Mar 2007 - Australian Institute of Energy

EnErgy nEws
Official JOurnal Of the australian institute Of energy Vol. 25 No. 1 March 2007
In this Issue
• Energy Policy
• Transport Fuels
• Renewables
• Cogeneration
Plus
• Special Feature:
Nuclear Power in Australia
Web www.aie.org.au
Print Post Approved — PP 326043/00001

Respond to the call and make a difference…
The Australian Technology Network (ATN) is seeking the input from AIE members on issues such as the
adequacy of current courses in energy, and your views on priorities in energy research and education.
The ATN comprises RMIT University, Queensland University of Technology, University of Technology Sydney,
University of South Australia, and Curtin University of Technology. It is reviewing its energy education and
energy research and development with the objective of providing more relevant energy courses and better
meeting the needs of its stakeholders and the community in general. ATN needs participants in the energy
sector to complete an online survey that will take about 20 minutes.
To participate, go to www.atn.edu.au
While any survey of this type is necessarily incomplete and abridged, it is one of the few ways that universities
can solicit general feedback from the energy community that they wish to serve. A summary of the findings
will be published in Energy News later this year. Log on and be counted.

ISSN 445-2227 (International Standard Serial
Number allocated by the National Library of
Australia)
THE AUSTRALIAN
INSTITUTE OF ENERGY
Energy
News
JOURNAL CORRESPONDENCE
Joy Claridge
PO Box 298
Brighton, VIC 3 86
email: editor@aie.org.au
ADVERTISING
Members (and non-members) may place
advertisements in Energy News on behalf
of themselves or their organisations. If you
wish to use this opportunity contact:
Research Publications Pty Ltd,
Phone: (03) 9873 1450, Fax: (03) 9873 0100
Email: respub@access.net.au
Advertisements can include products,
services, consulting, and positions vacant
and required.
Discounts are available for members
and for all advertisements repeated
in two or more issues.
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
Energy News is published by
The Australian Institute of Energy and
is provided to all members as part of the
membership subscription. Non-members
may obtain copies of this journal by
contacting either the Secretary or the Editor.
CONTRIBUTORS WELCOME
Articles on energy matters, letters to
the editor, personal notes and photographs
of those involved in the energy sector are
most welcome.
PUBLISHED BY
The Australian Institute of Energy,
ABN 95 00 509 73
Registered Office
78 Masonite Road, Tomago, NSW 2322
Postal Address
PO Box 534, Raymond Terrace, NSW 2324
Telephone/Facsimile
Toll Free: 800 629 945
Facsimile: (02) 4964 9599
email: aie@aie.org.au
Web Address
http://www.aie.org.au
Print Post Approved No. PP 32604/0000
DISCLAIMER
Although publication of articles
submitted is at the sole and absolute
discretion of the Australian Institute
of Energy, statements made in this
journal do not necessarily reflect
the views of the Institute.
CONTENTS
President’s Message 2
National Conference 3
Around the Branches
Transport Fuels 10
Renewable Energy 14
Special Feature
Nuclear Power in Australia 16
Hydrogen Matters
Young Energy Professionals
Book Review
Nuclear Energy in the 21 st Century 26
Letter to the Editor
EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007
9
25
25
27

The Energy Debate
Tony Forster,
President of the Australian
Institute of Energy
There is a growing public
awareness of energy.
T h e C o m m o n w e a l t h
Government released the
white paper “Securing
A u s t r a l i a ’ s E n e r g y
Future” in June 2004. In
June 2006 it announced
the review of nuclear
energy, “Uranium Mining,
Processing and Nuclear
Energy – Opportunities
for Australia”, and a final
report was released in
December 2006. Also in December, the Commonwealth
Government established a carbon emissions trading advisory
group. Meanwhile the state governments have agreed to
implement a carbon trading scheme by 20 0. The choices
facing Australia were well articulated in the AIE national
conference “Energy at the Crossroads”. The second feature
on the conference appears in this issue with a summary of
the policies and regulation plenary session plus a conference
paper on cogeneration. This issue also has a special feature
on nuclear energy with four excellent articles. I encourage
you to consider submitting an article for the June special
feature on emissions trading.
POST-CONFERENCE CD
The AIE National Conference in November 2006 has been
complemented by the issuing of a ‘Post-Conference CD’.
Call for Contributions
Energy News would like to thank contributors to
the nuclear power special feature, and is calling for
contributions to the special features in the remaining
issues in 2007. Topics are:
June 2007 Emissions Trading
September 2007 Energy Efficiency
December 2007 Energy and Water
If you have any suggestions for 2008 topics please send
them to editor@aie.org.au any time.
The aim is to include at least two articles, and not more
President’s Message
This second CD contains the bulk of the presentations by the
speakers at the conference, as well as all the material on the
original Pre-Conference CD, including the written papers
supplied in advance by most authors, and the summaries of
the student projects which competed for the Postgraduate
Student Energy Awards. A few speakers requested that
their presentations not be published and this has been
respected although the written papers are available for those
presentations. As promised to delegates, the CD includes the
presentations of seven of the eight keynote speakers. This
Post-Conference CD was distributed to conference delegates
just before Christmas, and is now available for sale using
the order form inserted in this issue of the journal. The order
form is also available on the conference website, www.aie.
org.au/conference. The cost of the CD is $200 including
GST, packaging and postage.
THANK YOU
It is normal practice for AIE presidents to serve two-year
terms so this is my last message as president. With the
national conference and the 88 other conferences, seminars
and meetings in the past two years, the AIE has been at the
forefront of the energy debate. I wish to thank the board for
its support during my presidency and the branch committees
for their hard work in providing a comprehensive meeting
program. I also wish Murray Meaton a successful and
enjoyable presidency in 2007 and 2008.
than four, that will give readers a better understanding of
the topic. Ideally, we would like to present the different
aspects of the topic and the different viewpoints in the
relevant debate. Contributions should be approximately
,500 words in length; in ‘Word’ or compatible format;
and may include illustrations (original format) and
photographs (jpegs of minimum 300 dpi resolution
preferred).
Please send contributions by no later than May 2007
to AIE Communications Sub-Committee Chair, Rob
Fowler, at rob.fowler@abatementsolutionsap.com. For
further information, call Rob on (02) 8347 0883.
2 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

AIE National Conference 2006
POLICIES AND REGULATION
Drew Clarke, Head of Energy and Environment Division,
Commonwealth Department of Industry, Tourism and
Resources, provided an update on the Government White
Paper on Energy, Securing Australia’s Energy Future,
and recent developments and implementation initiatives.
In reflecting on the white paper that was launched two
and a half years ago in 2004, Mr Clarke presented a 2050
scenario as a ‘thought experiment’ to put the challenge of
‘more energy, less carbon’ in context. To achieve a 50%
reduction in emissions in the stationary energy sector, over
80% of power generated will have to be ‘zero emission’
electricity.
Mr Clarke then provided an update on progress so far under
key initiatives of the white paper.
Energy at the Crossroads
As promised in December issue of Energy News here is a summary of the second plenary session
on policies and regulation. Many of the plenary presentations highlighted the importance of
energy efficiency and demand management to meeting the challenge of ‘more energy, less carbon’.
Cogeneration with absorption chilling is one technical option that can be used to meet the challenge.
Hanzheng Duo’s paper from the parallel session on case studies is reproduced here also. It was but one
of many high-quality presentations which delegates enjoyed. Those who could not attend can get access
to these presentations by purchasing the Post-Conference CD (see enclosed order form).
Energy market reform: the Council of Australian
Governments’ February 2006 decisions are being
implemented – legislation to separate electricity transmission
and generation; implementation of smart meters subject to
national cost-benefit analysis; and enhanced demand-side
participation. The Energy Reform Implementation Group
was to report in December 2006 on electricity transmission,
market structures, and the financial market.
Energy Efficiency Opportunities: This program, effective
from July 2006, asks, “Will companies change if their
boards are required by law to consider energy efficiency
investments?” Large energy users (corporations using more
than 0.5 PJ) will undertake an energy efficiency assessment
and report the findings publicly. Any investment decisions
are at the discretion of firms with assessments to be repeated
3 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

