In this short video we look at the key benefits of a nuclear energy based grid and its  clear advantages compared to a total reliance on wind and solar

Here’s a list of nine key benefits and requirements for a nuclear powered grid in Australia

1.      There are massive cost benefits by adding nuclear to the mix – Its about ½ the cost of a system based on wind and solar.
2.      Nuclear brings vastly greater emissions reductions to the system – like about ¼ the emissions of wind and solar.
3.      A nuclear based system uses 1/5th of the non-renewable resources of a full wind and solar grid.
4.      We can make our future energy systems right here in Australia using our own people, uranium, steel and concrete with help along the way from our friends in Korea and Canada.
5.      We can Re-industrialise around nuclear in our old manufacturing centres of Newcastle, Wollongong, Victoria and South Australia.
6.      We must Significantly increase the investment in people required to re-industrialise Australia. Large increases in Commonwealth Scholarships to Engineering and Science students to cancel out HECS debt. Ditto to apprentices. The nation should pay to educate its people. HECs and Apprentice costs are a dead weight on economic growth.
7.      There are massive environmental benefits of using nuclear by not destroying forests and agricultural lands. By not destroying the visual amenity of our regions. By using an energy resource that has the lowest environmental impact of any energy system
8.      A nuclear based system does not need deep storage systems like SNH 2.0 and Borumba which are hugely expensive and must be scrapped – $18 billion each
9.      The speed of a nuclear roll out – In France, Ontario and Sweden it has shown to be the fastest way to install a zero carbon energy system.

Robert Parker

Nuclear For Climate Australia

https://nuclearforclimate.com.au/

The post Voting to Avoid an Energy Blunder Down Under first appeared on Nuclear for Climate Australia.

Members who accompanied Ted O’Brien were Helen Cook, Robert Parker, Stephen Wilson and Jasmin Diab.
The meetings and organisation were handled brilliantly by Mike Newman.

We spoke with key constructors of nuclear power plants such as Hyundai, Samsung and Daewoo as well as KEPCO and KHNP.
The delegation also met with nuclear energy educators at KINGS and equipment manufacturers and suppliers

The post Australian Nuclear Energy Delegation to South Korea first appeared on Nuclear for Climate Australia.

GNE Advisory is a boutique law practice dedicated to the nuclear energy sector. Helen Cook, Principal of GNE Advisory, has expertise advising on both the structuring and establishment of the legal and regulatory infrastructure for civilian nuclear power programmes, as well as the strategic development and negotiation of commercial arrangements for new nuclear power plants, including procurement, construction and financing.

In her submission to the House Select Committee Inquiry into Nuclear Energy she submitted that:

1. Our existing nuclear regulator ARPANSA could be ready to receive a construction license appliacation for one or more nuclear reactors within three years of a policy decision to implement a civil nuclear programme.
2. The Coalition’s timeline of first nuclear on the grid between 10-12 years is achievable.

The following link provides the full submission from GNE Advisory’s Helen Cook

Submission 206 – Helen Cook

The post Australia is Ready for Nuclear Energy first appeared on Nuclear for Climate Australia.

Submission to: House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy

Robert Parker 13^th November, 2024

Nuclear Energy is Essential to Meeting the National Electricity Law

Executive Summary

The key theme of this submission which is outlined in Sections 2 and 3 makes the case that only by using baseload nuclear energy, as our dominant form of electricity generation, can we provide ultra low carbon emissions while at the same time providing the lowest cost form of generation.

In Section 2 we provide the results of six electricity generation scenarios. These compare the NEM situation in 2022 with 100% “Renewables”, AEMO’s Step Change and Progressive Change scenarios and 50% and 75% nuclear generation options.

Full Life Cycle Analysis parameters are used to calculate the emissions of all scenarios. The two nuclear options have the lowest system costs and only the 75% nuclear is ultra-low carbon. The 100% Renewable, Step Change and Progressive Change fail to achieve either low or ultra-low emissions and therefore do not provide a solution that meets the requirements of the National Electricity Law.  The results are shown in the following Figure 1 from the report.

