Nuclear energy?
Australia is sitting on a vast uranium mine. It is almost inevitable that we will mine uranium, much of which will be shipped straight to China and India to feed what will soon be their near inexhaustable demands. The question is what that means to us and what we should do about it... for example:
- Should we have a nuclear programme?
That we might supply uranium to other nations does not necessarily mean that we should use nuclear reactors for widespread power generation ourselves. - How can we manage this resource?
Far more significantly in my view, with a similar gravitas in uranium as Saudi Arabia currently enjoys in oil, Australia could actually affect a structural shift in the way that uranium is used.
What if, rather than 'selling' uranium, we leased it to users so that we then handled its safe disposal - mine, manufacture, sell and monitor it for its lifetime. While the 'not in my backyard' response comes quickly to mind, what if we could actually help make the world the way that it needs to be?
Of course, if you want some real nuclear power, The Art of Happiness is my favourite place to start... here are a few reminders of the Dalai Lama's Instructions for Life
posted by Daniel @ 10:53 pm
3 Comments:
The capital cost of developing nuclear power generation is > A$2,600/kW capacity (dramatically understated due to many layers of governent funding buried deep in the detail). This compares with an equivalent cost of < A$500 for the cheapest of natural gas and coal based generation.
Nuclear power doesn't stack from a cost perspective so only really makes sense in the context of a greater nuclear research program. The research is important but Australia has greater priorities and friends that can do it for us.
Selling uranium is an entirely different matter: the demand side will not be left wanting irrespective of what Australia does so we may make hay while the sun shines (but by all means, tax the hell out of it).
It remains baffling to me that we are tempted to overlook nuclear power being more expensive to generate, that it persists in having significant risks politically, socially and environmentally, and retains an incalculatable long term total cost of production.
... especially while we've got some great new gas- and coal-based technologies so close at hand.
YES YES.
you touched on an issue that I'd forgotten to mention: decommissioning a nuclear power station adds an additional 20% to total lifecycle capital costs at net present value.
the figure of 20% is from the nuclear power industry and has to be taken in that context - i.e. an independent objective assessment could be much higher still (if it is even possible to put a monetary value to some of the elements of concern).
for Australia, I am quite confident our future energy security is safe in the hands of clean coal technology.
Post a Comment
<< Home