every five years. After trials in 2005-06, guidelines were
issued in 2006. The first assessments are be completed by
June 2008, and the first public reports by December 2008.
Solar Cities: This program allocated A$75 million over
nine years to demonstrate the viability of solar energy
technologies with energy efficiency and interval metering/
pricing. Solar Cities sites involve retrofit and greenfield
businesses and local communities rethinking energy use and
production. The first three projects in Adelaide, Townsville,
and Blacktown involve the installation of more than 4 MW
of solar energy through PV. More than 230,000 residents
and businesses will participate in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions of 64,000 tonnes each year and A$9 million in
estimated annual savings in electricity bills. The program
will be monitored until 20 3.
Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund: This
program asks, “What are the technologies of the future? and
“What will make them viable?” The A$500 million allocated
over 5 years to large-scale demonstration of low emission
technologies, is equivalent to over A$ billion in leverage.
Technologies must have the potential to lower emissions
by at least 2% and be commercially available by 2020-30.
The first five projects are Solar Systems’ solar concentrator
power station; CS Energy’s retrofit oxy-fuel technology with
(small) carbon capture and storage (CCS); International
Power’s retrofit brown coal drying; Fairview Power’s coal
seam methane extraction with CCS; and Chevron’s Gorgon
LNG production with large CCS.
Renewable Energy Development Initiative: The 6
projects (solar, geothermal, wind, wave, biofuels, process
improvement and grid stabilising) have committed funds of
A$33 million of the A$ 00 million allocated in matching
grants for research, development, demonstration and early
commercialisation of renewable energy technologies.
Mr Clarke also reported on the Asia Pacific Partnership
Clean Development & Climate Program and the Uranium
Mining, Processing & Nuclear Energy Review as well as
noting a number of other Energy White Paper measures.
He concluded that the government is well advanced in
implementation, debunking the view that there is a ‘silver
bullet’ solution to the energy challenge.
Steve Edwell, Chairman, Australian Energy Regulator
(AER), presented National Energy Regulation — the way
forward. He noted the massive transformation across the
energy sector since the mid 990s and provided a background
to the AER, before focussing on anticipated policy changes
including the introduction of a new National Gas Law and
National Gas Rules, amendments to the National Electricity
Law, transitions to the new AER, the transmission regulatory
framework, and the Energy Reform Implementation Group’s
(ERIG’s) draft recommendations.
In order to deliver the continuing changes in energy sector
regulation, the AER is making preparations, particularly for
the transition of the distribution functions. The framework
for distribution regulation is being developed by the
Ministerial Council on Energy (MCE) and the AER expects
there will be significant consistency between the approach
to the regulation of transmission and distribution networks
as this will encourage optimal investment and operation
of the two networks, in keeping with a move to national
regulation for both. As part of its preparations, the AER
released a broad blueprint of its approach to the transfer
of distribution responsibilities. The statement, Electricity
distribution regulatory guidelines: Statement of Approach,
outlines the process for the development of guidelines
regarding certain elements of regulation where the AER is
to have certain policy discretion. The AER wants to make its
preparations for the transition as transparent as possible, and
this statement is aimed at providing guidance to interested
parties in the energy industry.
Given that the legislative framework for energy regulation
is still being developed, the AER will consult on its
guidelines for electricity distribution through a staged
process over 2007. The AER expects to release two packages
of guidelines; one early in the year and one later in the
year. These will cover such areas as cost allocation; ring
fencing; service standards; revenue modelling and incentive
mechanisms. There are also other preparations under way.
AER staff are working with the jurisdictional regulators on
transition matters, including issues that will arise from the
AER’s administration of existing distribution decisions. The
AER is also increasing its resource base and now has around
75 people across a number of jurisdictions.
The AER expects that the details of the transition of the new
responsibilities will be spelt out in the rules for electricity
distribution. However, staff are working with colleagues
in the jurisdictional regulators at a sufficiently early stage
to ensure that all the likely challenges in the handover
of responsibilities are considered. An issue which has a
high priority is development of cost reporting templates:
These are being designed to ensure that the AER and other
parties have the information they need up-front to form
sound judgements on the proposals that are received from
the distribution companies. It is particularly important,
given the workload the AER will have, that information is
provided as efficiently and in as timely a way as possible.
The AER views cost reporting templates as a fundamental
instrument of regulation as they provide an advance signal
to businesses of the type of information required by the
AER and are designed to allow better analysis and therefore
improve the basis for the decisions made that affect regulated
businesses. As a regulator, it is important to understand the
drivers behind the capex and opex of regulated businesses.
These drivers are essential in examining why costs may
change from time to time and will play an important role in
information requests.
In concluding, Mr Edwell noted that the AER will be
very busy in the period leading to July 2007 and in the
ensuing period to January 2008 when they receive additional
responsibilities.
“Effective and quality regulation is important for the energy
sector going forward,” said Mr Edwell. “And, we are
working closely with industry to achieve this outcome.”
4 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

In response to a question from the audience regarding
the effectiveness of the gross pool to provide base load
generation with adequate returns, Steve Edwell added
that, “…it is simply too early to claim that there is a market
design problem in this area. Other issues, such as uncertainty
around the future policy response to greenhouse gas
emissions, state imposed price caps and market structure,
are having more effect on the current market outcome than
the market design.”
Fereidoon (Perry) Sioshansi, President, Menlo Energy
Economics, spoke to the topic International Experience in
Restructured Electricity Markets, based on research in a
book published by Elsevier in 2006. After a brief review of
market reform in countries around the world, Dr Sioshansi
identified a number of the remaining issues. In some cases –
including Australia – this means the ‘reform of the reforms’.
He identified the following to be among the difficult issues
facing those involved in market reform, topics featured in
a forthcoming book titled Competitive Electricity Markets:
Design, implementation, performance.
• The function and extent of regulation – while there is
consensus on the need for a regulator in competitive
electricity markets, there is no agreement on how
extensive or intrusive it should be.
• Capacity markets – where generators are paid significant
amounts for capacity regardless of whether they are
dispatched or not.
• Resource adequacy and investment in infrastructure
– this continues to be a concern in a number of countries
where the basic fear is that insufficient investment is
going into generation, distribution and, most notably, the
transmission sector. The evidence is mixed and it is not
entirely clear if markets are failing to deliver because of
regulatory uncertainties or other impediments.
• Market power and monitoring – how much and how
intrusive should it be?
• Demand participation – it has not been effectively
integrated with the supply side resources. Demand
inelasticity is a major problem in most markets, notably
those with tight capacity.
• Renewable energy technologies – there is little agreement
on how best to subsidize the industry in ways that do
not interfere with efficient workings of competitive
markets.
• Distributed generation –there is no consensus on how best
to promote decentralized generation in networks, which
are centrally designed and dispatched.
• Market metrics – there is no general agreement on what
constitutes a well-functioning electricity market, although
the attributes of such a market are generally acknowledged
– low and stable retail costs, competitive transparent
wholesale markets, option to choose from among
competing suppliers, adequate number of suppliers to
choose from, reliability, power quality, customer service,
adequate number of generators, adequate transmission,
lack of market power, ability of market to attract sufficient
investment, and ability to survive natural (eg, droughts)
or man-made (eg demand growth, economic recession,
political upheavals) disturbances.
• Hybrid markets – there is general recognition that in many
parts of the world, markets are evolving into hybrid forms,
ie, where they are not completely unbundled, privatized,
nor fully competitive.
“For over two decades,” he said, “policy makers and
regulators in a number of countries around the world
have been grappling with market reform, liberalization,
restructuring, and privatization issues. While a great
deal has been learned in the process and a blueprint for
implementation has emerged, successful market design
still remains partly art and partly science. The international
experience to date indicates that in most cases, initial market
reform leads to unintended consequences, which must be
addressed in subsequent ‘reform of the reforms’. Aside from
this, a number of new issues and concerns have emerged
challenging the wisdom and the feasibility of introducing
market reform in other markets.”
In his concluding remarks, Perry Sioshansi said, “With
passage of time, more is being learned about the design and
implementation of competitive electricity markets.
“At the same time, research continues to provide clues on
which market design features are more important and which
ones are not. Moreover, we are beginning to gain a better
appreciation of the inherent complexities of the markets and
the fact that no single design or solution is likely to work
in all circumstances. Gone are the regulatory naiveté that
one ‘restructures’ the market, introduces competition, and
the problems go away. Painful lessons have been learned in
places like California, where market design flaws and lax
regulatory intervention led to expensive failure. But much
more is yet to be learned. A lot is at stake, as previous failures
have clearly demonstrated.”
Perry Sioshansi offered AIE members and conference
delegates a free issue of the monthly newsletter, EEnergy
Informer, and a substantial discount on new subscriptions.
If you wish to take up this offer, please contact Perry direct
at fpsioshansi@aol.com.
From left: Perry Sioshansi, Steve Edwell & Session Chair, Brendan
Millane
5 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

