Http://nuclearinfo.net Energy Options in a Carbon Constrained World. Martin Sevior, School of Physics, University of Melbourne

http://nuclearinfo.net

Energy Options in a Carbon Constrained World.

Martin Sevior, School of Physics, University of Melbourne


Energy underpins our Civilization

We rely heavily on Fossil Fuels to provide the energy our civilization needs.

Imagine one week without Electricity

Imagine one week without Motorized transportation

However our finite Earth constrains our future use of these.


Energy use without constraints

Non-OECD Countries are growing very quickly and are consuming an ever-increasing amount of energy.


Is Oil coming up against a wall? Australia’s Oil production peaked in 2000 Will/When will World Oil production peak?

(http://sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1972)


Energy Data from 2005

Burning Fossil Fuels produces CO2


CO2 increase in the Atmosphere


Total World CO2 emissions Total world demand for energy is expected

to at least double by 2050 Much is this growth is in the third world

which needs energy to escape poverty“If we have to free our people from drudgery and ill-health, we need to address the issue of access to energy, particularly the need for rural masses”

Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India on plans to expand electricity generation capacity from 110 GW to 980 GW by 2030. (Australia has 40 GW of electricity generation.)


Greenhouse Emission targets Kyoto protocol

Reduce Greenhouse emissions by 5.2% from 1990 levels by 2008-2012

This is extremely hard. eg Canada has increased it’s emissions by 20% since 1990

Future Reduce greenhouse emissions by 60% from

1990 levels by 2050 to stabilize temperature rise to 2 C


Scale of the challenge

Conventional Oil and Natural Gas cannot keep pace with demand nor should they.

What is wanted

Possible

Needed


Default for Electricity is Coal

Additional CO2 emissions due to new Coal Fired Power Stations to 2020


Australia’s ChallengesConventional Oil production is declining, we rely on imports

Our CO2 emissions are the largest per Capita in the OECD


Australian CO2 emissionsAround 50% of Australia’s CO2 emissions are from electricity production.


Options for TransportConvert Coal to Oil (Monash Energy Project, being developed)

Convert Gas to Oil (under active Consideration)

Use LPG (well underway) or Natural Gas (not persued)

Rework our Cities, Public transport improvements

BioFuels – Ethanol, BioDiesel (May meet 10% of current demand)

More Efficient Vehicles


Transport can be far more efficient

Gasoline Engines are on-average 10% efficient

Modern Diesel Engines are 20% efficient

Fuel cells vehicles can reach 50% efficiencies

Batteries/Electric engines are 80% efficient

The electric route means same transport with 1/8th the energy.


Next generation batteries0 – 100 km/hr in 4 seconds, 400 km range, available 2007

For the rest of us, Plugin Hybrids, (60 km range on electric) are likely to enable us to continue to use personal transportation post 2010

Cost US $100K

If sourced from electricity with low carbon emission technologies can substantially reduce world CO2 emissions


Electricity GenerationOur current coal-fired power stations provides us with cheap and reliable electricity.

But if we’re to meet our target of 60% CO2 emissions, we must close many of them or at least not use them as much.

What can we do for Electricity?

Electricity costs vary depending on the coal quality and distance from mines.

Queensland Black Coal generates electricity at less than 3 cents per KW-Hr. Victoria generates electricity at 4 cents KW-Hr


Energy EfficiencyOver the past 5 years, Australia’s electricity consumption has grown by 3.7% per year.

To some extent this reflects our very cheap electricity.

This are a variety of energy efficiency gains available throughout the economy. All require investment of time and money.

Achieving additional efficiency gains in addition to those made via “natural” processes, almost certainly requires higher prices.


Natural GasNatural Gas produces half the CO2 for the same amount of electricity.

Output can be altered quickly so it can be usefully paired with renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

However, Natural Gas is also a finite resource and it’s world-wide production rate is likely to peak within the the next 20 years.

Gas produced electricity, at current international prices of $6 per GigaJoule, costs around 7 cents/KW-Hr


Wind PowerWind is the leading renewable energy source.

Cost is 7 – 9 cents/KW-Hr but is unlikely to decrease.

Intermittency and variability of output mean diminishing returns after 10% – 20% of total capacity.


The problem with variabilityIn order to make a difference in CO2 outputs, you have to actually turn off (or down) coal-fired generators.

