the nuclear option:
nuclear fission and nuclear fusion
Nuclear power is another option periodically floated as the solution to Australia’s energy and emission problems. Actually, there are two options available here: the spontaneous release of large amounts of energy by the process of nuclear fission and the far less fashionable alternative of nuclear fusion. Both are considered below.
Nuclear fission
Uranium enrichment and nuclear processing facilities are banned in Australia [1]
Although many respected and influential people have spoken out over the years in favour of nuclear power in Australia, nuclear power generation is expressly forbidden in this country under s.140A of the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which states specifically states that the Minister must not approve an action “consisting of or involving the construction or operation of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, or a nuclear power station, or an enrichment plant, or a reprocessing facility”. Australia is the only G20 country which has such an embargo[2].
In 2017, Crossbench Senator Cory Bernardi introduced a Bill in the Senate seeking to overturn the ban, but it received scant attention and even downright opposition from those who spoke out against it in the major parties[3], and the Bill lapsed when Parliament was prorogued in anticipation of the 2019 election. One major problem for those seeking to overturn the ban by legislative change is that the Government of the day is extremely unlikely to have a majority in both Houses of the parliament for the foreseeable future.
South Australia has an Act prohibiting the construction or operation of nuclear waste storage facility and the importation or transportation of nuclear waste for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility, and Victoria an Act forbidding construction of a nuclear reactor or nuclear power reactor and prohibiting exploration for processing spent fuel.[4]
So the task ahead would be to overturn these prohibitions, a process which would be expected to be attended with much community opposition, and even if successful, which would appear highly unlikely, would take many, many years to achieve. So far as the construction of a nuclear reactor is concerned, it is estimated that it would take at least 10 years and several billion dollars to build Australia's first nuclear power station.[5] It is therefore unlikely to attract public sector financing. Confronted by all these inhibiting factors, it is simply not a fast enough response to the problems we presently face in this country with energy generation generally and our greenhouse gas emissions in particular.
Secondly, the nuclear power process is itself not entirely greenhouse gas emission free
Unlike fossil fuel-fired power plants, nuclear reactors do not produce air pollution or direct carbon dioxide emissions while operating. However, the processes for mining and refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel all require large amounts of energy from whose sources greenhouse gases are emitted. Nuclear power plants have large amounts of metal and concrete, which require large amounts of energy to manufacture. If fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, or if fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear power plant, then the emissions from burning those fuels could be associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate, and there are also the continuing costs associated with the electricity used to run the plant while it is operating.[6]
Here’s a list of the stages during which greenhouse gases are likely to be generated:
As regards milling and enrichment, once the uranium is out of the ground and has been milled to form the dry ore concentrate called “yellowcake”, it must then be “enriched” to increase the proportion of fissile uranium enough for it to work as nuclear fuel. Each method has different greenhouse emissions: centrifuge enrichment, for instance, needs much less energy than gaseous diffusion.
And there are also the greenhouse emissions associated with cleaning up the uranium mine, the energy needed depending essentially on judgments of what constitutes safe practices with regard to minimising radioactivity and exposure to toxic heavy metals in the leftover mine tailings.
During all these stages, greenhouse gases are emitted directly (for instance, by trucks) and also indirectly (such as through the use of materials such as steel and cement, which are manufactured using emissions-intensive processes).
However, the overall life-cycle emissions for nuclear power are likely to be lower than for fossil fuels. Quantifying all these emissions is a complicated prospect, and estimates vary. One estimate …
Another estimate by energy consultants Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, forecasts that the emissions from nuclear power could ultimately rival those from natural gas, but this high estimate has been described as a “clear outlier” in its divergence from other more conservative assessments.
Here’s a graphic from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (at pages 731-2), describing life-cycle greenhouse emissions from the various energy generation alternatives. Nuclear power is the first item in the second column dealing with non-renewable resources.
