The publication of three recent reports suggest that the question of nuclear's future is no longer controversial among international energy experts, but can be answered very positively.

Depending on your point of view, it is either amusing or tragic to witness the verbal gymnastics in international gatherings such as last years COP5 in Bonn regarding the acknowledgment of nuclear energy's role.

At present nuclear power displaces nearly two and a half billion tonnes per year of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide relative to coal, that is to say if the 2400 TWh of nuclear electricity in 1999 were produced by coal, 2.4 billion tonnes would be the extra CO₂ arising.

Every 22 tonnes of uranium used for electricity saves the emission of about one million tonnes of carbon dioxide, relative to coal.

Nuclear energy now provides over 16 percent of the world's total electricity. It has the potential to contribute much more, especially if greenhouse concerns lead to a change in the relative economic advantage of nuclear electricity, or its ethical desirability.

In Australia, governments are reluctant to face up to the question of utilising nuclear energy, because the issue is remote geographically, and certainly the coal industry would argue, with some justification, that it is far from urgent here. We are virtually the only developed country where, when you switch on the light, you are not getting some nuclear electricity to help lighten your way.

Of course there is enormous appeal in the proposition that we should develop "renewable" technologies to harness more of the sun and the wind. I fully support such developments, and hope that we can do rather better than the official 2% target. However, we need also to recognise that such sources are intrinsically unsuited to providing base-load electricity, which requires reliable and continuous supply on a gigawatt-day (million kilowatt day), rather than kilowatt-hour, scale.

In providing base-load electricity, uranium competes mainly with coal. I suggest that the large-scale use of natural gas for this purpose raises some major ethical issues in squandering such a valuable energy resource and hydrocarbon feedstock in that way.

Public debate about the virtues and threats of nuclear energy is about options for producing electricity. None of the options is without some risk or side effects.

For several overseas countries, meeting their national greenhouse gas emission targets would be impossible without their substantial use of nuclear power for electricity generation. Since 1980 France's carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced to one third, as the nuclear portion of its electricity rose to 75%. The previous German Government acknowledged that its emission reduction targets would be totally unrealistic without nuclear power, and only the rhetoric has changed. The European Commission is quite clear that the EU cannot make any useful impact on carbon dioxide emissions without heavy dependence on nuclear energy.

click to enlarge

The reactor core is loaded with fuel, which is usually uranium enriched to 3.5% to more than 4% U-235, the fissile isotope. The fuel is typically in the form of ceramic pellets of UO₂, assembled inside zircalloy or stainless steel tubes (as shown above). In the reactor this is surrounded by coolant and moderator. The moderator slows down the fast neutrons from the nuclear fission chain reaction so that they are more likely to cause further fission in U-235 atoms. The fission reaction produces heat which is used to produce steam to drive turbines.

* 45 MWD/kg U

Notwithstanding Chernobyl, over 9000 reactor-years of operating experience confirm nuclear power as a very safe and reliable way of making electricity. But the future belongs to new designs, both evolutionary and more radical ones.

Nuclear power plants in commercial operation

Reactor Type	Main Countries	Number	GWe	Fuel	Coolant	Moderator
Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR)	US, France, Japan, Russia	252	235	enriched UO2	water	water
Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)	US, Japan, Sweden	92	83	enriched UO2	water	water
Gas-cooled Reactor (Magnox & AGR)	UK	34	13	natural U (metal), enriched UO2	CO2	graphite
Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor "CANDU" (PHWR)	Canada	33	18	natural UO2	heavy water	heavy water
Light Water Graphite Reactor (RBMK)	Russia	14	14.6	enriched UO2	water	graphite
Fast Neutron Reactor (FBR)	Japan, France, Russia	4	1.3	PUO2and UO2	liquid sodium	none
other	Russia, Japan	5	0.2
	TOTAL	434	365

Source: Nuclear Engineering International handbook 1999, but including Pickering A in Canada.

