Nuclear Energy and Greenhouse - Implications for Australia

This discussion paper was prepared for the AWU National Executive meeting in late January 2006. The AWU has not formed a final view on the policy.

Nuclear Energy and Greenhouse - Implications for Australia

"Australia's hottest year on record; global warming blamed"

Australia has officially recorded its warmest year on record. Australia's Bureau of Meteorology said temperatures were on average 1.09 degrees Celsius higher than normal in 2005, making it the hottest year since records were first kept in 1910.

Senior meteorologist at the National Climate Centre, Dean Collins, stated that global warming was having an undeniable effect.

"Public supports nuclear power"
Almost half the population supports the introduction of nuclear power in Australia, a new poll reveals. Forty-seven per cent of those surveyed said they favoured establishing a nuclear power industry because of growing concerns about climate change.

Preface

"...........I think we should have a practical debate about this and not an emotional one. "We've got no in-principle opposition to nuclear power provided it is done in a responsible way", Bill Ludwig, The Australian, 23 September 2005.

"............You are not serious about cutting the harmful effects of air pollution and tackling climate change unless you have a serious discussion about the future of nuclear." Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council of Environmental Quality, reported in The Australian, 13 January 2006.

"...........The idea that we can address climate-change matters successfully at the expense of economic growth is not only unrealistic, but also unacceptable". John Howard: Asia-Pacific Climate Partnership, 12 January 2006, as reported in The Australian, 13 January.

"............It is extraordinary that the Greens could place the economic security and jobs of their constituents at risk. "Let's be real - without getting business on board we cannot achieve anything." Martin Ferguson, The Australian 13 January.

"......... One year's uranium oxide production from Summit's proposed Mount Isa mines would, globally, displace in excess of 160 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions," Submission by Summit Resources to House of Reps Inquiry into the development of the non-fossil fuel energy industry in Australia.

"......... While there is renewed debate over the possible benefits of nuclear power for greenhouse emissions, there are no changes in the waste management and security concerns," Michael Walsh, executive director of researcher Corporate Monitor, which advises ethical funds, reported in the Age, 20 July 2005.

"............Let's put the emotions to one side because I understand how people feel about this. Let's dispassionately examine the pros and cons," "If, in fact, we in Australia have, as we do have, the safest geological formations in which you can dig deep mines, vitrify the material, put it down and it will be safer than it would be anywhere else in the world. "I believe, prima facie at least, we have a moral responsibility to do that." Bob Hawke, The Age, 27 September 2005.

Executive Summary
The current debate on the development of Australia's uranium resources has been given added impetus because of the reality of global warming. Rapid economic growth requires substantial energy resources, but over reliance on fossil fuels places future global prosperity at risk. There is a vital role for nuclear energy to ameliorate the emission of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels.

Aspirations which are shared in both advanced and developing countries for a more prosperous future will not change despite the global greenhouse challenge. The market will however place increasing value on greenhouse abatement resources, techniques and know-how. Thirty-five nations already have established domestic nuclear energy capabilities, serving to meet part of their energy requirements.

Planning is in place to extend existing nuclear facilities and to develop new ones based on latest technologies. And more countries are turning to nuclear energy to underwrite their future living standards, including in Southeast Asia. Given these trends, world demand for uranium, other nuclear materials and technology is growing.

This paper investigates the role of nuclear energy based on international experience. Australia's uranium resources and know-how have a major future role to play in promoting and exploiting the greenhouse benefits of nuclear energy. The latest environmental agreement signed by Australia - Asia-Pacific Clean Development and Climate Partnership - brings together our major uranium markets, and offers enormous scope to advance Australia's uranium exports and nuclear capabilities.

More widely, Australia is well positioned to supply resources and skills throughout the nuclear cycle to the rest of the world. This paper outlines the potential for Australia to have a dominant role in the future world uranium market.

Sustainable waste management is perhaps the key issue for the future development of the uranium mining and nuclear industry. Advancing understanding on this issue is therefore critical to the mainstream acceptance of nuclear energy. Considerable advances are being made in generating, treating and storing waste and the paper outlines the latest measures available, which reduce considerably the risks associated with the nuclear fuel cycle. Support for the environment, nuclear energy and growth should not be seen to be mutually exclusive aspirations.

Finally, the paper draws a number of conclusions for policy, including that failing to act will set Australia back without reducing greenhouse emissions or reducing nuclear energy dependency globally. These are merely missed opportunities. The current three mines policy has passed its 'used-by' date. Looking ahead, Canada - already an aggressive exporter - looms as a growing threat to Australia's future potential dominance of the uranium market - were we to choose to accept that challenge.

The AWU leadership is leading the way in support of uranium mining and the nuclear energy industry. The paper canvasses future involvement in research activities being undertaken by CSIRO, innovation by industry supplying the mining and nuclear industries and in the maintenance of the technical capabilities in our universities.