Based on these results the National Electricity Objective as stated in the National Electricity Law (NEL) cannot be met unless a system based on high levels of nuclear energy is deployed. The NEL is in direct conflict with the laws preventing nuclear energy production contained in the ARPANS and EPBC Acts

This leads to the nuclear energy implementation timeline shown in the next image which is Figure 5 in the main report.

1. The nuclear roll out is completed in 2060 with 30 GW of installed nuclear capacity using AP1000 large plants and i-SMR small plants. Other options such as APR1400 and BWRX 300 could also be used. The plants operate at 79% capacity factor in 2060.
2. Installed wind is 18.4GW, Grid solar – 8.8 GW and roof top solar is 26.3GW. This is similar to current levels.

4.           Emissions intensity in 2060 on an LCA basis is 41 g CO2/kWh & cost to consumers is 38.5 c/kWh. Emissions in 2050 are 48 gr CO2/kWh (LCA), 3 gr CO2/kWh Burned Fossil Fuel (BFF) or about 1/3rd that of the Step Change Scenario in the same year.

A bar chart showing fourteen plant locations together with plant types and precedent activities is included in Figure 6.

Also included is a comparison of the speed of this programme with the achievements in other nations – it’s a conservative and achievable target.

Thanks to Grant Chalmers for compiling this chart

In Section 4 the report details the huge materials consumption associated with a system dependent on wind and solar. The energy transition was intended to herald a more sustainable future however attempting to achieve this with wind and solar will only result in a massive increase in materials consumption. These materials will litter the landscape and their end of life retrieval is neither certain nor affordable.

A 100% “Renewable” system uses between 5.1 and 6.2 times more materials over an 80 year period than a nuclear based system. If the term “Renewable” is to mean anything at all it is best reserved for nuclear energy

Section 5 of the report deals with water demand and cooling of nuclear power plants. Research by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe finds that nuclear power plants use similar of slightly lower amounts of cooling water compared to coal plants. Data from EPRI in the US indicates similar levels or slightly more is used in nuclear plants. This report notes that in Australia siting of plants on the coast using sea water cooling in close proximity to large load centres is the ideal solution. Cooling using once through cycles from large cooling ponds as was used at Liddell power plant would also be environmental prudent.

Section 6 deals primarily with seismic risk. Australia is seismically stable being similar to the stability of eastern and central USA and far from unstable plate boundaries. Recent tremors in the Hunter region or in Gippsland or the 1989 Newcastle earthquake pose no safety risk to the safe operation of nuclear power plants.

It is entirely feasible and accords with precedent that the NEM can achieve true ultra low emissions electricity at a cost of about ½ that of a system reliant on wind, solar, hydro and gas backup. Such a nuclear energy system would contain 21 GW of nuclear energy plants built by 2050 and total 30GW by 2030. The plants would be located at 14 sites within Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

The post Nuclear Energy is Essential to Meeting the National Electricity Law first appeared on Nuclear for Climate Australia.

In this paper we compare the effectiveness of electricity generating systems based exclusively on wind, solar and hydro – referred to as “Renewable” with those based predominantly on nuclear energy. We compare their results in terms of emissions intensity and cost with the National Electricity Objectives as stated in the National Electricity Law (NEL). We find that only nuclear energy based systems can meet the requirements of the NEL in term of cost and reaching Net Zero emissions goals.

1.     Introduction

All states and territories are committed to “Net Zero by 2050” economy wide This applies to transport, electricity generation, agriculture, waste handling, heavy and light industry and industrial processes.

It’s easier to decarbonise the electricity sector than other sectors because:

• the sources of generation are stationary and
• we have the established transmission and distribution system in place that can feed ultra-low carbon energy to consumers and
• Successful International precedent exists

2.     Ultra Low Carbon Generators

Electricity production must facilitate carbon reductions in other sectors such as:

1. Transport sector via battery charging or the production of zero carbon liquid fuels,
2. Industrial sector using hydrogen in processes such as steel making,
3. Industrial processes through the replacement of fossil fuels with electricity.

