Page: 1/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

Uranium M INING, P ROCESSING & N UCLEAR E NERGY R EVIEW

http://www.pmc.gov.au/umpner/reference.cfm

This paper is a submission from a private individual to UMPNER, due date = 18 August 2006. The content of this paper is endorsed for public distribution, and is not confidential.

BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF AUTHOR: Colin KLINE, 116 Fisken Rd, Mt Helen, Vic, 3350; elkline@vic.chariot.net.au
B.Sc (Physics & Electronics); Dip Electrical Engineering; TTTC; Graduate Inst. Engineers Aust; Member Inst Elec & Elt Engineers. 27 Years lecturer in Tertiary Engineering; Consulting roles in industry; 2 Tours of duty at Lucas Heights, Research Division. Currently retired, but involved in elective consultancies.

CHECKLIST FOR SUBMISSION: The author of this submission cannot pretend to have authoritative expertise in all areas of the (comprehensive) UMPNER Terms of Reference, as published on-line. Hence appendix01 is a spreadsheet checklist of those items that this author felt qualified to comment or advise upon. Only those items ticked are discussed. Some unavoidable overlap occurs because of the broad terms of reference. The body of this submission lies in the 5 following pages. The remaining 34 pages are annexes of electronic hard-copy of the content of web-URLs, cited in the body, but sometimes difficult to locate on the web. ABSTRACT OF SUBMISSION The key issues that my submission addresses are straightforward, for they invoke no new technologies: Australia is admirably placed, out of all nations, to technically, geographically and competently quarantine nuclear waste(s); Australian SYNROC technology offers an excellent solution. Australia is admirably placed to demonstrate technical vision and competence in reducing the threat of weapons proliferation inevitably arising out of exporting Uranium. The technology reviewed for this topic (viz, export Aluminium as energy, not Uranium as energy) would provide Australia with immense dollar profits, and considerable moral standing on the global stage. Australia has NO intrinsic advantage in being able to deliver objective assessments of nuclear energy adequacy. The common political risks involved in nuclear policy making are universal but these have nearly always implemented self-contradictory measures of the value of trade-offs. An additional included topic is admittedly not in the current mainstream of technologies (i.e., global cooling by IR reflectors in space), but could indeed be key to solving a crucial problem that of planetary heating (i.e. Greenhouse Effect) - by direct cooling of the planet. Such a proposal would require international cooperation and support.

Page: 2/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

QUARANTINING NUCLEAR WASTE:

It is frequently asserted, in some circles, that: there are no adequate technologies in place to safely quarantine radioactive waste ... This claim is provably uninformed, and inaccurate. Safe quarantine technology IS well known and available to us. Alas, this erroneous assertion is even published, unquestioned, in a draft paper by Engineers Australia (aka The Institution of Engineers Australia). 1 One should consult better information at: http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0008/article_03.asp, 2

http://www.ansto.gov.au/abd/ventures/synrocANSTO/collateral/synrocANSTO_FAQ.pdf. (a comprehensive FAQ). 3

These above links report on Australian SYNROC technology, invented 25 years ago by Prof. Ted RINGWOOD, at ANU. This process can store nuclear waste in a relatively small mass, buried deep in geologically stable rocks, for eons. This technology has already been used by the US & Russia in de-weaponising Plutonium warheads, and recently a large contract has been sold for binding nuclear waste at Sellafield (UK). The best implementation of this idea would be to locate a small SYNROC plant set beside every reactor, which would stabilise waste into a solid & unleachable chemically bound ceramic matrix (not a mixture), whose lifetime is longer than any known radionuclide. A nave objection to SYNROC has been: How could anyone be sure of this estimated lifetime? Answer: Engineers regularly test laboratory samples for a statistically short duration, and then extrapolate to longer durations. Thats why bridges rarely fall down. Another objection is: But SYNROC still emits radiation therefore its still dangerous. Answer: The half-thickness shielding for rays (the most penetrating) is 50mm for concrete, and 83mm for earth, a very easy construction goal. See: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/3-3-1_2/Appb.htm.4 So, a 10metre thick earth shield will reduce rays by a factor of 7.3E-31, but if buried under a desert cap of 100metres, any radiation from these buried blocks is reduced to a level almost infinitely below background cosmic radiation. Australias deserts fortunately offer geological structures that are superbly stable for this purpose. To aim for a zero radiation target (as touted by Friends of the Earth) is impossible, given existing background cosmic radiation. Even sawn & milled wood has a measurable radiation rate yet no one demands that all wood products be banned. Yet another concern is: How can one safely transport nuclear waste from a reactor over roads/sea to a SYNROC plant? Answer: Dont. Maintain an adequately sized SYNROC plant intimately proximate to every reactor, and then nuclear waste will never have to be transported anywhere through an open environment. Another question met is: How can one safely transport refined nuclear fuel to a reactor? Answer: Dont. Place the reactor(s) close to Uranium mine(s) to minimise transport of Uranium. Reactor(s) established near to Uranium deposits, and far from urban centres, will also lower NIMBY fears in the populace. Reticulation of reactor energy to regional steaming electricity generators would use the below discussed mechanism of Aluminium as energy. In addition, there already exists a fairly substantial High Voltage electricity power network around Australia. Underground tunnels through stable geological strata would also minimize risk of Uranium contamination in the open environment. Though most Australian Uranium Mines are open-cut, it would require little cost to convert them to fully sealed mines, which could perhaps use automatic, robotic, or telematic mining machinery.

ALUMINIUM AS ENERGY:
There is proper concern about exported Uranium proliferating into a weapons program. Solution? Dont ship any Uranium at all, instead ship the energy it represents. The idea is to use reactor generated electricity to smelt Aluminium ingots as floating barges, then one tugboat can tow vast amounts of Aluminium fuel to anywhere in the world. Aluminium is then burnt as Thermite, which creates heat for steaming electricity generators, with no CO2 generation whatsoever. Australia then keeps the used Uranium fuel, and safely processes this via the excellent SYNROC process. Instead of exporting Uranium metal, one now exports Aluminium metal. Australia has a substantial world percentage of both ores.
1 2

ANNEXE 01 ANNEXE 02 3 ANNEXE 03 4 ANNEXE 04

Page: 3/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

This proposal would advance Australia as an environmental visionary to the world, and demonstrate a workable international nuclear safety policy. To dissuade power reactors being converted into weapons grade nuclear forges, Australia could simply say: Dismantle your power reactors or we ship no Aluminium fuel! However, because of the short half-life of medicinal radio-isotopes, and long transportation times, one must make the concession that small isotope reactors have to be allowed in every nation, for the creation of diagnostic radio-tracers. Not only does Aluminiumisation if such a ghastly word is ever to be coined substantially cancel weapon proliferation concerns, it also solves the concern of any contamination from transporting Uranium ore (or worse, reactor fuel element rods, both new & used) over open environments. It is not infeasible to imagine that all Uranium processing from mining to nuclear fuel to electrical energy to Aluminium energy to SYNROC waste to waste archival could be conducted deep underground in Australias very stable geological strata. Radon gas can be captured underground by engineered air filters, and solidified in carbonates then SYNROC. Only clean Aluminium and electricity need appear in the open environment. There is a minor concern about the natural fast burn rate of Aluminium as energy. However, a probable solution is that the manufactured Aluminium briquettes can be doped to slow their burn rate to a desirable figure. Or else convert the Aluminium into even smaller briquettes, and then coat each small briquette with a fusion retardant. Or chop spools of Aluminium rod into short cylinders, and fire these (with compressed gas) into the furnace at an appropriate rate. There is also no logical difficulty in diverting a small fraction of an almost infinite supply of a nuclear generated electricity supply into vast desalination plants for a water-hungry Australia indeed the world. If water has to be shipped to isolated water reactors (but one hopes that instead much safer gas reactors will be used), ocean water can be flown to reactor sites via fire-fighting air-tankers, and desalinated by reactor electricity. For example, a Boeing 747 Fire Truck carries 24,000(US) gallons. In addition, a fleet of such Flying Fire Trucks can be rotated around the world to fight fires in each hemisphere, as needed in a fire season. Costs could be shared by each participating nation. As another example, a Martin-Mars air-tanker can pick up 7200(US) gallons in 15minutes, without landing.

OBJECTIVE MEASURES OF A TECHNOLOGY:

The most common objection to (any) nuclear technology is ... nuclear energy is more expensive than conventional or alternative power sources... But Lesley KEMENY, [School of Nuclear Engineering, UNSW] has published favourable costings of nuclear power, see: http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Going-nuclear-its-the-new-green/2005/04/27/1114462096097.html.5 Most costings have not been so precise, and have used inconsistent units, sometimes from unattributed sources, often without specifying what is, or not, included in the costing. See ANNEXE01. This is shoddy lobbying. However, if it is rare for figures to be given for CO2 over a nuclear life-cycle, it is obtusely omitted by proponents of sustainable energy technologies. These sustainable technologies always carry added costs (dollar and CO2) due to a need for necessary base-load generation plant, because wind and sun supply are not continuous 24*7*365. Energy demand however IS unavoidably 24*7*365, particularly for essential services. Note that wind energy is intrinsically variable in density; and solar energy is weakest in average supply, when energy is needed most, winter. There is conjecture that geothermal heat banks could provide the storage mechanism to solve this high energy variability. This additional facility would have to be properly costed. Geoff STRONG, senior staff writer of the Melbourne Age, has recently written a powerful article about the unviability of wind-energy as a sole solution to climate change. See: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/more-puff-thanpower/2006/08/09/1154802959199.html 6

Nuclear plants typically have the highest capacity factor of any generating source with capacity factors of about 90 percent. Fossil fuelled plants have lower capacity factors; coal typically has around a 70 percent capacity factor, natural gas plants of different types can vary from 14 percent to 50 percent capacity factors. Many renewables have low capacity factors. Wind and solar generation typically average around 15 to 30 percent capacity factors.

5 6

ANNEXE 05 ANNEXE 06

Page: 4/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

The lower the heat rate the more energy efficient a plant is. Plants that use a steam cycle such as coal, nuclear energy, and some natural gas plants tend to have heat rates of around 10,000 Btu/kWh. Some natural gas plants using the combined cycle technology have heat rates of around 7,500 Btu/kWh. Heat rate is not applicable for wind and solar plants, since they do not use fuel in the traditional sense of the word.
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=262

This UMPNER panel may need to be courageous and publish universal criteria that permit an objective assessment of all energy proposals. It would be disappointing if tired criteria like dollar cost per annum, or dollars per kWhr were used, instead of more the meaningful percentage additional generated CO2 (tonnes of Carbon), or predicted increase in average global temperature, or percentage increase in climate related deaths per annum, or percentage increase in linkable cancers (all isotopes leave a traceable signature in the bodies of live/dead animals).

NUCLEAR SAFETY:
The TMI (Three Mile Island) and Chernobyl incidents are often cited with alarm. But these were failures not just of technology, but of SMRs (Safety Management Regimes). No system, nuclear or not, can provide fail-safe protection against incompetent staff. However, good engineering and well implemented hazard management can optimize existing SMRs. The safest nuclear energy technologies in this regard are the High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR), or Pebble Bed Reactor (PBR), and the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), explorable at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power.7 PBR technology is intrinsically stable, and cannot ever go critical, even with 100% loss of coolant. IFR reactors give least waste, and use plentiful U238 (with reserves up to 10E6years). For LWRs, U235 has approx. 50years of reserves, (unless FBRs are used). Fear of terrorists attacking reactors, is also unrealistic. More likely targets are: water-supply, hydropower plants, petroleum storage, sky-scrapers, public-transport, bridges & tunnels, air & sea ports. In fact, reactors can operate deep underground, protected from assault and contained from leakage. Yes, most radioactive isotopes do need special protection against dispersal, but that this can be safely engineered together with well implemented SMRs. Note the established SMRs for potable water-supplies, world-wide, are even more alarmingly deficient, and are in great need of improvement. Public alarmism conceals a poor understanding of the discipline of Risk Engineering, e.g.: probability X event-cost = risk, and: risk X SMR = resilience. The probability of an event can be ascertained in various objective ways by post priori statistics, or a priori reasoning. However it is a common irrationality for fearful persons to attribute a higher probability than reasonable to events that are calamitous. This is why Chernobyl is so often cited with dread, but not so the impressively safe empirical history of reactor incidents world-wide. The event-cost of an event is often cited in dollars (both cost of damage and repair), but it could equally be cited in average reduction in life span in a nominated region. However, the perception of the value attached to human mortality has not been objectively consistent. If there were a disease that reduced average-life-span as greatly as road mortalities, this disease would indeed be classed as hugely catastrophic. But the public has become accustomed to this mortality rate, and is addicted to the convenience that their personal car provides, and to parochial disconcern about wars. There is no doubt that much publicised photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have negatively coloured the collective consciousness about nuclear safety beyond what is empirically justifiable, in terms of average-reduction-in-life-span due to non-weapon implementation of nuclear technology. This is a public image problem, not a technical one. That nuclear technology can practically employ very good Safety Management Regimes is demonstrated by the many Reactor-Years-GigaWattHrs of incident free (bar one no deaths, minor radiation release, St Laurent, 1980) electricity generation in France, deriving nearly 80% of its electricity from Uranium. There seems no particular reason why other countries cannot mimic this superb technical and safety resilience exhibited by France. Australia could benefit from seeking counsel from French authorities. See assessments of reactor safety at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUREG-1150.

