Why Australia is important to the ‘Small Nuclear’ Lobby

Originally published on Independent Australia

Quietly, pretty much under the media radar, a dispute is going on in the global nuclear industry between the advocates of “Generation III ” – big nuclear reactors, and “Generation IV”- small nuclear reactors.

The best illustration of this is what’s going on in Britain right now. There are numerous articles in UK press on the growing unease about the costs and feasibility of Britain’s Hinkley C nuclear project. Some critics of this big nuclear power project are nuclear power enthusiasts, such as Mark Lynas, who just happen to promote small nuclear reactors.

In USA, too, the proponents of Small Nuclear Reactors are lobbying hard to compete with the conventional large nuclear reactors. There are billions of dollars at stake, depending on which side gets contracts for sale of nuclear technology.

However, The nuclear lobby’s spiel to Australia is something different, and very original. No dispute – because the argument is that small reactors would further the large reactor industry. First articulated by Oscar Archer on ABC Radio National, March 2015, the idea is that Australia, in setting up Small Nuclear Reactors, would enable the conventional nuclear industry, and uranium mining, to flourish. At maturity, Australia would be running on PRISM(Power Reactor Innovative Small Module) reactors fuelled by the used fuel we would be receiving, while the world would running on a much larger number of Generation III+ reactors, which we would supply with uranium under a fuel leasing model. The transition to PRISM worldwide would take place on the back of Australia’s pioneering embrace of the technology.

As Archer says, Australia would indeed be the pioneer for the new technology.

And that’s what the USA “new nuclear” lobby desperately needs. They need this, because they’re finding it impossible to go ahead in America. Why? Well it’s those pesky safety regulations imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

What the “Small Nuclear” lobby needs is a “nuclear friendly” country, one with less stringent safety regulations, to set up their nuclear reactors on a test site, . Hence the enthusiasm of those lobbyists for the South Australia Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, as shown, for example, in a recent Royal Commission Hearing speech by Thomas Marcille of Holtec nuclear company.

Companies like Transatomic Power, TerraPower, Moltex Energy, Tri-Alpha Energy, and Terrestrial Energy would prefer to start the process in America. However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has proved to be a real nuisance, since it tightened regulations for the licensing process, after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The new nuclear marketers have had to go overseas, first to China, then perhaps to Australia?

Former chairman of the NRC (2011 -2015) Allison MacFarlane, is no help. The long time lines, safety concerns, and high capital cost of building nuclear plants all require a regulatory process that is thorough, painstaking, and costly. “Nuclear is a different beast,” Macfarlane said at the recent pro nuclear Solve Conference. “The problem is not the NRC,” she said at the conference. “It’s the economics” of nuclear power.

The Small Nukes” lobby looks to Australia to take a more sympathetic attitude.

Advertisements

Robert Stone and “Pandora’s Promise”

Robert  Stone and “Pandora’s Promise”

The film’s Australian premiere was shown in Melbourne on October 8th, with director Robert Stone answering questions afterwards.

I found myself  liking Robert Stone , for his enthusiasm, and sincere concern about climate change.

I found myself disliking the film, for its sins of omission, and manipulative way of discrediting anti nuclear  people.

“Pandora’s Promise” presents as a documentary about climate change and nuclear power.  It is very stylishly made and interesting, story on the theme that climate change is an urgent danger, and that nuclear power is the major solution to this. It is a very, very good soft sell for the nuclear industry

“Pandora’s Promise” uses the voices of people, mainly from the nuclear power lobby,The Breakthrough Institute, to present its argument.  Mark Lynas, Michael Shellenberger, Gwyneth Craven, Stewart Brand, Richard Rhodes all portray themselves as former anti nuclear activists who have now seen the light, and are pro nuclear.

The film certainly highlights  the reality of climate change, the health hazards of the coal industry, and the need for action on climate change.  Indeed, that’s the background and stated reason for its main premise – that premise being –  the world should now urgently adopt nuclear power.