COGENERATION
Potential Application in Commercial Buildings
By H Duo and M Reed,
Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd
INTRODUCTION
Cogeneration is defined as the simultaneous generation of
combined heat and power (CHP). A cogeneration system
often refers to a system that generates electric power
and utilises the recovered heat at the same time. In the
broad definition, cogeneration can refer to any systems
that generate both power and heat at the same time, for
example, a thermal power plant, fuel cells, solar thermal
and power, etc. When the recovered heat is used to generate
cooling, in addition to heating, the system is also called a
‘tri-generation’ system.
It is well known that the efficiency of a thermal electric
power generation system is about 30–35% (recent combined
cycle thermal generation system may achieve efficiencies
up to 55%). The rest of energy is often in the form of waste
heat such as the exhaust and the engine cooling reticulation.
Cogeneration, therefore, has been considered from the early
thermal power plant applications. The US Department of
Energy reported that in early 900s some of the total power
produced by on-site industrial plants was cogenerated.
However, cogeneration application is limited for conventional
power generation, which is generally far from the power
consuming locations. This is because that unlike electricity,
heat is not suitable for long-distance transmission.
On-site power generation is able to use the waste heat
where there is coincident electrical and thermal demand.
The total system efficiency can be up to 90% when heat and
electricity load are well matched. Compared to the grid power
generation, on-site generation can also save the transmission
loss at a range of 5– 0%. Particularly, the cogeneration
option is favourable for big industrial sites where both
electricity and heat demands are heavy and cohesive.
As of the end of 2004 there were ,330.5 MW of natural
gas cogeneration plants operational in Australia. The
cogeneration systems are mainly used in industrial
applications where process heating demand is high. There
are some commercial installations in hospitals for power
and heat supply. Overseas, cogeneration has been widely
installed for both commercial and industrial applications,
particularly in countries with high electricity prices and
relatively low gas prices. In North America, commercial
uses of cogeneration include provision for space heating due
to the large heating demands. In Japan, cogeneration and
absorption chillers/heaters are used to provide electricity,
cooling and heating for commercial buildings. In Australia,
it is difficult to identify heat demand at commercial sites as
heat demand such as hot water or space heating is limited.
However, cooling demand is heavy in these areas, so that
waste heat can be used to drive absorption cooling, and trigeneration
can be realised.
This paper presents the case for a potential commercial
application of cogeneration and absorption cooling to
demonstrate the feasibility of the system. The system
efficiency, economics and the benefit of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emission reduction are also analysed and
discussed.
THE TRI-GENERATION SYSTEM
A tri-generation system utilises the waste heat to provide
heating and cooling services. Typically, an absorption
chiller is used to transfer waste heat energy into cooling
ability. Depending on site conditions, the system is able
to supply electricity, cooling and heating at the same time.
The tri-generation system and energy balance are shown
in Figure .
Figure 1: A sample shopping centre load profile
Recent generator technology can generate electricity with
efficiency above 40%. The key factor to achieve total energy
efficiency, therefore, is to use waste heat effectively.
COMMERCIAL APPLICATION
Unlike industrial and residential sites, commercial buildings
often have different load features. Figure 2 shows a typical
load profile of a shopping centre.
Figure 2: A sample shopping centre load profile
Load features of commercial buildings can be summarised
as the follows:
The load is concentrated from 7 am to 9 pm.
The load is relatively steady and high during peak time.
The base load is significantly low at off-peak time.
The load is dominated by air-conditioning, lighting and
power.
6 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

CASE STUDY
A study has been carried out for a ‘typical’ shopping centre
in New South Wales. A gas-fired internal combustion engine
(ICE) cogeneration with absorption cooling system was
analysed and assessed. The parameters of the system are
presented in Table .
Table 1: Generator and absorption chiller parameters
Pel
(kW)
Cogenerator parameters Absorption chiller
ηel
(%)
Pth
(kW)
ηth
(%)
ηtot
(%)
Cooling
capacity
(kWr)
cop
,4 6x2 42.5 ,498x2 44.9 87.4 ,000x2 0.6-0.7
The site details are summarised in Table 2. Monthly
electricity, cooling and heating demands are presented in
Table 3.
Table 2: Site area and electricity demand
Centre gross
lettable area
(GLA)
Base building
peak demand
(kW)
Whole centre
peak demand
(kW)
Electricity
price
($/MWh)
63,000m 2 2,200 7,000 87
The proposed cogeneration and absorption chiller system is
designed to cover base building and part of the tenant load
as the base load supply. The extra electricity is supplied by
the grid power. Electrical chillers are used for back up and
to supply peak load. For comparison, grid power supply
with electrical chillers (cop = 6.0) is used as the base case.
Table 3: Monthly electricity, cooling and heating demand
Month
Electricity
demand
kWh
Cooling
demand
MJ
Heating
demand
MJ
Jan 2, 95,304 9 9,503 9,5 0
Feb 2,620,8 9 ,059,428 9,5 0
Mar 2,033,462 939,493 28,8 7
Apr ,952, 84 599,676 72,900
May 2,000,223 4 9,773 230,534
Jun ,625, 30 359,806 288, 67
Jul ,853,480 359,806 365, 65
Aug ,84 ,323 399,784 386,086
Sep ,8 6,706 399,784 258,659
Oct ,942,8 4 579,687 5,267
Nov 2,003,932 7 9,6 28,529
Dec 2,297, 25 899,5 4 9,5 0
Total 24,182,503 7,655,865 1,902,654
The cogeneration and absorption cooling system operation
was simulated and assessed. The findings are summarised
as follows.
• Cogeneration is suitable for such commercial application
when well-sized and planned in operation as coincident
power and cooling (heating) load existing on site. The
operating hours would be favourable for the period of 7
am to 10 pm. The total energy efficiency can achieve up
to 80%.
• The ICE is mostly suitable for on-site generation due to
the established technology and relatively lower capital
and operation cost.
• Under the current tariff system, export electricity to the
grid is not a favourable option for the site.
• Natural gas-fired cogeneration is able to reduce GHG
emissions significantly in most parts of Australia as the
grid power is CO2 intensive. In this case study, the CO2
reduction is about 35% compared with the base case.
Note, the greenhouse intensities in NSW are: 293 kg
CO2/GJ for grid electricity and 68 kg CO2/GJ for natural
gas (Australian Greenhouse Office).
• The natural gas price is a key factor in determining the
economics of the cogeneration system. Figure 3 presents
the system performance at the different gas prices. It can
be seen clearly that the paybacks vary dramatically with
the gas price. At $5/GJ, the payback is about 9 years; 65
years $8/GJ.
• In addition to improved total energy efficiency, the
cogeneration system is able to reduce the peak demand
on site significantly, and reduce grid demand stress. This
can increase the power supply security and reduce the
infrastructure cost in the long term.
Figure 3: Gas price and system economy
CONCLUSION
A typical shopping centre was studied for cogeneration
application. A tri-generation system, namely power,
cooling and heating supply system was analysed and
assessed. It can be concluded that when properly sized,
a cogeneration system has the potential to achieve high
total energy efficiency and therefore significant energy and
GHG emissions savings. On-site cogeneration also has the
ability to reduce peak demand significantly so that it is an
7 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