1. Introduction
This paper investigates greenhouse benefits of nuclear energy; the size and future potential of the Australian uranium industry; and new generation technologies to maximise the efficient production of nuclear energy and effective waste management critical to the broader acceptance of the nuclear industry. Following this analysis the paper makes a number of conclusions; outlines implications for ALP policy and opportunities to influence the debate; and looks ahead.

2. The greenhouse benefits of nuclear energy
Over 20 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are put into the atmosphere by human activity each year . Much of the human effect which tends to increase global warming comes from our use of energy. Around 45% comes from coal and 40% from oil.

This is only about 3% of the natural flux between atmosphere and oceans or land. Water vapour is the main natural greenhouse gas, accounting for 75 per cent of the greenhouse effect. Plants and trees are also responsible for the emission of up to 30 per cent of methane gas into the environment (and which may more than offset their benefits as sinks for CO2). The additional burden placed on the environment by human emissions although relatively small is probably therefore even more critical.

The major greenhouse gases from human activity and the approximate proportion of the human-induced effect are:
CO2 Carbon dioxide 60%
CH4 Methane 20%
CFCs etc Halocarbons 14%
N2O Nitrous oxide 6%

There is general consesus within the scientific community that the world's climate will be different in 100 years time if we continue to increase our rate of consumption of fossil fuels. An information sheet describing the greenhouse effect in detail is at http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/holper_2001b.html

Given that there is no clear consensus on the outcome of the global warming and that some of the consequences are very dire, rather than dismissing the issue because of lack of precision, the safe course of action is to limit the amount of global warming and hence to limit the amount of greenhouse gas emission.

a) coal-fired power generation
Coal-fired power stations worldwide consume over 2500 million tonnes of coal each year to produce 38% of electricity. This compares with about 61,000 tonnes of natural uranium (72,000 t of oxide concentrate from the mines) providing the fuel for the nuclear power stations which provide almost 17% of the world's electricity. Much of the coal is used in the country in which it is mined, but often it has to be transported long distances, which requires considerable energy (and results in further greenhouse gas emissions).

b) emissions
Each year the 1,000 MWe coal-fired power station produces about 7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, perhaps 200 000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide (depending on the particular coal) and typically about 200 000 tonnes of solids, mostly flyash. The ash contains several hundred tonnes of toxic heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, lead, vanadium and mercury which remain toxic forever. If brown coal is used the carbon dioxide figure is about 9 million tonnes. Australia has the most emissions of CO2 per person in the world, mainly because most of our electricity uses energy from coal-fired power stations. To date the cost of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has not been priced into their use.
CO2 emissions would increase by 1930 million tonnes per annum if nuclear power stations were converted to coal. CSIRO submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources: Developing Australia's non-fossil fuel energy industry.

The corollary is that nuclear power has the potential to produce energy at much lower rates of greenhouse emission than existing sources of power. Every 22 tonnes of uranium (26 t U3O8) used saves the emission of one million tonnes of CO2 relative to coal. Australia is well placed to make a significant contribution to world greenhouse gas reduction targets through provision of high quality black coal which are low in sulphur and generally low in metallic trace elements. Australia also has a large proportion of the world's low cost uranium, which is in increasing demand.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip44.htm

c) nuclear energy
Nuclear energy and the uranium mining industry which feeds it are realities which have served the growing energy needs of the planet for over 50 years. In France, nuclear power provides 77% of the nation's need for electricity.

Although the processes of running a nuclear power plant generates no CO2, some CO2 emissions arise from the construction of the plant, the mining of the uranium, the enrichment of the uranium, its conversion into nuclear fuel, its final disposal and the final plant decommissioning. The amount of CO2 generated by these secondary processes primarily depends on the method used to enrich the uranium (eg, the gaseous diffusion enrichment process uses about 50 times more electricity than the gaseous centrifuge method) and the source of electricity used for the enrichment process. But the bottom line is that emissions from nuclear are lower than any other energy type. See chart below.

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

d) energy demand
Even with effective energy efficiency programs in developed countries there will be a global need for much more energy if people in developing countries are to improve their standards of living. A large part of this increase will be in electricity.
Since 1980 total world energy use grew by nearly 50%, with electricity growth even stronger. For example, the growth in demand for primary energy in East Asia to 2010 is likely to be 5% per year, and that for electricity 7-8% per year. In China, power generation requirements are expected to almost double from 1994 to 2010, with much of this being nuclear. China has ten reactors definitely planned or under construction, with three already in operation. There is a wide consensus that world electricity demand will double from mid 1990s levels by 2020, with demand growing at 2.7% per year. Increased demand will be most dramatic in developing countries.

