Download Why I Shifted from Anti-Nuclear to Pro Nuclear – Dr

URANIUM PUBLIC FORUM
Mugged by Reality – Why I Shifted from Anti-Nuclear to Pro Nuclear
Dr Haydon Manning
Head, Politics and Public Policy
Flinders University, South Australia
7 June 2011
Anti-Nuclear demonstration,1978
But I cannot join in now…
And I‘m not ‗in the pay‘ of miners …
As an employee at a University I‘m paid by you, the taxpayer.
I see it as important when teaching Uni students to strive to be as objective
as possible.
The pro and anti nuclear/uranium mining debate is no exception
and
they certainly tend to polarise opinion
My wish, and enduring hope, is that the following few
graphs will encourage those who doubt the virtue of
exporting uranium out of WA to reconsider and revise
their position.
To begin the process of weighing up of the RISKS of
nuclear power against the
RISKS of ‗run away climate change‘ and what that
may bequeath future generations.
And ―Yes‖ I am aware of the Skeptics Case…BUT
Prof Barry Brooks
Website
www.bravenewclimate.com
I am more convinced by
the so-called ‗IPCC
consensus‘ and in
particular the series of
lectures Prof Brook gave
in 2008 – see his website
What’s it all about – in brief
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon
1200
―tipping points‖
1000
800
600
400
381
ppm = carbon dioxide parts per million
200
CO2-e ppm
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
2100
Before the industrial revolution of about 275ppm during the last ice age 180ppm
Average Annual PERCENT Increase in Carbon Emissions
[estimated] 2006 to 2030
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Energy Information Agency: International Energy Outlook 2009
Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/ieorefcase.html
Can you find a
plausible reason
why most of the
projected coal
extraction – and
subsequent
burning – will not
happen in the next
30 years? Consider
how large China‘s
contribution is…
Would it make any difference – meaningful difference- to carbon parts per million if Australia stopped
exporting coal to China?
Where is Coal Found?
“It has been estimated that there are over 847 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves
worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 119 years at
current rates of production. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to
around 46 and 63 years at current production levels.” http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-iscoal-found/
So, Why MUGGED BY REALITY?
I read for the first time the ‗other side‘ – the pro nuclear side - when
preparing lectures in the early 2000s
New reactor designs and technical resolution of waste disposal were
convincing and reassuring
Also, I knew enough about the cold war, and the various
defence strategies associated with nuclear weapons
proliferation, to conclude that domestic use of nuclear power
was essentially, unrelated to weapons proliferation.
So, Why MUGGED BY REALITY?
I taught in China between 2001 - 2003
How are all those cars going to, relatively quickly,
move off burning oil and on to using electricity… but if
electricity is a driving force behind driving a car, then
how can that be cleaned up…?
Big questions with obvious answers pointing toward
greater use of nuclear power.
Production totaled 8.88 million vehicles in 2007, up 22% from the year before…
imagine if 50% or more vehicles were electric - a good thing, you‘d think
‘In the next six months, one-quarter of young Chinese consumers intend to buy new cars - the
main source of urban air pollution - up an astonishing 65 per cent from a year ago.
A poll by China Youth Daily revealed that eight of 10 young Chinese are aware of climate
change, but are prepared to support environmental policies only if they can continue to
improve their living standards, including acquiring new cars.’
Bjorn Lomborg, China will benefit from warming, at least this century The Australian ,January 16, 2010
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/china-will-benefit-from-warming-at-least-this-century/story-e6frg6zo-1225820152182
‘The facts on China are simple and irrefutable.
It has a coal-fired system equal to more than 13 times our entire electricity
generation.
Between now and 2020, it is going to add between 400GW and 500GW to its
existing 670GW of coal-fired power generation.
That's its projections. And that's net.
So if they close, say, 200GW of really dirty old stations, they will be building
600GW to 700GW of new ones, all pumping out carbon dioxide, if hopefully not
also grit. ‘
Terry Mc Crann, The Weekend Australian, 19-20 March 2011
Can we really, seriously, contemplate powering up Beijing,
Shanghai, Mumbai, Jakarta etc with
How does nuclear power measure against coal and oil as a
source of energy?
A 55 gallon drum of yellowcake weights about 400
kg.
Yellowcake is about 80%uranium oxide, so the drum
contains about 270 kg of natural uranium.
1 GW [gigawatt = 1000 megawatt] light water reactor (LWR) needs
about 180 tonnes of mined uranium a
So that one drum produces about 12
GW/h, which is enough to supply 1,120 Australians
with their current yearly
electricity needs, if supplied through Light water
Reactor
WRs
To meet the same energy demand
from coal, you'd need to burn 400,000 tonnes of coal
producing almost 1.5 million tonnes of CO2
Coal cargo ships tend to carry somewhere between
20,000 to 30,000 tonnes when fully loaded
Thanks to Prof Barry Brook for these calculations
www.bravenewclimate.com
The uranium produced from just one of Australia‘s mines
each year—Ranger, in the Northern Territory—contains
sufficient energy to provide for 80 per cent of Australia‘s
total annual electricity requirements,or all of Taiwan‘s
electricity needs for a year.
Olympic Dam in South Australia contains uranium
equivalent in energy content to 4.5 times the energy
contained in the entire North-West Shelf gas field—25
billion tonnes of steaming coal‖
Australia’s Uranium – Greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry World. House of Representatives report, Nov 2006
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/uranium/report/fullreport.pdf page preface lxi
Thanks to Prof Barry Brook for this slide
www.bravenewclimate.com