Continue reading Robert Stone and “Pandora’s Promise”

The politics of Thorium Nuclear Reactors globally, and in Australia

They are the latest flavour in nuclear power hype.  According to their enthusiastic proponents, thorium reactors  will be  “smaller, safer, cheaper, cleaner”,   will take over the energy market in great numbers, and will  reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years. ” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9644399/Hitachi-unveils-20bn-plan-to-build-nuclear-reactors-in-the-UK.html

Yet the present situation of Thorium Nuclear Reactors is  a confusing one. While on the one hand, thorium as a nuclear fuel, and thorium reactors, are being hyped with enthusiasm in both mainstream media and the blogosphere, the nuclear lobby is ambivalent about this.

The explanation becomes clearer, when you consider that the nuclear industry has sunk $billions into new (uranium or plutonium fuelled) large nuclear technologies, as well as into lobbying governments and media.  Would big corporations like Hitachi, EDF Westinghouse, Toshiba, Areva, Rosatom be willing, or indeed able, to withdraw from the giant international operations that they already have underway? Would they, could they, tolerate a mass uptake of the new thorium nuclear reactors, (which is what would be needed, to make the thorium market economical)?

Yet, the nuclear lobby, in Australia, and overseas, doesn’t just tolerate the thorium hype – they participate in it, although with not as much enthusiasm as the diehard thorium fans.  Now why is this?

The answer lies in just one concept – TIME.  It is going to take many decades to  get the thorium fuel cycle happening.  http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/thorium-not-green-not-viable-and-not-likely-oliver-tickell-june-2012-.html  The global nuclear industry has the twin goals of prolonging the life of currently operating nuclear reactors, and of building new ones.   Their rationale for this is often that, eventually, the energy solution will be nuclear fusion. So – in the meantime, the world needs nuclear power, they argue.

But nuclear fusion is still little more than  a super- expensive glint in the eye of nuclear boffins. Some  other dream is needed – something  that looks a bit more like it might happen.  The thorium excitement fills the bill, as once again, the public can be made to believe that after all, now there really is  safe, cheap  nuclear power.

The thorium advocates usually promote thorium reactors as a solution to both climate change and energy needs.  But, in reality, thorium nuclear energy is irrelevant to both.  Again – the first reason is – TIME.  Although there are current designs that could be established in 10 to 15 years, the most favoured design – the  Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is estimated to have, for a significant deployment, a lead time of 40 – 70 years. http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/thorium-not-green-not-viable-and-not-likely-oliver-tickell-june-2012-.html

In the meantime, renewable energy – wind and solar technologies,  are being developed and deployed at a fast rate.  Thorium reactors. like all things nuclear, have  challenging regulatory and funding requirements.

Which brings us to the ECONOMICS of thorium reactors. They are promoted as small reactors The makers have to have contracts for thousands before they can afford to start! Significant and expensive testing, analysis and licensing work is first required, requiring business and government support.

The fuel cycle is more costly and the needed protections for workers, plant safety and the public are considerably more than for existing fuels. http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=3101   Compared to uranium, the thorium fuel cycle is likely to be even more costly. In a once-through mode, it will need both uranium enrichment (or plutonium separation) and thorium target rod production. In a breeder configuration, it will need reprocessing, which is costly.

‘Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.’  – Dr Peter Karamoskos.

So far, I have touched only on these practicalities of the long lead time, and the diseconomics of thorium nuclear reactors, – as reasons why they will not be the global energy answer.

I could go on, and examine the mythology of Thorium-reactor-ism – the arguments used to tout this new nuclear dream.,  Many writers have refuted these myths.   In brief:

“Thorium reactors create no weapons proliferation hazard”.  “There is just no way to avoid proliferation problems associated with thorium fuel cycles that involve reprocessing. Thorium fuel cycles without reprocessing would offer the same temptation to reprocess as today’s once-through uranium fuel cycles.Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power, http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/thorium2009factsheet.pdf

“Thorium reactors avoid the problem of radioactive wastes”.    “With or without reprocessing, these fission products have to be disposed of in a geologic repository”.  With LFTRs – yes, there is  a smaller volume of  waste, but it is  more intensively radioactive. The reactor itself, at the end of its lifetime, will constitute high level waste.  http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/thorium2009factsheet.pdf 