Source: Source: OECD/IEA World Energy Outlook 2004 http://www.uic.com.au/nip11.htm

Nuclear power generation is an established part of the world's electricity mix providing over 16% of world electricity (compared with coal 40%, oil 10%, natural gas 15% and hydro and other 19%) and 24% in developed countries. It is especially suitable for large-scale, base-load electricity demand. And because nuclear power contributes directly to base load electricity generation, it is unlike renewable energy sources, including wind, and solar, which are therefore not substitutable for either coal fired or nuclear generation.

The global spot price of uranium (U3O8) is currently around US$30 per pound, which represents a 200 per cent increase since early 2003, when the global minerals market started its bull run. Moreover, demand from both the developing and developing world is increasing, not falling. China, Russia, Finland, France, India and others are expanding nuclear generating capacity, with estimates suggesting that 60 new reactors (17% above current levels of nuclear generation) are planned, or under construction. The focus on greenhouse gas abatement is another factor driving the increased demand for uranium for power generation.

e) Beyond the Kyoto Protocol - the Asia Pacific Climate Partnership
Australia has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, under which industrial nations agreed to collectively reduce their greenhouse gases by at least 5 per cent, compared with 1990 levels, by 2012.

As of last September, 156 countries, representing more than 61 per cent of global emissions, had ratified the agreement. Notable exceptions include the US and Australia.

Instead, the US and Australia along with China, India, South Korea, Japan have established the Asia-Pacific Clean Development and Climate Partnership (AP6) which held its inaugural meeting in Australia on 12 January 2006.
Members hailed the agreement for clean-energy as a new model for how to battle climate change without damaging economic growth. Member countries account for around 50% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, GDP and population.

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol which imposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, this agreement allows member countries to set their goals for reducing emissions individually, with no mandatory enforcement mechanism.
The group also agreed that nuclear power is critical to tackling global air pollution and climate change. Eight taskforces will be developed designed to pursue public-private partnerships on issues such as cleaner fossil energy, renewable energy and aluminium production. The Prime Minister said the AP6 meeting had redefined the way climate change, energy security and air pollution would be addressed in order to encourage economic development.

"The purpose of this meeting is to ensure that we address issues of climate change in a way that is consistent with economic growth and poverty reduction," Mr Howard said. Mr Howard formally committed $100 million over five years to the partnership, with $25 million of that to be directed towards renewable energy projects. Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council of Environmental Quality, said nuclear energy was critical to developing cleaner energy sources.

The Government confirmed that work had begun on holding talks with China about safeguards for the potential sale of uranium. "Nuclear power is greenhouse-friendly and that needs to be taken into account," Mr Downer said. Mr Macfarlane said Australia would only supply uranium to nations that had stringent safeguards and weapons non-proliferation agreements.

Chinese officials visited Australia in 2004 to negotiate the possible purchase of the Honeymoon uranium mine in South Australia. And Southern Cross Resources which owns Honeywell has confirmed that the Chinese were keen to invest in the mine.

f) the global nuclear industry
Some 35 countries have chosen nuclear power as part of their energy mix. They have well over 400 power station reactors in operation and more under construction with a total generating capacity thirteen times that of Australia.

Source: http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm

Note in particular Canada's involvement in downstream value adding in the conversion and nuclear fuel fabrication industries in addition to uranium mining and exports (where it competes directly with Australia). These parts of the nuclear fuel cycle are described in detail at http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm. Canada's uranium mining and nuclear energy industries are described at http://www.uic.com.au/nip03.htm

g) The latest data on existing and planned nuclear reactors is set out in the table:

World Nuclear Power Reactors 2004-06 and Uranium Requirements

NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION 2004 REACTORS OPERABLEJan 2006 REACTORS under CONSTRUCTION Jan 2006 REACTORS PLANNED Jan 2006 REACTORS PROPOSED Jan 2006 URANIUM REQUIRED2006
billion kWh % e No. MWe No. MWe No. MWe No. MWe tonnes U
Argentina 7.3 8.2 2 935 1 692 0 0 0 0 134
Armenia 2.2 39 1 376 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
Belgium 44.9 55 7 5728 0 0 0 0 0 0 1075
Brazil 11.5 3.0 2 1901 0 0 1 1245 0 0 336
Bulgaria 15.6 42 4 2722 0 0 2 1900 0 0 253
Canada* 85.3 15 18 12595 0 0 2 1540 0 0 1635
China 47.8 2.2 9 6587 2 1900 9 8200 19 15000 1294
China: Taiwan 37.9 21 6 4884 2 2600 0 0 0 0 906
Czech Republic 26.3 31 6 3472 0 0 0 0 2 1900 540
Egypt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 600 0
Finland 21.8 27 4 2676 1 1600 0 0 0 0 473
France 426.8 78 59 63473 0 0 0 0 1 1600 10146
Germany 158.4 32 17 20303 0 0 0 0 0 0 3458
Hungary 11.2 34 4 1755 0 0 0 0 0 0 251
India 15.0 2.8 15 2993 8 3638 0 0 24 13160 1334
Indonesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4000 0
Iran 0 0 0 0 1 950 2 1900 3 2850 0
Israel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1200 0
Japan 273.8 29 55 47700 1 866 12 14782 0 0 8169
Korea DPR (North) 0 0 0 0 1 950 1 950 0 0 0
Korea RO (South) 124.0 38 20 16840 0 0 8 9200 0 0 3037
Lithuania 13.9 72 1 1185 0 0 0 0 1 1000 134
Mexico 10.6 5.2 2 1310 0 0 0 0 0 0 256
Netherlands 3.6 3.8 1 452 0 0 0 0 0 0 112
Pakistan 1.9 2.4 2 425 1 300 0 0 2 1200 64
Romania 5.1 10 1 655 1 655 0 0 3 1995 176
Russia 133.0 16 31 21743 4 3600 1 925 8 9375 3439
Slovakia 15.6 55 6 2472 0 0 0 0 2 840 356
Slovenia 5.2 38 1 676 0 0 0 0 0 0 144
South Africa 14.3 6.6 2 1842 0 0 1 165 24 4000 329
Spain 60.9 23 9 7584 0 0 0 0 0 0 1505
Sweden 75.0 52 10 8904 0 0 0 0 0 0 1435
Switzerland 25.4 40 5 3220 0 0 0 0 0 0 575
Turkey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4500 0
Ukraine 81.1 51 15 13168 0 0 2 1900 0 0 1988
United Kingdom 73.7 19 23 11852 0 0 0 0 0 0 2158
USA 788.6 20 103 97924 1 1065 0 0 13 17000 19715
Vietnam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2000 0
WORLD 2618.6 16 441 368,352 24 18,816 41 42,707 113 82,220 65,478
billion kWh % e No. MWe No. MWe No. MWe No. MWe tonnes U
NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION 2004 REACTORS OPERATING REACTORS BUILDING ON ORDER or PLANNED PROPOSED URANIUM REQUIRED

Sources: http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm
Reactor data: WNA to 4/1/06.
IAEA- for nuclear electricity production & percentage of electricity (% e) 7/7/05.
WNA: Global Nuclear Fuel Market (reference scenario) - for U. Operating = Connected to the grid
Building/Construction = first concrete for reactor poured, or major refurbishment under way
Planned = Approvals and funding in place, or construction well advanced but suspended indefinitely;
Proposed = clear intention but still without funding and/or approvals.
TWh = Terawatt-hours (billion kilowatt-hours), MWe = Megawatt net (electrical as distinct from thermal), kWh = kilowatt-hour
NB: 65,478 tU = 77,218 t U3O8

• In Canada, 'planned' figure is 2 laid-up Bruce A reactors.

3. Overview of the Australia uranium industry

a) deposits
Australia dominates the world's known uranium deposits. Australia has over 40% of the world's lowest-cost uranium resources (under US$ 40/kg). Nearly all of Australia's 667 000 tonnes of Reasonably Assured Resources of uranium alone (to US $30/lb U3O8 or $80/kg U) are in the under US$ 40/kg U category. This compares with Kazakhstan (327 000 tonnes), Canada (315 000 tonnes), South Africa (231 000 tonnes) and Namibia (144 000 tonnes). The following table shows these plus Estimated Additional Resources.

Known Recoverable Resources* of Uranium
tonnes U percentage of world
Australia 863,000 28%
Kazakhstan 472,000 15%
Canada 437,000 14%
South Africa 298,000 10%
Namibia 235,000 8%
Brazil 197,000 6%
Russian Fed. 131,000 4%
USA 104,000 3%
Uzbekistan 103,000 3%
World total 3,107,000
· Reasonably Assured Resources plus Estimated Additional Resources - category 1, to US$ 80/kg U, 1/1/01, from OECD NEA & IAEA, Uranium 2001: Resources, Production and Demand. Brazil, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Russian figures above are 75% of in situ totals. Source: http://www.uic.com.au/nip01-inf48.htm

b) mines

At present there are three uranium mines operating in Australia: Ranger in the Northern Territory and the Olympic Dam and Beverley in South Australia. Collectively, these three projects have recently increased production capacity to over 10,000 tonnes per year of uranium: Calendar year 2004 production: 5137 t from Ranger, 4370 t from Olympic Dam, 1084 t from Beverley - total 10,591 tonnes. A forth mine (one of up to nine possible new mines - see map below) has been cleared to start construction: Honeymoon in South Australia.

