Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Nuclear power is viable

By Ian Hore-Lacy - posted Friday, 28 January 2005


Opportunity costs represent an ethical dimension where I would expect to see more vocal debate. Uranium has no other uses than concentrated energy production. Natural gas is touted as a CO2-reduction strategy relative to coal, but it is most unlikely that our grandchildren will thank us for profligate use of it in large-scale power generation. It is also a valuable chemical feedstock.

External costs (those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity to the consumer and therefore which are borne by society at large) are a major consideration. The European ExternE report shows that in clear cash terms nuclear energy incurs about one tenth of the costs of coal. Nuclear energy averages under 0.4 euro cents/kWh (0.2-0.7), less than hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (2-10 cent averages in different countries), and gas ranges 1-4 cents. The EU cost of electricity generation without these external costs averages about 4 cents/kWh. If these external costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from gas would increase around 30 per cent.

Further out nuclear power is very likely to be used to make hydrogen for transport fuel, initially by high-temperature electrolysis, then thermochemical processes using high-temperature (950ºC) reactors.

Advertisement

The resource base for long-term use of nuclear power is good. With one well-proven - but currently uneconomic - technological step one can get about 60 times as much energy out of the raw uranium as we do today. Only Russia is now operating a commercial-scale reactor of this kind.

For base-load power - continuous, reliable supply on a large scale, there are generally no carbon-free alternatives to nuclear power. Renewables have a place at the margin, and in Australia we certainly need to find ways to use our magnificent coal resources with less greenhouse impact than now. However, the costs of full carbon capture will be very much greater than using nuclear power.

For meeting a major part of the world's rapidly increasing demand for electricity, nuclear power is clearly a well-proven, environmentally clean and timely option.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ian Hore-Lacy is the General Manager of the Uranium Information Centre. He is a biologist and former school teacher with an environmental background in the mining industry.

Related Links
Nuclear power is no panacea for climate change - On Line Opinion
Article Tools
Comment 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy