dictate that coal and nuclear cannot compete with renewable technologies. These are already much cheaper, and their cost continues to drop by the year. </p>
<p>Even with maximum political will, a nuclear build cannot be realised without convincing investors and the public that it makes economic sense. It doesn’t.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111106/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hartmut Winkler receives funding from the National Research Foundation. He is a member of OUTA and Save South Africa, but writes this piece in his personal capacity. </span></em></p>Unpacking what South Africa’s new energy plan says about nuclear energy.Hartmut Winkler, Professor of Physics, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1259142019-10-27T19:48:27Z2019-10-27T19:48:27ZNuclear power in France: imagining the industry’s future<p>Nuclear energy plays an important role in France, generating 75% of its electricity, and ongoing troubles at the country’s new Flamanville “third generation” reactor have raised crucial questions about its role in the future electricity mix and methods for managing the associated radioactive materials and waste. Construction started in 2007, with the final cost estimated at 3.3 billion euros. On October 9 the plant’s operator, EDF, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/fc6a8610-ea5e-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55">annonced new delays</a>, with costs now estimated at 12.4 billion euros and the opening pushed back to 2022 – a decade later than initially scheduled.</p>
<p>France currently operates 58 pressurized water reactors (PWR), referred to as “second generation”. Nineteen of these reactors were put into operation before 1981 and will reach their design service life of 40 years over the next three years. The future of the nuclear industry represents a crucial question, which will likely have a lasting effect on all industry stakeholders – electricity producers, distribution system operators, energy providers and consumers. This means that all French citizens will be affected.</p>
<h2>Imagining the future of the nuclear industry</h2>
<p>Investment decisions regarding the electricity sector can establish commitments for the country that will last tens or even hundreds of years, and this future clearly remains uncertain. Against this backdrop, forward-looking approaches can help plan for the future and identify, even partially, the possible consequences of the choices we make today.</p>
<p>Such an approach involves first identifying then analyzing the different possible paths for the future in order to asses them and possibly rank them.</p>
<p>The future of the nuclear industry includes a relatively wide range of possibilities: it varies according to the evolution of installed capacity and the pace with which new technologies (the EPR technology that will be used in Flamanville, referred to as “third generation”, or RNR technology, referred to as “fourth generation”) are deployed.</p>
<p>Given the great degree of uncertainty surrounding the future of the nuclear industry, research relies on simulation tools; the “electronuclear scenario” represents one of the main methods. Little known by the general public, it differs from the energy scenarios used to inform discussions for the <a href="https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/programmations-pluriannuelles-lenergie-ppe">Multiannual Energy Plan</a> (PPE). The nuclear scenario represents a basic building block of the energy scenario and is based on a detailed description of the nuclear facilities and the physics that controls them. In practice, energy and nuclear scenarios can complement one another, with the outcomes of the former representing hypotheses for the latter, and the results of the latter making it possible to analyze in greater detail the different paths set out by the former.</p>
<p>The aim of studying the nuclear scenario is to analyze one or several development paths for nuclear facilities from a materials-balance perspective, meaning tracking the evolution of radioactive materials (uranium, plutonium, fission products etc.) in nuclear power plants. In general, it relies on a complex modeling tool that manages a range of scales, both spatial (from elementary particle to nuclear power plants) and temporal (from less than a microsecond for certain nuclear reactions to millions of years for certain types of nuclear waste).</p>
<p>Based on a precise definition of a power plant and its evolution over time, the simulation code calculates the evolution of the mass of each element of interest, radioactive or otherwise, across all nuclear facilities. This data can then serve as the basis for producing more useful data concerning the management of resources and recycled materials, radiation protection, etc.</p>
<h2>Emergence of new players</h2>
<p>Long reserved to nuclear institutions and operators, the scenario-building process has gradually opened up to academic researchers, driven largely by the <a href="https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:37007297">Bataille Law of 1991</a> and the <a href="https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000240700">Birraux Law of 2006</a> concerning radioactive waste management. These laws resulted in a greater diversity of players involved in producing, assessing and using scenarios.</p>
<p>In addition to the traditional players (EDF and CEA in particular), the CNRS and academic researchers (primarily physicists and more recently economists) and representatives of civil society have taken on these issues by producing their own scenarios.</p>