Victoria’s goal of 10% Renewable by 2015 if met by wind requires about 2 GW of peak output

Output from wind can vary by 90% over 1 hour

Baseload generators require 6 hours to ramp through 80% of their output.

At higher percentages the problem gets worse, 30% wind in Victoria requires 6 GW of peak output.


Solar Energy

Commercial PV systems currently provide electricity at 25-50 cents per KiloWatt-HourSolar works at small scale, so can compete at the retail level of 10 –14 cents/KW-Hr

Huge potential for improvements (factor 4 – 10 decrease in price).

eg Sliver Cells (developed at ANU), Nanosolar (California) rolls of thin film CIGS (400 MW factory), SolarSystems (Vic.) concentrators

Variability and intermittency issues remain after costs are reduced – needs storage.

Fundamentally factor of 20 higher flux than wind.

The Nanosolar factory is costed at $100 million and expects to produce product worth $2 billion / year.


Carbon Capture and StorageCoal is gasified into CO and H2 streams.

If combusted in pure O2, a pure CO2 stream emerges.

This can be reinjected into underground reservoirs. Intensely challenging – cubic kilometers of CO2 per year!

The coal gasification process depends on the properties of the coal (moisture content, sulphur and other impurities).

The CO2 storage procedure depends on the properties of the local site. All need detailed modeling

Appears feasible in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley but more study is needed. Late 2010’s – 2020.

Electricity cost is expected to increase by 1 – 4 cents/Kw-Hr


Nuclear PowerA “drop in” replacement for coal-fired base-load generation.

When used at world-best practice, emits about 1% of the greenhouse gases of fossil-fuel plants.

New plants expected to produce electricity in the range 4-7 cents KW-Hr

Need considerable operating and regulatory expertise which does not yet exist in Australia

Needs additional infrastructure for Waste Disposal

Fierce Opposition from some in the community.

Fuel is abundant and will last for centuries.


OthersHydro – almost fully exploited already in Australia

GeoThermal – Immature and of limited availability

BioMass:

Useful for small scale local developments to utilize waste. (eg Saw Dust and Bagasse)

Large scale usage faces significant environmental challenges and transport issues.


Leading technologiesTechnology Cost Potential

Carbon Capture and storage

Unproven technology

6-10 cents/KW-Hr

Substantial scientific questions for each site.

Natural Gas.

Good for Peaking demand. Still emits large amounts of CO2

5-7 cents/KW-Hr

Likely to increase in Price.

Nuclear Power

“Drop in” replacement for Coal

4-7 cents /KW-Hr

Large potential for improvements

Wind Power

Currently best renewable option

7 – 9 cents/Kw-Hr

Limited future potential

Solar Power

Can compete at retail level.

(10 –14 cents/KW-Hr)

25 – 50 cents/KW-Hr

Huge potential.

Works well at small scale and retail.


Concluding remarksWithout storage, intermittency and variability of wind and solar likely to limit penetration to 30%.Solar energy is worth direct Government support.

Achieving 60% reduction in CO2 emissions while growing electricity consumption requires replacing our existing Coal fired power stations with Nuclear or Carbon Capture.

Nuclear Power has proven track record of delivering large amounts of reliable electricity.

All options are more expensive than current coal.


Backup Slides


Myths about Nuclear Power1. We’ll soon run out of Uranium

We’ve mined less than one ten millionth of the Uranium in the Earth’s crust.

If we need to use lower grade ore’s there is hundreds to thousands of times more we can extract.

2. It takes seven years to recover the energy consumed constructing the plant.

Nuclear Power plants use approximately one quarter the concrete and steel of a an equivalent amount of wind turbines.

Modern studies show Nuclear Power repays it’s energy cost in a few months


3. Mining Uranium uses a huge amount of energy and produces larges amounts of Greenhouse gases

The lowest grade large mine currently operating, Rossing in Namibia, requires just 1 PJ of energy to produce Uranium that generates over 400 PJ of electricity.

4. Nuclear Power Plants are dangerous and will blow up like Chernobyl

The Western Nuclear Power Industry has an extremely good safety record an order of magnitude better than the Fossil Fuel industry

Chernobyl had a number of obvious design flaws and was operated in a environment of no safety culture


5. Terrorists will blow up Nuclear Power Plants

The concrete and steel containment shell that surrounds a nuclear power plants is extremely strong.