Unlike fossil fuel-fired power plants, nuclear reactors do not produce air pollution or direct carbon dioxide emissions while operating. However, the processes for mining and refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel all require large amounts of energy from whose sources greenhouse gases are emitted. Nuclear power plants have large amounts of metal and concrete, which require large amounts of energy to manufacture. If fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, or if fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear power plant, then the emissions from burning those fuels could be associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate, and there are also the continuing costs associated with the electricity used to run the plant while it is operating.[6]
Here’s a list of the stages during which greenhouse gases are likely to be generated:
- uranium milling,
- conversion of uranium ore to uranium hexafluoride,
- uranium enrichment,
- fuel fabrication,
- reactor construction,
- reactor decommissioning,
- fuel reprocessing,
- nuclear waste disposal,
- mine site rehabilitation, and
- transport throughout all stages. [7]
As regards milling and enrichment, once the uranium is out of the ground and has been milled to form the dry ore concentrate called “yellowcake”, it must then be “enriched” to increase the proportion of fissile uranium enough for it to work as nuclear fuel. Each method has different greenhouse emissions: centrifuge enrichment, for instance, needs much less energy than gaseous diffusion.
And there are also the greenhouse emissions associated with cleaning up the uranium mine, the energy needed depending essentially on judgments of what constitutes safe practices with regard to minimising radioactivity and exposure to toxic heavy metals in the leftover mine tailings.
During all these stages, greenhouse gases are emitted directly (for instance, by trucks) and also indirectly (such as through the use of materials such as steel and cement, which are manufactured using emissions-intensive processes).
However, the overall life-cycle emissions for nuclear power are likely to be lower than for fossil fuels. Quantifying all these emissions is a complicated prospect, and estimates vary. One estimate …
- suggests that the greenhouse emissions from nuclear power vary from 10 to 130 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour of power, with an average of 65 g per kWh – or roughly the same as wind power.
- On the other hand, coal power has emissions of about 900 g per kWh, and gas-fired power about 450 g per kWh.
- About 15-25% of nuclear’s greenhouse emissions come from building, maintaining and decommissioning the nuclear power plant.
Another estimate by energy consultants Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, forecasts that the emissions from nuclear power could ultimately rival those from natural gas, but this high estimate has been described as a “clear outlier” in its divergence from other more conservative assessments.
Here’s a graphic from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (at pages 731-2), describing life-cycle greenhouse emissions from the various energy generation alternatives. Nuclear power is the first item in the second column dealing with non-renewable resources.
Viewed from the point of view of the carbon intensity of the various fuel sources, for a given production of energy, the carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas are 25 less than those from oil and 40 less than those from coal. By switching fuel to gas, therefore, substantial emissions savings can be made. [8.1]
And here’s another appraisal from a House of Representative Committee[8] (my emphasis throughout):
So, the emissions for nuclear power are likely to be considerably lower than for fossil fuels over the full life-cycle. However, as Professor Lenzen concludes: in the end result, "the greenhouse emissions from nuclear power are a product of the fact that almost every aspect of the process, bar the nuclear fission itself, requires energy – and it is still the case that most of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels". [9]
And here’s another appraisal from a House of Representative Committee[8] (my emphasis throughout):
- Electricity generation is the largest and fastest growing contributor to global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, responsible for 40 per cent of global emissions in 2003—10 billion tonnes of CO2. Emissions from electricity are projected to contribute approximately 50 per cent of the increase in global CO2 emissions to 2030.
- Nuclear power is a CO2-free energy source at the point of generation (that is, at the point when the nuclear fission reactions themselves are in operation).
- Over the whole fuel cycle, nuclear power emits only 2–6 grams of carbon (or up to 20 grams of CO2) per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. This is two orders of magnitude less than coal, oil and natural gas, and is comparable to emissions from wind and solar power.
- A single nuclear power plant of one gigawatt capacity offsets the emission of some 7–8 million tonnes of CO2 each year if it displaces coal. A nuclear plant will also offset the emission of sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and particulates, thereby contributing significantly to air quality.
So, the emissions for nuclear power are likely to be considerably lower than for fossil fuels over the full life-cycle. However, as Professor Lenzen concludes: in the end result, "the greenhouse emissions from nuclear power are a product of the fact that almost every aspect of the process, bar the nuclear fission itself, requires energy – and it is still the case that most of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels". [9]
Thirdly, there is the problem with nuclear waste disposal.
Finding suitable locations for radioactive waste is no easy task. At the moment, we have only one small nuclear reactor in Australia, the Lucas Heights reactor in NSW, which produces material used for medical diagnostic imaging, and even then waste disposal has proved somewhat of a problem. It would be magnified many times in the case of the construction of larger fully-blown reactors built to produce energy.