<p>There have been significant developments on the user side as well. Whereas prior to the Bataille and Birraux Laws, nuclear issues were debated almost exclusively between nuclear operators and the executive branch of the French government, giving rise to the image of issues confined to “ministerial secrecy,” these laws have allowed for these issues to be addressed in more public and open forums, in particular in the academic and legislative spheres.</p>
<p>They also created National Assessment Committees, composed of twelve members selected based on proposals by the Académie des Sciences, the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques, and the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices. The studies of scenarios produced by institutional, industrial and academic players are assessed by these committees and outlined in annual public reports sent to the members of the French parliament.</p>
<p>Opening up this process to a wider range of players has had an impact on the scenario-building practices, as it has led to a greater diversity of scenarios and hypotheses on which they are based.</p>
<h2>A variety of scenarios</h2>
<p>The majority of the scenarios developed by nuclear institutions and industry players are “realistic” proposals according to these same parties: scenarios based on feedback from the nuclear industry. They rely on technology already developed or in use and draw primarily on hypotheses supporting the continued use of nuclear energy, with an unchanged installed capacity.</p>
<p>The scenarios proposed by the research world tend to give less consideration to the obligation of “industrial realism,” and explore futures that disrupt the current system. Examples include research carried out on transmutation in ADS (accelerator-driven reactors), design studies for MSR (molten salt reactors), which are sometimes described as “exotic” reactors, and studies on the thorium cycle. A <a href="https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01668610">2017 study</a> also analyzed the impact of recycling the plutonium in reactors of the current technology, and as part of a plan to significantly reduce, or even eliminate, the portion of nuclear energy by 2050.</p>
<p>These examples show that academic scenarios are often developed with the aim of deconstructing the dominant discourse in order to foster debate.</p>
<p>Electronuclear scenarios clearly act as “boundary objects”. They provide an opportunity to bring together different communities of stakeholders, with various knowledge and different, and sometimes opposing, interests in order to compare their visions for the future, organize their strategies and even cooperate. As such, they help widen the “scope of possibilities” and foster innovation through the greater diversity of scenarios produced.</p>
<p>Given the inherent uncertainties of the nuclear world, this diversity also appears to be a key to ensuring more robust and reliable scenarios, since discussing these scenarios forces stakeholders to justify the hypotheses, tools and criteria used to produce them, which are often still implicit.</p>
<h2>Debating scenarios</h2>
<p>However, determining how these various scenarios can be used to support “informed” decisions remains controversial.</p>
<p>The complexity of the system to be modeled requires simplifications, thus giving rise to biases which are difficult to quantify in the output data. These biases affect both technical and economic data and are often rightly used to dispute the results of scenarios and the recommendations they may support.</p>
<p>How, then, can we ensure that the scenarios produced are robust? There are two opposing strategies: Should we try to build simple or simplified scenarios in an attempt to make them understandable to the general public (especially politicians), at the risk of neglecting important variables and leading to “biased” decisions? Or, should we produce scenarios that are complex, but more loyal to the processes and uncertainties involved, at the risk of making them largely “opaque” to decision-makers, and more broadly, to the citizens invited to take part in the public debate?</p>
<p>As of today, these scenarios are too-little debated outside of expert circles. But let us hope that the public debate on radioactive waste management will provide an excellent opportunity to bring these issues to a greater extent into the “scope of democracy,” in the words of Christian Bataille.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was translated from the original French by the <a href="https://blogrecherche.wp.imt.fr/en/2019/10/01/nuclear-scenarios-imagine-future-industry/">Institut Mines-Télécom</a> and updated to reflect current events.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125914/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stéphanie Tillement received funding from the ANR under the RSNR Future Investments program, as well as the NEEDS program.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicolas Thiollière a reçu des financements du CNRS/IN2P3, de la mission interdisciplinaire du CNRS et du programme NEEDS.