Dogma and delusion over renewables

As for reactor designs it is rather disingenuous to maintain so confidently that future science regarding reactor design and safety features (making meltdowns impossible and securing against “worst case” terrorist attack scenarios) is just theory and unlikely to contribute quickly enough to be a major player in forging less carbon intensive electricity generation.

Against this background nuclear power blossoms as part of the answer to energy security. Generation 4 reactors will appeal to governments keen to mollify public concerns and memory of Chernobyl. Contrary to Diesendorf, I believe many will be built in the next two decades. Nuclear physicists have not been designing them just for fun and investors are likely to find the improved safety angle reassuring.

There are a number of designs clearly outlined, in my view objectively, at the Uranium Information Centre’s website.

Of particular interest is the so-called, “pebble bed modular” reactor. Contrary to Diesendorf’s view that no Generation 4 reactors exist today, a pebble bed modular is operating in China - some readers may have seen it featured on ABC TV’s Catalyst program. This design is remarkable because it is claimed that meltdown is impossible. This was the key point of the Catalyst report and a mock “accident” proved the point. A technician flicked a switch or two to “cause” a core malfunction, and witnessed by a group of Western nuclear physicists and experts - who appeared a touch on edge, the reactor’s systems enacted shut down, rather than meltdown.

A convincing display indeed for this one-time anti-nuclear activist!

Many anti-nuclear environmentalists overlook the fact that much has changed since the 1970s. If nuclear, along with other renewables (of which hydro is the only current option), can not replace the introduction of ever more coal burning power stations (estimated to be one a week in China) then projections on climate change may well fall into the alarmist category by mid century.

A point I discuss with my students, derived from my time teaching environmental politics over a number of weeks in Bejing, Tianjin, Jinan and Kuming, concerns the emergence of the consumerist middle class in the booming Asian economies. It is quite surreal to be driven in a Toyota Prado by Chinese students through the throngs of pedestrians, cyclists and clapped out taxis - it sheets home the value of “wheels”. While estimates vary, the middle class is 100 million and growing, and they demand energy and care not if they crawl along in their cars, because it’s increasingly “all about me” and social status.

The Chinese and Indian middle classes (not to mention the Indonesians) are not going to forgo Western-style consumerism, in particular the purchase and use of cars. One can only hope that the future of transport lies with electric cars. Or possibly, in decades to come, hydrogen will play big role in “driving” transport. Heavy duty base load power is required for this future and I fail to see how wind and solar, or even my beloved “hot rocks”, will fill the bill.

Notwithstanding my misgivings, sections of Diesendorf’s book are very interesting.

His case for wind power to produce base load electricity generation argues for windmills stretching for about 600km and is quite convincing and “rational” - but only if you take out politics. For example, just how many federal and state electoral boundaries would they cross? And then there’s the potentially disgruntled mayors, councillors and community groups - arguably an investor’s and a premier’s nightmare!

Diesendorf argues the opponents to wind power, namely the coal and nuclear lobbies and the NIMBies, are largely to blame for the fact the Howard Government shuns backing wind power.

I believe the “equation” here is mainly about the politics of uncertainty surrounding such geographically wide-spread structures and how this translates into potential investor reluctance to commit the amounts of capital required.