The 7-page report is dated 26 October and covers a wide range of topics related to considering nuclear power for Queensland. It contains no clear conclusions or recommendations. Author is Dr Ian Rose.
The report suggests that on the basis of a reputable UK report, nuclear would cost AUD 7 c/kWh, double the actual average cost for coal-fired generation here. A figure on comparable basis for new coal-fired plant in E.Australia is not given.
It says that suitable sized units for the NEM grid would be 750-800 MWe. Lead time would be about ten years from detailed planning through construction to operation, same as Kogan Creek 750 MWe project.
On the basis of presumed use of evaporative cooling towers, it considers water use. It quotes the Stanwell power station which uses 1.96 litres/kWh. It then takes a US published comparison between coal and nuclear (without any detail of thermal efficiency) and suggests that a similar 1.26 factor would apply to the difference between Stanwell and a new nuclear power station in Queensland. (The US figures show 2.35 litres/kWh, the Roam report suggests 2.5 litres/kWh.)
This comparison is dubious however if sensible thermal efficiency figures are not being used, having been derived on some comparable basis. None are given or suggested in the report but the author kindly sent some information. Stanwell averages 36% thermal efficiency, which is higher than practically all nuclear plants.
The main information sent is a 2006 US Department of Energy report looking at use of cooling water (freshwater) in the USA. It makes the point that moving from less than 40% of plants using once-through cooling to a lesser number the actual consumption of water increases. In the extreme scenario, withdrawal diminishes 30% from 2005 which causes consumption to increase 48%. The only comparison of nuclear and coal is in Appendix D, which shows consumption being the same in once-through systems but one third higher for nuclear in the wet recirculating system which relies on evaporation for cooling. The source of the figures is not given, nor is reference made to thermal efficiencies behind them.
In the Roam report, mention is made of using seawater cooling for new large plants, which would remove any objection based on evaporative water use. However coal-fired plants are normally built on coalfields and away from populated areas, a nuclear plant's location can be much more determined by access to cooling water, hence coastal.
The logic of the Roam report would lead one to suggest that in any state short of water thermal power plants should be built where they could use seawater cooling, and nuclear plants would be incomparably cleaner neighbours than coal-fired ones along the coastline.
Ian Hore-Lacy
Austrlaian Uranium Association
31/10/06