ANNEXE 07

Page: 5/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

Even if nuclear technology can be proved to be of high resilience, nuclear advocates still need to concede that the darkest danger on the horizon would be if decision makers have already received their instructions from elsewhere, and will act accordingly, or that policies have already been established by corporate influentials. Worst of all would be if the best technical and SRM policy was ignored, and a luddite implementation chosen because there is perceived some dim political opportunism. In fact, that is why the Chernobyl RBMK reactor was built. In this scenario, good technical advice, one way or the other, will be jettisoned by such cavalier politics. Radon gas from mining is also cited by extremists as being of great concern. But Radon gas already naturally occurs, from tectonic plate shift, volcanoes, house bricks, wood products, and food. A rational concern should focus on: % increase (over background) of human fatalities per decade, due to nuclear mining & nuclear energy. See:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/chambe.htm and http://www.uic.com.au/ne6.htm.
8

Senseless alarmism is counter-productive for all. But then it has to be admitted that most mining tailings have had an appalling safety record to date, and SMRs in this area have need of drastic improvement, particularly from Australian corporations.

INRA-RED OPTICAL REFLECTORS IN SPACE:

One lateral thinking proposal is that global warming be tackled by directly engineered global cooling. The idea is to use large infrared reflective sails at Earth-Sun libration point L1 (perhaps with other libration points), where the sails selectively reflect only the IR (Infra-Red) part of the Earth bound solar spectrum, yet pass the visible spectrum (in order for normal photosynthesis to be maintained on Earth). It is better, from a redundancy engineering point of view, to have many smaller sails, rather than one large sail. These sails can be launched, and commissioned without the aid of human constructors, by automatically unfurling them from launch capsules (using a matrix of shape memory metals). One notion is to utilise nano-wire mirrors, to reflect IR http://www.comsol.com/stories/nanowires/. These can be engineered to reflect all, or part, of the IR spectrum as desired. These sails would be permanently fixed in location between Earth and sun, following Earth in its orbit around the sun. Cooling rates would be controllable by tilting the sails. The day-side of Earth then possesses a sun umbrella, and the night-side radiates IR out into space as per normal. Sail dispositions (in 3D) and micro-location (in 3D) can be set by one steerable ion-thruster, mounted on a sail edge/corner, and powered by solar photo-voltaics. There is no reason, however, why a combination of all energy and CO2 management schemes could not be implemented in parallel: Graeme PEARMAN, OAM, has published and spoken of comparative benefit of all technologies, and points to energy management as an immediately successful option to pursue. See:
http://www.environmentbusiness.com.au/Business%20and%20Sustainability%20Summit%20program.pdf 9

THE FUTURE:
Ultimately, any new Earth energy solution is only a temporary reprieve of 100 to 200 years. To do nothing about global warming now is likely to see catastrophic and very expensive disaster within 30 - 50 years. There is here an economic imperative, as well as an environmental one. Insurance cover and premiums are already reflecting concern about climate change. A most devastating climate and food crisis would result from the loss of the polar ice-caps, and consequent diversion of the gulf oceanic streams. Finally, one must not see the nuclear option (or any option) as a permanent solution for humanity in the face of inexorably increasing world growth in population and energy consumption. Eventually mankind must leave home and go offplanet to accommodate this relentlessly increasing population, and a planet depleted of resources. If the colonisation of space were to be undertaken, Earth-Moon libration points 4 & 5 are excellent candidates for such a repopulation. See:

8 9

Gerard K. ONEILL. The High Frontier: Human Colonies In Space. Jonathan Cape. UK. 1976. http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8725.html http://www.space-frontier.org/HighFrontier/ http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news international_news/&articleid=274407 A Hoist to the Heavens Space Elevators, IEEE Spectrum, Aug 2005. Arthur CLARKE, Profiles of the Future, Pan, UK, 1982

ANNEXE 08
ANNEXE 09

Page: 6/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

PUBLIC IMAGE MANAGEMENT:

Recent political and corporate history has created a widespread public perception that is quite cynical (if not paranoid) about most Govt policy created to steer nations into the future. Therefore any public policy enactment nowadays has to explicitly include an image management component. See: Jeffrey Ian ROSS. The Dynamics of Political Crime. (Sage, 2003).
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/03BRwhistle10.html

Political Finance/Govt Advertising. http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/data/list.asp?

mypage=2&head=15&OrderBy=4&Order=Desc&page=

Peter John PERRY. Political Corruption In Australia: A Very Wicked Place. Ashgate Publishing, 2001.
http://www.uq.net.au/~zzanzrsa/pdf/AJRS-9-1-2003.pdf

Page: 7/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

ANNEXE 01, UMPNER submission by CK

DRAFT DISCUSSION PAPER Should Australia develop nuclear energy sources in the future ? Purpose Of Draft Discussion Paper
This is a draft discussion paper for members of Engineers Australia on whether Australia should develop nuclear energy sources in the future. The National Council of Engineers Australia has no position on whether Australia should develop a nuclear power industry. However, Council believes that the issues associated with nuclear power must be examined and that public debate must be informed by professional expertise. This draft discussion paper is intended to elicit members views. It is based on the work of the Engineers Australia Sustainable Energy Taskforce, the Engineers Australia Nuclear Panel and input from The Natural Edge Project, as well as other referenced documents. The paper raises a series of discussion points to be used in workshops to be held in each Division of Engineers Australia to gain further information on issues and to elicit member opinion. COMMENT: CONTACT: This paper is admittedly a first draft version, accessible only to members, and so the UMPNER panel may care to press Engineers Australia for a later updated, emended and public edition. pvarsanyi@engineersaustralia.org.au

Page: 8/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

ANNEXE 02, UMPNER submission by CK

http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0008/article_03.asp

Rock-Solid Radioactive Waste September 2005

For the first time ever a technology known as synroc will turn liquid radioactive waste into synthetic rock. Just like in nature, where some rock minerals trap radioactive materials (such as uranium and thorium) in their crystal structure. Synroc technology was inspired by nature. The idea was that if natures rocks can safely contain radioactive substances within their structure for millions of years, then surely synthetic rock would be ideal to store man-made radioactive waste. Designed to mimic the rocks natural processes, synroc was developed in the late 1970s at the Australian National University and later at ANSTO (the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) by a team of scientists. ANSTO will be the worlds first facility to turn liquid waste from molybdenum-99 radioisotope production into synroc. The technology will be in operation within the next three years. ANSTOs technology has been 10 years in the making, and is now becoming reality by applying it to a molybdenum waste immobilisation project. This is thanks to the dedication and hard work of husband and wife scientist-engineers Dr ERDEN and Dr Devlet SIZGEK, and a team of ANSTO engineers. The team has nearly finished a full-scale mock-up of the plant, designed to test custom-built equipment needed to process the material. This must be achieved before a real hot cell plant is built and actual radioactive material is handled. Before reaching this current crucial mock-up stage, however, the production process had to be scoped, investigated and refined. ERDENs first ANSTO synroc task was to develop a technology to produce the precursor powders needed to be mixed with the radioactive waste before - using heat and pressure - it could be pressed into synroc. We have expert group of scientists in ANSTO who can tailor the chemical composition of synroc to fit the waste to be immobilised, he said. My first challenge was to develop the ceramic precursor powder-making process, which is called sol-gel process, ERDEN explained. A sol being a colloidal suspension of solid particles in a liquid medium which turns into a gel when the particles link-up to form a semisolid. According to ERDEN, the sol-gel process is not dissimilar to how yogurt and cheese are made. Milk consists of minute particles of fat and protein suspended in water, then a microbial reaction involving yeast causes the suspended particles to gel into a homogeneous mass, he said. Following ERDENs success making the Synroc precursor powder on an industrial scale, there was then a need to develop another technology: the full-scale equipment required to mix the precursor powder with liquid radioactive material. It was at this time that ERDEN and DEVLET joined forces. DEVLET arrived at ANSTO nearly three years after ERDEN but was already very familiar with his work. She led the project during the technology development phase. Over time the technology was perfected and we refined the process by which we change the liquid waste into a dry powder in a controlled manner, avoiding what we call the slurry phase she said. Being married and working together had its pros and cons, but we believe the pros outweighed the cons, DEVLET explained. Our strong commitment to the project may not have existed had we not been so closely linked. There was a downside, however. Because we live under the same roof we naturally talk a lot about work at home, she laughed. As Project Leader, I sometimes had to discuss project matters with Erden over the dinner table! DEVLET and ERDEN said the building of the mock-up plant to simulate hot cell operations has been a true team effort. During its development about two dozen people have worked hard to make the mock-up cell a reality. ERDEN and DEVLET are adamant about the projects Australian roots. Synroc is based on 100 per cent Australian research, they said. We may have originally come from Turkey but as far as we are concerned, the science and technology we have conducted is totally Australian, as we now are.

Page: 9/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

ANNEXE 03, UMPNER submission by CK

This is the html version of the file: http://www.ansto.gov.au/abd/ventures/synrocANSTO/collateral/synrocANSTO_FAQ.pdf.

Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation ANSTO SYNROC Frequently Asked Questions 02 August 2004 SYNROC, ANSTOs low-risk alternative waste forms are designed to lock up nuclear waste. They offer overall cost and processing schedule savings worth billions of dollars via higher waste loadings, better chemical durability, more processing flexibility and lower off- gas emissions. The waste form is the key component of the immobilization process. It determines the type of nuclear waste that can be immobilized, how well the waste is locked up, and ultimately the number of disposal canisters required (waste loading). The expertise of the synrocANSTO team lies in tailoring the design of the ceramic or glass-ceramic waste form and the associated process technology to suit the unique characteristics of the waste, which enables these cost savings to be realised. Q1: Q2: Q3: Q4: Q5: Q6: Q7: Q8: Q9: Q10: Q1: A:
Synroc has been around for 25 years, why hasnt it been successful? What are the benefits of synroc technology? If its aimed at problematic waste streams, can it solve the really big waste issues? Why was synroc developed in Australia? Compared to glass, it sounds really complicated? But its only a small and front-end part of the bigger issue? What advantages does it really have? How would we deploy? Who have you worked with in the US? What will they say about you when I call them? What real advantages does synroc have? Why and for whom? Where is the best bang for my buck if I use synroc? Why is synrocANSTO a good partner?

Synroc has been around for 25 years, why hasnt it been successful? Synroc was chosen by US Department of Energy to immobilize surplus weapons plutonium in the US and Russia (although with the change in US government this option is in suspension, highlighting the political nature of the industry). It was chosen because it had several major advantages over glass. The original synroc formulation was designed for high-level waste (HLW) from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, but many countries, including the US, dont reprocess their waste. At the time, decisions on HLW waste forms were made in the early 1980s borosilicate glass was chosen because it was the most technically mature technology. Since then synroc technology has matured, its advantages over glass in many areas confirmed, and a wide range of synroc formulations developed to cope with a diverse range of radioactive waste streams. This claim was validated by selection of synroc for the plutonium immobilization program in late 90s (as mentioned above). Only a small proportion of HLW waste around the world has been immobilized because of ongoing debate among stakeholders. Implementation takes political will and is a slow process. More recently, tailored Synroc waste forms have been developed targeting problematic tank and legacy waste streams that are difficult to incorporate in glass. In many instances the processing of these problematic wastes has often been delayed in favor of processing simpler waste streams.

Q2: A:

What are the benefits of synroc technology? synrocANSTO technology is no more expensive than glass; indeed the benefits of this technology can save billions of dollars compared with glass. In combination with our waste form design chemistry it produces waste forms with higher waste loadings and better chemical durability. The process technology is flexible, much more so than Joule melting, and has much lower off-gas emissions, enabling it to be used for a wide range of waste streams. The technology synroc uses is mature, has been used at a large industrial scale and in the nuclear industry.

Q3:

If its aimed at problematic waste streams, can it solve the really big waste issues?