For example, given the difficulties in decarbonising the agricultural sector and many industrial processes, electricity production must be ultra-low carbon to minimise overhang from the other sectors.

That means that the electricity system must have an emissions intensity of 50 g-CO₂/kWh or less measured on a Life Cycle Analysis basis (LCA). LCA takes account of embodied emissions incurred through the mining, manufacturing processes and plant construction.

3.     Achieving Ultra Low Emissions and Cost

In brief we compared six scenarios to determine the lowest cost ultra-low emissions scenario. The scenarios were:

1. A control which used an energy mix similar to that of the NEM in 2022,
2. A 100% renewable system which contains no fossil fuel backup,
3. The AEMO Step Change Scenario in 2050,
4. The AEMO Progressive Change Scenario in 2050,
5. Nuclear Integrated System Plan – 50% Nuclear,
6. Nuclear Integrated System Plan – 74% Nuclear,

Our analysis reveals that in the case of scenarios 2, 3 and 4 which rely almost exclusively on wind and solar energy very high levels of spillage and/or curtailment occur. In effect not all energy can be used leading to high costs due to low capacity factors, equipment redundancy and low utilisation of transmission

The tool we used to carry out these comparisons was the Electric Power Consulting ty Ltd “Power System Generation Mix Model”. An example of the application of the model is contained in the EPC modelling of the AEMO Draft 2024 ISP that was released in December 2023. This can be viewed at this link:

https://www.epc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/EPC-Submission-on-the-2024-Draft-ISP-20240216-Final.pdf

For this report the costs of generators were obtained from the CSIRO GenCost report except for nuclear energy which used:

• A$10,000/kW overnight capital cost. Increased from GenCost value of $8,655/kW
• A$8.16/MWh fuel allowance in line with Nuclear Energy Institute values
• A$31 allowed for operations and maintenance in line with Nuclear Energy Institute values

Emissions factors used for generators in the model are shown in “Table 1 Emissions Factors and Parameters used in Scenario Modelling”.

The emissions factors used are measured in T/MW and T/MWh and some explanation is needed to for these units:

• For constructed plant or equipment the embodied carbon dioxide is reported as of tonnes per megawatt (T/MW). This fixed amount is disbursed over every unit of energy (MWh) that the plant and equipment produce over their service life.
• For fuel burned in a fossil fuelled plant the emissions are reported as tonnes of carbon dioxide produced from burning to produce a MWh of electrical energy, namely T/MWh.
• For constructed storages such as batteries or pumped hydro we also use tonnes of carbon dioxide per MWh (T/MWh) but in this case the unit relates to the construction and size of the storage which is measured in MWh. So for example, how many tonnes of carbon dioxide were produced to build the capacity of a battery or pumped storage facility to store a MWh of energy.

The value of 2,614 T/MW for solar PV has a significant impact on the overall emissions intensities calculated for each scenario, especially for high levels of “Renewables”. It was obtained from recent analysis done by Seaver Wang of the Breakthrough Institute at this link:
http://Solar PV GHG calculation, head-to-head – Google Docs

The value of 2,614 T/MW was used to reflect the near total dominance of Chinese manufactured solar panels in the Australian market. Throughout the Chinese manufacturing process very high levels of electricity is generated using coal power.

The comparative cost and emissions performance of each scenario was modeled and is summarised in Figure 1

Figure 1 – Nuclear and Renewable Energy Scenarios

1. The left-hand axis shows electricity costs in c/kWh while the right-hand axis shows system emissions intensity in g-CO₂/kWh on a Life Cycle Analysis basis.
2. On each column blue represents cost of system generation, yellow represents extra cost for high voltage users getting energy from high and medium voltage transmission such as large industry and urban electric train systems.
3. Green represents the extra cost to distribute energy from the High Voltage transmission system through to low voltage users such as general industry, small business and residential users.
4. The dashed red line and data points are the emissions intensity derived from fuel burning for each scenario.
5. The continuous red line and data points are the total system emissions intensity using Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)for each scenario.