Simulations predict a it will survive the impact of a fully laden passenger jet.

Spent fuel assemblies can be stored underground

6. Takes too long

In the time it takes Victoria to build up to 10% renewable energy, twice the amount of Nuclear Power could be built for the same capital cost.

Nuclear Power is a “Hard” target.

Unlike Wind or Solar, Nuclear could scale to replace all our coal plants.



http://nuclearinfo.net Alaster Meehan Gareth Jones Damien George Adrian Flitney Greg Filewood

Technical Support Ivona Okuniewicz Lyle Winton

Reviewed by: Dr. Andrew Martin

Web Design University of Melbourne Writing Center


Energy and Entropy 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Entropy tends to increase Sharing of energy amongst all possible

states Life is in a very low state of entropy To exist it must create large amounts of

entropy elsewhere. (S = Q/T) Life requires large amounts of Energy.


Life and energy Life takes energy from the sun

Life represents a ~0.02% decrease in entropy from the sun heating earth


Energy and civilization

Our Civilization is based on cheap energy and machines

Previous civilizations utilized humans and animals. (Still the case for large parts of the world.)

Given sufficient quantities of energy our civilization can generate all the products it needs. (Food, Health, Metals, Plastics, Water)


Energy in Australia

Australia’s Electricity needs are currently supplied by 40 GigaWatts of power stations.

Our electricity demand is forecast to grow by over 2% per year to 2020

On average 1.0 GigaWatts increase each year

Equivalent to Loy-Yang B Power Station


World Energy Growth.Energy Growth by

sourceEnergy Growth by “region”

Projections are “business as usual”

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.


Growth in a finite system)1( QkQ

dt

dQ

Q =P/T

P = Amount Produced

T= Total available


Growth in a finite system)

)(1(

)(

)(

T

tCk

QdtdQ

tC

tP

C(t) = T Q

P(t) = TdQ\dt


Global Temperature Measurements


Myths about Climate Change Myth- Water vapour is the main source of Greenhouse

heating so CO2 makes no difference. Residency time of water is 10 days, CO2 is ~100 years. CO2

is the driver, water vapour provides feedback/amplification. Myth - CO2 absorption lines are saturated.

Only true at ground level. The upper atmosphere is sensitive to CO2 concentration

Net effect of doubling CO2 is an additional 4 watts/m2 extra heat.

No climate model shows a decrease in temperature with an increase in CO2


The transition. Having access to large amounts of cheap energy

is vital for our civilization. Over the next human generation we will need to

manage a transition from our Fossil-Fuel based energy sources

The combination of resource depletion and Climate Change mitigation forces this.

Getting this right is vital for the world we leave our children.

I believe that this is one of the great issues facing this generation.


Nuclear Energy About 6 Billion years ago a supernova exploded

in this region of space. About 1 solar mass of hydrogen was converted to

Helium in about 1 second All the elements heavier than Lithium were

created making life possible in the solar system A tiny fraction of the energy was used to create

heavy elements like Uranium and Thorium.


Nuclear Energy Chemical reactions release a few electron-

volts of energy per reaction.

Nuclear Fission releases 200 Million electron volts per reaction

A neutron is captured by 233U,235U or 239Pu. The nucleus breaks apart and releases 2-3 more neutrons. These in turn can induce further fissions.


Nuclear energy The energy release from a single fission

reaction is about one-tenth that of an anti-matter annihilation.

There is as much energy in one gram of Uranium as 3 tonnes of coal.

The reaction produces no CO2 So how much Uranium is present on Earth?


Uranium Abundance. The Earth’s crust is estimated to contain 40 trillion

tonnes of Uranium and 3 times as much Thorium. We have mined less than a ten millionth of this.(We have extracted about half of all conventional Oil) If burnt in a “4th Generation” reactor provides 6 Billion

years of energy. If burned in a current reactor enough for 24 Million

years. But most is inaccessible. How much is really available? Look at Energy cost of mining compared to energy

Generated in Reactors


Uranium AbundanceProven reserves as of June 2006 amount to 4.7 Million tonnes, sufficient for 85 years at present consumption rates

Rossing mine in Namibia has a Uranium abundance of 350 ppm and provides an energy gain of 500

Extrapolating to 10 ppm provides an energy gain of 14

4th Generation reactor (50 times more efficient Uranium usage) provides an energy gain of 100 at 2 ppm

At least 8,000 times more Uranium can be usefully mined using current reactors. 32,000 times more with 4th Generation. (96 million years worth.)