For more information on the mines see http://www.uic.com.au/emine.htm

c) Australian exports
Australian uranium production in 2004-05 was 10,964 tonnes of U3O8, accounting for 22% of world production. All Australia production is exported. This provided exports valued at A$ 475 million.
With world demand increasing steadily and reliably, there is scope for increase in Australian production and export revenue.
The nations which currently purchase Australia's uranium are set out in the chart below. All have a large commitment to nuclear power:
Source: http://www.uic.com.au/nip01-inf48.htm
The USA generates around 30% of the world's nuclear power. Much of its uranium comes from Canada, but Australia is a major source. Japan and South Korea however are important customers due to their increasing dependence on nuclear.
Customer countries' contracted imports of Australian uranium oxide concentrate (U3O8) are as follows:
USA: c 3000 tonnes per year - 104 reactors (supplying 20% of electricity);
Japan: c 3000 tonnes per year - 54 reactors (supplying 34% of electricity);
South Korea: c 1000 tonnes per year - 17 reactors (39% of electricity);
EU: about 800 tonnes per year, including:

• Spain: 9 reactors (29% of electricity)

• France: 59 reactors (77% of electricity)

• UK: 31 reactors (23% of electricity)

• Sweden: 11 reactors (44% of electricity)

• Germany: 19 nuclear reactors (31% of electricity)

• Belgium: 7 reactors (58% of electricity)

• Finland: 4 reactors (31% of electricity).

4. New technologies for efficient production and effective waste management

"It will be the private sector that develops and commercialises new technologies, that will make the investment, that will deliver practical results," US Energy Secretary Bodman, quoted at AP6, 11 January 2006.

a) The Fourth Generation Reactors
In 2002 the Gen IV Internation Forum (GIF) nations (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Switzerland, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States ) proposed a long term research and development program to investigate 6 promising new reactor designs. The six design concepts are:
· The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR)
· Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)
· Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor (SCWR)
· Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)
· Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)
· Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)
Key benefits claimed include:
· efficiently utilise uranium (many can employ depleted uranium or "spent" fuel from current reactors);
· destroy a large fraction of nuclear waste from current reactors via transmutation;
· generate hydrogen for transportation and other non-electric energy needs;.
· easy to operate;
· provide inherent resistance to uclear weapons proliferation;
· provide a clear cost advantage over other forms of energy generation; and.
· carry a financial risk no greater than other forms of energy generation.
These reactor concepts are at various levels of developement. The first deployments of Generation IV reactors are not expected until 2015. Most will not be ready before 2025. However the long term potential of these projects is enormous. For example one Molten-Salt Reactor designed to consume one tonne of uranium per year, could supply suffient hydrogen to supply 3 million passenger vehicles. The waste from the plant's year's operation would occupy half the volume of a typical domestic refrigerator. The radioactivity of the waste would dimish to background levels in about 500 years.

b) storage and disposal of high level nuclear reactor waste
Once the spent fuel has been removed from the nuclear reactor it is placed in interim storage at the reactor site. Usually this consist of putting the nuclear waste into large pools of water. The water cools the radioactive isotopes and shields the environment from the radiation. Nuclear waste is typically stored in these supervised pools between 20-40 years. During this time there is a great reduction in heat and radioactivity and this makes handling of nuclear waste safer and easier.
After this "cooling off" period the high level waste can be handled in different ways. It can be reprocessed then disposed of permanently in a geological repository or disposed of permanently in a geological repository:

c) reprocessing
Spent nuclear fuel contains uranium and plutonium which are used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. It is possible to isolate much of the uranium and plutonium from the other fission products in spent nuclear fuel so that it can be recycled as fresh fuel to power the nuclear reactor. The total amount of spent fuel resulting from operation of all the world's commercial nuclear power stations is about 14,000 tonnes per year. About two thirds of this is treated as waste, the rest is reprocessed to recover useful fuel material. By reprocessing the spent fuel, the amount is reduced to about 3% high-level radioactive waste, with the balance being recycled as fresh fuel.
After reprocessing the left over waste is largely liquid. It is then embedded into borosilicate glass and put into interim storage. Eventually it will be disposed of permanently deep underground.

d) final disposal
The nuclear waste will have to be stored indefinitely because of the long time it takes for some of the waste isotopes to decay to a safe level. The consensus of most waste management specialist for final disposal is to bury the waste deep underground.
To ensure that the radioactive waste is contained the current consensus is to use a multi-barrier system to store the waste. The geological disposal system consists of firstly surrounding the conditioned and packaged solid waste by several human made barriers then placing this at a depth of several hundred meters in a stable geological environment. The geological formation is the most important of the isolation barriers. The barriers act in concert to initially completely isolate the radioactive particles so they can decay and then limit their release to the environment. The combination of man made and natural geological barriers is called a multibarrier system.
The solidification of nuclear waste (which is necessary for final disposal) usually consists of dispersal in a glass matrix. However, alternative techniques are being researched. One such technique consists of embedding the waste into a ceramic matrix such as Synroc.Synroc is a "synthetic rock" invented in 1978 by Professor Ted Ringwood of the Australian National University. Synroc can incorporate nearly all the elements contained in high level waste.

e) current programs for final disposal of nuclear waste
Currently, no country has a complete system for storing high level waste permanently but many have plans to do so in the next 10 years. There are a number of well-developed proposals from the USA, Sweden, Finland and France for the disposal of long-lived radio-active waste.