Page: 10/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

A:

Higher waste loadings and reduced off-gas emissions enable billion dollar savings to be achieved via the use of alternative waste forms for a wide range of wastes. synrocANSTO technology is suitable for an extremely diverse range of nuclear waste, however in view of major current investment in glass technology for HLW, most pronounced savings are for wastes difficult to incorporate in glass. Nuclear wastes that can not be readily handled by glass are often viewed as intractable. Synroc offers a superior immobilization solution to these intractable nuclear waste issues. Why was synroc developed in Australia? The concept was invented in Australia and its superior performance and global potential was recognised by the Australian Government. Australia is part of the nuclear fuel cycle as a major uranium exporter. Synroc offers solutions to back-end challenges of the fuel cycle and demonstrates Australias role as a responsible member of the international nuclear community. Compared to glass, it sounds really complicated? The technology is no more complicated than glass, although it is much more flexible in terms of the types of waste it can accommodate. The processes are widely used in industry and have been demonstrated at scale in nuclear applications. But its only a small and front-end part of the bigger issue? What advantages does it really have? How would we deploy? The waste form is the key component of the immobilization process. It determines the type of nuclear waste that can be immobilized, how well the waste is locked up, and ultimately the number of disposal canisters required (waste loading). synrocANSTO waste forms offer overall cost and processing schedule savings worth billions of dollars via higher waste loadings, better chemical durability, more processing flexibility and lower off-gas emissions. synrocANSTO technology can be implemented via either retrofiting or custom building a waste processing facility using technology proven in the nuclear industry. Who have you worked with in the US? What will they say about you when I call them? We have worked closely with a range of US DOE laboratories including: LLNL, SRS, PNNL, INEEL, ANLW. ANSTO is a good partner, with a strong technical foundation. What real advantages does synroc have? Why and for whom? Significant cost and schedule savings, with a reduction in risk and off-gas emissions. These are achieved by using waste form and process technologies that give superior immobilization performance with respect to factors such as increased waste loading and chemical durability. Where is the best bang for my buck if I use synroc? Savings are most apparent for wastes difficult to immobilize in glass, such as INEEL HLW calcines & sodium bearing liquid waste, pure and impure plutonium and other actinide waste streams, as well as niche wastes, such as those containing technetium, cesium and strontium. Why is synrocANSTO a good partner? ANSTO, an Australian government nuclear science and technology organisation, has over 25 years experience in the development of low-risk, reduced-cost, alternative ceramic and glass-ceramic waste forms. synrocANSTOs unique capabilities position it as a global leader in alternative waste forms. They include: Extensive experience in waste form immobilization design; Integrated process development, and Waste form characterization.

Q4: A:

Q5: A:

Q6: A:

Q7: A: Q8: A:

Q9: A:

Q10: A:

For further information contact: Bruce Begg, bruce.begg@ansto.gov.au Waste Form Development Rob Muir, robert.muir@ansto.gov.au Director, Business Development

Page: 11/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

ANNEXE 04, UMPNER submission by CK

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/3-3-1_2/Appb.htm

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Appendix B

Shielding
Shielding reduces the effects of gamma radiation on personnel and equipment. Metal, concrete, soil, water, and wood are good shielding materials. The denser the material, the better the shield. Low-density materials are as effective as higher density materials when the total thickness of the low density material is increased. Density is defined as the number of molecules per unit of volume. The denser a material, the better shield it makes. It is not possible for gamma radiation to be completely absorbed. However, if enough material is placed between the individual and the radiation source, the dose rate can be reduced to negligible proportions. The three types of radiation which we try to shield against are as follows: Alpha Radiation -- A helium nucleus, stripped of its electrons, that travels only a few centimeters in air (5-10 cm) and is an internal hazard only. Beta Radiation -- A very high speed electron that travels a few meters in air, but has limited penetrating power. Beta radiation is an external hazard and internal hazard. Gamma Radiation -- Pure energy traveling at the speed of light. Gamma can never be totally shielded out, but can be reduced to insignificant or negligible levels. To determine the effectiveness of shielding, you must calculate the dose rate (inside or outside) based on the density and thickness of a given shield. This calculation requires determining the half-thickness or total thickness of a particular shielding material. Principles Density -- Mass (number of molecules per unit of volume). The denser a material, the better shield it makes. Half-thickness -- The amount of material required to reduce the dose rate by one-half. Total thickness -- This is the actual thickness of the shielding material. Position of the shield -- The closer the shield is to the source the better. Dose rate build-up -- This is produced by the shield. The shield causes radiation to scatter; therefore, the closer you are to the shield the higher the dose rate.

Materials
Earth. The most common shielding material. About one foot of earth makes a very adequate shield. Concrete. About 6 to 8 inches of concrete makes a good shield. Steel. Tanks and (USMC) amtracks are very good shields against radiation. Buildings. Wood or brick buildings make good shields. Effectiveness The effectiveness of a given material in decreasing radiation intensity is measured in units of half-value-layer thickness, or half-thickness. This unit is defined as the thickness of any material which reduces the dose rate of gamma radiation to one-half its unshielded value. Thus, if a soldier were surrounded by a 6-inch concrete wall (6 inches is the half-thickness of concrete) and the gamma radiation outside were 200 cGyph, he or she would receive gamma radiation at the rate of 100 cGyph. The addition of another 6 inches reduces the rate to 50 cGyph. Each succeeding half-thickness of concrete would, therefore, reduce the radiation dose by one-half. Problem: How many half-thicknesses of the above concrete wall reduce the radiation dose to 25 cGyph? Solution: Beginning with the rate of 200 cGyph, the first half-thickness reduces it to 100 cGyph. The second halfthickness reduces the dose rate to 50 cGyph, and the third to 25 cGyph. Three half-thicknesses (18 inches) of concrete meets the requirement.

Page: 12/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

Mathematical Method A series of computations are necessary to determine shielding requirements. The following symbols represent unknown values. An equation accompanies each to allow a better understanding of what each represents.

Page: 13/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

ANNEXE 05, UMPNER submission by CK Going Nuclear: Its The New Green Lesley KEMENY, consulting nuclear engineer Age Opinion, 28-04-2005
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Going-nuclear-its-the-new-green/2005/04/27/1114462096097.html

Nuclear power is a cheap, clean and safe source of energy that we cant afford to ignore. More than 50 years ago, the Commonwealth of Australia was set to become the first nation south of the equator to build and operate a nuclear power plant for electricity generation. Sadly, this project and many other planned ventures connected with the technology and commercialisation of the global nuclear industry have not gone ahead. Federal Science Minister Brendan NELSONs recent timely comments advocating the use of nuclear energy in Australia for the production of electricity and fresh water (The Age, 22/04) show the signs of both informed realism and political courage. They would certainly be commended by the global scientific and technical community and, now, by many of planet Earths leading environmental activists. Last September Australia hosted the World Energy Congress. At the heart of this congress was a session entitled Nuclear Energy - Inevitable Or Irrelevant? For at least 30 of the participating countries, the reliability, safety, economy and greenhouse gas-free operation of 437 nuclear plants has made nuclear energy; inevitable. Unfortunately, for Australia, which supplied 13 of these countries with uranium fuel, the technology has, so far, been irrelevant. The Australian paradox of a nation endowed with more than 40 per cent of the worlds economically recoverable greenhouse-friendly and energy-rich uranium fuel and yet strenuously resisting its use in its domestic energy policies bemuses the global community. This is especially true of countries such as France and Japan, which manage to minimise their own greenhouse emissions through the use of Australian uranium. As well, Australias commendable interest in non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the international nonproliferation, treaty could best be served by the nations full involvement in the international nuclear fuel cycle industry. As a dominant partner in the production, sale or leasing and reprocessing of nuclear fuel, Australia could play, a vital part in the surveillance and enforcement of geopolitical stability and peace. Last December, the chief executives of more than 20 European Union energy companies called on their governments to make nuclear power a central part of their energy policies, on the basis of energy security and environmental protection. They pointed out that all low-carbon and zero carbon sources would need to be mobilised - notably nuclear and renewables - and hence all should be able to compete equitably. This statement was presented as the opening shot in a new offensive to change policy settings in EU countries to give due credit to the virtues of nuclear power and to remove measures that discriminate against it. In the United Kingdom, the head of the Confederation of British Industry earlier called for the immediate construction of six new nuclear plants over the next 10 years, since the British Governments reliance on wind would achieve little. The year 2005 may mark a defining moment in Australian attitudes towards nuclear energy and cause the Federal Government and the Council of Australian Governments to sit up and take notice. A global resurgence in nuclear power station construction is driving uranium prices to record highs. Australian uranium producers are the focus of the international market. In February, at its annual meeting, the chairman of BHP-Billiton, a major global producer of hydrocarbon fuel, confirmed that his company was now interested in nuclear fuel. Within one month this interest was converted into a $9 billion takeover bid for the worlds largest uranium resource, Western Mining Corporations Olympic Dam project in South Australia. This action has implications for strategic changes in both base-load fuel supply to the world and concern over the economics of carbon trading relevant to hydrocarbon fuels. Consider the immense contribution to greenhouse gas emission minimisation made by nuclear energy in 2001. In that year, the global electricity produced by the worlds 435 nuclear power stations was 2398 terawatt hours or 16 per cent of total electricity generation or 5 per cent of total primary energy production. The amount of avoided carbon dioxide emission because of the use of nuclear energy in 2001 was 2.4 billion tonnes. This is 10 per cent of

Page: 14/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

total emissions. Japans 54 nuclear power stations alone save the equivalent of Australias total greenhouse emissions. And the secret of this success is uranium fully imported from Australia. In the United States last year, its 103 NUCLEAR power stations maintained their position as lowest-cost producers of electricity, at US$1.71 cents/kilowatt-hour for fuel, operation and maintenance. This includes a US$0.45 cent fuel cost, of which about US0.1 cents would be the ex-mine uranium before manufacture into fuel. COAL came in at US$1.83c/kWh (US$1.36 cents of this for fuel), and GAS was US$4.06c/ kWh (US$3.44 cents of this being fuel). The implications of increased fossil fuel costs stand out. Reactor capacity factors reached an average of 91.5 per cent - a record. Compare this with an average capacity factor of 20 per cent for WIND farms. All nuclear costings now include waste. management and plant decommissioning. A conference held in Marrakech, Morocco, in October 2002 came to the conclusion that nuclear energy presented the technical, economical and environmental optimum for electricity generation and potable water production, confirmed by the pioneering work of Japan, Russia, India and China. These countries have already operated nuclear desalination plants producing from 6000 cubic metres to 80,000 cubic metres of potable water a day at costs below $US1 a cubic metre. In Australia, a number of such plants well sited - could make a huge difference to the nations water and salinity problems. It is interesting to observe that, both globally and in Australia, public attitudes and perceptions are beginning to favour and accept nuclear energy. Even Australias stalwart antinuclear activists are beginning to change their attitudes. They have little alternative as, one by one, the leaders of planet earths environmental movements speak: out in favour of the nuclear option. Recently, Patrick MOORE, one of the founders of Greenpeace in 1971 and subsequently its president, has berated those who lobby against clean nuclear energy. He said that activists have abandoned science in favour of sensationalism and pointed out that nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand. Leslie KEMENY is the Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy and is a consulting nuclear engineer and physicist.

Page: 15/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

ANNEXE 06, UMPNER submission by CK

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/more-puff-than-power/2006/08/09/1154802959199.html

More Puff Than Power

Geoff STRONG, senior staff writer Age, 10 August 2006 We need renewable energy sources, but the answers not blowin in the wind, writes Geoff Strong. Since Europeans began squeezing out Australias riches, a magic-pudding mythology has wormed into our folklore. Its part of a fantasy that the land and its resources are endless and infinite. As Norman LINDSAYS storybook character says, the more ya eats, the more ya gets. It probably explains how we are lulled by some of the claims of alternative energy. How often do we hear the mantra, particularly from politicians, clean, green and totally renewable? Well maybe, but first read the fine print. Wind farms are now the renewable energy source of choice, largely because they are a tested off-the-shelf technology that generates electricity. They are particularly attractive to big investors, such as union superannuation funds wanting to demonstrate that their investments are ethical. Also they appeal to astute merchant banks that detect a public willing to pay more for an energy source they believe helps the environment, particularly with rules guaranteeing that any power generated will be bought. For politicians, turbines are big and visible tangible proof to a worried public that something is being done about human-induced global warming, a problem few people fully understand. Thus Victoria recently announced a wind industry free kick with a new policy to increase the number in the state. Equally few people seem to understand electricity generation and the grid that distributes it. Some think power is stored in a giant battery down in the Latrobe Valley. Others (including some cabinet ministers), seem to think the system is like a lake into which energy produced can just be poured. In reality, it is more like the vascular system of an animal: inputs and pulse must be carefully regulated or things will go wrong. Electric energy is one of the foundations of the civilisation we probably take for granted. In Australia, the economy underpinning that civilisation relies on electricity being fairly cheap. We have little else, such as low wages, to keep industries like manufacturing here. What sort of an economy would we have with Chinese rates of pay? But do technologies such as wind really work and answer our clean energy needs? A decade ago, I was one of the wind-farm faithful, but after closer examination I have become an apostate. Global warming is real and the biggest threat to our planet and species. My main concern about wind farms is that they lull many into thinking something effective is being done, when I suspect it is not. For starters, wind farms generate for only about 20 to 30 per cent of the time and it is only by chance that any power is generated when it is needed. Take the recent experience of the merchant bank spin-off Babcock and Brown Wind Partners. With 19 wind farms on three continents, the company has faced a $10 million profit downgrade because the recent heatwave in Spain and Germany led to "still wind". In other words, it did not blow when consumers wanted air-conditioning. Australias electricity supply on our east coast is managed by the National Electricity Market Management Company. It is charged with meeting demand with supply at the most economical price. In any power system, electricity comes from two forms, baseload and peak. The first are the big power stations that produce bulk electricity in our state from brown coal, while nuclear power is touted as a greenhouse-friendly alternative. Peak power usually comes from hydro or gas more expensive, more environmentally friendly but able to be stopped and started according to demand. Where does wind come in? In a sense it doesnt, because NEMMCO does not count it as power generation, because it cant be called up like other forms. Rather, it is classified as a drop in demand. As well, wind does not normally displace coal power, it displaces the more environmentally sound but expensive generators such as hydro-electricity and gas.