Uranium in Sea Water Very low concentration 3 mg/m^3, but a huge

resource ~ 4.5x109 tonnes Japanese experiment recovered > 1 Kg in 240 day

exposure


Nuclear Power Nuclear Power has been demonstrated to work at large scale. France (80% Nuke, 20% Hydro) and Sweden (50% Nuke, 50%

Hydro) have the lowest per capita greenhouse emissions of large countries in the OECD

Australia, with it’s reliance on Coal-powered electricity, has the highest


Nuclear Greenhouse Gas emissionsThe Nuclear Fuel cycle is complex. How

much Greenhouse Gases are produced?


Vattenfall The Swedish Energy utility operates

Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, BioMass, Solar and Fossil Fuel facilities.

Vattenfall have performed LifeCycle Analyses for these.

These are described in Environment Product Descriptions “EPD”.

Useful “Worlds Best Practice” reference


CO2 emissions from NuclearVattenfall EPD calculations, Gas 400 gm/kw-hr, Coal 700

– 1000 gm/kw-hr


Vattenfall CO2 emissions from other sources


Nuclear Reactors Nuclear reactors work by purposely allowing a controlled chain

reaction. This is controlled by adjusting the neutron multiplication factor. Current nuclear technology mostly employs “Light Water Reactors”

which burn Uranium enriched in 235U from it’s natural 0.7% to around 3%

The reactor is shutdown and fuel is changed after the 235U abundance has fallen to around 1.2%

This typically occurs every 2 years. So every 2 years 60 tonnes of fuel is replaced Compare to Coal fired plants which burn 3000 tonnes of fuel every

day.


Science of Nuclear Power Cross sections for fission


Thermal Nuclear Reactors Neutron cycle in 235U and 238U mixture

Self-sustaining chain reaction.

Requires neutron multiplication factor k =1.00000


Control of Thermal Reactors Controlled via absorption in 238U

At least 20 times more 238U than 235U

At higher temps

•Doppler broaden

•Harder spectrum

Increases 238U absorption


Control of light water reactors Delayed neutron emission

0.7% neutrons emitted after beta decay (8 seconds) Negative temperature coefficient

(k reduces with T) Negative “void” coefficient.

Loss of coolant through bubble formation or other means, means no further moderation and a decrease in reactivity.

“Massive loss of coolant” Decay heat problem Second generation reactors have multiple active

backup and containment.


Radiation Nuclear Energy produces vast amounts of

radioactivity which is extremely dangerous.Effects of Radiation: Cell Death or Apoptosis Cancer Induction (0.06/Sv) Genetic Damage to Future Generations

(0.02/Sv)However we are all exposed to radiation every

day of lives. It cannot be avoided.


Radiation Exposure

Typical background exposure is 3000 micro-seiverts per year


Nuclear Safety Typical large Nuclear Power Plant contains

10 billion Giga-Becquerel's of activity. 1 Giga-Becquerel typically leads to an

unwanted exposure. Nuclear Power Plants contain vast amounts

of dangerous material. Safely handling this is a significant

challenge.


Safety – Reactivity Control Nuclear reactors work by keeping the neutron

multiplication factor to be 1 Multiplication factor is adjusted by changing the

configuration of neutron absorbers. This possible because 0.6% of neutron emission is

delayed by a few seconds Light water reactors naturally slow down when the

temperature increases – “negative temperature coefficient”

Light water reactors naturally slow down if there is a loss of coolant – “negative void coefficient”


Safety – Reactivity ControlAccidents:Numerous things can (and do) go wrong during

operations.These are normally handled through routine

adjustments of the reactor parametersWorst case is massive loss of primary coolant.Current reactor handle this with multiple redundant

systems to pump water through the core. “Active Safety systems”

Next generation reactors employ Passive features which rely on Laws of Physics to ensure safe shutdown.


Safety The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

requires reactors to be design so that “Core damage accidents” occur less than 1 in 10,000 years of reactor operation.

In this case the radiation is contained within a safety shell. (50 cm reinforced steel surrounded by 1.3 meters of concrete.)

Current Reactors are estimated to have core failure rates of 1 in 100,000 years of operation.

New reactors under investigation for deployment are estimated to have failure rates of 1 in 2 million years of operation.