</span></em></p>Nuclear energy generates 75% of France’s electricity, and ongoing troubles at the new Flamanville EPR reactor have raised crucial questions about its future in the country’s electricity mix.Stéphanie Tillement, Sociologue, IMT Atlantique – Institut Mines-TélécomNicolas Thiolliere, Enseignant-Chercheur en physique des réacteurs et scénarios associés, IMT Atlantique – Institut Mines-TélécomLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1244042019-09-30T12:54:00Z2019-09-30T12:54:00ZConservative ‘nuclear fusion by 2040’ pledge is fantasy – their record on climate change is too little, too late<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294764/original/file-20190930-194852-1p46fp5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C7680%2C4320&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Inside a fusion reactor tokamak.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/fusion-reactor-tokamak-reaction-chamber-power-1026024553?src=2SEk-0YsgESYzPM9zQX7hA-1-4">Efman/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK’s governing Conservative Party has announced a <a href="https://press.conservatives.com/post/188017980870/leadsom-villiers-and-jenrick-21st-century">new package of climate policies</a>, including £220m for research into nuclear fusion reactors to provide clean energy “by 2040”. Although additional funding is welcome news to fusion researchers like me, it isn’t an effective response to climate change.</p>
<p>It’s easy to see why such a pledge is appealing though. Nuclear fusion is the process that powers stars like our sun. Unlike current nuclear power plants – which split atoms in a process called fission – nuclear fusion binds atomic nuclei together. This releases much more energy than fission and produces no high-level nuclear waste.</p>
<p>A fusion reactor would also produce zero carbon emissions and wouldn’t run the risk of a nuclear meltdown. Fusion could produce energy regardless of wind conditions or daylight hours, and wouldn’t require enriched uranium, which can be repurposed for nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>As good as this all sounds, nuclear fusion is unlikely to play a major role in fighting climate change. To understand why, we need only look at the current state of fusion research.</p>
<h2>Fusion: for the stars, for now</h2>
<p>For decades, the performance of fusion devices has been improving – the capacity of scientists to confine hot hydrogen plasma has <a href="https://www.iter.org/sci/BeyondITER">improved by a factor of 10,000</a>. This plasma has to be <a href="https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/11/artificial-sun-reaches-100-million-degrees-celsius/">over 100,000,000°C</a> in order for the hydrogen nuclei to fuse and generate energy.</p>
<p>The next big step is <a href="https://www.iter.org/">ITER</a>, a huge project involving 35 nations, under construction in the south of France. ITER’s purpose is to test our ability to confine plasma for long enough and at a high enough density and temperature. Its goal is to be the first fusion device to produce more energy from the plasma than is put into it.</p>
<p>But ITER isn’t a power station, it’s an experiment. The plan is to build a demonstration fusion power plant – called “DEMO” – after ITER shows it’s possible for the plasma to generate a net gain in energy. But ITER isn’t likely to reach this goal until 2035.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/puoElmXW-PY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://www.euro-fusion.org/eurofusion/roadmap/">EU fusion roadmap</a> assumes DEMO comes some time afterwards, likely around 2050 or later. The Tory promise of 2040 is extremely optimistic. A DEMO power plant needs to solve several problems which ITER won’t address. ITER’s power is produced in the form of neutrons which hit the reactor’s internal walls, but DEMO needs to actually turn that power into electricity.</p>
<p>One of the biggest challenges is that a fusion reactor has to generate some of its own fuel. Two types of hydrogen are needed – deuterium, which is abundant in seawater, and tritium, which is rare on Earth because it decays into helium with a half-life of only 12 years. DEMO will need to combine the neutrons from the plasma with lithium to produce new tritium fuel, in a process called “tritium breeding”. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, prototypes of this crucial technology can’t even be tested until ITER starts producing copious high-energy neutrons, in 2035. The UK has a solid research plan working towards solving all of these problems, but there isn’t much that can be done to accelerate this timeline.</p>
<h2>Failing leadership on climate change</h2>
<p>In 2018, the IPCC released their <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">1.5°C report</a>, which explained that the world must reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in order to limit future warming to 1.5°C. It’s unlikely that commercial fusion power plants will exist in time for that, and even once a first-of-its-kind DEMO power plant is operational, hundreds would still need to be built to seriously dent global emissions. None of this sits well with the 2040 date the Conservatives have promised.</p>
<p>Even if a new green energy technology like fusion is realised before 2050, that’s far too late for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-convinced-on-the-need-for-urgent-climate-action-heres-what-happens-to-our-planet-between-1-5-c-and-2-c-of-global-warming-123817">1.5°C target</a> anyway. “Net-zero by 2050” <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/spm-a/spm1_figure-final-2/">assumes that emissions have been constantly decreasing</a> from now until 2050. As it’s the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that sets the level of eventual global warming, it’s cumulative emissions that matter.</p>