Radioactive waste management involves the treatment, conditioning, transportation, storage and disposal of radioactive waste, including administrative, operational and safety-related activities.
Currently, Australia’s radioactive waste is stored in more than 100 locations around the country. What is needed is a single, safe, purpose-built radioactive waste management facility under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012.
The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce (NRWMF) is considering 3 voluntarily nominated sites, which will permanently dispose of low-level radioactive waste and temporarily store intermediate-level waste. The taskforce is committed to ensuring that any facility will only be located only where it is broadly supported.
Well, what exactly is nuclear (radioactive) waste? [10]
Radioactive waste contains radioactive elements that send out higher levels of radiation than natural background radiation. Radioactive waste can take the form of different states of matter, including gas, solids and liquids. Depending on the waste's source, the radioactivity can last from a few hours to hundreds of thousands of years. If disposed of improperly, radioactive waste can devastate the environment, ruining air, water and soil quality. What's more, these materials can have long-term negative effects on human.
Nuclear (radioactive) waste comes in three varieties, low, intermediate and high.
Low-level waste emits radiation at levels which generally require minimal shielding during handling, transport and storage. 92% of the radioactive waste produced by Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) at Lucas heights is low-level waste, made up of paper, plastic, gloves, cloths and filters which contain small amounts of radioactivity. This waste is shredded and compressed into 200 litre drums, which are safely stored on-site. The radioactivity is measured using a scanning system.
The drums are bar-coded and the radioactive content of each drum is entered into a database to ensure that the waste is safely, securely and efficiently managed in compliance with the standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Australian regulator.
Intermediate-level waste emits higher levels of radiation and requires additional shielding during handling, transport and storage. A contact dose rate of 2 millisieverts per hour and above is used to distinguish between low and intermediate waste. Intermediate-level waste at ANSTO is generated from radio-pharmaceutical production and reactor operations. Approximately 3.5 cubic metres of solid intermediate-level waste is generated each year.
High-level waste has higher levels of radiation which requires increased shielding and isolation from human contact and requires cooling due to its heat-generating capacity. It is produced from the operation of nuclear power plants.
Radioactive waste management involves the treatment, conditioning, transportation, storage and disposal of radioactive waste, including administrative, operational and safety-related activities.
No high-level waste is produced at ANSTO, but it would definitely be a factor and a problem in the event that resort is had to nuclear power plants for energy purposes. The greatest bulk of nuclear waste is related to the generation of nuclear power, from which there are two primary byproducts, including spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors and high-level waste (HLW) from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
The reactors in nuclear power plants use fuel in the form of ceramic uranium dioxide pellets that are sealed within metal rods. After the usable uranium is gone from the rods, the rods must be disposed of. But first, the rods are often processed with chemicals to draw out any unused uranium; this results in HLW, which is liquid waste. The rods are then usually stored in pools of water near the reactor until a permanent location is prepared.
Radioactivity gradually diminishes as the radioactive elements decay into more stable elements, so waste gradually becomes less radioactive and safer to handle over time. The period of time required for radioactive elements to decay is dependent on the half-life of the radioactive element – also known as the nuclide or isotope. In total, ANSTO only manages about 45% of the low-level radioactive waste in Australia, and the rest is stored at those more than 100 locations around the country previously mentioned.
The American experience
As Nathan Chandler says, no one wants nuclear waste near their communities, even if it's buried many miles away in a vault in the desert. Consider the American experience with their proposed Yucca Mountain storage facility, a deep geological repository storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and other high level radioactive waste within Yucca Mountain in the Great Basis,Nevada, near its border with California, approximately 100 miles (160 km) northwest of Las Vegas in the USA .
At present, there are 70 nuclear power plant sites where 65,000 tons of spent fuel is stored in the USA, and each year, more than 2,000 tons are added to this total. Nine states have "explicit moratoria on new nuclear power until a storage solution emerges", and a deep geological repository seems to be the favored approach for storing nuclear waste.
In 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush approved development of the Yucca Mountain facility, which was also approved by Congress, but since then, the project has been challenged by many groups. In 2010, President Obama indicated he would try to put a stop to the project, citing concerns with the long-term stability of the site, and Federal funding ended in 2011. The project still faces strong state and regional opposition. Opponents say earthquakes and groundwater flow could penetrate the vault and let radioactive waste escape. Under President Trump, the Department of energy has ceased deep borehole and other non-Yucca Mountain waste disposition research activities. Congress decided to provide no funding for the remainder of the financial year ended 30 June 2018.