Safety The western nuclear power industry has the best

safety record of any large scale industrial activity. Within the US, communities living close Nuclear

Power plants are overwhelmingly in favour of continued operation.

There is strong competition between communities to be the location of New Reactors.

As of February 2006, the NRC had received “expressions of interest” for 17 new Nuclear Power Plants in the USA. All have local support.

Now up to 27 expressions of interest.


Safety - Chernobyl The Chernobyl reactor had a number terrible

deficiencies compared to Western reactors. No containment structure “Positive void coefficient” at low power. “Control rods” were graphite tipped! As part of an experiment, operators switched off

the safety interlocks Reduced the Power of reactor to low level. Strenuously tried to increase the power in an

unconventional operating environment. Fundamental Failure of “Safety Culture”.


Nuclear Power Costs Total cost = Cost of Capital + Operating Costs Operating costs of current plants are the lowest of all

forms except Hydro (typically 1.5 cents/KwHr). New Nuclear plants are projected to cost less than 1.5

US Billion dollars and operate for 60 years. BUT best new plants have First of their Kind risks Projected Electricity costs are 2.2-3.8 US cents/KW-

Hr (but up to 6 US cents/KW-Hr) Current Australian Eastern Australian coal electricity

costs around 2.2 - 4 US cents/KW-Hr “Clean Coal” expected to add 2 cents/Kw-Hr


Previous generation Nuclear Power In the USA Nuclear Power plants turned

out to be FAR more expensive. Plant cost was 3 – 5 Billion for 1 GW Operational availability was around 60%

Design deficiencies – NRC mandated changes

Two stage licensing Fragmented industry for construction Fragmented industry during operation


Current US experience Availability has increased to more than 90% Specialist companies now operate the US fleet. Costs average 1.6 cents/KW-Hr

Nuclear Industry expects new plants cost 1.0 – 2.0 Billion per GW2.3- 5 US cents/KW -Hr


Nuclear Waste Nuclear Power plants produce 30 tonnes of

high level waste/year. 95% of the energy in the fuel remains Waste consists of short-lived light fission

products and long-lived trans-Uranics. Current waste handling procedure is to

leave spent fuel in cooling ponds for 20 years. Followed by either dry storage, reprocessing or long term geologic disposal


Geologic Disposal 3 mature proposals, Sweden, Finland and

USA. Unprocessed waste requires isolation for

100,000 years The Nordic proposal consists of a multiple

barrier burial deep in wet Granite Rocks The US proposal consists of dry burial

underground with easy retrieval.


Finish proposal

Spent Fuel is placed in Cast Iron Insert. Then in copper canister

Canister is embedded in Bentonite clay

Then buried in Granite rock 500 meters underground


Multiple Barriers The fuel itself retains the fission products. Cast iron insert Studied of Copper in anaerobic environment show

stability over 100,000 years Bentonite Clays swell on wetting removing oxygen.

Also retain fission products. Granite and infill isolate waste from the environment.

Granites show affinity for trans-Uranics Oklo “natural” reactor show fission products have not

moved over 1.8 Billion years. Strong scientific case that nuclear can be isolated


Nuclear Proliferation A single large Nuclear Power plant

produces large amounts of 239Pu. More than enough for 100’s of nuclear weapons.

However over time they also produce a significant amount of 240Pu.

Too much 240Pu makes it very difficult to construct a Nuclear Weapon.

Weapons Grade Plutonium is defined to have less than 7% 240Pu.


Nuclear ProliferationAfter 4 months operation in a Light Water reactor the 240Pu concentration exceeds 7%

Operating a Commercial Light water reactor under the IAEA Additional Protocol is a low proliferation risk activity


East Australian Electricity demand


Alternatives - Renewables The Earth receives vast amounts of solar energy. In

principle more than enough for an advanced civilizations energy requirements.

Energy from the sun can be harnessed through: Hydro-Electricity Biomass (Burning organic products.) Wind Solar Thermal including passive heating Solar PhotoVoltaic’sAll these can and are making a significant contribution to our

energy needsPlus GeoThermal (uses Earth’s Radioactive resources)


Renewables However it’s not clear that these can meet all our

energy needs. Hydro is basically exhausted in Australia and

faces environmental concern elsewhere Biomass cannot supply both food and fuel in

many parts of the world. (Current energy use is 10% of total global photosynthesis)

Wind is not suitable for large scale base-load generation. (Plus is more expensive.)