f) Australia as a possible disposal site
The location of an underground repository must be characterised by:

• very low rainfall and high evaporation,

• stable geology and hydrogeology,

• negligible access to water and minimum groundwater movement,

• low relief topography, and

• low seismic activity and low potential of glaciation.

g) Australia's future role
Australia's ability to increase the strategic value of its uranium resources lies in the ability to deliver it efficiently to the market place. The CSIRO in its May 2005 submission to the House of Reps Standing Committee on Industry and Resources outlined four specific areas where Australian science could contribute to greater efficiencies:
· exploration - supporting the discovery of new resources adding strategic value;
· extraction - supporting the extraction of uranium from the ground;
· adding value - supporting the processing of uranium into a usable commodity; and
· life-time stewardship - supporting the management of waste in terms of safe storage, reprocessing and/or recycling.
There is currently significant expertise in the Australian research community to address these issues (but this is under threat - see discussion below). CSIRO is a foundation partner in the new Sustainable Resource Processing CRC and has a major focus on waste reduction, recycling and amelioration of waste - in the uranium industry to the consideration of how radioactive wastes are managed and nuclear assets are to be secured. ANSTO is also making its contribution to knowledge.
Related to greenhouse research, the CSIRO has also established the Energy Transformed National Research Flagship Program with the goal of achieving cost effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. This initiative includes an Energy Futures Forum bringing together the commuity and industry in an outcomes focused research program. CSIRO and ABARE provide the modelling tools and analysis. The current program is running until the end of 2006.

5. Implications for ALP Policy
Australia is practically the only developed country not using electricity from nuclear energy. Australia's abundance of cheap coal, conveniently located to population centres, has ruled nuclear energy out of contention on economic grounds. In addtion, any prospect of a domestic industry is hindered in two states, Victoria and NSW, by legislation enacted by previous governments. In Victoria the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 prohibits the construction or operation of any nuclear reactor, and consequential amendments to other Acts reinforce this. In NSW the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986 is similar.
However, concern about global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, especially coal, has put nuclear energy back on the agenda in Australia, particularly the possibility of emissions trading or a carbon tax to assist the achievement of emission reduction targets for carbon dioxide.
A 1994 ABARE paper considers the prospects of stabilising CO2 emissions with and without nuclear power, which is assumed will be able to contribute an increasing share of electricity from 2005 to 2020. The relative discounted costs of stabilising emissions at 2000 levels were estimated as $800 million (1990 $) with nuclear and $1800 million without. (If emissions are reduced 40% below 2000 levels by 2020 the figures are $55 and $94 billion respectively.)
And public opinion is more supportive of nuclear energy. Almost half the population supports the introduction of nuclear power in Australia, a poll udertake by the Sunday Telegraph early this month revealed. Forty-seven per cent of those surveyed said they favoured establishing a nuclear power industry because of growing concerns about climate change.
The survey also revealed more than 80 per cent believed the issue was an important priority for the Government in 2006. The poll showed people wanted to debate the pros and cons of nuclear power.
Labor Party policy is still equivocal and there are on record threats to close down any developments which are not actually in production when a Labor government is returned. In addition, several state governments oppose uranium development. This is a disincentive to exploration and development in Australia. Accordingly, some Australian companies prefer to pursue uranium opportunities offshore, which reduces the medium-term prospects for Australian output.
This uncertainty is occurring as Canadian producers, who are vigorously expanding their production capacity, lock buyers into long-term contracts which will constrain the market for the next decade or more. A good overview of the Canadian uranium mining and nuclear industries and comparisons with Australia is at http://www.uic.com.au/nip03.htm

6. Conclusion
Without nuclear power the world would have to rely almost entirely on fossil fuels, especially coal, to meet electricity demands for base-load electricity production. This has significant environmental, and particularly greenhouse gas, implications.
With global demand rising, and supply tightening, the opportunity cost of persisting with artificial bans on uranium bans is greater than at any time since they were introduced.
With almost half the known low-cost uranium resources in the world, Australia has the potential to strengthen its market position and capture a large part of the buegoeoning market.
If Australia could add value by sourcing new deposits of uranium and enabling greater levels of recovery from known deposits through innovative technology, it could position itself as the global leader in uranium mining.
This does not mean that uranium can, or should, displace coal as the major source of power generation. Coal will continue to be a mainstay of the world's energy supply. But our uranium resources have a sigificant future role because they are the lowest-cost uranium resources in the world, being almost entirely recoverable at less than US$40/kg U ($29/lb U3O8). And efforts at mitigating CO2 emissions from coal fired power generation - eg, via geosequestration - are only in their infancy.