The table shows that 79% of the world's reactors are based on just two US light-water designs, and these contribute about 88% of total world nuclear capacity.

The priority area for improvement has been upgrading every aspect of the Soviet-designed reactors still operating in Eastern Europe and Russia. They had long been recognised as unsafe, but post-Chernobyl, a lot of effort has greatly diminished the very real threat to that region posed by these reactors. They are all a lot better than they were in 1986.

Advanced Reactor Designs
-standardised designs with passive safety systems

GE-Hitachi-Toshiba ABWR	1300 MWe BWR	Japan & USA
ABB-CE System 80+	1300 MWe PWR	USA
Westinghouse AP 500	600 MWe BWR	USA
AECL CANDU-9	92 -1300 MWe HWR	Canada
OKBM V-407 (VVER)	640 MWe PWR	Russia
OKBM V-392 (VVER)	1000 MWe PWR	Russia
Siemens et alEPR	1525-1800 MWe PWR	France & Germany
GA-Minatom GTMHR	modules of 250 MWe HTGR	US-Russia-Fr-Jp

More broadly, the nuclear power industry has been developing and improving reactor technology for almost five decades and is now starting to launch the next generation of advanced reactors. New generation nuclear plants operate with more 'passive' safety features which rely on gravity and natural convection. They either require no active controls or operational intervention to avoid accidents in the event of major malfunction, or at least allow a lot of time for intervention.

click to enlarge

Nuclear waste is frequently trotted out as the major bogey of nuclear energy. While the nuclear fuel cycle does generate various nasty wastes, all of the hazardous ones are contained and managed, rather than being discharged to the environment. The main focus of attention is high-level waste containing the fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. High-level waste is highly radioactive and hot.

click to enlarge

the principal waste arising from reprocessing this.
The amount is modest, which means that it can be effectively and economically isolated.

The distinctive feature of high-level nuclear wastes is that their radioactivity decays dramatically.

After 40 years, the heat and radioactivity has dropped to less than one thousandth of its level at the time the spent fuel is removed from the reactor, providing a technical incentive to delay disposal until radioactivity has decayed to such a level. Meanwhile they are easily and safely stored.

Storage of spent nuclear fuel: Sellafield UK click to enlarge

To ensure that no significant environmental releases occur over periods of tens of thousands of years, a 'multiple barrier' disposal concept is used to immobilise the radioactive elements in high-level and some intermediate-level wastes and isolate them from the biosphere. It involves stabilising, containment and finally, remote disposal. Details are in several UIC publications, along with some information on how the waste materials are actually handled and stored in different countries.

The cost of waste disposal is generally paid for by a levy on the electricity as it is produced, and is thus funded in advance by consumers. This is typically at about 0.15 Aust cents/kWh, and in USA it has accumulated a fund of over US$ 16 billion.

A recent proposal by Pangea Resources for an international repository for high-level wastes may involve Australia. The proposal is based on optimising long-term safety both politically and geologically, and will bring considerable economic benefit to any host country.

Where spent fuel is reprocessed, the recycled plutonium is used in mixed oxide fuel, which extends the uranium resource base.

After three decades of concern regarding the possibility of uranium intended for commercial nuclear power finding its way into weapons, we now have substantial quantities of military uranium going the other way and being used for commercial nuclear power generation. It needs to be diluted about 25:1 with depleted uranium left over from enrichment plants.

This is now a significant source of the world's uranium for electricity. But it is not so big that it threatens mine production. Rather, you have the usual situation for any mineral product where low cost mines displace high cost ones, and that is why in real terms the prices of practically all mineral commodities have been trending downward for more than a hundred years. There is no reason to believe that uranium will be any exception.

Australia has about 25% of the world's uranium reserves, and presently supplies about 19% of world mine production and 9% of world demand. Canada normally supplies twice as much as us, partly as a result of past Australian government policies limiting the number of mines.