effective way to relieve network stress. The system has the
potential to provide cheaper electricity. The economics of the
cogeneration system largely depends on the fuel price. Even
with the gas price as low as $5/GJ, the payback is about 9
years, which is relatively long. Considering the high initial
cost, financial and political support from the government is
needed to help up-take of these opportunities.
POSTSCRIPT
The author expects projects related to this study will be
commissioned in the next two years.
REFERENCES
Cogen Europe (200 ). A guide to cogeneration.
Cogen Europe (200 ). The European Education Tool on
Cogeneration.
Cogen Europe (2005). Joint Statement on the CHP
Directive.
Petchers N (2003). Combined Heating, Cooling & Power
Hand Handbook.
Turner W C (2004). Energy Management Handbook.
Attention young energy professionals!
AIE/ECA Scholarship
The Australian Institute of Energy and the Energy Council of Australia are pleased to announce
an Energy Study Scholarship in 2007, exclusively for members of the AIE.
PURPOSE
AIE/ECA Scholarships assist young members of the AIE to further their knowledge in an energy-related discipline through
study and/or visits to relevant industries and facilities. The knowledge gained should be applied to the benefit of the
individual undertaking the scholarship, the AIE and the community in general.
USE OF FUNDS
Scholarships may be used for the following:
• official enrolment fees for an approved course, seminar or conference;
• approved expenses in relation to attending a course, seminar or conference;
• approved expenses incurred in association with a planned study tour; and/or
• other appropriate areas of expenditure approved by the selection committee.
ELIGIBILITY
To be eligible for selection a person must be aged 35 or under and be a current member of the AIE who has been financial
in any category, including student for at least 2 months.
PREREQUISITES
. Applications must be in writing using the standard application form. An application form can be downloaded from www.
aie.org.au.
2. Applicants must submit a realistic planned programme covering the itinerary and expected activities to be financed,
including airfares and accommodation if applicable.
3. Applicants must submit a budget for the proposed scholarship.
POST-REQUISITES
. Upon the return of the recipient to Australia he/she must present, within six months, a paper to a technical meeting of his/
her AIE branch, or produce a written paper which the AIE shall have the right to publish in its nominated publication.
2. The recipient may be required to present his/her paper to other branches. If this is the case, any costs of travel will be
at the AlE’s expense.
GENERAL
. Funds provided shall be to cover the expenses of the applicant, not his/her family or travelling companion(s).
2. Scholarships are to be commenced within 2 months of the date of the award.
3. Normally a scholarship will be limited to a maximum of A$6,000. This amount may be reviewed by the AIE Board
from time to time.
4. No applicant may receive more than one scholarship.
TIMETABLE
Applications will close on 30 June 2007 and, subject to the receipt of suitable quality applications, the successful applicant
will be advised in July 2007.
8 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Around the Branches
The AIE National Conference and Annual General Meetings were the main events in the final quarter of 2006.
BRISBANE
• On 7 December 2006, Brisbane Branch held a Special
General Meeting to vote on the adoption of the new
branch rules. The meeting included a presentation on
“Overcoming the Commercial Failure of Green Projects”
by John Wedgwood, CEO, ComEnergy (CSIRO’s wasteto-energy
joint venture company).
MELBOURNE
• AIE National Conference 2006 and National Postgraduate
Student Energy Awards were held on 27-29 November
2006 at the University of Melbourne, and incorporated
the National and Melbourne Branch Annual General
Meetings. See conference article on pages 3-8.
PERTH
• Perth Branch held its Annual General Meeting on
22 November 2006.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
• South Australia Branch held its Annual Forum and
Dinner on 9 November 2006. The topic for the event was
“Transport Fuels: Future Prices & Supply Security Risks”.
See page 0. The Annual General Meeting was held on
27 September 2006.
SYDNEY
• Sydney Branch held its Annual General Meeting on
6 November 2006. The meeting included and evening
presentation by Ric Brazzale of the Business Council
of Sustainable Energy on the topic “Does renewable
energy have a role in New South Wales’ energy mix?”.
See page 4.
TASMANIA
• Tasmania Branch held its Annual General Meeting on
23 November 2006.
BRANCH AND DIVISION
SECRETARIES
Brisbane
Dr Patrick Glynn
Ph: (07) 3327 4636, Fax: (07) 3327 4455
Mob: 0409 6 0 823
email: Patrick.Glynn@csiro.au
Canberra
Ross Calvert (Acting Secretary)
Ph: (02) 624 2865
email: rcalvert@homemail.com.au
Hydrogen Division
Brad Ladewig
Ph: (07) 3346 4 3, Fax: (07) 3365 4 99
email: b.ladewig@uq.edu.au
Melbourne
TBA
email: melb@aie.org.au
Newcastle
Jim Kelty
Ph: (02) 496 6544
email: jim.kelty@advitech.com.au
Perth
Sam Bartholomaeus
Office of Energy
email: sam.bartholomaeus@energy.wa.gov.au
South Australia
Brad Gay
Ph: (08) 8226 385
email: gay.bradley2@saugov.sa.gov.au
Sydney
David Hemming
Ph: (02) 828 7406, Fax: (02) 828 7799
email: David.Hemming@deus.nsw.gov.au
Tasmania
Sue Fama
Ph: (03) 6230 5305
email: sue.fama@hydro.com.au
Not receiving regular emails from AIE?
It could be your spam filter!
It seems many members are missing out on vital information such as forthcoming events.
Please make sure you allow aie@aie.org.au as a user in your spam filter.
If you have allowed the email address as a user but still don’t receive any emails, please let the AIE know by
sending an email to aie@aie.org.au.
9 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Transport Fuels:
Future Prices & Supply Security Risks
South Australia Branch Forum held in Adelaide on 9 November 2006
Once again, the annual forum was a great success for the
South Australia Branch. Interesting topics and first-rate
speakers (see table below) attracted over 80 attendees.
Guest dinner speaker Senator Rachel Siewert, Deputy Chair,
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee
discussed the Senate’s Future Oil Supply and Alternative
Transport Fuels Inquiry.
Mark Thirlwell, Program
Director International
Economy, Lowy Institute
Doug Schwebel, Former
Exploration Director, Esso
Australia
Lloyd Taylor, Chairman,
Core Collaborative, and
Former Chairman and
Managing Director, Shell
NZ
Eriks Velins, Former
Vice-President Planning
and Marketing, BHP
Petroleum, and Former
General Manager Corporate
Planning and Economics,
Shell Australia
Andy Fischer, Managing
Director, Australian Farmers
Fuel Pty Ltd
Jago Dodson, Urban
Research Program, Griffith
University
Dan Atkins, Sustainable
Business Practices Pty Ltd
The Economics and
Politics of Oil and Gas
Peak Oil and the
Energy Outlook
Peak Oil – Myth or
Risk?
Responding to the
Challenge
Australian Transport
Fuel Supply Security
– South Australia’s
Risks and Options
Oil Vulnerability in
Australian Cities
Oil Prices and
Technology Change
Here, Energy News presents summaries of three of the
papers.
PEAK OIL – MYTH OR RISK?
By Lloyd Taylor
Mr Taylor argued that the days of cheap, readily available,
conventional oil to meet global demand growth are over
and therefore successful transport sector business models
have to address this possibility and the risk it carries well
in advance. This conclusion is based on the historical
relationship between oil demand growth and the discovery
and exploitation of oil resources.
Figure 1: Daily Liquids Production
Historically high production occurred more than 0 years
ago in 42% of 29 oil producing countries. This occurred
in 15% of countries some five to 10 years ago; and 33%
are currently experiencing historically high production.
Global petroleum liquids production is currently running
around 84.3 million barrels or oil per day or 30.7 billion
barrels per annum. Best estimates suggest that conventional
crude oil probably represents around just under 75% of
liquids. A key point of note here is that growing natural gas
production over the past decade has contributed abundant
petroleum condensate to the global petroleum liquids yield
and this may mask some of the more fundamental issues
regarding the availability of flexible, low-cost conventional
oil production.
The six largest petroleum liquids producer countries or
regions identified on this slide account for 50% of global
liquids production. One of these, the United States, is
indisputably past its peak oil production, demonstrating an
average annual oil production decline of 2.8% per annum
for the past twenty years, with a clear historical production
peak 36 years ago. The North Sea historical oil production
peak occurred in 996. Production in this region has declined
4% from this peak over the last decade, and decline rates
appear to be accelerating. Another country, Mexico, appears
to have entered the period of decline. As for Saudi Arabia,
Iran and the Former Soviet Union (principally Russia) oil
0 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