<p>Even if we could snap our fingers on December 31, 2049 and replace all fossil fuel plants, the world would have already emitted twice as much carbon as the budget allows. Sound climate policy involves cutting emissions as soon as possible, and any further delay makes the task even harder.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294775/original/file-20190930-194876-11anvnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294775/original/file-20190930-194876-11anvnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294775/original/file-20190930-194876-11anvnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294775/original/file-20190930-194876-11anvnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294775/original/file-20190930-194876-11anvnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294775/original/file-20190930-194876-11anvnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294775/original/file-20190930-194876-11anvnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conservatives scrapped subsidies for domestic solar panel installation in April 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/row-red-brick-english-houses-solar-1063434026?src=5Be648DV6JArvlSt_sCd6A-1-1">Ewelina Wachala/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As with any research, nuclear fusion might not work. Despite the best efforts of researchers, it’s still possible that there’s an unforeseen roadblock. But the climate won’t wait for us if we trip up.</p>
<p>Any convincing climate policy requires huge investments across many sectors, from domestic heating to road transport to agriculture. Even a complete decarbonisation of the electricity grid is only one part of the solution. The Committee on Climate Change’s <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-the-uks-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming/">net-zero report</a> laid this all out starkly for policymakers – only mentioning nuclear fusion once in 227 pages. The idea of a single panacea is simplistic fantasy.</p>
<h2>So why fund fusion?</h2>
<p>The likely role for fusion would be as an energy source in a post-carbon society. It’s well worth funding it for that reason alone, and it’s possible that an unexpected breakthrough will ensure it can reduce emissions after all. In fact, research into all sorts of new technologies could help make reducing emissions easier, such as industrial <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-carbon-capture-and-storage-16052">carbon capture and storage</a>.</p>
<p>The allure of fusion makes it a good distraction from the failures of the current government’s science and climate policy. The Committee on Climate Change has set 25 targets that need to be met to ensure the UK is a net-zero society by 2050. The government is currently <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/reducing-uk-emissions-2019-progress-report-to-parliament/">only on track to meet one of them</a>. </p>
<p>This funding is also of little consolation to laboratories who are worried about the <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/brexit-uk-science/">impact of Brexit on UK science</a>, and their international staff who rely on freedom of movement. In fact, the government has yet to commit to paying to participate in the EU DEMO programme in the case of a no-deal Brexit.</p>
<p>Climate policy should prioritise deploying proven technologies immediately, without relying on speculative solutions. Stopping climate change is too important to leave to the last minute.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/imagine-newsletter-researchers-think-of-a-world-with-climate-action-113443?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Imagineheader1124404">Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124404/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Nicholas receives funding from the European Physical Sciences Research Council and Culham Centre for Fusion Energy. </span></em></p>Nuclear fusion may power post-carbon societies – but it won’t save us from climate change.Thomas Nicholas, PhD candidate in Plasma Science and Fusion Energy, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1239772019-09-25T14:25:09Z2019-09-25T14:25:09ZNuclear waste is piling up – governments need to stop dithering and take action<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293609/original/file-20190923-54775-1d0x7wr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Station in Finland, at the site of the Onkalo geological disposal facility.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claire Corkhill</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK government has launched a process <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-new-policy-to-deal-with-radioactive-waste">to find a volunteer community</a> who would be willing to host a £12 billion geological disposal facility for nuclear waste. It’s about time – the initiative comes after seven decades of successive governments putting the decision off. The situation is similar in many other countries, with dangerous nuclear material being stored unsafely because of political inaction.</p>
<p>In the UK, nuclear waste is currently kept in safe but high-maintenance conditions, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-44540847">with some canisters deteriorating</a>, at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/sellafield-ltd/about">Sellafield in Cumbria</a>. This is costing tax payers <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/16/taxpayers-face-extra-nuclear-cleanup-cost">£3 billion per year</a>. </p>