In the meantime, most nuclear power plants in the United States have resorted to the indefinite on-site dry cask storage of waste in steel and concrete casks. So that’s just a sample of the difficulties ahead and a portent of what may be anticipated to occur in this country.
As Chandler puts it so succinctly, “nuclear waste epitomises the double-edged sword of modern technology. It's a toxic and radioactive byproduct of nuclear medicine, nuclear weapons manufacturing and nuclear power plants. In short, it's the type of waste that reflects one of humankind's greatest leaps in technology, but it also demonstrates our inability to deal with our own advances”.
Fourthly, there is the problem of nuclear accidents compromising public safety.
Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011), the latter precipitated by a tsunami following an earthquake, are too well known to require further elaboration here and information about them is readily available elsewhere.
However, even putting those significant events to one side for the moment and looking elsewhere, according to a 2010 survey of energy accidents, there have been at least 56 accidents at nuclear reactors in the United States (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage) between 1955 and 2016. The most serious of these was the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant has been the source of two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979. [11]
Even our own Lucas Heights has had its share of contamination scares. A contemporary report into the ageing facility found it failed modern nuclear safety standards, and needed to be replaced, after a worker was exposed to radioactive material last year, and there has been another instance of five workers reported receiving a dose of radiation, but not above allowable limits. These were not regarded as significant, but the fact that they occurred at all illustrates the problem.[12]
And on a different aspect, in 2009, the Ranger uranium mine inside the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park was leaking 100,000 litres of contaminated water into the ground beneath the park every day, according to a government report.[13] Australia is home to about 25 to 33 % of the world’s uranium supplies, and is the world's third highest uranium producer, a relevant factor in the push to utilise our supplies for our own benefit by building our very own nuclear reactor[14].
However, even if nuclear enthusiasts were able to surmount all the environmental road blocks in their path and actually build a reactor, it is likely to take decades before the facility is up and running, and in the meantime our CO2 levels would have magnified multifold. It is certainly not the solution to our present problems.
Hope is also being pinned on a fourth generation of nuclear power plants based on more advanced reactors that promise to be safer, less productive of radioactive waste and with much less danger of leading to nuclear proliferation. None of these, however, are likely to be built before 2030.[15]
Finding suitable locations for radioactive waste is no easy task. At the moment, we have only one small nuclear reactor in Australia, the Lucas Heights reactor in NSW, which produces material used for medical diagnostic imaging, and even then waste disposal has proved somewhat of a problem. It would be magnified many times in the case of the construction of larger fully-blown reactors built to produce energy.
Radioactive waste management involves the treatment, conditioning, transportation, storage and disposal of radioactive waste, including administrative, operational and safety-related activities.
Currently, Australia’s radioactive waste is stored in more than 100 locations around the country. What is needed is a single, safe, purpose-built radioactive waste management facility under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012.
The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce (NRWMF) is considering 3 voluntarily nominated sites, which will permanently dispose of low-level radioactive waste and temporarily store intermediate-level waste. The taskforce is committed to ensuring that any facility will only be located only where it is broadly supported.
Well, what exactly is nuclear (radioactive) waste? [10]
Radioactive waste contains radioactive elements that send out higher levels of radiation than natural background radiation. Radioactive waste can take the form of different states of matter, including gas, solids and liquids. Depending on the waste's source, the radioactivity can last from a few hours to hundreds of thousands of years. If disposed of improperly, radioactive waste can devastate the environment, ruining air, water and soil quality. What's more, these materials can have long-term negative effects on human.
Nuclear (radioactive) waste comes in three varieties, low, intermediate and high.
Low-level waste emits radiation at levels which generally require minimal shielding during handling, transport and storage. 92% of the radioactive waste produced by Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) at Lucas heights is low-level waste, made up of paper, plastic, gloves, cloths and filters which contain small amounts of radioactivity. This waste is shredded and compressed into 200 litre drums, which are safely stored on-site. The radioactivity is measured using a scanning system.
The drums are bar-coded and the radioactive content of each drum is entered into a database to ensure that the waste is safely, securely and efficiently managed in compliance with the standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Australian regulator.