production is certainly holding up, albeit with considerable
fluctuation. To be able to say with any confidence that it can
or will be ramped up to meet global oil demand growth is a
real leap of faith, given the poor to non-existent disclosure
of the basic data relevant to the argument in each of these
jurisdictions. A key point, and perhaps a surprise to some,
is the significance of United States’ production in all this.
Despite 36 years of decline it remains the third largest global
oil producer, accounting for almost 0% of production.
The key message is that of three of the six largest producing
areas which in total account for over 50% of world
oil production have entered the decline stage of their
production life.
Figure 2: USA Oil Production
In the United States, oil production clearly peaked in 970,
falling at an average 3% per annum until arrested by massive
investment commencing in 974. This was prompted by the
leap in oil prices associated with the first and subsequent
OPEC induced oil supply squeezes. Investment and
production followed, leading to a second, but lower peak of
oil production in 985. Since then production has declined
steadily for 20 years at an average of 2.8% per annum.
There are three messages from the United States’
experience:
. Peak oil production is a real phenomenon, demonstrated
and documented in the USA.
2. Dramatic oil price increases have the potential to lift
production and even temporarily reverse the decline
following the peak.
3. Technological advance slows the post-peak production
decline by 2-3% per annum but does not materially alter
the quantum or timing of peak oil.
The data embrace the period since the 960s when oil
field technology advanced at its most rapid pace in history.
Throughout the past 40 years, the highly competitive nature
of the oil industry in the United States ensured the uptake of
new technologies was immediate. However, most advanced
oil field technologies improve oil reserves recovery by lifting
and extending the tail of oil production.
Only those technologies that open new exploration and
development provinces, such as deep water, materially
contribute to the peak and this is relatively a relatively small
subset of the total oil field technology basket.
Certainly, we will see more production come from
unconventional and higher-cost petroleum sources such as
tar sands, gas-to-liquids, synfuels, biofuels, etc, but these are
not readily and cheaply scaleable, low environmental impact
alternatives. They represent the transition to industrial
process petroleum liquids production which is quite a
different game to the one we have been playing.
Like the advance of oil field technology, they will ease
the pain of decline of low cost conventional oil, but not
reverse it.
Figure 3: Global Oil Production
Mr Taylor then applied the same analysis to world oil
production. Globally, the only peak in evidence is that
defined by the decline in demand associated with the
5-fold OPEC induced oil price rise of the 970s. This
demand destruction was reversed in the following decade
and annual oil production has grown ever since. The fact is
that we will only identify peak oil in the rear view mirror.
However, based on the United States’ experience we can
infer an approximate indication of when it might occur.
To do this requires an estimate of the global ultimate
recoverable reserve (URR) of oil. Data suggests the range
2,000-2,500 billion barrels. If this is an accurate estimate
(the United States Geological Survey forecast ranges from
2,200 billion barrels (95% confidence level) to nearly 4,000
billion barrels (5%)) and world oil production follows the
United States’ pattern (peak when production reached 45%
of URR), peak oil is an ‘imminent possibility’, ie a peak in
conventional oil production is a distinct possibility in the
next ten years. The biggest uncertainty with regard to the
confident quantification of peak oil is the absence of hard
data in three of the largest producer nations (Saudi Arabia,
Iran and Russia).
Lloyd Taylor concluded that there is a 60% likelihood that
the global peak will occur before 20 5. Based on the United
States’ experience, technological advances will ameliorate
but not reverse the post-peak decline. Successful transport
sector business models will have addressed this probability
and the risk it carries well in advance.
EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGE
By Eriks Velins
In his presentation, Eriks Velins focussed on the response
to the ‘present price crisis’ and the implications for the
future. Mr Velins discussed recent event and trends global
oil production, refining capacity, and fuel consumption in
some depth, with particular emphasis on the implications
for Australia. He argued that a rigorous examination of
the risks now inherent in the supply of our transport fuels
should cause governments, in particular, to take a greater
practical interest in the subject – this being the essence of the
‘challenge’. To meet this challenge, Mr Velins put forward
some options for the future.
“I hope I have made it clear that I do not support subsidies,
preferring to rely on the free market for the optimum
allocation of our scarce resources, crude oil and skills,”
he said. “However, even the most conservative economist
would agree that there can be market failure and that it is
legitimate for a government to rectify that failure, indeed,
that is where our taxes are meant to go anyway. So where is
there market failure? I would argue it is in the management
of time and hence risk.”
Taxes are a most effective way of changing behaviour as the
differential taxes in Europe between petrol and diesel have
encouraged the use of the much more efficient diesel engine
resulting in a lower requirement for crude oil. Roughly
half the new cars are now diesel. Congestion taxes have
encouraged the use of public transport even as they have
caused parking problems elsewhere. In London, those taxes
are used for investment in more and better public transport,
including the management of traffic. And higher taxes have
reduced demand and encouraged design of much more
efficient engines.
Our government appears to be reluctant to introduce any
form of demand management, though the mandatory fleet
fuel efficiency targets applied here during the 1980s were
extremely successful and cost efficient. Its voluntary code
has set a target of 6.8 litres per 00 km by 20 0. However,
our actual fuel consumption trend reversed several years ago
to over 4 litres per 00 km. The USA’s corporate average
fuel economy standards set the target of 9.5 litres per 00 km
in 2007, in contrast to Japan’s 4.9 litres per 00 km by 20 0.
Clearly any measure will affect the vehicle construction
industry, which, even without such a clear policy directive,
will have to undergo substantial change.
Australia is fortunate in that it has ample supplies of
unallocated natural gas, black and brown coal and oil shale,
all, apart from shale, proven feedstock for the manufacture
of transport fuels. A rational energy policy should take full
advantage of all indigenous resources, given the uncertainty
of their global magnitude and access. However, some of
the recent cost overruns mentioned earlier will reduce the
enthusiasm for some projects. The role of government is
to understand the risks inherent in such an approach and
provide the appropriate insurance cover or manage risk
sharing. At the end of the day we come to our, and our
governments’, appetite for risk. Markets will always meet
the challenge but is there a less expensive way, given that
some of those risks relate to roles played by other sovereign
states with different objectives to ours?
Mr Velins drew three conclusions:
. There has been only a muted response by industry,
consumers and governments to a trebling of crude oil
prices during the past three years, for we have been
largely able to absorb them. There is more activity in
the pipeline.
2. The lack of security of supply in the short and medium
term of our transport fuels is well understood by the
industry, but not by governments or consumers. There
are proven policy options which can be implemented by
governments to mitigate the growing cost of transport
fuels by reducing demand. However their effect will
take a decade to be noticed because these options
require the replacement of much of the present vehicle
fleet and refinery facilities, a very substantial capital
investment.
3. The challenge is to ensure that all parties, including
consumers, understand this state of affairs and act now.
It is about doing more and talking less.
OIL VULNERABILITY IN AUSTRALIAN CITIES
By Jago Dodson
According to research by the Urban Research Program
(URP), debt and insecure oil signal great uncertainty for
Australia’s suburbs. But, which areas of our cities will
be most heavily affected by these dual shocks remains
an important question? To answer this question, the URP
tested the likely patterns of oil and debt vulnerability in
Australian cities. Mr Dodson and his colleagues constructed
a statistical index which can be mapped at a very fine spatial
scale – below even the level of the local suburb. It is termed
the ‘vulnerability assessment for mortgage, petroleum and
inflation risks and expenses’ and forms the rather fitting
acronym of ‘VAMPIRE’.
Before presenting recent research findings, Mr Dodson set
the scene with the following observations:
• Our use of energy has enabled remarkable economic
growth, but has also brought potentially great
vulnerability to our cities. Rising global oil prices and
the contentious prospect of peak oil indicate that our
dependence on petroleum energy for transport may
prove maladaptive. Not only must we must seek to
comprehend how our use of petroleum energy can make
us vulnerable, but we must also link the use of petroleum
to other social and economic vulnerabilities.
• On average Australian cities are among the world’s
most car-dependent, after those of the United States.
Automobile dependence inevitably implies petroleum
dependence. But, car dependence is strongly spatially
differentiated in Australian cities. In general residents of
central and inner city areas use private motor vehicles
far less than those in the middle and outer suburbs.
The differences in motor vehicle use imply divergent
2 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