Thorium reactors are safe” – “Any bomb dropped on a thorium reactor will result in a catastrophic accident.”  http://www.ccnr.org/think_about_thorium.pdf   ” in an LFTR the main danger has been shifted from the reactor to the on-site continuous fuel reprocessing operation – a high temperature process involving highly hazardous, explosive and intensely radioactive materials. A further serious hazard lies in the potential failure of the materials used for reactor and fuel containment in a highly corrosive chemical environment, under intense neutron and other radiation.”  http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/thorium-not-green-not-viable-and-not-likely-oliver-tickell-june-2012-.html

Much more has been said about the disadvantages of thorium reactors in general, but I am more interested in the question of thorium nuclear reactors for Australia.     This idea is being touted lately, and we are being told how awful it is that China is beating Australia to the thorium miracle.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/china-moving-to-thorium-as-safe-nuclear-fuel/story-fnciihm9-1226550688296

Australia’s nuclear lobby doesn’t seem to share the ambivalence of their global peers, about thorium.  (This is curious, seeing that a thorium success might wreck Australia’s uranium industry)   But in fact, the thorium idea is  a bonus for Australia’s nuclear lobbyists.

To get to the nitty-gritty of this – while there are many types of thorium reactor designs, the most favoured type is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), in which   the fuel is in form of a molten fluoride salt of thorium and other elements. As thorium itself is not fissile, the process requires plutonium and/or enriched uranium to kick-start it. Therefore it’s necessary to:

(1) separate plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel using reprocessing technology,   or (2) produce highly enriched uranium.  This means the presence of a nuclear reprocessing nearby, or the transport of these dangerous materials – with all the security measures that this entails, and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Now, even if is is going to take 70 years to get thorium nuclear reactors going in Australia, the nuclear lobby is keen.  Because – well, the mere idea of these lovely little reactors needing plutonium or enriched uranium suggests the wisdom of Australia having uranium enrichment, nuclear power, nuclear reprocessing .  And heck – why not a radioactive waste facility – take in plutonium etc from other countries, as a lucrative industry?  Use it to facilitate the thorium reactors that will be dotted around the country.    To seriously consider thorium nuclear energy in Australia  – means a foot in the door for the whole nuclear fuel cycle here.

Some of Australia’s nuclear enthusiasts propose a system of many small thorium reactors in regional Australia.  They would power the mining industry, and provide electricity for rural towns.   Among the drawbacks of this plan is the necessity for security for each little reactor – the guarding of the reactors themselves, the guarding of  an on-site chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products, the guarding of radioactive materials in transport.

The virtuous argument given for thorium reactors is that thorium power would cut greenhouse gases. This is a favourite Barry Brook argument for nuclear power.  Of course, the time lapse of around 50 years makes this argument irrelevant, anyway.  But I was fascinated to read, on Barry Brook’s website Brave New Climate – the following statement as an advantage  of thorium power :

Using Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) we can upgrade coal for export (made possible by the LFTR) and eliminate another 55 million tonnes – the coal industry pocketing 5.5 billion dollars of export earnings yearly for its  trouble.”   http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/17/lftr-in-australia/

So – thorium can cut Australia’s own greenhouse emissions,  while facilitating Australia’s coal export industry!   Never mind that:

The forecast expansion of Australian coal mining and exports would be the world’s second-largest contributor of new carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels if fully realised,
http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-coal-mining-threatens-co2-target-20130122-2d5ck.html

I really don’t know what a thorium energy revolution  would do to the uranium industry. It doesn’t seem to me that uranium mining can rapidly switch to thorium mining. So I wonder if the thorium hype is rather bad PR for Australia’s already struggling uranium  industry.

All in all, the thorium nuclear reactor pitch is just another con job by the nuclear industry. They know it won’t happen –  but the idea might help resuscitate that industry. In Australia, it might even give it a kickstart.