Solar-electric is also not suitable for Base-Load generation. (Plus is also more expensive.)

Limited availability for GeoThermal


Wind VariabilityCSIRO study assuming 3 GW of generating capacity spread over SA, Vic and NSW.

Best sites give 30% utilization


Wind energy density Average output is at best 1.3 MW/ km^2

No trees allowed over a wind farm

Extra costs involved in handling varying supply


Clean Coal Idea is to capture CO2 emissions and store them

deep underground. World capacity is sufficient for 80 years of current

CO2 production. Challenge: Each year a 1 GW Coal plant produces

around 6 million tonnes of CO2 gas. The Bass Straight structures have the potential for

2 – 6 Billion tonnes of CO2 storage. Sufficient for 55 – 150 years output at current rate Incremental cost increase expected 2- 4 cents/KW-

Hr


New nuclear technology Variety of new reactor designs that are at least 50

times more efficient and can destroy the Trans-Uranic waste. (4th Generation)

Waste is reduced to 1 tonne per year. Isolation time of 500 years.

Hydrogen gas can be cheaply generated via thermo-chemical reactions using the High Temperature reactors.

This can be used in place of Petroleum for many transport needs.

Projected cost equivalent to 40 cents/litre petrol.


Advanced (Fast) Reactors Use unmoderated (or lightly) neutrons. Avoids neutron losses plus can directly

fission 238U and other even actinides

Can “burn” long lived radioactive waste


“Fourth Generation” reactors The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR) Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor

(SCWR) Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR) Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)


Goals of the “4th Generation” They efficiently utilize Uranium Destroy a large fraction of nuclear waste from current reactors via

transmutation. Generate Hydrogen for transportation and other non-electric energy

needs. Be inherently safe and easy to operate. Provide inherent resistance to Nuclear Weapons proliferation. Provide a clear cost advantage over other forms of energy generation. Carry a financial risk no greater than other forms of energy

generation. Not before 2020 at the earliest

If successful will provide energy indefinitely


Accelerator Driven Systems Use a very high powered accelerator to

provide neutrons to a subcritical assembly No possibility of a melt-down. Provides an energy gain and Destroys long lived isotopes through

transmutation. Requires around 50 MW of proton beam

(current best around 2 MW)


Australian Context Australia has the largest CO2 emissions per

capita in the OECD (27 tonnes Per Person) Finland has CO2 output of 8.6 tonnes/person Australian Per Capita energy consumption is

approximately the same. Electricity consumption in Finland is 60% more.

Finland (and Sweden and France) is where Australia should be by 2050.

Finland continues to invest in Nuclear Power


Planning Issues Australia is a democratic and open society

with many opportunities for citizens to influence local developments.

Top down and imposed decisions can face fierce opposition (cf some Wind Power.)

Any development of large scale facilities must provide net benefits to locals

Time scales of the order of many years are typical.


Regulatory Issues for nuclear Overseas (particularly US) experience

shows the importance of correct regulatory framework.

Australia does not have this. Need to achieve economies of scale for

light water reactors Operating a reactor requires significant

expertise. Need to establish and monitor World Best Practice


My opinion. Credible case for Nuclear Power Nuclear Power can displace the huge Fossil

Fuel base-load electricity requirements. But Nuclear Industry needs to demonstrate

Advanced Passive reactors work and are the prices advertised.

Carbon Dioxide sequestration also has potential but is less mature

For Australia, going the Nuclear route would require a significant consensus that this is the best way forward on the part of Society.


Recommendations We should take advantage of economies of scale and deploy a significant

number of reactors (more than say, six 1 GW reactors) so that the costs of waste disposal and fuel enrichment can be shared.

Local communities should be encouraged to bid for nuclear investment. Decisions should not be imposed.

An Australian Nuclear Industry must be pro-active in engaging with the World Community and employ World Best Practice levels of Safety and operations.

We would need an independent and pro-active regulatory framework to oversee the operations of a Nuclear Industry.

The activities of the Regulators and the Industry must be open to the public and all decisions should be fully transparent.

We must invest in research to find and build a suitable site for geologic disposal of waste.

We must decide on appropriate means of transporting the waste to the site.

Documents

Http://nuclearinfo.net Energy Options in a Carbon Constrained World. Martin Sevior, School of Physics, University of Melbourne