capacity to absorb the impact of rising transport energy
costs. In the outer suburbs where travel choices are much
more constrained residents face much tougher travel and
financial decisions when faced with rising fuel costs.
• Australian households are heavily indebted and are
becoming more indebted over time. Housing is the main
debt item for most households and levels of housing
debt have been more than tripled over the past decade
from around $ 50 billion in 996 to over $350 billion in
2006. As is the case with travel behaviour, housing debt
is unevenly distributed across Australian cities. Those on
modest incomes aspiring to home ownership often have
their opportunities restricted to particular geographic
areas. Almost half of all first-home buyers purchase in
outer suburban areas. Research has also demonstrated
that households on modest incomes are also more likely
to be highly geared and to face financial difficulties than
those on high incomes.
• Not only do housing markets constrain housing choices
but they may also impose heavy transport costs on
households in the outer suburbs. This is where the two
vulnerabilities of petroleum insecurity and household
debt collide. The doubling of the global oil price since
late-2003 and the heavy indebtedness of our suburban
households makes for a very volatile mix of energy
and credit risk. As transport energy costs have fuelled
inflation, the Reserve Bank has been ratcheting up
interest rates.
Mr Dodson then introduced ‘VAMPIRE’ which combines
Census data on motor vehicle use, mortgage debt and
income to generate a single measure of ‘oil and mortgage
vulnerability’. The main observation to make is the strong
differentiation between parts of our cities especially the
great differences between the inner and middle areas and
the outer suburbs. A second observation however is the
high level of oil and mortgage marbling within urban subregions.
There are suburbs far beyond our central cities that
are less vulnerable than their neighbouring areas. Clearly
local factors have some role to play in this phenomenon.
[Unfortunately, the colour VAMPIRE maps do not reproduce
well in two colours. To view, go to http://www.griffith.edu.
au/centre/urp/. Ed.]
A final observation from the analysis is the role of public
transport in mediating oil and mortgage vulnerability. There
are some areas of relatively low vulnerability even within
the far-outer areas our cities which seem to be located on
rail lines.
Jago Dodson concluded that problems of oil and mortgage
vulnerability are inherently spatial. Location matters and
thus any policy interventions must be crafted to be sensitive
to urban geography. This rules out options like tax cuts and
mortgage relief because such measures cannot be spatially
deployed. According to Mr Dodson, Australia desperately
needs to begin redressing the spatial imbalance and inequity
in its urban planning which has created cities in which many
of our more vulnerable and struggling households are placed
at greater oil and mortgage risk than those who are wealthier
and more secure. It is clear that Australian cities need a
new investment strategy that can roll out the kind of public
transport quality enjoyed by wealthy citizens like Malcolm
Turnbull to all of our communities. There are simply no
excuses for this ongoing public and private transport failure.
We must also continue to strive to understand the way
energy use and dependence is implicated in the functioning
of our cities. In particular there is a desperate need for more
research that examines energy use in relation to other social
and economic facets of urban living. Despite this research
and that undertaken by others we know very little about the
links between petroleum energy costs and other household
budget pressures. More research and analysis is critical in
the uncertain energy future we face.
“Finally,” said Mr Dodson, “There is a great need for policy
makers and political representatives to start engaging with
these issues in a more deliberate and public way. Senator
Siewart (guest speaker) has led an inquiry into oil supplies
but so far there has been little articulation of this inquiry’s
purpose and its findings among the broader public sphere.
And there has been little national public discussion of
how our cities will fare under a constrained future energy
scenario. It is absolutely imperative that we act to resolve
the problems we face so that we can continue to live easily
in our cities in the age of uneasy oil.”
3 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Does renewable energy have
a role to play in the energy mix?
By Ric Brazzale, Executive Director, Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE)
Presentation to Sydney Branch on 6 November 2006
Mr Brazzale started his presentation with some information
about the BCSE, the voice of Australia’s clean, efficient and
sustainable energy industry. Sustainable energy comprises
clean energy production and uses technologies that
produce little or no greenhouse emissions. Clean energies
face challenges in getting recognition of the benefits they
provide in energy markets. BCSE has over 270 members
across the sustainable energy industry, including installers
and designers of renewable energy systems, large project
developers, equipment and component manufacturers,
energy retailers and service providers. Sustainable energy
can be classified into four categories:
• Gas generation, including cogeneration
• Renewable power generation – wind, hydro, biomass
• Renewable products – PV, solar hot waters
• Energy efficiency (avoided generation).
Such breadth of coverage gives the BCSE a unique position
on greenhouse and energy. The BCSE’s objective is to
stabilise greenhouse emissions from power generation at
year 2000 levels by 2020, by reducing by a third the growth
in annual power consumption (ie grows by no more than
.5% pa), and doubling the market share of renewables and
gas by 2020 (from 8% in 2005 for renewables and 5% in
2005 for gas). This will be achieved by seeking policies
that create an attractive environment for investment and
innovation in clean energy; communicating the benefits of
clean energy and the value of action to reduce greenhouse
emissions; providing information, analysis and advice;
providing opportunities for members to network and
develop their businesses; and building industry skills and
capabilities.
Clean Energy Market Share of Electricity Generation (2004-05)
Mr Brazzale then demonstrated how renewable energy can
make a significant contribution to the power generation
sector, noting firstly that it already does.
Clean energy accounts for 23% of total power generation,
but represents 32% market share when energy efficiency
is included.
The renewable energy sector is usually given a ‘hard time’,
with statements such as, “renewables can only play a niche
role” and “renewables can’t meet base load power needs”.
But, what is base load power?
Being able to generate power 24 hours a day?
Having low or negligible marginal costs?
Needing to be dispatched all the time due to inflexible
plant?
The BCSE asks, “What about meeting customers’ power
needs?” and “How might renewables meet those power
needs?”
Under current settings, power demand is growing at 2. % per
annum, coal will continue to dominate, and emissions will
nearly double. As a theoretical exercise (the market is best
able to determine mix), the BCSE considered a future with
no coal (including no CCS), no nuclear energy, and modest
levels of gas generation. The challenge then becomes one of
marshalling resources to produce power when needed offpeak
when, typically, solar power is not available. The report
– A Clean Energy Future for Australia – found enormous
clean energy resources available.
4 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