Intermediate-level waste emits higher levels of radiation and requires additional shielding during handling, transport and storage. A contact dose rate of 2 millisieverts per hour and above is used to distinguish between low and intermediate waste. Intermediate-level waste at ANSTO is generated from radio-pharmaceutical production and reactor operations. Approximately 3.5 cubic metres of solid intermediate-level waste is generated each year.
High-level waste has higher levels of radiation which requires increased shielding and isolation from human contact and requires cooling due to its heat-generating capacity. It is produced from the operation of nuclear power plants.
Radioactive waste management involves the treatment, conditioning, transportation, storage and disposal of radioactive waste, including administrative, operational and safety-related activities.
No high-level waste is produced at ANSTO, but it would definitely be a factor and a problem in the event that resort is had to nuclear power plants for energy purposes. The greatest bulk of nuclear waste is related to the generation of nuclear power, from which there are two primary byproducts, including spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors and high-level waste (HLW) from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
The reactors in nuclear power plants use fuel in the form of ceramic uranium dioxide pellets that are sealed within metal rods. After the usable uranium is gone from the rods, the rods must be disposed of. But first, the rods are often processed with chemicals to draw out any unused uranium; this results in HLW, which is liquid waste. The rods are then usually stored in pools of water near the reactor until a permanent location is prepared.
Radioactivity gradually diminishes as the radioactive elements decay into more stable elements, so waste gradually becomes less radioactive and safer to handle over time. The period of time required for radioactive elements to decay is dependent on the half-life of the radioactive element – also known as the nuclide or isotope. In total, ANSTO only manages about 45% of the low-level radioactive waste in Australia, and the rest is stored at those more than 100 locations around the country previously mentioned.
The American experience
As Nathan Chandler says, no one wants nuclear waste near their communities, even if it's buried many miles away in a vault in the desert. Consider the American experience with their proposed Yucca Mountain storage facility, a deep geological repository storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and other high level radioactive waste within Yucca Mountain in the Great Basis,Nevada, near its border with California, approximately 100 miles (160 km) northwest of Las Vegas in the USA .
At present, there are 70 nuclear power plant sites where 65,000 tons of spent fuel is stored in the USA, and each year, more than 2,000 tons are added to this total. Nine states have "explicit moratoria on new nuclear power until a storage solution emerges", and a deep geological repository seems to be the favored approach for storing nuclear waste.
In 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush approved development of the Yucca Mountain facility, which was also approved by Congress, but since then, the project has been challenged by many groups. In 2010, President Obama indicated he would try to put a stop to the project, citing concerns with the long-term stability of the site, and Federal funding ended in 2011. The project still faces strong state and regional opposition. Opponents say earthquakes and groundwater flow could penetrate the vault and let radioactive waste escape. Under President Trump, the Department of energy has ceased deep borehole and other non-Yucca Mountain waste disposition research activities. Congress decided to provide no funding for the remainder of the financial year ended 30 June 2018.
In the meantime, most nuclear power plants in the United States have resorted to the indefinite on-site dry cask storage of waste in steel and concrete casks. So that’s just a sample of the difficulties ahead and a portent of what may be anticipated to occur in this country.
As Chandler puts it so succinctly, “nuclear waste epitomises the double-edged sword of modern technology. It's a toxic and radioactive byproduct of nuclear medicine, nuclear weapons manufacturing and nuclear power plants. In short, it's the type of waste that reflects one of humankind's greatest leaps in technology, but it also demonstrates our inability to deal with our own advances”.
Fourthly, there is the problem of nuclear accidents compromising public safety.
Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011), the latter precipitated by a tsunami following an earthquake, are too well known to require further elaboration here and information about them is readily available elsewhere.
However, even putting those significant events to one side for the moment and looking elsewhere, according to a 2010 survey of energy accidents, there have been at least 56 accidents at nuclear reactors in the United States (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage) between 1955 and 2016. The most serious of these was the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant has been the source of two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979. [11]
Even our own Lucas Heights has had its share of contamination scares. A contemporary report into the ageing facility found it failed modern nuclear safety standards, and needed to be replaced, after a worker was exposed to radioactive material last year, and there has been another instance of five workers reported receiving a dose of radiation, but not above allowable limits. These were not regarded as significant, but the fact that they occurred at all illustrates the problem.[12]
And on a different aspect, in 2009, the Ranger uranium mine inside the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park was leaking 100,000 litres of contaminated water into the ground beneath the park every day, according to a government report.[13] Australia is home to about 25 to 33 % of the world’s uranium supplies, and is the world's third highest uranium producer, a relevant factor in the push to utilise our supplies for our own benefit by building our very own nuclear reactor[14].