<p>The new geological disposal facility is a vast underground bunker, to be buried around 500m below the Earth’s surface. It is intended to safely store approximately one <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2313407/Wembley-Facts-and-figures.html">Wembley Stadium’s worth</a> of highly radioactive waste that has been generated over the past 70 years. Here, it will be isolated from the biosphere – and human populations – for the 100,000 years it will take for the radioactivity to decay to safe levels.</p>
<p>Radioactive waste is generated from nuclear energy, military uses and also the extensive use of isotopes in medicine. The most highly radioactive portion comes from spent nuclear fuel – the used uranium fuel from inside nuclear reactors and the materials produced through recycling of spent nuclear fuel. The latter includes fission products that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8ZinG2PZv4">are transformed</a> to glass and plutonium (which is currently <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151630458X">neither a resource nor a waste</a>). </p>
<p>These materials contain radioactive isotopes that have half-lives (the amount of time taken for half of the radioactivity to decay) of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This means any storage solution must be extremely long-lived. That’s a significant challenge – the oldest known <a href="https://www.listzomania.com/single-post/2018/02/07/25-OF-THE-OLDEST-KNOWN-MAN-MADE-STRUCTURES-ON-EARTH">man-made materials</a> are of the order of several thousands of years old.</p>
<p>The principle of <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/book/978-0-7503-1638-5">geological disposal of nuclear waste</a> is to use multiple barriers, much like a set of Russian Dolls. This makes it possible to contain the waste and prevent it from meeting with groundwater which would start to dissolve it – releasing radioactive materials to the environment. Engineered barriers are intended to contain the waste until most of the radioactivity has decayed. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293611/original/file-20190923-54813-b965ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293611/original/file-20190923-54813-b965ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293611/original/file-20190923-54813-b965ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293611/original/file-20190923-54813-b965ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293611/original/file-20190923-54813-b965ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293611/original/file-20190923-54813-b965ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293611/original/file-20190923-54813-b965ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Different ways of storing nuclear waste.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claire Corkhill</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If the disposal vaults are dug in a good, impermeable rock (such as clay or mudstone), the geology provides a natural barrier that will isolate the waste from the biosphere. This will reduce the likelihood of human intrusion into the facility. Being several hundreds of metres below the ground, there will also be long transport pathways to delay any significant migration of radioactive materials from the waste to the biosphere until far into the future. </p>
<h2>International issue</h2>
<p>The UK is not the only country opting for this solution. In Finland, construction of the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/finland-shows-world-how-nuclear-waste-can-be-dealt-with-a7797226.html">Onkalo facility</a> has already begun. A licence application has even been made to start disposing of spent nuclear fuel. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293610/original/file-20190923-54744-xks93o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293610/original/file-20190923-54744-xks93o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293610/original/file-20190923-54744-xks93o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293610/original/file-20190923-54744-xks93o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293610/original/file-20190923-54744-xks93o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293610/original/file-20190923-54744-xks93o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/293610/original/file-20190923-54744-xks93o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Underground in one of the disposal vaults at Onkalo in Finland.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claire Corkhill</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But progress in other nations has stalled: in France protesters <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-nuclearpower-waste/quiet-no-more-french-village-becomes-centre-of-anti-nuclear-protest-idUKKBN1HP1S7">surround the disposal facility</a> in the village of Bure, while in Sweden, the Environmental Court <a href="https://www.mkg.se/en/the-swedish-environmental-court-s-no-to-the-final-repository-for-spent-nuclear-fuel-a-triumph-for-th">has rejected</a> the construction licence for a facility near the coastal town of Forsmark, due to safety concerns over the corrosion resistance of copper canisters. </p>
<p>In the USA, senators are suing the Federal Government for not building a disposal facility. The lack of a disposal facility has meant that thousands of metric tonnes of spent nuclear fuel, have built up – stored temporarily in dry casks <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/15/texas-sues-feds-rick-perrys-agency-included-over-nuclear-waste/">at sites across the country</a>. </p>