WIND
Australia has an exceptional wind regime by world standards,
with 7,000 MW under development. It could easily meet
20% of power generation needs. Although intermittent, wind
can provide base load with good forecasting.
SOLAR
Australia has highest solar radiation of any continent – more
than ,700 kWh per square metre according to the IEA. It
also has lots of space. It is limitless in heating water and but
is limited for power generation to when the sun shines.
BIOENERGY
Biomass has enormous potential (> 0 TWh pa from the
sugar industry, Agricultural residues >47 TWh pa from
agricultural residues and >70 TWh pa from energy crops)
but this could be impacted by water availability. As the fuel
can be stored it is best used as a discretionary and flexible
source in the power sector.
GEOTHERMAL
According to the CSIRO there are 2.5 million PJ within
accessible sites and more than 800 years of current power
needs in total. The massive resource is in central Australia
and can be used as flexible plant in off-peak times.
WAVE/TIDAL
Australia’s extensive coastline implies significant
potential.
HYDRO
Australia has around 16,000 GWh of flexible output in the
south-eastern states suitable for use in off-peak times.
COAL SEAM METHANE
State government department estimates include >5,000 PJ
of resources in Queensland and > 9,000 PJ in New South
Wales.
NATURAL GAS
Reserves can meet 67 years of current production.
Before considering how these resources can be used to
meet power generation needs, the first thing to consider is
energy conservation. Demand management can reduce the
growth in power consumption and shift the load to times of
day when we have the most resources available. We could
easily reduce forecast power consumption from 409 TWh in
2030 to 320 TWh. With current consumption at 240 TWh, it
means we can limit growth to around % pa. The National
Framework for Energy Efficiency estimated the following
energy savings from cost-effective energy consumption
reduction:
We can then meet more than 60% of our forecast energy
needs of 320 TWh in 2030 with solar and wind power.
Extensive use of solar water heating in
residential and commercial applications
Constructing 20,000 MW wind generation
capacity (currently installed and planned
= ,000 MW; under evaluation and
development = 7,000 MW)
A combination of solar distributed
generation (8 million rooftops)
and centralised generation
(200 ‘Sunraysia’ Projects)
20 TWh
60 TWh
20 TWh
The remaining 20 TWh needs ‘controllable’ generation.
Existing hydro can contribute 6 TWh and bagasse 0 TWh.
That leaves 94 TWh from bioenergy, ocean and geothermal
resource technologies, and gas generation.
Mr Brazzale claimed that it can be done, however clean
power (A$35- 00/MWh) is currently more expensive than
coal (A$35/MWh), though not as expensive as nuclear
power or coal with carbon sequestration.
The BCSE discussion paper, Powering Australia’s Future: a
clean energy vision for Australia, considered two scenarios:
a 0% reduction in emissions by 2030 and a 40% reduction.
For Australia to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions in power
generation, renewables must play a critical role in meeting
our future power needs, and greater use of renewable energy
will not significantly increase costs or harm the economy.
5 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Nuclear Power in Australia
The nuclear debate has been identified as the debate Australia
must have because of the serious challenges presented by
climate change. What should Australia be doing about its
own emissions of greenhouse gases? What is the right mix
of energy technologies for Australia? How is this linked to
sustainable development?
The Prime Minister’s review of nuclear energy in Australia
– Review of Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear
Energy in Australia (UMPNER) – produced its final report in
December 2006. Although the review also covered uranium
mining, fuel processing and exports, this special feature
focuses on the issues around nuclear power generation in
Australia. There are passionate advocates on both sides of
the nuclear power debate and it appears that federal politics
will this year attempt to create some form of differentiation
on the issue. The Australian Institute of Energy hopes that a
considered and informed debate will be the outcome, and is
contributing to the debate in publishing these four articles.
The first article is from Professor Ian Lowe AO, President of
the Australian Conservation Foundation who does not think
nuclear power is the solution to the problem of climate change.
The article explains why. It is an updated and edited version
of an address to the National Press Club in late 2005.
The second article is from Leslie Kemeny, the Australian
Foundation Member of the International Nuclear Energy
Academy and a Visiting Professorial Research Fellow.
Leslie is a strong advocate for the reintroduction of a
substantial nuclear power program in Australia, as well as
the re-establishment of a nuclear science and engineering
syllabus at Australia’s research universities. The article is
updated and edited version of a paper presented at the AIE
National Energy Conference, Energy at the Crossroads, in
November 2006.
The third article is a technical piece on advanced nuclear
reactors from Ian Hore-Lacy, Director Information with the
Australian Uranium Association. Ian is the author of Nuclear
Electricity, the eighth edition of which was published in
September 2006 by World Nuclear University and Elsevier
as Nuclear Energy in the 2 st Century. This text is reviewed
in this issue of Energy News. See page 26.
Finally, there is an excerpt from the Review and Comparison
of Recent Studies for Australian Electricity Generation
Planning. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2006. Letter Report which
was produced by the US-based Electric Power Research
Institute. It was commissioned by UMPNER to examine
the relative economics of nuclear power specifically in the
Australian context.
Energy News knows that these articles will stimulate a reaction
from members of the Institute and welcomes further letters and
opinion pieces on the topic. Send to editor@aie.org.au.
Is nuclear power part
of Australia’s global
warming solutions?
Special Feature
By Professor Ian Lowe AO, Australian Conservation
Foundation
Forty years ago, I was preparing for my final exams. Having
studied electrical engineering and science part-time for
seven years at the University of New South Wales, I did
well enough to spend the following year doing honours in
physics. I then went to the United Kingdom for doctoral
studies at the University of York, supported by the UK
Atomic Energy Authority. At the time, like most young
physicists, I saw nuclear power as the clean energy source
of the future. Here, I want to tell you why my professional
experience has led me to reject that view.
There is no serious doubt that climate change is real, it is
happening now and its effects are accelerating. It is already
causing serious economic impacts: reduced agricultural
production, increased costs of severe events like fires and
storms, and the need to consider radical, energy-intensive
and costly water supply measures such as desalination plants.
The alarming consequences of climate change have driven
distinguished scientists like James Lovelock to conclude that
the situation is desperate enough to reconsider our attitude
to nuclear power. I agree with Lovelock about the urgency
of the situation, but not about the response.
The science is very clear. We need to reduce global
greenhouse pollution by about 60%, ideally by 2050.
To achieve that global target, allowing for the legitimate
material expectations of poorer countries, Australia’s quota
will need to be at least as strong as the UK’s goal of 60%
by 2050 and preferably stronger. Our eventual goal will
probably be to reduce our greenhouse pollution by 80–90%.
How can we reach this ambitious target?
In terms of energy supply, we obviously should be moving
away from the sources that do most to change the global
climate. Coal-fired electricity is by far the worst offender,
so the top priority should be to replace it with cleaner
forms of electricity. Since there is increasing pressure to
consider nuclear power as part of the mix, I want to spell
out why I don’t agree. The first point is that the economics
of nuclear power just don’t stack up. The real cost of nuclear
electricity is certainly more than for wind power, energy
from biowastes and some forms of solar energy. Geothermal
energy from hot dry rocks – a resource of huge potential in
Australia – also promises to be less costly than nuclear. In
the United States, direct subsidies to nuclear energy totalled
US$ 5 billion between 947 and 999, with a further
6 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