Page: 16/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

In addition, because of its unreliability wind has to be backed up to 90 per cent of its claimed capacity by other forms of generators. Also, the output is relatively low per dollar spent. The State Government has a report it wont release that sources have said confirms this. Victorias biggest power station, Loy Yang A, produces 2000 megawatts. The average wind turbine produces about one megawatt in ideal wind conditions. Imagine the area of the state that would need to be covered in turbines to replace the 6395 megawatts we get from coal. Dont forget to back it up about 90 per cent for reliability. There are, however, alternative energies with baseload prospects such as using steam from underground hot rocks to power generators. Another intriguing project is the 500-megawatt solar tower, proposed for near Mildura, where a huge greenhouse would generate hot air to be sucked up a 500-metre- high tube, turning embedded wind turbines. The company behind it, EnviroMission, claims this also offers the renewable holy grail of being able to store energy, in this case in the heated ground. While hard reality means clean energy might not be blowing in the wind, it might well be in the updraft.

Page: 17/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

ANNEXE 07, UMPNER submission by CK

Nuclear power
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A nuclear power station. Non-radioactive water vapor rises from the hyperboloid shaped cooling towers. The nuclear reactors are inside the cylindrical containment buildings. Nuclear power is the controlled use of nuclear reactions to release energy for work including propulsion, heat, and the generation of electricity. Human use of nuclear power to do significant useful work is currently limited to nuclear fission and radioactive decay. Nuclear energy is produced when a fissile material, such as uranium-235 (235U), is concentrated such that the natural rate of radioactive decay is accelerated in a controlled chain reaction and creates heat which is used to boil water, produce steam, and drive a steam turbine. The turbine can be used for mechanical work and also to generate electricity. Nuclear power is used to power most military submarines and aircraft carriers and provides 7% of the world's energy and 17% of the world's electricity. The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 20% of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percent of its energy from nuclear reactors80% as of 2006. [1] [2] International research is ongoing into various safety improvements, the use of nuclear fusion and additional uses such as the generation of hydrogen (in support of hydrogen economy schemes), for desalinating sea water, and for use in district heating systems. Construction of nuclear power plants declined following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl. Lately, there has been renewed interest in nuclear energy from national governments, the public, and some notable environmentalists due to increased oil prices, new passively safe designs of plants, and the low emission rate of greenhouse gas which some governments need to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol. A few reactors are under construction, and several new types of reactors are planned. The use of nuclear power is controversial because of the problem of storing radioactive waste for indefinite periods, the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, and the possibility that its use in some countries could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Proponents believe that these risks are small and can be further reduced by the technology in the new reactors. They further claim that the safety record is already good when compared to other fossil-fuel plants, that it releases much less radioactive waste than coal power, and that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source. Critics, including most major environmental groups believe nuclear power is an uneconomic, unsound and potentially dangerous energy source, especially compared to renewable energy, and dispute whether the costs and risks can be reduced through new technology. There is concern in some countries over North Korea and Iran operating research reactors and fuel enrichment plants, since those countries refuse adequate IAEA oversight and are believed to be trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Page: 18/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

Contents [hide]

1 History o 1.1 Origins o 1.2 Early years o 1.3 Development 2 Current and planned use 3 Reactor types o 3.1 Current technology o 3.2 How it works o 3.3 Experimental technologies 4 Life cycle o 4.1 Fuel resources o 4.2 Reprocessing o 4.3 Solid waste 5 Economy o 5.1 Capital costs o 5.2 Operating costs o 5.3 Subsidies o 5.4 Other economic issues 6 Risks o 6.1 Accident or attack o 6.2 Health effects on populations near nuclear plants o 6.3 Nuclear proliferation 7 Environmental effects o 7.1 Air pollution o 7.2 Waste heat in water systems 8 List of atomic energy groups 9 References 10 See also o 10.1 Nuclear power by country o 10.2 USAEC/USNRC studies of risk at nuclear power plants 11 External links

History Origins The first successful experiment with nuclear fission was conducted in 1938 in Berlin by the German physicists Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassmann. During the Second World War, a number of nations embarked on crash programs to develop nuclear energy, focusing first on the development of nuclear reactors. The first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction was obtained at the University of Chicago by Enrico Fermi on December 2, 1942, and reactors based on his research were used to produce the plutonium necessary for the "Fat Man" weapon dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. Several nations began their own construction of nuclear reactors at this point, primarily for weapons use, though research was also being conducted into their use for civilian electricity generation. Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951 at the EBR-I experimental fast breeder station near Arco, Idaho, which initially produced about 100 kW. In 1952 a report by the Paley Commission (The President's Materials Policy Commission) for President Harry Truman made a "relatively pessimistic" assessment of nuclear power, and called for "aggressive research in the whole field of solar energy". [3]

Page: 19/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

A December 1953 speech by President Dwight Eisenhower, "Atoms for Peace", set the U.S. on a course of strong government support for the international use of nuclear power. Early years

The Beaver Valley Nuclear Generating Station in Shippingport, Pennsylvania was the first commercial reactor in the USA and was opened in 1957. On June 27, 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid started operations at Obninsk, USSR [4]. The reactor was graphite moderated, water cooled and had a capacity of 5 megawatts (MW). The world's first commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall in Sellafield, England was opened in 1956, a gascooled Magnox reactor with an initial capacity of 50 MW (later 200 MW) [5]. The Shippingport Reactor (Pennsylvania, 1957), a pressurized water reactor, was the first commercial nuclear generator to become operational in the United States. In 1954, the chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (forerunner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) famously declared that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter" [6] and foresaw 1000 nuclear plants on line in the USA by the year 2000. In 1955 the United Nations' "First Geneva Conference", then the world's largest gathering of scientists and engineers, met to explore the technology. In 1957 EURATOM was launched alongside the European Economic Community (the latter is now the European Union). The same year also saw the launch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Thanks to the presence of the nearby Bettis Laboratory and the Shippingport power plant, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania became the world's first nuclear powered city in 1960. Development Installed nuclear capacity initially rose relatively quickly, rising from less than 1 gigawatt (GW) in 1960 to 100GW in the late 1970s, and 300GW in the late 1980s. Since the late 1980s capacity has risen much more slowly, reaching 366GW in 2005, primarily due to Chinese expansion of nuclear power. Between around 1970 and 1990, more than 50GW of capacity was under construction (peaking at over 150GW in the late 70s and early 80s) in 2005, around 25GW of new capacity was planned. More than two-thirds of all nuclear plants ordered after January 1970 were eventually cancelled.[7] During the 1970s and 1980s rising economic costs (related to vastly extended construction times largely due to regulatory delays) and falling fossil fuel prices made nuclear power plants then under construction less attractive. In the 1980s (U.S.) and 1990s (Europe), flat load growth and electricity liberalization also made the addition of large new baseload capacity unnecessary. A general movement against nuclear power arose during the last third of the 20th century, based on the fear of a possible nuclear accident and on fears of latent radiation, and on the opposition to nuclear waste production, transport and final storage. Perceived risks on the citizens health and safety, the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island and the 1986 Chernobyl accident played a key part in stopping new plant construction in many countries. Austria (1978), Sweden (1980) and Italy (1987) voted in referendums to oppose or phase out nuclear power, while opposition in

Page: 20/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

Ireland prevented a nuclear programme there. However, the Brookings Institution suggests in [8] that new nuclear units have not been ordered primarily for economic reasons rather than fears of accidents. Financing for new reactors dried up when Wall Street's enthusiasm ended. Disillusionment was complete when new research discredited the claim (previously accepted as fact even by opponents) that nuclear power was still, despite all its problems, the most cost-effective source of electrity. Industry figures had omitted the factor of downtime. The newest and biggest U.S. plants were actually producing only half the energy they were supposed to, due to shutdowns for refueling, routine maintenance, retrofitting, and frequent minor mishaps. (See Charles Komanoff, "U.S. Nuclear Plant Performance," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November 1980. See also Komanoff's overview of the reasons for the nuclear industry's decline in the critical period from 1973 to 1981, which includes some economic analysis [9]) As of 2006, the stated desire to use nuclear power for electricity generation has been suspected of being a cover for nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea. Current and planned use See also: Nuclear power by country

A map showing countries with commercial reactors. Click on image for key. In 2005, there were 441 commercial nuclear generating units throughout the world, with a total capacity of about 368 gigawatts.[10] 111 reactors (36GW) have been shut down.[11] 80% of reactors (and of generating capacity) are more than 15 years old.[12] In 2006 in the United States, there were 104 (69 pressurized water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate, producing a total of 101,289 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20 percent of the nation's total electric energy consumption. The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power. Future development of nuclear power in the U.S. (see the Nuclear Power 2010 Program) was enabled by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 [13]. As of 2005, no nuclear plant had been ordered without subsequent cancellation for over twenty years, thus the desire for programs to promote new construction. However, on September 22, 2005 it was announced that two sites in the U.S. had been selected to receive new power reactors (exclusive of the new power reactor scheduled for INL). Since then, other utilities have taken steps towards ordering new nuclear reactors. In France, as of 2005, 78% of all billed electrical energy was generated by 58 nuclear reactors, the highest share in the world. France closed its last coal mine in April, 2004, and currently relies on fossil energy for less than 10% of its electricity production. Some sources cite Lithuania as the world's most nuclear-dependent nation, generating 85% of its power from nuclear reactors. However, this is mostly a testament to the country's low power demand, as Lithuania runs only a single 1500MWe RBMK-2 at its Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant.[14] India is presently constructing more than 10 civilian nuclear power reactors - the highest in the world. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, India, Iran, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, and the U.S. are currently planning or building new nuclear reactors or reopening old ones. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Indonesia, Israel, Poland, Slovakia, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom and Vietnam, are considering doing this. Armenia, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland have nuclear reactors but currently no advanced proposals for expansion. [15] [16][17]. Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden have decided on a nuclear power phase-out. According to the Energy Information Administration and the International Energy Agency, nuclear power is projected to have a slightly declining 5-10% share of world energy production until 2025, assuming that fossil fuel production can continue to expand rapidly (which is controversial). See Future energy development. The 1600MW EPR reactor being built in Olkiluoto, Finland, will be the largest in the world.

Page: 21/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

Reactor types Current technology There are two types of nuclear power sources in current use:

1. The nuclear fission reactor produces heat through a controlled nuclear chain reaction in a critical mass of
fissile material. All current nuclear power plants are critical fission reactors, which are the focus of this article. The output of fission reactors is controllable. There are several subtypes of critical fission reactors, which can be classified as Generation I, Generation II and Generation III. All reactors will be compared to the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), as that is the standard modern reactor design. The difference between fast-spectrum and thermal-spectrum reactors will be covered later. In general, fast-spectrum reactors will produce less waste, and the waste they do produce will have a vastly shorter halflife, but they are more difficult to build, and more expensive to operate. Fast reactors can also be breeders, whereas thermal reactors generally cannot. A. Pressurized water reactors (PWR) These are reactors cooled and moderated by high pressure, liquid (even at extreme temperatures) water. They are the majority of current reactors, and are generally considered the safest and most reliable technology, although Three Mile Island is a reactor of this type. This is a thermal neutron reactor design. B. Boiling water reactors (BWR) These are reactors cooled and moderated by water, under slightly lower pressure. The water is allowed to boil in the reactor. The thermal efficiency of these reactors can be higher, and they can be simpler, and even potentially more stable and safe. Unfortunately, the boiling water puts more stress on many of the components, and increases the risk that radioactive water may escape in an accident. These reactors make up a substantial percentage of modern reactors. This is a thermal neutron reactor design. C. Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) A Canadian design, (known as CANDU) these reactors are heavy-water-cooled and -moderated PressurizedWater reactors. Instead of using a single large containment vessel as in a PWR, the fuel is contained in hundreds of pressure tubes. These reactors are fuelled with natural uranium and are thermal neutron reactor designs. PHWRs can be refueled while at full power, which makes them very efficient in their use of uranium (it allows for precise flux control in the core). Most PHWR's exist within Canada, but units have been sold to Argentina, China, India (pre-NPT), Pakistan (pre-NPT), Romania, and South Korea. India also operates a number of PHWR's, built after the 1974 Smiling Buddha nuclear weapon test. D. RBMKs A Soviet Union design, built to produce plutonium as well as power, the dangerous and unstable RBMKs are water cooled with a graphite moderator. RBMKs are similar to CANDU in that they are refuellable On-Load and employ a pressure tube design instead of a PWR-style pressure vessel. Notably, they are too large and powerful to have containment buildings. Chernobyl was an RBMK. E. Gas Cooled Reactor (GCR) and Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor (AGCR) These are generally graphite moderated and CO2 cooled. They have a high thermal efficiency compared with PWRs and an excellent safety record. There are a number of operating reactors of this design, mostly in the United Kingdom. Older designs (i.e. Magnox stations) are either shut down or will be in the near future. However the AGCRs have an anticipated life of a further 10 to 20 years. This is a thermal neutron reactor design. F. Super Critical Water-cooled Reactor (SCWR) This is a theoretical reactor design that is part of the Gen-IV reactor project. It combines higher efficiency than a GCR with the safety of a PWR, though it is perhaps more technically challenging than either. The water is pressurized and heated past its critical point, until there is no difference between the liquid and gas states. A CWR is similar to a BWR, except there is no boiling (as the water is critical), and the thermal efficiency is higher as the water behaves more like a classical gas. This is an epithermal neutron reactor design. G. Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) This is a reactor design that is cooled by liquid metal, and totally unmoderated. These reactors can function much like a PWR in terms of efficiency, and dont require much high pressure containment, as the liquid metal doesn't need to be kept at high pressure, even at very high temperatures. Superphnix in France was a reactor of this type, as was Fermi-I in the United States. The Monju reactor in Japan suffered a sodium leak in 1995 and is approved for restart in 2008. All three use/used liquid sodium. These reactors are fast neutron, not thermal neutron designs. These reactors come in two types: Lead Cooled