Of the low carbon options the two nuclear scenarios have the lowest system costs and only the 75% nuclear is ultra-low carbon. The 100% Renewable and the Step Change fail to achieve either low or ultra-low emissions.

The reasons are shown in the following three images.

3.2  Step Change Scenario fails to achieve low emissions or low costs

Figure 2 – Step Change Energy Graphic

Figure 2 – Step Change Energy Graphic shows a ten day period in a June month. The thick black wavey  line represents the NEM load, dark blue represents hydro, grey is gas, green is wind, pink tones represent battery and pumped storage and the two yellow tones represent roof top and grid solar PV. Orange above PV represents spillage/curtailment.

Under the red arrow on the right-hand side we have a day when the system meets load with no spillage because wind output is very low. Under the left-hand red arrow wind has returned, storage is minimised and spillage is very large. This demonstrates some of the fundamental reasons why wind and solar based systems fail both emissions and cost minimisation.

These are:

1. Large amounts of redundant generation and storage are required to cope with fluctuating wind and solar output. In effect we have a very large “overbuild”.
2. Collapse of capacity factors caused by redundancy drives up embodied emissions especially from installed solar PV and gas backup to around 145 g-CO₂/kWh. This is a mediocre emissions reduction and can’t be described as “low carbon”.
3. Expansion of the High and Medium Voltage transmission grid has inefficient levels of utilisation due to fluctuating outputs from Renewable Energy Zones. This drives up network costs.
4. Very high levels of installed battery and pumped storage have low capacity factors and very high costs and embodied emissions.
5. Spillage/curtailment of 30% of generation occurs with the Step Change scenario.

3.3  100% Wind, Solar and Hydro Scenario fails to achieve low emissions or low costs

A 10 day winter period with 100% wind, solar and hydro is shown in Figure 3 – 100% “Renewable Energy” Graphic. Here we have a scenario where gas backup is removed from the system which is now totally reliant on wind, solar and hydro.

Figure 3 – 100% “Renewable Energy” Graphic

Costs rise massively due to very large increases in redundancy, storage, distribution and transmission. We now have 5.1 times more power capacity connected to the grid compared to an equivalent nuclear scenario and 60% of energy is curtailed or spilled. With these huge amounts of connected generation and storage the emissions intensity remains stubbornly high at 189 g-CO₂/kWh on an LCA basis. despite the removal of fossil fuel-powered generation from the system.

3.4  75% nuclear scenario with wind, solar and hydro achieve ultra-low emissions at economic costs

Reference is made to Figure 4 – 75% nuclear energy with wind, solar and hydro.

This scenario contains 33.5 GW of installed nuclear capacity operating at 81% capacity factor. Assumed NEM demand is 315 TWh per year compared to the current value of approximately 200TWh/year.

Figure 4 – 75% nuclear energy with wind, solar and hydro

The costs of nuclear power plants used in this analysis are:

• A$10,000/kW overnight capital cost.
• A$8.16/MWh fuel allowance
• A$31 allowed for operations and maintenance
• 6% Annual Discount Rate,
• For this example the calculated LCOE is A$140/MWh at 81% capacity factor

Emissions on an LCA basis have dropped to 34 g-CO₂/kWh. The retail cost to consumers is 34 c/kWh is ½ that of the Step Change Scenario and 1/3^rd that of the 100% wind, solar and hydro option.