<p>The controversy is expected to extend to the UK’s new geological disposal siting process. Recent media articles <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/28/nuclear-waste-national-parks-lake-district-conservation-groups">have criticised the idea</a> that see all areas of the UK – including national parks – could be suitable to host a facility. A previous siting process, launched in 2003, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/30/cumbria-rejects-underground-nuclear-storage">failed to find a site</a>. Although two local authorities from near the Sellafield site came forward, Cumbria County Council was able to veto the vote. </p>
<p>The government hopes that new communities will step forward in this second process. It has proposed an incentive package offering communities £1m per year for having discussions about hosting the facility. This will increase to £2.5m per year when geological investigations are undertaken. </p>
<p>But environmentalists are likely to object, as they fear a better storage facility will only lead to more nuclear power stations. And indeed, Oliver Eden, former parliamentary undersecretary for energy under Theresa May’s government between 2017-2019, highlighted the disposal facility as being “the key to the future of the UK’s new nuclear build programme … providing a safe and secure way to dispose of the waste <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2018-09-06/debates/3F2D94A2-84B1-4FF5-96F5-0F5066A0004A/DraftNationalPolicyStatementForGeologicalDisposalInfrastructure">new nuclear reactors produce</a>.”</p>
<p>Whatever the outcome of the current siting process, something must be done about nuclear waste. Leaving it for our grandchildren to deal with is simply not fair. What’s more, we can’t assume that future civilisations will be able to keep it safe. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_ftzUf3bGms?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The first step on the road to a solution is to initiate a public conversation about what we should do with the world’s most dangerous materials in the long term. If you are interested, a good first step could be to watch the video above and start discussing the topic with your friends, family and local authorities.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123977/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claire Corkhill consults for Radioactive Waste Management Limited, by performing peer-review of technical work. She receives funding for geological disposal - related scientific research from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the European Commission EURATOM funding scheme for research and training, Radioactive Waste Management Limited, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Sellafield Ltd., the National Nuclear Laboratory and the US Department of Energy. </span></em></p>Nuclear waste is dangerous, will outlast our civilisation and needs to be dealt with as safely as possible.Claire Corkhill, Research Fellow in nuclear waste disposal, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1231702019-09-12T20:03:39Z2019-09-12T20:03:39ZNuclear power should be allowed in Australia – but only with a carbon price<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292123/original/file-20190912-190031-14ansxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Opal nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. It does not produce nuclear energy but is used to produce medical radioisotopes and for other purposes.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tracey Nearmy/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Looking at the state of policy on energy and climate change in Australia, it’s tempting to give in to despair. At the national level, following the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/08/scott-morrison-says-national-energy-guarantee-is-dead">abandonment of the National Energy Guarantee</a> last year, we have no coherent energy policy and no serious policy to address climate change. </p>
<p>In this context, the announcement of two separate inquiries into the feasibility of nuclear power (by the <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2525">New South Wales</a> and <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/nuclearpower">federal parliaments</a>) could reasonably give rise to cynicism. The only possible case for considering nuclear power, in my view, is that it might provide a way to decarbonise our electricity supply industry. </p>
<p>Yet many of the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/make-nuclear-power-free-barnaby-joyce-says-20190721-p5299j.html">keenest boosters of nuclear power</a> have <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/barnaby-joyce-doubles-down-on-climate-change-as-an-elitist-issue-20190328-p518gi">consistently opposed any serious measure to address climate change</a>, and quite a few have <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/pauline-hanson-denies-link-between-humans-and-climate-change/news-story/7209658174e2eed35487e5f67504d78c">rejected mainstream science altogether.