Page: 22/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

Using lead as the liquid metal provides excellent radiation shielding, and allows for operation at very high temperatures. Also, lead is (mostly) transparent to neutrons, so fewer neutrons are lost in the coolant, and the coolant does not become radioactive. Unlike sodium, lead is mostly inert, so there is less risk of explosion or accident, but such large quantities of lead may be problematic from toxicology and disposal points of view. Often a reactor of this type would use a lead-bismuth eutectic mixture. In this case, the bismuth would present some minor radiation problems, as it is not quite as transparent to neutrons, and can be transmuted to a radioactive isotope more readily than lead. Sodium Cooled Most LMFBRs are of this type. The sodium is relatively easy to obtain and work with, and it also manages to actually remove corrosion on the various reactor parts immersed in it. However, sodium explodes violently when exposed to water, so care must be taken, but such explosions wouldn't be vastly more violent than (for example) a leak of superheated fluid from a CWR or PWR.

2. The radioisotope thermoelectric generator produces heat through passive radioactive decay.

Some radioisotope thermoelectric generators have been created to power space probes (for example, the Cassini probe), some lighthouses in the former Soviet Union, and some pacemakers. The heat output of these generators diminishes with time; the heat is converted to electricity by thermocouples. For more details on this topic, see Nuclear power plant.

How it works Nuclear energy is produced by atomic fission. A large atom (usually uranium or plutonium) breaks into two smaller ones, releasing energy and neutrons. The neutrons then trigger further break-ups. And so on. If this chain reaction can be controlled, the energy released can be used to boil water, produce steam and drive a turbine that generates electricity. If it runs away, the result is a meltdown and an accident (or, in extreme circumstances, a nuclear explosionthough circumstances are never that extreme in a reactor because the fuel is less fissile than the material in a bomb). In many new designs the neutrons, and thus the chain reaction, are kept under control by passing them through water to slow them down. (Slow neutrons trigger more break ups than fast ones.) This water is exposed to a pressure of about 150 atmospheresa pressure that means it remains liquid even at high temperatures. When nuclear reactions warm the water, its density drops, and the neutrons passing through it are no longer slowed enough to trigger further reactions. That negative feedback stabilises the reaction rate. Experimental technologies A number of other designs for nuclear power generation, the Generation IV reactors, are the subject of active research and may be used for practical power generation in the future. A number of the advanced nuclear reactor designs could also make critical fission reactors much cleaner, much safer and/or much less of a risk to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Integral Fast Reactor - The link at the end of this paragraph references an interview with Dr. Charles Till, former director of Argonne National Laboratory West in Idaho and outlines the Integral Fast Reactor and its advantages over current reactor design, especially in the areas of safety, efficient nuclear fuel usage and reduced waste. The IFR was built, tested and evaluated during the 1980s and then retired under the Clinton administration in the 1990s due to nuclear non-proliferation policies of the administration. Recycling spent fuel is the core of its design and it therefore produces a fraction of the waste of current reactors. [18] Pebble Bed Reactor - This reactor type is designed so high temperatures reduce power output by doppler broadening of the fuel's neutron cross-section. It uses ceramic fuels so its safe operating temperatures exceed the power-reduction temperature range. Most designs are cooled by inert helium, which cannot have steam explosions, and which does not easily absorb neutrons and become radioactive, or dissolve contaminants that can become radioactive. Typical designs have more layers (up to 7) of passive containment than light water reactors (usually 3). A unique feature that might aid safety is that the fuel-balls actually form the core's mechanism, and are replaced one-by-one as they age. The design of the fuel makes fuel reprocessing expensive. SSTAR, Small, Sealed, Transportable, Autonomous Reactor is being primarily researched and developed in the US, intended as a fast breeder reactor that is tamper resistant, passively safe.

Page: 23/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

Subcritical reactors are designed to be safer and more stable, but pose a number of engineering and economic difficulties. Controlled nuclear fusion could in principle be used in fusion power plants to produce safer, cleaner power, but significant scientific and technical obstacles remain. Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has 'produced' more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050 [19]. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power. Advanced Heavy Water Reactor - A proposed heavy water moderated nuclear power reactor that will be the next generation design of the PHWR type. Under development in the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). KAMINI - A unique reactor using Uranium-233 isotope for fuel. Built by BARC and IGCAR Uses thorium.

India is also building a bigger scale FBTR or fast breeder thorium reactor to harness the power with the use of thorium. Life cycle

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle begins when uranium is mined, enriched, and manufactured into nuclear fuel, (1) which is delivered to a nuclear power plant. After usage in the power plant, the spent fuel is delivered to a reprocessing plant (2) or to a final repository (3) for geological disposition. In reprocessing 95% of spent fuel can be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant (4).

Nuclear fuel - a compact, inert, insoluble solid. Main article: Nuclear fuel cycle A nuclear reactor is only a small part of the life-cycle for nuclear power. The process starts with mining. Generally, uranium mines are either open-pit strip mines, or in-situ leach mines. In either case, the uranium ore is extracted, usually converted into a stable and compact form such as yellowcake, and then transported to a processing facility. At the reprocessing facility, the yellowcake is converted to uranium hexafluoride, which is then enriched using various techniques. At this point, the enriched uranium, containing more than the natural 0.7% U-235, is used to make rods of the proper composition and geometry for the particular reactor that the fuel is destined for. The fuel rods will spend about 3 years inside the reactor, generally until about 3% of their uranium has been fissioned, then they will be moved to a spent fuel pool where the short lived isotopes generated by fission can decay away. After about 5 years in a cooling pond, the spent fuel is radioactively cool enough to handle, and it can be moved to dry storage casks or reprocessed. Fuel resources

Page: 24/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

Main article: Uranium market Uranium is a common element, occurring almost everywhere on land and in the oceans. It is about as common as tin, and 500 times more common than gold. Most types of rocks and soils contain uranium, although often in low concentrations. At present, economically viable deposits are regarded as being those with concentrations of at least 0.1 per cent uranium. At this cost level, available reserves would last for 50 years at the present rate of use. Doubling the price of uranium, which would have only little effect on the overall cost of nuclear power, would increase reserves to hundreds of years. To put this in perspective; a doubling in the cost of natural uranium would increase the total cost of nuclear power 5 per cent. On the other hand, if the price of natural gas was doubled, the cost of gas-fired power would increase by about 60 per cent. Doubling the price of coal would increase the cost of power production in a large coal-fired power station by about 30 per cent.[20] Current light water reactors make relatively inefficient use of nuclear fuel, leading to energy waste. More efficient reactor designs or nuclear reprocessing [21] would reduce the amount of waste material generated and allow better use of the available resources. As opposed to current light water reactors which use uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants [22]. Breeder technology has been used in several reactors [23]. Currently (December 2005), the only breeder reactor producing power is BN-600 [24] in Beloyarsk, Russia. (The electricity output of BN-600 is 600 MW - Russia has planned to build another unit, BN-800, at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant.) Also, Japan's Monju reactor is planned for restart (having been shut down since 1995), and both China and India intend to build breeder reactors. Another alternative would be to use uranium-233 bred from thorium as fission fuel - the thorium fuel cycle. Thorium is three times more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium [25], and (theoretically) all of it can be used for breeding, making the potential thorium resource orders of magnitude larger than the uranium fuel cycle operated without breeding. Unlike the breeding of U-238 into plutonium, fast breeder reactors are not necessary - it can be performed satisfactorily in more conventional plants. Proposed fusion reactors assume the use of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in most current designs also lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3,000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years. [26] For comparison, the Sun has an estimated remaining life of 5 billion years. Reprocessing For more details on this topic, see Nuclear reprocessing Reprocessing can recover up to 95% of the remaining uranium and plutonium in spent nuclear fuel, putting it into new mixed oxide fuel. Reprocessing of civilian fuel from power reactors is currently done on large scale in England, France and (formerly) Russia, will be in China and perhaps India, and is being done on an expanding scale in Japan. Iran has announced its intention to complete the nuclear fuel cycle via reprocessing, a move which has led to criticism from the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency. [27] Reprocessing of civilian nuclear fuel is not done in the United States due to proliferation concerns. Solid waste For more details on this topic, see Nuclear waste. Nuclear power produces spent fuel, a unique solid waste problem. Highly radioactive spent fuel needs to be handled with great care and forethought due to the long half-lives of the radioactive isotopes in the waste. In fact, fresh spent fuel is so radioactive that less than a minute's exposure to it will cause death. However, spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time - after 40 years, the radiation flux is 99.9% lower than it was the moment the reactor was last shut off[28], although still dangerously radioactive. Spent fuel is primarily composed of unconverted uranium, as well as significant quantities of transuranic actinides (plutonium and curium, mostly). In addition, about 3% of it is made of fission products. The actinides (uranium,

Page: 25/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

plutonium, and curium) are responsible for the bulk of the long term radioactivity, whereas the fission products are responsible for the bulk of the short term radioactivity. It is possible through reprocessing to separate out the actinides and use them again for fuel, but this often requires special fast spectrum reactors, which produce a reduction in long term radioactivity within the remaining waste. In any case, the remaining waste will be substantially radioactive for at least 300 years even if the actinides are removed, and for up to thousands of years if the actinides are left in. Even in the most optimistic scenarios, complete consumption of all actinides, and using fast spectrum reactors to destroy some of the long-lived non-actinides as well, the waste must be segregated from the environment for at least several hundred years, and therefore this is properly categorized as a long-term problem. There are, however, chemical plants which also produce hazardous waste staying in the environment for hundreds of years. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25-30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year.[29] As of 2003, the United States had accumulated about 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors. Unlike other countries, U.S. policy forbids recycling of used fuel and it is all treated as waste. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety. The safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste is a difficult challenge. Because of potential harm from radiation, spent nuclear fuel must be stored in shielded basins of water, or in dry storage vaults or dry cask storage until its radioactivity decreases naturally ("decays") to safe levels. This can take days or thousands of years, depending on the type of fuel. Most waste is currently stored in temporary storage sites, requiring constant maintenance, while suitable permanent disposal methods are discussed. Underground storage at Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. See the article on the nuclear fuel cycle for more information. The nuclear industry produces a volume of low-level radioactive waste in the form of contaminated items like clothing, hand tools, water purifier resins, and (upon decommissioning) the materials of which the reactor itself is built. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly attempted to allow low-level materials to be handled as normal waste: landfilled, recycled into consumer items, etc. Much low-level waste releases very low levels of radioactivity and is essentially considered radioactive waste because of its history. For example, according to the standards of the NRC, the radiation released by coffee is enough to treat it as low level waste. Overall, nuclear power produces far less waste material than fossil-fuel based power plants. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring radioactive material in the coal. In addition, the nuclear industry fuel cycle produces many tons of depleted uranium (DU) which consists of U-238 with the easily fissile U-235 isotope removed. U-238 is a tough metal with several commercial uses, for example aircraft production, radiation shielding, and for making bullets and armor as it has a higher density than lead. There are concerns that U-238 may lead to health problems in groups exposed to this material excessively, like tank crews and civilians living in areas where large quantities of DU ammunition have been used. The amounts of waste can be reduced in several ways. Both nuclear reprocessing and fast breeder reactors can reduce the amounts of waste and increase the amount of energy gained per fuel unit. Subcritical reactors or fusion reactors could greatly reduce the time the waste has to be stored [30]. Subcritical reactors may also be able to do the same to already existing waste. It has been argued that the best solution for the nuclear waste is above ground temporary storage since technology is rapidly changing. The current waste may well become valuable fuel in the future, particularly if it is not reprocessed, as in the U.S. In countries with nuclear power, radioactive wastes comprise less than 1% of total industrial toxic wastes, which remain hazardous indefinitely unless it decomposes or is treated so that it is less toxic or non-toxic. [31]. Economy Opponents of nuclear power argue that any of the environmental benefits are outweighed by safety compromises and by the costs related to construction and operation of nuclear power plants, including costs for spent-fuel disposal and plant retirement. Proponents of nuclear power respond that nuclear energy is the only power source which explicitly factors the estimated costs for waste containment and plant decommissioning into its overall cost, and that the quoted cost of fossil fuel plants is deceptively low for this reason. The cost of some renewables would be increased too if they included necessary back-up due to their intermittent nature.