4.     A Nuclear Plan for the NEM

A proposed timeline for the roll out of a comprehensive nuclear energy plan is shown in  Figure 5 – A Nuclear Plan for the NEM

Relevant parameters are:

1. Roll out is completed in 2060 with 36.8 GW of installed nuclear capacity.
2. Plants operate at 84% capacity factor.
3. Installed wind is 11.5GW, Grid solar – 23 GW and roof top solar is 25GW.
4. Total NEM load in 2060 is 364 TWh/yr.
5. Emissions intensity in 2060 will be 36 g CO₂/kWh and cost to consumers is 35.5 c/kWh
6. Emissions in 2050 are 51 gr CO₂/kWh or about 1/3^rd that of the Step Change Scenario in the same year.
7. Coal plants continue through to 2050 though at a significantly diminishing rate.
8. Gas consumption is minimised to prevent the construction of stranded assets and minimise electricity costs.

Figure 5 – A Nuclear Plan for the NEM

Claims that nuclear “takes too long” and “we have no time to wait” are addressed in Figure 6 Cumulative Emissions – Step Change vs Nuclear

Here we show that a nuclear baseload system will have lower accumulated emissions after the 2070’s and then cumulative emissions from nuclear energy will always be lower than a 100% wind and solar based system. Given the high levels of embodied emissions the hopes for a fast transition to low carbon energy using wind and solar will not materialise

A real world example of this happens everyday with the comparison of French electricity emissions with its neighbour in Germany shown in Figure 7 German vs French Electricity sector Emissions.

Figure 6 Cumulative Emissions – Step Change vs Nuclear

Figure 7 – German vs French Electricity sector Emissions

Image uses data from Fraunhofer ISE, RTI-France, ENSTO-E and Radiant Energy Group

5.     Materials Consumption is minimised with nuclear energy.

The energy transition was intended to herald a more sustainable future however attempting to achieve this with wind and solar will only result in a massive increase in materials consumption. These materials will litter the landscape and their end of life retrieval is neither certain nor affordable.

We have compared the materials use of two scenarios over an 80 year life in Table 2 – Materials used in Nuclear Energy system vs 100% wind and solar. That period was chosen because it can be expected that modern nuclear power plants such as the AP1000 will last for 80 years while wind generators will last for 30 years and solar PV for 25 years.

To arrive at these values in Table 2 we used recent data from the “Updated Mining Footprints and Raw Material Needs for Clean Energy – Challenges and opportunities for managing energy transition mining impacts” by Wang, Cook, Stein, Lloyd and Smith of the Breakthrough Institute. Its available at this link:

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/updated-mining-footprints-and-raw-material-needs-for-clean-energy

We then applied the materials used in wind, solar, nuclear and batteries to the amount of generating and storage capacity used in a 100% “Renewables” scheme on the NEM to a comparable Nuclear Energy scheme. We used the amount of equipment required in the comparison from values obtained in scenarios modelled by Nuclear For Climate Australia and Electric Power Consulting

Advocates for wind and solar frequently claim that components from these “Renewable” schemes are recyclable. This potential is limited by the energy and cost inputs required to recycle these components especially where:

1. they are located far from their place of manufacture and;
2. the costs of recovery are incurred in economies that have higher labour and equipment inputs than the place of extraction, refining and manufacture.

Nevertheless the degree to which recycling can occur was handled by looking at both the initial materials load for each system with the subsequent rebuild. Even if 100% of the Wind and Solar system could be recycled its initial materials load of 191 Million tonnes of gear would require 3.9 times that of the nuclear system with 72 million tonnes.

At the end of the day, materials consumption in manufactured items is a good proxy for comparative costs. This reinforces our finding that a nuclear energy based system is ½ to 1/3^rd the cost of a “Renewables” system. Given the large amounts of materials used with wind and solar it begs the question – What Does Renewable Mean?

In Figure 8 shown next, the brown columns show the initial materials load of a 100% RE system and orange above brown shows the contested amount that possibly could be recycled to some degree. Likewise the dark and light green show the ranges for the nuclear system.

Figure 8 Comparison of materials used in 100% wind and solar scheme with a nuclear dominated scheme

6.     Conclusion

There will be no net zero or any other zero emissions outcome unless a system based on high levels of nuclear energy is deployed.