</a></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292128/original/file-20190912-190021-1jbui2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292128/original/file-20190912-190021-1jbui2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292128/original/file-20190912-190021-1jbui2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292128/original/file-20190912-190021-1jbui2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292128/original/file-20190912-190021-1jbui2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292128/original/file-20190912-190021-1jbui2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292128/original/file-20190912-190021-1jbui2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Activists dressed as nuclear waste barrels protesting at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in 2001. Nuclear technology in Australia has long raised concern among environmentalists.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Laura Frriezer/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-should-explore-nuclear-waste-before-we-try-domestic-nuclear-power-121361">Australia should explore nuclear waste before we try domestic nuclear power</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Yet in a situation which <a href="http://theconversation.com/uk-becomes-first-country-to-declare-a-climate-emergency-116428">all responsible people view as a climate emergency</a>, we can’t afford the luxury of despair. For this reason, rather than dismissing these inquiries as political stunts, <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8fbced80-5d3a-4e1e-9890-e39c58636ac1&subId=668820">I made a submission</a> to the federal inquiry setting out the conditions required to allow for any possibility of nuclear power in Australia. </p>
<p>The submission was <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/left-support-for-nsw-nuclear-power-industry-20190830-p52mji">picked up by the national media</a>, which largely focused on my proposal to lift the state ban on nuclear power and implement a carbon price.</p>
<p>The reception from commentators on the right, who want the ban lifted, and from renewables advocates, who want a price on carbon, suggests a middle ground on nuclear power may be achievable.</p>
<h2>The three big problems with nuclear power</h2>
<p>Three fundamental problems arise immediately when considering the prospect of nuclear power in Australia. First, the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=bf760de3-2e38-49c7-aa8a-02325b71aba3&subId=669107">technology is expensive</a>: more expensive than new fossil-fuelled power stations, and far too expensive to compete with existing fossil fuel generators under current market conditions.</p>
<p>Second, given the time lags involved, any substantial contribution from nuclear power in Australia won’t be available until well beyond 2030.</p>
<p>Third, given the strong public opposition to nuclear power, <a href="https://greens.org.au/policies/nuclear-and-uranium">particularly from the environmental movement</a>, any attempt to promote nuclear power at the expense of renewables would never get broad support. In these circumstances, any investor in nuclear power would face the prospect of losing their money the moment the balance of political power shifted.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292127/original/file-20190912-190007-1anmdfl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292127/original/file-20190912-190007-1anmdfl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292127/original/file-20190912-190007-1anmdfl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292127/original/file-20190912-190007-1anmdfl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292127/original/file-20190912-190007-1anmdfl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292127/original/file-20190912-190007-1anmdfl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292127/original/file-20190912-190007-1anmdfl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A technician uses a hot cell which shields radioactive material at the Opal nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tracey Nearmy/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the first point, we have some evidence from the contract agreed by the UK government in for the construction of the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-47718991">Hinkley C nuclear power plant</a>. This was the first new nuclear construction project to be approved in an OECD country for a number of years. </p>
<p>The agreement to construct Hinkley was based on a guaranteed “strike price” of £92.50/ megawatt hours (MWh), in 2012 prices, to be adjusted in line with the consumer price index during the construction period and over the subsequent 35-year tariff period. At current exchange rates, this price corresponds to approximately A$165. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nuclear-weapons-australia-has-no-way-to-build-them-even-if-we-wanted-to-120075">Nuclear weapons? Australia has no way to build them, even if we wanted to</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Prices in Australia’s National Electricity Market have generally averaged around A$90/MWh. This implies that, if new nuclear power is to compete with existing fossil fuel generators, a carbon price must impose a cost of A$75/MWh on fossil fuel generation. </p>
<p>Assuming emission rates of 1.3 tonnes/MWh for brown coal, 1 tonne/MWh for black and 0.5 tonnes for gas, the implied carbon price ranges from A$50/tonne (to displace brown coal) to $150/tonne (to displace gas). On the basis that nuclear power is most plausible as a competitor for baseload generation from brown coal, I considered a price of A$50/tonne.</p>
<h2>A blueprint for reform</h2>