Page: 26/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from new plants in the UK. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to 30 (45.44) per tonne CO2 for coal and gas. Wind power was calculated to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. Without a carbon tax, the cost of production through coal, nuclear and gas ranged 0.022-0.026/kWh and coal gasification was 0.032/kWh. When carbon tax was added (up to 0.025) coal came close to onshore wind (including back-up power) at 0.054/kWh - offshore wind is 0.072/kWh. Nuclear power remained at 0.023/kWh either way, as it produces negligible amounts of CO 2. Nuclear figures included decommissioning costs.[32][33][34] In one study, certain gas cogeneration plants were calculated to be three to four times more cost-effective than nuclear power, if all the heat produced was used onsite or in a local heating system. However, the study estimated only 25 year plant lifetimes (60 is now common), 68% capacity factors were assumed (above 90% is now common), other conservatisms were applied, and nuclear power also produces heat which could be used in similar ways (although most nuclear power plants are located in remote areas). The study then found similar costs for nuclear power and most other forms of generation if not including external costs (such as back-up power). [35] Capital costs Generally, a nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than an equivalent coal-fuelled or gasfuelled plant. However, coal is significantly more expensive than nuclear fuel, and natural gas significantly more expensive than coal - thus, capital costs aside, natural gas-generated power is the most expensive. In many countries, licensing, inspection and certification of nuclear power plants has added delays and construction costs to their construction. In the U.S. many new regulations were put in place after the Three Mile Island partial meltdown. Building gas-fired or coal-fired plants has not had these problems. Because a power plant does not yield profits during construction, longer construction times translated directly into higher interest charges on borrowed construction funds. However, the regulatory processes for siting, licensing, and constructing have been standardized since their introduction, to make construction of newer and safer designs more attractive to companies. In Japan and France, construction costs and delays are significantly diminished because of streamlined government licensing and certification procedures. In France, one model of reactor was type-certified, using a safety engineering process similar to the process used to certify aircraft models for safety. That is, rather than licensing individual reactors, the regulatory agency certified a particular design and its construction process to produce safe reactors. U.S. law permits type-licensing of reactors, a process which is about to be used. [36]. To encourage development of nuclear power, under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has offered interested parties the opportunity to introduce France's model for licensing and to subsidize 25% to 50% of the construction cost overruns due to delays for the first six new plants. Several applications were made, two sites have been chosen to receive new plants, and other projects are pending. Operating costs In general, coal and nuclear plants have the same types of operating costs (operations and maintenance plus fuel costs). However, nuclear and coal differ in the relative size of those costs. Nuclear has lower fuel costs but higher operating and maintenance costs. In recent times in the United States savings due to lower fuel cost have not been low enough for nuclear to repay its higher investment cost. Thus new nuclear reactors have not been built in the United States. Coals operating cost advantages have only rarely been sufficient to encourage the construction of new coal based power generation. Around 90 to 95 percent of new power plant construction in the United States has been natural gas-fired. To be competitive in the current market, both the nuclear and coal industries must reduce new plant investment costs and construction time. The burden is clearly greater for nuclear producers than for coal producers, because investment costs are higher for nuclear plants. Operation and maintenance costs are particularly important because they represent a large portion of costs for nuclear power. One of the primary reasons for the uncompetitiveness of the U.S. nuclear industry has been the lack of any measure that provides an economic incentive to reduce carbon emissions (carbon tax). Many economists and

Page: 27/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

environmentalists have called for a mechanism to take into account the negative externalities of coal and gas consumption. In such an environment, it is argued that nuclear will become cost-competitive in the United States. Subsidies Critics of nuclear power claim that it is the beneficiary of inappropriately large economic subsidies mainly taking the forms of taxpayer-funded research and development and limitations on disaster liability and that these subsidies, being subtle and indirect, are often overlooked when comparing the economics of nuclear against other forms of power generation. However, competing energy sources also receive subsidies. Fossil fuels receive large direct and indirect subsidies, like tax benefits and not having to pay for their pollution [37]. Renewables receive large direct production subsidies and tax breaks in many nations [38]. Energy research and development (R&D) for nuclear power has and continues to receive much larger state subsidies than R&D for renewable energy or fossil fuels. However, today most of this takes places in Japan and France: in most other nations renewable R&D get more money. In the U.S., public research money for nuclear fission declined from 2,179 to 35 million dollars between 1980 to 2000 [39] - however, in order to restart the industry, the next six U.S. reactors will receive subsidies equal to those of renewables and, in the event of cost overruns due to delays, at least partial compensation for the overruns (see Nuclear Power 2010 Program). According to the DOE, insurance for nuclear or radiological incidents in the U.S., is subsidized [40] by the PriceAnderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act - in July 2005, Congress extended this Act to newer facilities. In the UK, the Nuclear Installations Act of 1965 governs liability for nuclear damage for which a UK nuclear licensee is responsible. The Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage puts in place an international framework for nuclear liability. Other economic issues Nuclear Power plants tend to be most competitive in areas where other fuel resources are not readily available France, most notably, has almost no native supplies of fossil fuels. [41] The province of Ontario, Canada is already using all of its best sites for hydroelectric power, and has minimal supplies of fossil fuels, so a number of nuclear plants have been built there. India too has few resources and is building new nuclear plants. Conversely, in the United Kingdom, according to the governments Department Of Trade And Industry, no further nuclear power stations are to be built, due to the high cost per unit of nuclear power, compared to fossil fuels. [42] However, the British government's chief scientific advisor David King reports that building one more generation of nuclear power plants may be necessary. [43] China tops the list of planned new plants, due to its rapidly expanding economy and fervent construction in many types of energy projects. [44] Most new gas-fired plants are intended for peak supply. The larger nuclear and coal plants cannot quickly adjust their instantaneous power production, and are generally intended for baseline supply. The market price for baseline power has not increased as rapidly as that for peak demand. Some new experimental reactors, notably pebble bed modular reactors, are specifically designed for peaking power. Any effort to construct a new nuclear facility around the world, whether an older design or a newer experimental design, must deal with NIMBY objections. Given the high profile of both the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, few municipalities welcome a new nuclear reactor, processing plant, transportation route, or experimental nuclear burial ground within their borders, and many have issued local ordinances prohibiting the development of nuclear power. However, a few U.S. areas with nuclear units are campaigning for more (see Nuclear Power 2010 Program). Current nuclear reactors return around 40-60 times the invested energy when using life cycle analysis. This is better than coal, natural gas, and current renewables except hydropower.[45] The Rocky Mountain Institute gives other reasons why nuclear power plants may not be economical.[46] In the U.S. this includes long lead times on risky investments, and the more cost-effective approach of investing in efficiency instead of new power plants. Nuclear power, coal, and wind power are currently the only realistic large scale energy sources that would be able to replace oil and natural gas after a peak in global oil and gas production has been reached (see peak oil). However, The Rocky Mountain Institute claims that in the U.S. increases in transportation efficiency and stronger, lighter cars

Page: 28/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

would replace most oil usage with what it calls negawatts.[47] Biofuels can then substitute for a significant portion of the remaining oil use. Efficiency, insulation, solar thermal, and solar photovoltaic technologies can substitute for most natural gas usage after a peak in production. Nuclear proponents often assert that renewable sources of power have not solved problems like intermittent output, high costs, and diffuse output which requires the use of large surface areas and much construction material and which increases distribution losses. For example, studies in Britain have shown that increasing wind power production contribution to 20% of all energy production, without costly pumped hydro or electrolysis/fuel cell storage, would only reduce coal or nuclear power plant capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe) since they must remain as backup in the absence of power storage. Nuclear proponents often claim that increasing the contribution of intermittent energy sources above that is not possible with current technology.[48] Some renewable energy sources, such as solar, overlap well with peak electrical production and reduce the need of spare generating capacity. Future applications that use electricity when it is available (e.g. for pressurizing water systems, desalination, or hydrogen generation) would help to reduce the spare generation capacity required by both nuclear and renewable energy sources.[49] Risks Some opponents of nuclear power, such as Greenpeace, and numerous anti-nuclear groups argue against its use due the long term problems of storing radioactive waste, the possibility that its use will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the potential for severe radioactive contamination by an accident, often pointing to prior nuclear accidents. Other critics of nuclear power, who may not necessarily oppose it as a viable source of energy, point out that industry oversight and compliance with safety regulations is often not up to par. Such critics include the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Nuclear Information and Research Service, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Physicians for Social Responsibility, The Nuclear Control Institute, and many others, as well as renowned physicists such as Dr. Michio Kaku. According to a 1978 finding by the Supreme Court of the United States, comprehensive testing and study had not yet removed the risk of a major nuclear accident [50]. In the 1980s and 1990s each U.S. nuclear plant underwent an Individual Plant Examination process using probabilistic risk assessment to quantify the risks and identify and address high-risk areas. To highlight what they believe are the risks, opponents quote the situation in the United States, where under the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act corporations requested and were granted immunity beyond (in 2005) $10 billion (all the available insurance plus pool monies combined) from civil liability (including from possible criminal behavior, although that would be subject to criminal prosecution) from a nuclear incident which causes harm to the public. (Beyond the $10 billion, Congress is required by law to act.) Proponents argue that the risks are small and that fear has been the single largest obstacle to the widespread use of nuclear power. Assessment of nuclear risk was last done in the 1991 NUREG-1150 report. Additionally, competing technologies may have equivalent risks. Coal currently contributes significantly to problems like global warming, acid rain, various diseases due to airborne pollution, and the storage of large amounts of ash. Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power [51], though the health risks of the coal-based radioactive release is small [52], particularly when compared with the hazards of other pollutants from coal burning. Accident or attack

Page: 29/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

The Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania contains two RBMK reactors. Because of the safety flaws of the design, the closure of the plant was a condition of Lithuania's entry into the EU. The first of the two reactors was closed down in 2004 and the second is scheduled for shutdown by 2009. (Photograph courtesy of the Nordic Council). Opponents argue that a major disadvantage of the use of nuclear reactors is the threat of a nuclear accident or terrorist attack and the possible resulting exposure to radiation. Proponents argue that the potential for a meltdown in non-Russian-designed reactors is very small due to the care taken in designing adequate safety systems, and that the nuclear industry has much better statistics regarding humans deaths from occupational accidents than coal or hydropower [53]. While the Chernobyl accident caused great negative health, economic, environmental and psychological effects in a widespread area, the accident at Chernobyl was caused by a combination of the faulty RBMK reactor design, the lack of a properly designed containment building, poorly trained operators, and a non-existent safety culture. The RBMK design, unlike nearly all designs used in the Western world, featured a positive void coefficient, meaning that a malfunction could result in everincreasing generation of heat and radiation until the reactor was breached. [54] Even at Three Mile Island, the most severe civilian nuclear accident in the non-Soviet world, the reactor vessel and containment building were never breached so that very little radiation (well below natural background radiation levels) was released into the environment. Design changes are being pursued in the hope of lessening some of the risks of fission reactors; in particular, automated and passively safe designs are being pursued. Fusion reactors which may come to exist in the future theoretically have little risk since the fuel contained in the reaction chamber is only enough to sustain the reaction for about a minute, whereas a fission reactor contains about a year's supply of fuel. Subcritical reactors never have a self sustained nuclear chain reaction. Opponents of nuclear power express concerns that nuclear waste is not well protected, and that it can be released in the event of terrorist attack, quoting a 1999 Russian incident where workers were caught trying to sell 5 grams of radioactive material on the open market [55], or the incident in 1993 where Russian workers were caught selling 4.5 kilograms of enriched uranium. [56] [57][58] The UN has since called upon world leaders to improve security in order to prevent radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists [59], sometimes leading to the guarding of nuclear shipments by thousands of police [60] (see spent nuclear fuel shipping cask). Other energy sources, such as hydropower plants and LNG carriers, are more vulnerable to accidents and attacks. Proponents of nuclear power contend, however, that nuclear waste is already well protected, and state their argument that there has been no accident involving any form of nuclear waste from a civilian program worldwide. In addition, they point to large studies carried out by NRC and other agencies that tested the robustness of both reactor and waste fuel storage, and found that they should be able to sustain a terrorist attack comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks [61]. Spent fuel is usually housed inside the plant's "protected zone" [62]; stealing it for use in a "dirty bomb" is extremely difficult - somewhat ironically, because the exposure to the intense radiation would almost certainly quickly incapacitate and kill any terrorists who attempt to do so [63]. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 20 American States have requested stocks of potassium iodide which the NRC suggests should be available for those living within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant in the unlikely event of a severe accident.[64]. Health effects on populations near nuclear plants Most of the human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Most of the remaining exposure comes from medical procedures. Several large studies in the U.S., Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. For example, in 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health announced that, after doing a large-scale study which evaluated the mortality rates from 16 types of cancer, no increased incidence of cancer mortality was found for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States. The study also showed no increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia mortality in the study of surrounding counties after the start-up of the nuclear facilities. The NCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities. Aside from the immediate effects of the Chernobyl accident (see above), there is continuing impact from soils containing radioactivity in Ukraine and Belarus. For this reason a Zone of alienation was established around the Chernobyl plant.

