Coal news and updates

Nuclear energy finding favour with developing nations looking to reduce carbon emissions

According to the director of the Energy Initiative at the University of Queensland, developing countries are looking at nuclear energy to provide base load power, while keeping carbon dioxide emissions down.

Professor Chris Greig describes nuclear as a zero emissions power source that, despite being supplied by fossil fuels, is part of the renewable energy commitment some countries have made.

According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA) there are 437 nuclear reactor power plants across 31 countries, currently producing around 11 per cent of global energy.

Many of these are in already developed countries such as France, which produces 75 per cent of all its power from nuclear.

The WNA said countries like Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland and Ukraine were producing an average of 30 per cent of their power needs from nuclear sources.

But Professor Greig said planned and under-construction nuclear plants were increasing in developing countries.

"Not many new plants are being built in the first world so much, but it's in the developing countries where we're seeing quite a lot of activity," he said.

"If you look at somewhere like China, they have 17 or so [nuclear reactors] that are currently operational, 28 reactors are currently under construction, and around about 55 are planned to be implemented.

"India has numbers around half that. They have 20 operational reactors now and there's probably another 25 or so that are under construction or planned.

"Also Indonesia, Vietnam, South Korea, all of these sort of countries have nuclear reactors planned."

Nuclear energy not a focus of Paris climate talks

Professor Greig said it was surprising that nuclear energy did not receive much attention or subsequent media coverage at he recent climate talks in Paris (COP21).

"I don't think nuclear was dismissed, but there hasn't been a specific acknowledgement that it might have an important role to play [in battling climate change]," he said.

"I mean, it's very low carbon, near zero, just as the renewable energy sources are.

"And it is a base load, always available, electricity source, so in that sense you would think there was a lot of merit in it being a serious option."

Base load power is defined as the minimum amount of electricity delivered, or required, over a period at a constant rate into a power grid.

Traditionally fossil fuel sources like coal, gas, hydropower and nuclear power have been considered as the only way to provide base load power at affordable prices.

Base load power has been considered necessary to provide energy, even in systems that have renewable energy sources, to ride out the intermittent peaks and troughs created by lack of wind and sunshine.

However, that is being contested by some in the renewable energy sector, who believe renewables can provide base load power, as argued using a computer model.

Retired US scientist Dr David Mills has produced a paper saying base load energy is 'no longer a relevant prerequisite for modern power generating systems' but can be achieved with a mix of renewables and fuels like nuclear and gas.

Rise of battery power for renewanle energy storage

In recent times, batteries for storage of renewable energy have been developed, such as those by Tesla, which generated much talk at COP21 of developing countries "leapfrogging" directly to renewable power sources.

Professor Greig supports the use of batteries in certain circumstances and for specific requirements.

However, he does not believe battery storage technology has been developed enough, or is affordable enough, for developing countries to dismiss fossil fuels.

"I think [the ability of] battery storage is a little overhyped, although it certainly has a role to play," Professor Greig said.

"I think it will be a strong niche in the residential sector, and perhaps the commercial sector, but it's not going to be a player in large scale industrial requirements and grid scale storage.

"Battery storage is still very expensive, and it's all very well for us to chart a theoretical pathway to a lower carbon future and say 'there you go, we've got an answer', but we haven't delivered that.

"At Paris, we heard of grand plans and talk of [non-mandatory] targets that were set, but I don't think we heard a lot about any kind of mechanism or implementation plans to get us to the emissions reduction that we spoken of.

"The 'how to' bit is still to come and in the meantime, developing countries will move ahead with developing their energy needs, some of which will be met by nuclear."

China and India planning significant renewable energy programs

Some of the discussions at the climate conference were about plans by China and India to develop significant renewable energy programs.

However Professor Greig said these announcements and what they really meant needed to be recognised.

"Let's be clear, the targets that are being set for China and India are not about reducing emissions," he said.

"They're about peaking their emissions by 2030, or in a similar time frame.

"There's a big difference between emissions continuing to rise until 2030, compared to commitment by developed countries to reduce their emissions.

"But as a percentage of China's renewable energy program, it is similar or smaller than their renewable energy sources [hydro, wind, solar].

"The final outcome will depend on the true reduction of their emissions post-2030."

Costs of developing nuclear power plants

There is no denying nuclear power plants are expensive to build and a number of projects have suffered significant cost blowouts.

But Professor Greig compares costs to other forms of energy over the lifetime of power plants, not initial costs.

"Yes, the cost of nuclear is very high in initial [construction and commissioning] costs, as is the cost of hydropower in many instances, but the ongoing costs are very low compared to the cost of other fuels," he said.

"So there are trade-offs here between high initial costs and low [nuclear plant] life costs.

"It also depends on the jurisdiction; I think the Chinese seem to be building nuclear in reasonably cost effective terms.

"So I don't think it's fair to say it's going to be more costly although certainly, some projects in the US and Europe have blown out.

"But we have to question the issues as to why. A lot of [cost blow outs] are decisions by governments and even delays caused by public reaction and environmental activism."

Australia's role in nuclear future

Australia has around 40 per cent of the world's known nuclear reserves and with restrictions being lifted in states like Queensland, that will possibly grow.

There are three operational uranium mines: Ranger in the Northern Territory and Olympic Dam and Beverley, both in South Australia.

It seems like the next mine to go ahead, if any do, will be in Western Australia.

But existing operations have scaled right back due to high extraction and other costs and in particular the price of uranium, which has defied bullish predictions to remain stubbornly low.

The current spot price is $US34 per pound ($AU46.70)

Professor Greig said Australian producers may benefit with the growth of nuclear energy, but as with everything it would be dictated by the market.

"Potentially, it could increase but a lot of it depends on what the uptake of nuclear at a global scale really is," he said.

"And I think that depends on how the challenge of decarbonisation is met.

"I think at the moment there's a strong view by some that renewables can dominate this, but I'm a little sceptical there.

"If we want to get real about decarbonisation, we are going to need some base load decarbonisation options, like nuclear.

"And therefore, in decades to come, I expect the demand for nuclear power to increase, and therefore the potential for uranium markets to increase."

Source: www.abc.net.au