Australian and Canadian Nuclear Safeguards Policies

1. Selected countries Non-weapons states must be party to NPT and must accept full-scope IAEA safeguards applying to all their nuclear-related activities. Weapons states to give assurance of peaceful use, IAEA safeguards to cover the material.

2. Bilateral agreements are required IAEA to monitor compliance with IAEA safeguards and Australian or Canadian requirements Fallback safeguards (if NPT ceases to apply or IAEA cannot perform its safeguards functions) Prior consent to transfer material or technology to another country Prior consent to enrich above 20% U-235 Prior consent to reprocess Control over storage of any separated plutonium Adequate physical security

3. Materials exported to be in a form attracting full IAEA safeguards.

4. Commercial contracts to be subject to conditions of bilateral agreements.

5. Both countries will participate in international efforts to strengthen safeguards.

6. Both countries recognise the need for constant review of standards and procedures.

Weapons proliferation is a problem which was identified and tackled early in the development of nuclear energy. Happily, proliferation is only a fraction of what had been feared when the NPT was set up, and none of the problem arises from the civil nuclear cycle. All Australian uranium is sold for electricity production, none goes into weapons, and two layers of international safeguards arrangements ensure this.

The international safeguards regime is perhaps the main success story of UN Agencies, though having achieved its initial purpose (once thought to be ambitious) it is now being extended to tackle the problem on a broader front.

The main concerns regarding proliferation have been where governments such as India, Pakistan and Israel have placed themselves substantially outside of these and therefore outside of most world trade in uranium and related materials.

For at least the next decade, and when the present construction programs are completed, only the Asian region is likely to see significant growth in nuclear reactor construction.

The main present growth in capacity is coming from plant upgrades. The sustained uranium demand now expected in the next 25 years, much beyond earlier predictions, arises from plant life extensions. For instance, despite being an obsolete technology, the oldest plants in UK have been approved to continue operating for 50 years, and the first licence renewals for US nuclear plants have extended operating lives from 40 to 60 years, while further utilities are applying for the same.

Coal currently provides 84% of Australia's electricity (black coal 55%, brown coal 29%). This also accounts for most of the 147 Mt/yr carbon dioxide emissions from electricity and heat production. Hardly any other country has such a heavy reliance on coal for electricity.

I raise the question of whether some Australian states need to be looking to install nuclear capacity in the forseeable future. Where coal or gas is cheap, the main reason would be greenhouse concerns, but there is a lot to be said for keeping the option under review. Any sort of carbon tax would change the economics considerably to the advantage of nuclear. In fact it will not take very much make nuclear competitive here, since around $37 per tonne carbon tax for black coal or around $29 per tonne for brown coal from Loy Yang will lift electricity costs by one cent per kilowatt hour (on basis of 1 MWh giving 1.0 and 1.25 tonnes CO₂ respectively). Of course, nuclear power is already very competitive in many overseas countries which don't enjoy Australia's endowment of coal resources.

Nuclear power is and will remain an important energy resource, especially as world energy use climbs inexorably and the proportion of electricity in this increases. Half a century's experience in harnessing the power of the atom has provided a good basis for going forward with newer technologies for nuclear power generation and for managing the associated wastes. A new question for Australians is whether the time has come to prepare for nuclear energy to be applied here.

No energy conversion technology producing electricity is without risks or environmental effect. All the implications of all the available options need to be examined carefully. Nuclear power is the only energy-producing industry which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product.

With sustainable development as the prevailing ethic, nuclear energy has much to offer in the extent of the resources supplying it and because it is environmentally benign; all wastes are contained and managed.

As we enter the 21st century, nuclear power offers the world a felicitous coincidence of environmental virtue and necessity in the provision of large-scale, base-load electricity. However, public acceptance remains the key factor influencing its future, and perhaps intelligent citizens who already have knowledge and experience of nuclear medicine will be able to give a lead in changing that positively.

---

Uranium Information Centre Ltd
A.C.N. 005 503 828

GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
fax (03) 9629 7207

Return To Index