Page: 30/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

In March, 2006, safety reviews found that several nuclear plants in the United States have been leaking water contaminated with tritium into the ground, which will likely eventually drain into rivers.[65] The attorney general of Illinois announced she was filing a lawsuit against Exelon because of six such leaks, demanding that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents although no well outside company property shows levels that exceed drinking water standards. According to the NRC, "The inspection determined that public health and safety has not been adversely affected and the dose consequence to the public that can be attributed to current onsite conditions is negligible with respect to NRC regulatory limits." [66]. However, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said, "They're going to have to fix it." Nuclear proliferation For more details on this topic, see Nuclear proliferation. Opponents of nuclear power point out that nuclear technology is often dual-use, and much of the same materials and knowledge used in a civilian nuclear program can be used to develop nuclear weapons. This concern is known as nuclear proliferation and is a major reactor design criterion. The military and civil purposes for nuclear energy are intertwined in most countries with nuclear capabilities. In the U.S., for example, the first goal of the Department of Energy is "to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex." [67] The enriched uranium used in most nuclear reactors is not concentrated enough to build a bomb. Most nuclear reactors run on 4% enriched uranium; Little Boy used 90% enriched uranium; while lower enrichment levels could be used, the minimum bomb size would rapidly become infeasibly large as the level was decreased. However, the technology used to enrich uranium for power generation could be used to make the highly enriched uranium needed to build a bomb. In addition, the plutonium produced in power reactors, if concentrated through reprocessing, can be used for a bomb. While the plutonium resulting from normal reactor fuelling cycles is less than ideal for weapons use because of the concentration of Pu-240, a usable weapon can be produced from it. [68] If the reactor is operated on very short fuelling cycles, bomb-grade plutonium can be produced. It is widely believed that the nuclear programs of India and Pakistan used CANDU reactors to produce fissionable materials for their weapons; however, this is not true. India used a research reactor named CIRUS, based on the Canadian NRX design[69]. Pakistan is believed to have produced the material for its weapons from an indigenious enrichment program [70]. To prevent weapons proliferation, safeguards on nuclear technology were published in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and monitored since 1968 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nations signing the treaty are required to report to the IAEA what nuclear materials they hold and their location. They agree to accept visits by IAEA auditors and inspectors to verify independently their material reports and physically inspect the nuclear materials concerned to confirm physical inventories of them in exchange for access to nuclear materials and equipment on the global market. Several states did not sign the treaty and were able to use international nuclear technology (often procured for civilian purposes) to develop nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa). South Africa has since signed the NPT, and now holds the distinction of being the only known state to have indigenously produced nuclear weapons, and then verifiably dismantled them[71]. Of those who have signed the treaty and received shipments of nuclear paraphernalia, many states have either claimed to or been accused of attempting to use supposedly civilian nuclear power plants for developing weapons, including Iran and North Korea. Certain types of reactors are more conducive to producing nuclear weapons materials than others, and a number of international disputes over proliferation have centered on the specific model of reactor being contracted for in a country suspected of nuclear weapon ambitions. New technology, like SSTAR, may lessen the risk of nuclear proliferation by providing sealed reactors with a limited self-contained fuel supply and with restrictions against tampering.

Page: 31/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

One possible obstacle for expanding the use of nuclear power might be a limited supply of uranium ore, without which it would become necessary to build and operate breeder reactors. However, at current usage there is sufficient uranium for an extended period - "In summary, the actual recoverable uranium supply is likely to be enough to last several hundred (up to 1000) years, even using standard reactors." [72] (see Fuel resources above). Breeder reactors have been banned in the U.S. Since President Jimmy Carter's administration prohibited reprocessing because of what it regarded as the unacceptable risk of proliferation of weapons-grade materials. Some proponents of nuclear power agree that the risk of nuclear proliferation may be a reason to prevent nondemocratic developing nations from gaining any nuclear technology but argue that this is no reason for democratic developed nations to abandon their nuclear power plants. Especially since it seems that democracies never make war against each other (See the democratic peace theory). Proponents also note that nuclear power, like some other power sources, provides steady energy at a consistent price without competing for energy resources from other countries, something that may contribute to wars. In February, 2006, a new U.S. initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was announced - it would be an international effort to reprocess fuel in a manner making proliferation infeasible, while making nuclear power available to developing countries. Environmental effects Air pollution Water vapour is the only significant operating emission from nuclear power plants [73]. Fission produces gases such as iodine-131 or krypton-85 which have to be stored on-site for several half-lives until they have decayed to safe levels. Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. (Pollution from fossil fuels is blamed for many deaths each year in the U.S. alone [74].) It also does not directly produce carbon dioxide, which has led some environmentalists to advocate increased reliance on nuclear energy as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (which contribute to global warming)[75]. Like any power source (including renewables like wind and solar energy), the facilities to produce and distribute the electricity require energy to build and subsequently decommission. Mineral ores must be collected and processed to produce nuclear fuel. These processes are either directly powered by diesel and gasoline engines, or draw electricity from the power grid, which may be generated from fossil fuels. Life cycle analysis assesses the amount of energy consumed by these processes (given today's mix of energy resources) and calculates, over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant, the amount of carbon dioxide saved (related to the amount of electricity produced by the plant) vs. the amount of carbon dioxide used (related to construction and fuel acquisition). Several life cycle analyses show similar emissions per kilowatt-hour from nuclear power and from renewables such as wind power [76]. According to one life cycle study (van Leeuwen and Smith 2001-2005 [77]), carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power per kilowatt hour could range from 20% to 120% of those for natural gas-fired power stations depending on the availability of high grade ores. The study was rebutted in detail by the World Nuclear Association [78]. In 2006 a UK government advisory panel (the Sustainable Development Commission) concluded that if the UK's existing nuclear capacity were doubled, it would provide an 8% decrease in total UK CO2 emissions by 2035. As of 2006, the UK government was to publish its official findings later in the year. [79] Waste heat in water systems Nuclear reactors require cooling, typically with water (sometimes indirectly). The process of extracting energy from a heat source, called the Rankine cycle, requires the steam to be cooled down. Rivers are the most common source of cooling water, as well as the destination for waste heat. The temperature of exhaust water must be regulated to avoid killing fish; long-term impact of hotter-than-natural water on ecosystems is an environmental concern. In most new facilites, this problem is solved by implementing cooling towers.

Page: 32/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

The need to regulate exhaust temperature also limits generation capacity. On extremely hot days, which is when demand can be at its highest, the capacity of a nuclear plant may go down because the incoming water is warmer to begin with and is thus less effective as a coolant, per unit volume. This was a significant factor during the European heat wave of 2003. Engineers consider this in making improved power plant designs because increased cooling capacity will increase costs.

This is also a problem for coal power plants[80].

List of atomic energy groups

American Nuclear Society (United States) Department of Energy (United States) The Nuclear Energy Institute (United States) Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (Canada) Areva (France) EDF (France) MinAtom (Russia) EnergoAtom (Ukraine) Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (Pakistan) Atomic Energy Commission (India) KazAtomProm (Kazakhstan) Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) EURATOM (Europe) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

References

An entry to nuclear power through an educational discussion of reactors The Nuclear Energy Option, online book by Bernard L. Cohen. Pro nuclear power. Emphasis on risk estimates of nuclear. Oldberg, T. and R. Christensen (1995) "Erratic Measure," NDE for the Energy Industry 1995, pp. 16, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY Oldberg, T. (2005) "An Ethical Problem in the Statistics of Defect Detection Test Reliability," Address to the Golden Gate Chapter of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, March 10, 2005 Steve Thomas (2005), "The Economics of Nuclear Power: analysis of recent studies", PSIRU, University of Greenwich, UK Nuclear power information archives from ALSOS, the National Digital Science Library at Washington & Lee University. Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance A comprehensive yet controversial lifecycle assessment of nuclear power generation by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, update August 2005 Critical Hour: Three Mile Island, The Nuclear Legacy, And National Security Online book by Albert J. Fritsch, Arthur H. Purcell, and Mary Byrd Davis (2005), Updated edition June 2006

See also
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Category:Nuclear power

Anti-nuclear Atoms for Peace Certified Health Physicist Control rod Depleted uranium Electricity generation

Page: 33/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

Fuel element failure Fusion power Future energy development Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Ionizing radiation for a table of radiation exposures List of countries with nuclear weapons List of civilian nuclear accidents List of nuclear reactors Nuclear physics Nuclear reactor Nuclear terrorism Spent nuclear fuel shipping cask Uranium

Nuclear power by country

Nuclear power in Bulgaria Nuclear power in Canada Nuclear power in Finland Nuclear power in France Nuclear power in Japan Nuclear power in Russia Nuclear power in Sweden Nuclear power in the United Kingdom Nuclear power in the United States Nuclear power in Pakistan

USAEC/USNRC studies of risk at nuclear power plants

Note: See the NRC disclaimer for NUREG-1150 and CRAC-II for applicability.

NUREG-1150 (1991) CRAC-II (1982), based on WASH-1400 results WASH-1400 (1975) WASH-740 (1957)

External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Nuclear power

Annotated references to nuclear power from the Alsos Digital Library Areva (and Framatone) Australian Conservation Foundation's Anti nuclear campaign Calendar of Nuclear Accidents Felix Chr. Matthes: Climate Change and Nuclear Energy Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger? Congressional Research Service report on Nuclear Energy Policy Nuclear Files.org Criticisms of nuclear power by an anti-nuclear organization Decay heat rate|quantity calculation Discussion of the Economics of Nuclear Power Everything you wanted to know about nuclear technology Provided by New Scientist. The Fissile Society, by Walt Patterson, free book for download Freedom for Fission Going Critical, by Walt Patterson, free book for download NEI - The Nuclear Energy Institute

Page: 34/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

Nuclear Power, by Walt Patterson, free book for download Nuclear Power News The latest news about Nuclear Energy Technology Nuclear Power Related News Pictures of Nuclear Power Plants Uranium.Info publishing Uranium price since 1968. Walt Patterson On Energy Walt Patterson on 'nuclear amnesia' in The World Today April 2006 Westinghouse Electric Co. Wiki devoted to education about nuclear power World Information Service on Energy (WISE) World Nuclear Association Worldwide locations of nuclear power reactors

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power"

Page: 35/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

ANNEXE 08, UMPNER submission by CK

http://www.uic.com.au/ne6.htm

TABLE 15 Serious reactor accidents

Serious accidents in military, research and commercial reactors. All except Browns Ferry and Vandellos involved damage to or malfunction of the reactor core. At Browns Ferry a fire damaged control cables and resulted in an 18month shutdown for repairs, at Vandellos a turbine fire made the 17 year old plant uneconomic to repair. Reactor Date Immediate Deaths Nil Nil Three operators Nil Widespread contamination. Farms affected (c 1.5 x 1015 Bq released) Very minor radioactive release Environmental effect Follow-up action Repaired (new core) closed 1992 Entombed (filled with concrete) Being demolished. Decommissioned NRX, Canada (experimental, 40 1952 MWt) Windscale-1, UK (military plutonium-producing pile) SL-1, USA (experimental, military, 3 MWt) Fermi-1 USA (experimental breeder, 66 MWe) Lucens, Switzerland (experimental, 7.5 MWe) Browns Ferry, USA (commercial, 2 x 1080 MWe) Three-Mile Island-2, USA (commercial, 880 MWe) Saint Laurent-A2, France (commercial, 450 MWe) Chernobyl-4, Ukraine (commercial, 950 MWe) 1957 1961

1966 1969 1975

Nil Nil Nil

Nil Very minor radioactive release Nil

Repaired, restarted 1972 Decommissioned Repaired

1979

Nil

Clean-up program Minor short-term radiation dose complete, in (within ICRP limits) to public, monitored storage delayed release of 2 x 1014 Bq of Krstage of 85 decommissioning Minor radiation release (8 x 1010 Bq) Repaired, (Decomm. 1992)

1980 1986

Nil 31 staff and firefighters Nil

Major radiation release across E.Europe and Scandinavia (11 x 1018 Entombed Bq) Nil Decommissioned

Vandellos-1, Spain (commercial, 1989 480 MWe)

(The well publicised accident at Tokai-mura, Japan, in 1999 was at a fuel preparation plant for experimental reactors, and killed two people from radiation exposure. Many other such criticality accidents have occurred, some fatal, and practically all in military facilities prior to 1980.)