Systems based exclusively on wind, solar and hydro cannot achieve deep decarbonisation in order to conform with jurisdictions aiming for “Net Zero”. This failure is due to high levels of embodied carbon and the collapse in capacity factors when wind and solar have high penetration rates on the grid.

These conclusions are supported by the very large amounts of material required to deploy wind and solar which are four to five times greater than required by a nuclear based system.

The post Nuclear Energy is Essential to Emissions Reductions first appeared on Nuclear for Climate Australia.

It presents conclusions drawn from references looking at the health impacts on workers operating nuclear power plants and addresses concerns regarding leukaemia in children living near those plants.

Surprisingly, there’s some evidence that low dose radiation is beneficial
So, please read on:
Industrial Radiation Health Impacts

The post Health Impacts of Radiation from Nuclear Power and Industry first appeared on Nuclear for Climate Australia.

11 February 2022 – from World Nuclear News

France will construct six new nuclear power reactors, consider building a further eight and push ahead with the development of small modular reactors, President Emmanuel Macron has said.

President Macron presenting details of the new energy policy

Speaking at GE Steam Power’s manufacturing site at Belfort in eastern France on Thursday, Macron, who faces a presidential election in April, said the main objective of the new policy was to reduce the country’s energy consumption while increasing its carbon-free energy production capacity.

He said in the coming decades France must produce more carbon-free electricity, because even if it reduces its energy consumption by 40%, the exit from oil and gas within 30 years implies that it will replace part of the consumption of fossil fuels with electricity. The country must therefore be able to produce up to 60% more electricity than today.

“Key to producing this electricity in the most carbon-free, safest and most sovereign way is precisely to have a plural strategy … to develop both renewable and nuclear energies,” Macron stated.

“We have no other choice but to bet on these two pillars at the same time. It is the most relevant choice from an ecological point of view and the most expedient from an economic point of view and finally the least costly from a financial point of view.”

The time is right for a nuclear renaissance in France, Macron said, adding he had made two important decisions regarding this.

Firstly, he said the operation of all existing reactors should be extended without compromising safety.

“If it is necessary to be cautious about the ability to extend our reactors, I hope that no nuclear reactor in a state of production will be closed in the future given the very significant increase in our electrical needs; except, of course, if safety reasons were necessary.”

He added that as the operation of some reactors had already been successfully extended beyond 40 years, he was requesting EDF and the nuclear regulator to “study the conditions for extending beyond 50 years”.

New build programme

Secondly, Macron announced the launch of a programme of new reactors. “We have learned lessons from the construction of EPR in Finland, where it is now complete, and in France at Flamanville. EDF has undertaken with the nuclear sector the design of a new reactor for the French market, the EPR2, which has already mobilised more than one million hours of engineering and presents significant progress compared with the EPR of Flamanville.

“I would like six EPR2s to be built and for us to launch studies on the construction of eight additional EPR2s,” he said. “We will thus advance step by step.”

Preparatory projects will be started in the coming weeks, Macron said, including finalisation of the design studies, referral to the national commission for public debate, definition of the locations of the three pairs of reactors and a ramp-up of the nuclear sector. He said a broad public consultation would take place in the second half of 2022 on energy, then parliamentary discussions will be held in 2023 to revise the multi-annual energy programme.

“We are aiming for construction to begin by 2028, with the first reactor commissioned by 2035. This implementation deadline also justifies the need to extend our current reactors and develop renewable energies.”

In addition, Macron said EUR1.0 billion (USD1.1 billion) will be made available through the France 2030 re-industrialisation plan for France’s Nuward small modular reactor project and “innovative reactors to close the fuel cycle and produce less waste”. He said he had set “an ambitious goal” to construct a first prototype in France by 2030.

“This new programme could lead to the commissioning of 25 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity by 2050,” Macron said.

Preparing the ground

“To implement these decisions, the regulatory, financial and organisational conditions of the sector and of the State must be met,” he added. “Within the State, an inter-ministerial programme department dedicated to new nuclear power will be created to oversee it, coordinate administrative procedures, and ensure compliance with construction costs and deadlines. EDF will build and operate the new EPRs.