Australia could also extend its technological operations along the uranium fuel chain. But stronger support will be required in support of industry innovation. A clear impediment to the future of the nuclear industry in Australia is the lack of the next generation of researchers. No tertiary institution in Australia currently offers nuclear engineering as a faculty stream. This is in addition to the critical shortage of graduates entering the exploration and mining industry in general. There is a role for the AWU to illustrate this state of affairs and support the further development of the uranium industry by funding a chair or bursuary in support of nuclear engineering at campuses in Queensland, South Australia or Western Australia.

The Minerals Council of Australia describes the 'no new mines' policies of the governments of Qld, NSW, Victoria, and Western Australia as 'inherently flawed' simply serving to deny Australians the benefits of converting an abundance of natural capital into societal capital for reasons including:

1. There are no production restrictions on existing operations - it is absurd to be placing artificial limits on the number of mines, but no such artificial limits on the size of current mines;

2. There is no discernible effect on nuclear power generation elsewhere;

3. There are around 440 nuclear reactors worldwide producing about 16 per cent of the world's electricity;

4. Australia's safeguard arrangements are demonstrably effective in ensuring Australian product is not used in, or vulnerable to, nuclear weapons proliferation;

5. The technology in nuclear power generation and waste management is now considered mature; and

6. Greatly improving risk management in nuclear power generation. The industry has a relatively impressive safety record.

7. Looking Ahead

The AP6 presents Australia will a head start in consolidating market share in the other AP6 member countries which are all our major markets for Australia's uranium sales. The opportunity exists to build further links in trade and investment which could take Australia's uranium exports to the next level, in particular if a carbon-trading regime were established within AP6 as a greenhouse abatement measure. It may also be the catalyst for establishing upstream processing in Australia along the lines noted above to take advantage of value added margins otherwise taken up abroad.

Canada poses the greatest immediate threat to Australia's potentially dominant market position. Canada's nuclear energy industry is not standing still but expanding. Nor has the Green Political Party accused Canada of being anti-environment as it balances its Kyoto commitments with its mining and domestic nuclear energy industries.

And following the election of a conservative government in Canada there is now an added measure of urgency in considering Australia's future policy position. Canadian conservatives are expected to want to back away from Canada's strong support for the Kyoto Protocol. There is probable interest in joining AP6 aimed at maximising market opportunities for Canadian miners. Were AP6 to become AP7 - and the US would be hard pressed to resist in view of its dependence on Canadian uranium ore and processed materials -Australia's status as the sole uranium supplier / exporter in AP6 evaporates and along with it, potentially significant export earnings and jobs.

It is clear that as a first step Australia must position itself to be able to reliably supply uranium to the rest of the world. The potential for a domestic nuclear industry and repository for waste based on improved science follow but are not necessarily part of the first step to increase Australia's capacity to supply greater volumes of uranium and develop markets. However, critically, the challenge is to establish the environmental advantages of supplying additional uranium - and particularly to our own region - which is justified because downstream processing is sustainable and the nuclear fuel cycle is safe.

There is an immediate opportunity for the ALP to agree to turn the issue to its advantage and win support by leading - rather than continuing to be divided in - the debate by focussing on the environmental and economic benefits of utilising our uranium resources and skills on grounds which include advances in the science of nuclear energy generation and waste management in addition to the export returns and jobs. This has the potential to join up the [true] greens and industry.

Endnotes

http://www.freehills.com.au/publications/publications_5599.asp#Australias_hottest_year_on_record_global_warming_blamed

By Tony Vermeer, 15-01-2006 From: The Sunday Telegraph http://www.news.com.au/story/print/0,10119,17828388,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Labor-facing-uranium-mining-dilemma/2005/09/27/1127586834012.html
In a study published in the journal Nature, a team led by Frank Keppler of the Max Planck Institute in Germany has found living plants, dried leaves and grass emit methane in the presence of air. The researchers roughly estimate the world's living vegetation emits between 62 and 236 million tonnes of methane per year, and plant litter adds one to seven million tonnes. This would be equivalent to between 10 and 30 per cent of all annual global emissions of methane. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1545977.htm

Nuclear fuel by comparison is extremely modest in volume and if necessary can even be transported by aircraft. A 1000 MWe nuclear power station requires one truck-load delivery of enriched fuel per month, or an average of about 74 kg per day, which would fit in a small briefcase. An equivalent sized coal-fired station needs some 8600 tonnes of coal to be delivered every day.