Page: 36/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

ANNEXE 09, UMPNER submission by CK

http://www.environmentbusiness.com.au/Business%20and%20Sustainability%20Summit%20program.pdf

Business and Sustainability Summit 2005

Melbourne, 27 October, 2005 hosted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, Freshwater Place, 2 Southbank Boulevard, Southbank Melbourne

The theme of the conference will be "Building on national prosperity reducing the footprint".
Speakers and delegates will take a in-depth look at our economy and lifestyle and analyse the impacts of climate change and eco-system degradation on our prosperity. But their challenge is to propose a way forward - solutions to short-termism, externality and environmental debt accumulation, and the lack of natural capital valuation. We will be looking for an 'enabling framework' that will combine the private sector's innovation and wealth creation skills with the powerful tools that governments can use to carry risk as we change direction to the future we aspire to.

PROGRAM
8.30 Registration and coffee 8.50 Welcome - Fiona Wain, CEO, EBA 9.00 Welcome - Honourable John Brumby, MP, Treasurer and Minister for State & Regional Development and Minister for Innovation, Government of Victoria 9.25 Opening Address - TBA, Leaders in sustainability 10.00 International Address, Rocky Anderson, Mayor Salt Lake City - Driving change - the benefits of leading on sustainability and the battle against climate change

10.30 Morning coffee

11.00 Building on national prosperity while reducing the footprint How does Australia secure future economic prosperity, ensure a healthy environment and maintain a quality of life that is the envy of the rest of the world? An outline of the initial findings of a national study being undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers, WWF, Purves Environmental Fund, and Environment Business Australia Moderator Maxine McKew , ABC Television Opening Greg Bourne, CEO, WWF, former Regional President, BP Australasia - What does our economy really rely on? Panellists Andrew Petersen, Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal Rob Purves, President, WWF Fiona Wain, CEO, EBA 11.45 (continued) Open forum with delegates - building the strategy for the future we want

Business and Sustainability Summit 2005

Melbourne, 27 October, 2005 hosted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, Freshwater Place, 2 Southbank Boulevard, Southbank Melbourne

12.30 Lunch - sponsored by Business Melbourne

1.00 Lunchtime keynote address - Allan Gyngell, Director, the Lowy Institute. International policy developments on sustainability, security and the global economy 2.15 The crucial energy debate. What should the global energy future look like? How can we achieve 60% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-Century and still achieve supply and maintain security? Should nuclear energy be seen as 'green' in light of climate change? How fast can renewable energy grow? Will clean coal be clean enough for tomorrow's market? Moderator Alan Tate, Director, Cambiar H.E. The Hon Helen Liddell, British High Commissioner, and former UK Energy Minister - the policy maker's perspective Dr Graeme Pearman, leading climatologist - the scientist's view Bertus de Graaf, Managing Director, Geodynamics - Renewables stake a claim to baseload energy generation Jonathan Jutsen, Founder, Energetics - Efficiency versus supply Dr John White , Chair, Global Renewa bles; Chair Uranium Industry Taskforce Dr John Wright, Director, Energy Transformed Flagship, CSIRO Discussion and debate with delegates

Page: 37/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

3.40 Afternoon tea

4.00 Breaking the tension between the economy, industry, and the environment 4.00 Dr Neil Byron, Commissioner, National Productivity Commission - Competition policy, competitive neutrality, and eco-system services 4.25 Dr David Brand, Managing Director, New Forests, Pty Ltd - Multiple productivity versus asset atrophy 4.50 Dr Graham Harris, Author, former chair CSIRO Flagships program - Building resilience to avoid risk 5.15 Q&A

Evening (also hosted by Pricewaterhouse Coopers at their Southbank offices)

6.00 Cocktails 7.00 Dinner 8.00 Double dinner address - Are capital markets ahead of regulation? International perspective: Roland Pfeuti, Head Australasia Business, SAM Sustainable Asset Management (SAM is the leading funds management company in the sustainability arena and advises the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the AusSI) Australian perspective : Dr Tim Flannery, Author -The Weather Makers, Director South Australian Museum Information and registration details can be obtained from Environment Business Australia Telephone: 02 6270 1333 Email: eba@environmentbusiness.com.au

Page: 38/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

APPENDIX 01 - UMPNER submission by CK CHECK LIST OF T.o.R.

Ticks in the LH column represent those issues that the author felt competent to comment upon. Bulletnumber Issue / Topic
1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.2 1.1.1.3 1.1.1.4 1.1.1.5 1.1.2 1.1.2.1 1.1.2.2 1.1.2.3 1.1.2.4 1.1.2.5 1.1.2.6 1.1.2.7 1.1.2.8 1.1.2.9 1.1.3 1.1.3.1 1.1.3.2 1.1.3.3 1.1.3.4 1.1.3.5 1.1.3.6 1.1.3.7 1.1.3.8 1.1.4 1.1.4.1 1.1.4.2 1.1.5 1.1.5.1 1.1.5.2 1.1.5.3 1.1.5.4 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.1.1 1.2.1.2 1.2.1.3 1.2.1.4 Economic issues Uranium mining and export capacity Global demand for uranium Existing global demand for uranium? Has demand varied over time? Which countries currently import uranium? Global outlook for Uranium demand to 2050 - 2100? Likely demand from countries with safeguards agreements with Australia? Australian uranium mining industry Existing Australian production of uranium and recent trends? Level of employment in the industry? Current value of Australian uranium exports and trends? Royalty/taxation revenue from uranium mining in Australia? Which Aust. mines/companies supply uranium? Australias existing proven economic reserves? Outlook for additional reserves in Australia and likely costs of mining those reserves? Existing capacity to expand uranium production? Outlook for Australian suppliers to increase production ? Global supply of uranium Which countries are global suppliers of uranium? What are their shares of global trade? What is their existing production capacity? Outlook for existing global suppliers to increase production? Are there any global supply constraints on uranium? Outlook for uranium prices? What proportion of power generation is likely from uranium, and from enriched uranium? Will conventional reserves be sufficient? Impediments to growth in Australian uranium exports Are there impediments to production? E.g: land access, shipping, safeguards, staffing, etc Any argument(s) against expansion of uranium mining in Aust. / Globally? Alternatives to uranium Outlook for demand for alternative nuclear fuels such as thorium? Which countries are likely buyers of such fuels? What are global reserves for alternative nuclear fuels? What are Australian reserves for alternative nuclear fuels? Other components of the nuclear fuel cycle Uranium conversion, enrichment, fabrication and reprocessing What is the existing / future demand for enriched uranium ? What is the existing supply of enriched and reprocessed uranium? Where are the existing conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication and reprocessing plants? What are their capacities?

Page: 39/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

1.2.1.5 1.2.1.6 1.2.1.7 1.2.1.8 1.2.1.9 1.2.1.10 1.2.1.11 1.2.1.12 1.2.1.13 1.2.1.14 1.2.1.15 1.2.2 1.2.2.1 1.2.2.2 1.2.2.3 1.2.2.4 1.2.2.5 1.2.2.5.1 1.2.2.5.2 1.2.2.5.3 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.1.1 1.3.1.2 1.3.1.3 1.3.1.4 1.3.1.5 1.3.1.6 1.3.1.7 1.3.1.8 1.3.2 1.3.2.1 1.3.2.2 1.3.2.3 1.3.2.4 1.3.2.5 1.3.2.6 1.3.3 1.3.3.1 1.3.3.2 1.3.3.3 1.3.3.4 1.3.3.5 1.3.3.6

Are there supply constraints, now or expected? Economic prospects for uranium conversion, fuel enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing ? Are there economic and technical synergies for enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing ? What is the international experience for value-adding to uranium ore? Are there legal and regulatory constraints on conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication and reprocessing ? Are there commercial or political limitations for transfers of sensitive nuclear technologies ? Are there employment implications for Australia of an expanded role in the nuclear fuel cycle? Can existing education and training systems meet demand ? Are existing research skills appropriate for entry into other stages of the fuel cycle? Would an expanded nuclear industry make a contribution to the national economy? Are there implications for other parts of the Australian resources sector? Nuclear waste management What is the global history of nuclear waste management? What is the current state of the technology for nuclear waste management? What has Australias nuclear waste management experience been? What have been the experiences of other countries? What are the prospects for an Australian role? Which countries/companies are active players in this area? What are the training and skills needs? What are Australias competitive strengths and weaknesses? Nuclear power The economics of nuclear electricity generation What is the history of nuclear energy in Australia? What is the current international experience with nuclear power plants? Does overseas experience and decision making translate to Australias situation? How might international costs translate if applied to Australia? What are key factors impacting on the costs of nuclear power plants in this country? What are projected costs for nuclear power in Australia? How are the costs distributed over the lifecycle of reactor existence? Are there barriers to nuclear plant? E.g, construction, reticulation, support, cooling, desalination. Competitiveness of nuclear power Compare with costs for existing electricity generation technologies? Will cost differentials vary over time? Will CO2, NOx, SOx and particulate emissions affect the economic framework? Are there anticipated developments in future nuclear power plants (Generation III and IV)? Are there cost implications of these developments? Are there development implications for Australia (apart from other countries)? Australian electricity demand What is Australias electricity supply and demand outlook? Are there implications for the national electricity market in Australia? How might any implications be addressed? Other factors affecting implementation? e.g.: desalination, hydrogen, production for transport. What might the time frame be for such non electricity uses? What non-market factors affect implementation? e.g: , environment, energy security, and research.

Page: 40/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

1.3.4 1.3.4.1 1.3.4.2 1.3.4.3 1.3.4.4 1.3.4.5 1.3.4.6 1.3.4.7 1.3.4.8 1.3.4.9 1.3.4.10 1.3.4.11 1.3.4.12 1.3.4.13 2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6 3.1.7 3.1.8 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2

Nuclear research and development What are key areas of international nuclear energy R&D (fusion, fission across the full fuel cycle)? Where are the existing centres of research activity? What international partnerships exist? The nature and scope of existing nuclear energy and related R&D activity, including nuclear medicine? What is the existing level of funding for nuclear R&D in Australia and overseas? Where does Australias existing R&D occur? Are there areas where Australia currently has a leadership role? To what extent does our existing R&D link in with international efforts? Are there areas where there is scope for greater international collaboration? What are implications of a greater role for nuclear power in Australia for the research sector? What, are the implications of an expanded Australian role in all stages of a nuclear fuel cycle? What are our current educational and training capabilities in the nuclear field? What education and training implications result from an expanded role in the nuclear fuel cycle? Environmental issues Greenhouse implications of nuclear power What are the current and projected greenhouse implications of nuclear power use globally? How are greenhouse emissions distributed over the nuclear fuel cycle? What are potential impacts on greenhouse emissions, of nuclear power use in Australia? Potential impact on global greenhouse emissions of Australia supplying foreign markets with fuel? Other environmental implications of involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle What non-greenhouse environmental implications are associated with nuclear power? What is their nature and scale? Compare nuclear environmental impacts to existing electricity generation technologies? Enviro-implications in: mining, enrichment, fabrication and reprocessing, power production, & waste? What has been the Australian and overseas experience in these areas? Health, safety and proliferation issues The health and safety implications of nuclear energy What are the health/safety implications (all stages of nuclear cycle, including nuclear power stations)? What has been the overseas health and safety experience across the entire fuel cycle? What has been Australias health and safety experience in the uranium mining industry? What are the health and safety implications of next generation nuclear energy technologies? What are the comparative health risks associated with non-nuclear power production methods? What is the current and potential future role of nuclear medicine in Australia? Do we have sufficient trained health and safety professionals in nuclear disciplines? If not, how might demand for personnel be met? Nuclear waste processing and storage issues State of play with regard to radioactive waste management (for low, medium and high level waste)? Are there examples of worlds best practice in this area? Are there areas where Australia has particular expertise or a particular role to play? What has been the experience with existing reprocessing and waste storage facilities overseas? What are forecast levels of radioactive waste from next generation reactors? Is there a business case for management of radioactive by-products generated outside Australia? How does radioactive waste management compare to other power generation processes? National security implications relating to nuclear energy Security implications of any expanded role for Australia in one or more stages of the nuclear fuel cycle? What are the implications of nuclear power for energy security in Australia?

Page: 41/41

80513453.doc

11 August 2006

3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6

Nuclear proliferation issues What are the current global and Australian approaches to nuclear non-proliferation? What are Australias obligations under the international nuclear non-proliferation regime? Will limits on sensitive nuclear technology affect development of the nuclear fuel cycle in our region? How might Australias safeguards policy be affected by a nuclear fuel cycle in Australia? What constraints or disciplines are imposed by the various nuclear treaties in force? What will be the impact of next generation nuclear energy technologies in this area?