“This national sovereignty enterprise, which is our common good, will be able to count on the support of the State for its solidity in the months, years and decades to come and to carry out this project on a scale unmatched for 40 years and to do so under the best financial and operational conditions. From a financial and regulatory perspective, massive public funding of several tens of billions of euros will be committed to finance this new programme, which will make it possible to preserve EDF’s financial situation and develop the entire sector.

“This is all the more important as EDF is going through a difficult period linked in particular to the operational difficulties encountered in the nuclear fleet … the State will assume its responsibilities to secure EDF’s financial situation and its financing capacity in the short and medium-term, as well as to enable it to pursue its profitable development strategy within the framework of the energy transition.”

Macron said the government, in agreement with the European Commission, would implement a new regulation of nuclear electricity that will replace the existing ARENH mechanism. Under ARENH, set up to foster competition, rival energy suppliers can buy electricity produced by EDF’s French nuclear power plants that were commissioned before 8 December 2010.

The new system, he said, would enable “French consumers, households and businesses to benefit from stable prices, close to electricity production costs in France. This is essential so that we can derive all the benefits from the nation’s historic investment and from the investment that we are in the process of recording.”

Nuclear accounts for almost 75% of France’s power production, but former French president Francois Hollande had aimed to limit its share of the national electricity generation mix to 50% by 2025, and to close Fessenheim – the country’s oldest nuclear power plant – by the end of his five-year term, in May 2017.

In June 2014, his government announced nuclear capacity would be capped at the current level of 63.2 GWe and be limited to 50% of France’s total output by 2025. The French Energy Transition for Green Growth Law, adopted in August 2015, did not call for the shutdown of any currently operating power reactors, but it meant EDF would have to close older reactors in order to bring new ones online. However, under a draft energy and climate bill presented in May 2019, France will now delay its planned reduction in the share of nuclear power in its electricity mix to 50% from the current 2025 target to 2035.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

The post French nuclear renaissance first appeared on Nuclear for Climate Australia.

EXCLUSIVE: GREG BROWN

COALITION’S CLIMATE PUSH

Nationals senators have drafted legislation allowing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in nuclear power as two thirds of Coalition MPs backed lifting the ban on the controversial fuel source to help shift the nation to a carbon neutral future.

The block of five Nationals senators, led by Bridget McKenzie and Matt Canavan, will move an amendment to legislation establishing a $1bn arm at the green bank to allow it to invest in nuclear generators, high-energy, low-emissions (HELE), coalfired power stations and carbon capture and storage technology.
The Nationals’ move comes as a survey of 71 Coalition backbenchers conducted by The Australian revealed that 48 were in favour of lifting the longstanding prohibition on nuclear power in the EPBC act.

Liberal MPs Andrew Laming, John Alexander and Gerard Rennick are among backbenchers who want Scott Morrison to take a repeal of the nuclear ban to the upcoming election — a move that would open a new divide with Labor as the nation sets a course for a low-emissions future.
“I’m very keen to see the prohibition lifted,” Mr Laming said. “It is something that has to be taken to an election so Australians realise there is a significant change in energy policy.”
Mr Alexander said it was like “trying to fight Muhammad Ali with one arm tied behind your back if you are going to ignore nuclear energy”.
“This is a new era; let’s be right at the cutting edge,” Mr Alexander said.

On Wednesday, the government was forced to delay a vote on a key piece of legislation to establish the Grid Reliability Fund after Barnaby Joyce pushed an amendment for the fund to be allowed to invest in HELE plants.

The fund would sit within the CEFC’s remit and support low emissions dispatchable power projects, as well as transmission and distribution infrastructure. It is aimed at stabilising the energy system and balancing the growth of intermittent renewables.