Methods exist for removing sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide although the cost is high. Flyash is generally captured and dumped in landfill. However, there is no economically feasible way to remove or reduce carbon dioxide from the burning of coal. None of these emissions occur at a nuclear power station, where virtually all wastes are contained in the 27 tonnes or so of spent fuel and not released to the environment. http://www.uic.com.au/ueg.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/science/features/gasgrave/default.htm

http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/AlterntiveToNuclearPower

Nuclear Energy Prospects in Australia: Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 44, April 2005, Uranium Information Centre Ltd. http://www.uic.com.au/nip44.htm

See http://www.uic.com.au/Factsheet705.pdf for more facts.

http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/FullSummary
To estimate the total CO2 emissions from nuclear power, the work of the Swedish Energy Utility, Vattenfall - which produces electricity via nuclear, hydro, coal, gas, solar cell, peat and wind energy - is illustrative. Averaged over the entire lifecycle of their nuclear plants including uranium mining, milling, enrichment, plant construction, operating, decommissioning and waste disposal, the total amount CO2 emitted per KW-Hr of electricity produced is 3.3 grams per KW-Hr of produced power. Vattenfall measures its CO2 output from natural gas to be 400 grams per KW-Hr and from coal to be 700 grams per KW-Hr. Thus nuclear power generated by Vattenfall, which may constitute world's best practice, emits less than one hundredth the CO2 of fossil-fuel based generation. In fact Vattenfall finds its nuclear plants to emit less CO2 than any of its other energy production mechanisms including hydro, wind, solar and biomass although all of these processes emit much less than fossil fuel generation of electricity. http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower

http://www.uic.com.au/nip38.htm

http://www.minerals.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/10010/MCA_MR_UraniumInquiry050905.pdf

Negotiations on Kyoto's commitments after 2012 are due to start by May and are expected to last several years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Pacific_Partnership_on_Clean_Development_and_Climate

The Partnership's inaugural Ministerial meeting established eight government and business taskforces on (1) cleaner fossil energy; (2) renewable energy and distributed generation; (3) power generation and transmission; (4) steel; (5) aluminium; (6) cement; (7) coal mining; and (8) buildings and appliances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Pacific_Partnership_on_Clean_Development_and_Climate

"Ferguson splits Left on Kyoto"
By Amanda Hodge and Samantha Maiden
13-01-2006
From: The Australian http://www.news.com.au/story/print/0,10119,17806011,00.html

US touts nuclear power
By Samantha Maiden and Dan Box
12-01-2006 http://www.news.com.au/story/print/0,10119,17796146,00.html

as above
http://www.uic.com.au/econ.htm
Katherine Murphy, The Australian, 31 May 2005.

(see The Nuclear Fuel Cycle
http://www.news.com.au/story/print/0,10119,17806011,00.html

http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/

http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheScienceOfNuclearPower
Recent conferences can be found on the IAEA website.
http://www.synrocansto.com/
http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheRisksOfNuclearPower

The barriers surrounding the solid waste vary from country to country. However most countries believe that the barriers should be made of materials that occur naturally in the earth's crust. In Sweden, the barriers consist of

i. A copper canister with a cast iron insert. This barrier is closest to the waste and its function is to isolate the fuel from the environment.
ii. The second layer consists of bentonite clay called a buffer. Its function is to protect the the canister against small movements in the rock and keep it in its place. The clay also acts as afilter incase any radioactive particles escape form the canister.
iii. The geological rock. The rock also stops leaking of radioactive particles into the environment but its main function is to protect the canister and buffer from mechanical damage and to offer a stable environment for the isolation of the waste.

http://www.cwr.uwa.edu.au/cwr/outreach/envirowa/env.Issues/nuclear.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Labor-facing-uranium-mining-dilemma/2005/09/27/1127586834012.html
http://www.csrp.com.au/

http://www.ansto.gov.au/

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/uranium/subs/sub37.pdf
Nuclear Energy Prospects in Australia, Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 44, April 2005, http://www.uic.com.au/nip44.htm

A modest carbon tax or equivalent emission trading value of $37 per tonne ($10/t CO2) translates into 1.0 cents/kWh for electricity generated by black coal. (European Emission Trading Scheme prices were around EUR 15/t CO2 early in April 2005.)
http://www.uic.com.au/nip44.htm

Public supports nuclear power, ,Tony Vermeer, 15-01-2006
The Sunday Telegraph, http://www.news.com.au/story/print/0,10119,17828388,00.html

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

http://www.minerals.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/10010/MCA_MR_UraniumInquiry050905.pdf

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/uranium/subs/sub37.pdf

http://www.minerals.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/10010/MCA_MR_UraniumInquiry050905.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/science/features/gasgrave/default.htm

as above
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RN/2004-05/05rn47.htm

Mitchell Hooke, 5 September, 2005, http://www.minerals.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/10010/MCA_MR_UraniumInquiry050905.pdf

47 http://www.uic.com.au/nip03.htm

· Canada produces about one third of the world's uranium mine output, most of it from two new mines.
· After 2007 Canadian production is expected to increase further as more new mines come into production.
· About 15% of Canada's electricity comes from nuclear power, using indigenous technology. 18 reactors provide over 12,500 MWe of power.

48 See article, 'Cleaner Air Needn't Cost Jobs', By Martin Ferguson, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Forestry, Resources & Tourism, http://eherald.alp.org.au/articles/0106/natp16-01.php