However, even if nuclear enthusiasts were able to surmount all the environmental road blocks in their path and actually build a reactor, it is likely to take decades before the facility is up and running, and in the meantime our CO2 levels would have magnified multifold. It is certainly not the solution to our present problems.
Hope is also being pinned on a fourth generation of nuclear power plants based on more advanced reactors that promise to be safer, less productive of radioactive waste and with much less danger of leading to nuclear proliferation. None of these, however, are likely to be built before 2030.[15]
Header photo source: AAP at https://www.sbs.com.au/news/bernardi-wants-nuke-power-plant-ban-lifted.
[1] Prime source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia
[2] Australian Nuclear association website at http://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/nuclear-power-some-facts/
[3] “Bernardi wants nuke power ban lifted”: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/bernardi-wants-nuke-power-plant-ban-lifted.
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia
[5] Examples in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia As regards the US, cost estimates for new nuclear plant have risen from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar: “Cheap dreams, expensive realities”, https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power
[6] "Nuclear explained: Nuclear power and the environment": https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=nuclear_environment
[7] The remainder of this section is an edited summary of the article by Manfred Lenzen, Professor of Sustainability Research, School of Physics, University of Sydney, “Is nuclear power zero-emission? No, but it isn’t high-emission either”, May 21, 2015: http://theconversation.com/is-nuclear-power-zero-emission-no-but-it-isnt-high-emission-either-41615
[8] Source: Greenhouse gas emissions and nuclear power: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary.../House_of_Representatives_Committees?url...
[8.1] Sir John Houghton, Global Warming - The Complete Briefing, 5th ed, Cambridge UP, p 314.[9] Lenzen, op cit.
[10] This material on the different forms of waste is an edited summary of the material on the ANSTO website at https://www.ansto.gov.au/education/nuclear-facts/managing-waste
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States
[12] “Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in another contamination scare amid calls for safety review”, by John Stewart and Rebecca Trigger, ABC Investigations, 24 Oct 2018: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-24/contamination-scare-at-australias-lucas-heights-nuclear-reactor/10422476
[13] “Polluted water leaking into Kakadu from Uranium mine”: https://www.smh.com.au/national/polluted-water-leaking-into-kakadu-from-uranium-mine-20090312-8whw.html; Michael Slezak, radioactive acid spill in Australian National Park, 9 December 2013: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24723-radioactive-acid-spill-in-australian-national-park/
[14] “Bernardi wants nuke power ban lifted”: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/bernardi-wants-nuke-power-plant-ban-lifted.
[15] Sir Houghton, op cit, 314.
Nuclear fusion
The concept of fusion is at the heart of star formation, the same energy source as that which powers our sun. Similar principles are involved in fusion here on earth. Fission reactors harness energy from atoms such as uranium that are falling apart rather than joining together as in fusion. The relevant principles and problems and the present state of play are set out in my website on the origins of the univeerse at https://elwynsbigbangpage.weebly.com/terrestrial-fusion.html
Much useful research is underway, and if ultimately successful the potential rewards are manifold: “a new source of energy that doesn’t rely on the whims of the wind or sun blocked by clouds, wouldn’t require big changes to the existing electrical grid, doesn’t raise concerns about nuclear weapons, can’t melt down or irradiate surrounding communities, and might be no more expensive after it gets going than other forms of clean energy”.
Next
The concept of fusion is at the heart of star formation, the same energy source as that which powers our sun. Similar principles are involved in fusion here on earth. Fission reactors harness energy from atoms such as uranium that are falling apart rather than joining together as in fusion. The relevant principles and problems and the present state of play are set out in my website on the origins of the univeerse at https://elwynsbigbangpage.weebly.com/terrestrial-fusion.html
Much useful research is underway, and if ultimately successful the potential rewards are manifold: “a new source of energy that doesn’t rely on the whims of the wind or sun blocked by clouds, wouldn’t require big changes to the existing electrical grid, doesn’t raise concerns about nuclear weapons, can’t melt down or irradiate surrounding communities, and might be no more expensive after it gets going than other forms of clean energy”.
Next