The new amendment proposed by the Nationals would go further than Mr Joyce’s push by ensuring the CEFC — established by the Gillard government in 2012 to invest in green energy initiatives — could help kick-start nuclear projects as well as new clean coal plants.
Senator McKenzie said: “We compete against the world with one hand behind our back while other nations avail themselves of cutting-edge, low-emissions technologies. For too long, Australia has blocked energy innovations such as nuclear and carbon capture technologies in addition to allowing (HELE) projects.”

Out of the 71 Coalition backbenchers surveyed by The Australian, only Queensland senator Paul Scarr was opposed to changing the nuclear prohibition enshrined in the EPBC Act, citing a lack of community support “at this stage”. A further 22 backbenchers were undecided or did not respond to questions.

Other supporters of lifting the ban on nuclear generation, including Trent Zimmerman, Ted O’Brien and Rowan Ramsey, believe the government should not move ahead with legalising the energy source while the proposal is bitterly opposed by Labor.
In-principle support for lifting the nuclear prohibition is prevalent by members in every faction of the Coalition, which has been divided over climate change action since Tony Abbott became prime minister in 2013.

City-based Liberal MPs who back strong action on climate change — including Jason Falinski, Tim Wilson, Katie Allen, Andrew Bragg and Dave Sharma — argue that nuclear should be an option in a technology agnostic approach to Australia finding a pathway to zero-net emissions. Conservative MPs who are cautious about green-energy policies — including Mr Joyce, Senator Canavan, Eric Abetz, Craig Kelly, Kevin Andrews and Tony Pasin — say nuclear energy could provide an option for a zero-emissions dispatchable power
source to balance out the growth of intermittent renewables.

The Prime Minister has signalled he will not move ahead with legalising nuclear energy unless there is bipartisan support with Labor. MPs told The Australian Mr Morrison was unlikely to pursue a policy change on the issue in this term of parliament. However, small modular nuclear reactors were included as a potential technology in the federal government’s technology
investment roadmap discussion paper.

Nuclear energy, which does not produce direct carbon emissions, is used in nations that have set zero-net emissions by 2050 targets, including Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and South Korea. The Biden administration is also supportive of nuclear power.
West Australian Liberal Vince Connelly said Australia was being “held back by an outdated ideology that seeks to paint nuclear technology as inherently evil”.
Ms Allen said, it was “hugely significant” the US was progressing with prototypes for small modular reactors.

South Australian senator Alex Antic said nuclear was “effective, reliable, safe and virtually emission-free”. “The radical left cannot have their ideological cake and eat it too when it comes to energy generation,” he said.
Mr Wilson attacked Labor and the Greens as nuclear science deniers. “You aren’t serious about climate change if you oppose nuclear outright,” he said. “Only nuclear plus baseload renewables can deliver Australia a sustainable net zero future with cheap, reliable electricity.”

Many government MPs acknowledge the power source is not currently competitive on price, but say investment decisions should be a matter for private companies and lifting the nuclear ban would encourage technological advancement.

Other Liberal MPs in favour of lifting the prohibition are: Warren Entsch, Russell Broadbent, James Stevens, Ian Goodenough, Rick Wilson, David Fawcett, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Sarah Henderson, Hollie Hughes, James McGrath, Jim Molan, Julian Simmonds, Bert van Manen, Ben Small, Dean Smith, David Van, Terry Young and James Paterson.

Nationals MPs who want the energy source legalised include Anne Webster, Damian Drum, Perin Davey, Llew O’Brien, Sam McMahon, Susan McDonald and Ken O’Dowd. Boothby MP Nicolle Flint has previously publicly backed nuclear power.

The post Coalition MPs want nuclear energy for a clean secure energy future first appeared on Nuclear for Climate Australia.

You can download the submission at the following link

Covid Committee submission NFC

The post National COVID-19 Coordination Commission first appeared on Nuclear for Climate Australia.

Inquiry on the Prerequisites for Nuclear Energy in Australia

You can download the submission and appendix at the following links

NFC Prerequisites for Nuclear Energy

NFC Appendix 1

The post Federal Government Inquiry on the Prerequisites for Nuclear Energy in Australia first appeared on Nuclear for Climate Australia.