<p>The central recommendations of my submission were as follows:</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292129/original/file-20190912-190007-7gxo61.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292129/original/file-20190912-190007-7gxo61.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292129/original/file-20190912-190007-7gxo61.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292129/original/file-20190912-190007-7gxo61.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292129/original/file-20190912-190007-7gxo61.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292129/original/file-20190912-190007-7gxo61.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292129/original/file-20190912-190007-7gxo61.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nuclear power, while costly, could dramatically reduce Australia’s electricity sector emissions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Recommendation 1</strong>: A carbon price of A$25/tonne should be introduced immediately, and increased at a real rate of 5% a year, reaching A$50/tonne by 2035.</p>
<p><strong>Recommendation 2:</strong> The government should immediately adopt the recommendations of its own Climate Change Authority for a <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/files/Target-Progress-Review/Targets%20and%20Progress%20Review%20Final%20Report.pdf">40% to 60% reduction</a> in emissions by 2030, relative to 2000 levels, and match other leading OECD countries in committing to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/11/theresa-may-commits-to-net-zero-uk-carbon-emissions-by-2050">complete decarbonisation of the economy by 2050</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Recommendation 3:</strong> The parliament should pass a motion:</p>
<ul>
<li>affirming its confidence in mainstream climate science and its acceptance of the key conclusions of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; </li>
<li>legislating a commitment to emissions reductions; </li>
<li> removing the existing ban on nuclear power.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Let’s all meet in the middle</h2>
<p>Rather to my surprise, this proposal received <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/an-unlikely-union-could-unlock-our-energy-future/news-story/a1f54150770b39ea843236c82179c4f7%20%20https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/a-path-from-the-left-to-nuclear-power-20190830-p52mgo">a favourable reception</a> from a number of centre-right commentators.</p>
<p>Reaction from renewables proponents, <a href="https://twitter.com/TristanEdis/status/1171336545225175041">on social media at least</a>, was <a href="https://twitter.com/simonahac/status/1171630598890246144">cautious</a>. But it did not indicate the reflexive hostility that might be expected, given the polarised nature of the debate. </p>
<p>There are immediate political implications of my proposal at both the state and federal level. It will be more difficult for the Coalition-dominated committees running the two inquiries to bring down a report favourable to nuclear power without addressing the necessary conditions – including a carbon price. If the government’s hostility to carbon pricing is such that a serious proposal for nuclear power cannot be considered, it will at least be clear that this option can be abandoned for good.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292132/original/file-20190912-190061-polttv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292132/original/file-20190912-190061-polttv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292132/original/file-20190912-190061-polttv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292132/original/file-20190912-190061-polttv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292132/original/file-20190912-190061-polttv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292132/original/file-20190912-190061-polttv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292132/original/file-20190912-190061-polttv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former Nationals leader and now backbencher Barnaby Joyce is a strong advocate for nuclear power.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the admittedly unlikely event that the Coalition government shows itself open to new thinking, the focus turns to Labor and the Greens.</p>
<p>Given the urgency of addressing climate change – a task that is best addressed through a carbon price – it makes no sense to reject action now on the basis that it opens up the possibility of nuclear power sometime in the 2030s. And, if renewables and storage perform as well as most environmentalists expect, nuclear power will be unable to compete even then.</p>
<p>Political hardheads will doubtless say that this is all impossible, and they may be right. But in a world where Donald Trump can win a US presidential election, and major investment banks support <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/03/corbyn-better-no-deal-brexit-say-investment-banks-anti-capitalist/">UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn over Prime Minister Boris Johnson</a>, “impossible” is a big claim </p>
<p>In the absence of any prospect of progress on either energy or climate, the grand bargain I’ve proposed is at least worth a try.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123170/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Quiggin is a former Member of the Climate Change Authority</span></em></p>The state of Australia’s energy and climate change policy is reason to despair. But there may be a nuclear solution that keeps both sides happy.John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.