US$ 45 billion in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies
to wind and solar during the same period amounted to only
US$5.5 billion – that’s wind and solar together. During the
first 15 years of development, nuclear subsidies amounted
to US$15.30 per kWh generated. The comparable figure for
wind energy was 46 cents per kWh during its first 15 years
of development.
We are 50 years into the best funded development of any
energy technology, and yet nuclear energy is still beset
with problems. Reactors go over budget by billions,
decommissioning plants is so difficult and expensive that
power stations are kept operating past their useful life, and
there is still no solution for radioactive waste. So there is no
economic case for nuclear power. As energy markets have
liberalised around the world, investors have turned their
backs on nuclear energy. The number of reactors in Western
Europe and the USA peaked about 5 years ago and has been
declining since. By contrast, the amount of wind power and
solar energy is increasing rapidly. The actual figures for the
rate of increase in the level of different forms of electricity
supply for the decade up to 2003 are striking: wind nearly
30%, solar more than 20%, gas 2%, oil and coal %, nuclear
0.6%. Most of the world is rejecting nuclear in favour of
alternatives that are cheaper, cleaner and more flexible. This
is true even of countries that already have nuclear power.
With billions already invested in this expensive technology,
they have more reason to look favourably on it than we do.
The second problem is that nuclear power is far too slow a
response to the urgent problem of climate change. Even if
there were political agreement today to build nuclear power
stations, it would be at least 15 years before the first one
could deliver electricity. Some have suggested 25 years
would be a more realistic estimate, particularly considering
the levels of public and political opposition in Australia.
We can’t afford to wait decades for a response. Global
warming is already imposing heavy social, environmental
and economic costs. By contrast to nuclear, wind turbines
could be delivering power within a year and improvements
in energy efficiency could be cutting pollution tomorrow.
These are much more appropriate responses.
The third problem is that nuclear power is not carbon-free.
Significant amounts of fossil fuel energy are used to mine
and process uranium ores, enrich the fuel and build nuclear
power stations. I was working in a UK university when
their electricity industry proposed a crash program to build
36 nuclear power stations in 5 years to avert the coming
energy shortage. When our research group did the sums,
we found that there would have indeed been an energy
shortage if the crash program had gone ahead, one caused
by the huge amounts of energy needed to build the power
stations! In the longer term, over their operating lifetime,
the nuclear power stations would have released less carbon
dioxide than burning coal, but in the short term they would
have made the situation worse. The same argument holds
true today: building nuclear power stations would actually
increase greenhouse pollution in the short term, and in the
long term they put much more carbon dioxide into the air than
renewable energy technologies like solar and wind power.
The fourth, related, problem is that high grade uranium ores
are comparatively scarce. The best estimate is that the known
high grade ores could supply the present demand for 40 or 50
years. So if we expanded the nuclear contribution to global
electricity supply from the present level, about 5%, to
replace all the coal-fired power stations, the resources would
only last about a decade or so. There are large deposits of
lower grade ores, but these require much more conventional
energy for extraction and processing, producing much more
greenhouse pollution. Let’s not forget, uranium, like oil,
gas and coal, is a finite resource. Renewables are our only
infinite energy options.
The fifth problem is that nuclear power is too dangerous.
There is the risk of accidents like Chernobyl. Twenty years
after the accident, 350,000 people remain displaced, threequarters
of a million hectares of productive land remain off
limits, and experts argue about whether the final death toll
will be 4,000 or 24,000. One accident like Chernobyl is
too many, but building more reactors increases the risk of
another. Insurers are reluctant to insure the nuclear industry
without government guarantees because of the risk of such
accidents. The very existence of the nuclear industry is only
possible because of significant government subsidies and
intervention to underwrite the risk to insurance companies.
If the world suffers another Chernobyl, taxpayers, not
insurance companies, will foot most of the bill. Then there
is the increased risk of nuclear weapons or nuclear terrorism.
As Mohamed El Baradei, Director of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, told the 2005 UN conference on
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), “Our fears of a
deadly nuclear detonation...have been re-awakened...driven
by new realities. The rise in terrorism. The discovery of
clandestine nuclear programmes. The emergence of a nuclear
black market. But these realities have also heightened our
awareness of vulnerabilities in the NPT regime. The
acquisition by more and more countries of sensitive nuclear
know-how and capabilities. The uneven degree of physical
protection of nuclear materials... The limitations in the
IAEA’s verification authority... The ongoing perception of
imbalance between the nuclear haves and have-nots. And
the sense of insecurity that persists ...”.
Despite Mohamed El Baradei’s passionate pleas, for which
his agency has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the UN
conference ended in complete disarray. The chair was not
able even to produce a final statement summarising the areas
of disagreement. Most of the states holding weapons and
some others aspiring to join the nuclear ‘club’ are clearly in
breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The existence
of weapons or programs aimed at their production lends an
extra dimension of instability to the obvious international
‘hot spots’ of the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula and
the Taiwan Strait. The growing problem of terrorism makes
the situation even more acute. The willingness of desperate
people to engage in acts of gratuitous violence makes it
imperative to protect the nuclear fuel cycle in military fashion.
This adds both to the economic costs of nuclear power and
the social costs of embracing the technology. Embracing the
nuclear fuel cycle would both increase insecurity and justify
further erosion of our shrinking civil liberties.
7 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Nuclear power also inevitably produces radioactive
waste that will have to be stored safely for hundreds of
thousands of years. After nearly 50 years of the nuclear
power experiment, nobody has yet demonstrated a solution
to this problem. The Swedes, who have probably the best
system in the world for waste storage, calculate that the
entire exercise to deal with the waste, the temporary storage
and the deep rock laboratory, for all the fuel used by their
existing reactors will cost around US$ 2 billion. In the
absence of a proven viable solution, expanding the rate
of waste production is just irresponsible. This is not just a
huge technical challenge to develop systems that will isolate
high-level waste for over 200,000 years. It is also a huge
challenge to our social institutions. We are talking about a
time scale around a hundred times longer than any human
societies have endured, of the same order of magnitude as
our entire existence as a species. As AMP Capital Investors
said in their 2004 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Position Paper, there
are significant concerns about whether an acceptable waste
disposal solution exists. From a sustainability perspective,
while the nuclear waste issues remain unresolved, the
uranium/nuclear power industry is transferring the risks,
costs and responsibility to future generations.
Legislation to phase out nuclear power has been introduced in
Sweden ( 980), Italy ( 987), Belgium ( 999) and Germany
(2000), and several other European countries are discussing
it. Austria, the Netherlands and Spain have enacted laws
not to build new nuclear power stations. The concern about
bombs fuelled with radioactive waste is not something being
whipped up by fringe-dwelling extremists. US President
George Bush has claimed that his security forces have foiled
a plot by terrorists to detonate a ‘dirty bomb’ in the USA.
Our Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, has said that the
desire of terrorists to get hold of nuclear material presented
a much greater problem than any ‘rogue state’. You won’t
hear people worrying about terrorists getting hold of wind
turbine parts or making dirty bombs out of solar panels.
I think the scales are weighted very heavily against nuclear
power as a realistic response to global warming. It is too
expensive, too risky, too slow and makes too little difference.
The only clean energy is renewable energy. It is safe, plentiful
and lasts forever. It is better environmentally, economically and
socially. It will take us toward a sustainable future, whereas
nuclear energy would be a decisive step in the wrong direction,
producing serious environmental and social problems for little
benefit. As people said back in the 1970s, if nuclear is the
answer it must have been a pretty silly question!
Our response
to climate change
requires nuclear power
By Leslie Kemeny, L&M Kemeny & Associates
Australian politicians and environmental activists who reject
nuclear power as the pivotal technology to combat climate
change stand compromised before the court of international
scientific opinion and informed global realism. The content
of their rhetoric on nuclear matters comprises pseudoscience,
innuendo and ideological prejudice communicated
through the politics of fear and risk.
The recent report of the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for urgent major
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, without which
the natural feedback mechanisms that control global
temperatures might be overwhelmed. It points out that
presently human activity produces around 23.6 billion tonnes
of carbon dioxide per annum, about one half of which can
be absorbed by soil and ocean. However this capacity is
being rapidly destroyed by rising soil and ocean surface
temperatures. The report points out that if global warming
cannot be kept between manageable limits, it could lead to
the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and the Amazon
rainforest, and lead to the forced migration of hundreds of
millions of people from equatorial regions and the loss of
vast tracts of land as ice caps melt and sea levels rise.
For many scientists and engineers concerned with energy
and environmental issues it is a matter of deep regret that,
the IPCC meetings at Kyoto and Paris have not explicitly
endorsed the central role, which could be played by
nuclear energy in combating greenhouse gas production
and climate change. The environmental benefits from
switching to nuclear fuels are striking. The IPCC delegates
attending Kyoto in 997 must have known that light and airconditioning
for the modern International Convention Centre
were obtained from an electricity grid supplied partly from
a network of 54 nuclear power stations. The greenhouse gas
emissions saved by the use of this network and the uranium
fuel cycle is around 287 million tonnes of carbon dioxide
per annum. A significant amount of the uranium fuel used
in Japan comes from Australia. In fact, for every 25 tonnes
of uranium exported from South Australian and Northern
Territory mines, Japan averts around one million tonnes of
carbon dioxide emission.
For climate experts, the Paris IPCC meeting in 2007 has
carried even more symbolism. France is a country which,
over the past 50 years has made an enormously successful
investment into nuclear power. It has, in fact, become the
‘energy superpower’ of Europe and exports clean, green and
reliable nuclear electricity to neighbouring countries earning
a handsome income from this product. Indeed experimental
measurements indicate that despite a growing manufacturing
economy, France is one of the very small number of Kyoto
Protocol signatories which can meet the original emission
targets! Consider this nation’s achievements by switching
from coal sourced energy to uranium fuel. A French coalfired
power station with a capacity of 1,300 MWe will
consume approximately 3.3 million tonnes of black coal per
year and require a transport component of 82,500 rail cars
each of 40 tonnes capacity. The land use requirement for a
plant of this size, including fuel storage and waste disposal,
will be around 4 5 hectares. Depending on the quality of
the coal and other factors, the emissions will be in the order
of 0 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 2,300 tonnes of
particulates, 200,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 7,000
8 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

tonnes of nitrous oxide. The plant would also produce some
250,000 tonnes of fly ash containing toxic metals including
arsenic, cadmium, mercury, organic carcinogens and
mutagens and naturally-occurring radioactive substances. In
contrast, a ,300 MWe nuclear power plant, which requires
a land area of some 60 hectares, will consume some 32
tonnes of enriched uranium per year, produced from around
70 tonnes of natural uranium in the form of uranium oxide
concentrate. The plant would produce some 4.8 cubic metres
of used fuel per year. The fresh fuel could be transported to
site on two or three semi-trailers.
Not only is nuclear power technology at the heart of solving
the global climate change problem, but the international
community now accepts its role as a key provider of
energy security in a world of geo-political instability and a
potentially capricious access to the supply of hydrocarbon
fuels. It will also undoubtedly become the prime energy
source for the production of potable water and hydrogen fuel.
Bishop Hugh Montefiore a Trustee of Friends of the Earth
(FOE) for two decades and chairman of the organisation
between 992 and 998, has argued that, “The dangers of
global warming are greater than any others facing the planet.
In the light of this I have come to the conclusion that the
solution is to make more use of nuclear energy … Nuclear
energy provides a reliable, safe, cheap, almost limitless form
of pollution free energy”.
One can only hope that, in Australia, the informed realism
of Prime Minister John Howard in regard to nuclear power
will propagate through the community and impact on the
opposition parties and the state premiers. In view of the
urgent need to solve the climate change problem, nuclear
power needs to be removed from the bondage of political
prejudice. Nuclear power is central to the solution of
Australia’s greenhouse gas and climate change problems. It
is also a godsend for a country hungry for energy and thirsty
for water. Access to energy and water are the keys to the
nation’s sustainable future. We should use our indigenous
nuclear fuel to secure these as a matter of great urgency and
importance. Despite Australian of the Year Tim Flannery’s
reservations on the cost of nuclear electricity and the
potential delays in having the first plant on line in Australia,
it is the belief of many experts that a high-temperature gascooled
reactor could be generating electrical energy and
producing potable water within seven years and be fully
cost competitive with coal plant. Finance for this project is
already available but the political will must be favourable
and the Commonwealth Governments’ regulatory processes
must be in place.
Advanced nuclear
power reactors
By Ian Hore-Lacy, Australian Uranium Association
The nuclear power industry has been developing and
improving reactor technology for five decades and
is preparing for the next generations of reactors to fill
orders expected in the next 0 to 5 years. Several
generations of reactors are commonly distinguished.
Generation I reactors were developed in 950s and 60s.
Outside the UK, none are still running today. Generation
II reactors are typified by the present US fleet and most
in operation elsewhere. Generation III (and 3+) are the
advanced reactors discussed here. The first are in operation
in Japan and others are under construction or ready to be
ordered. Generation IV designs are still on the drawing
board and will not be operational before 2020 at the earliest.
Reactor suppliers in North America, Japan, Europe, Russia
and South Africa have a dozen new nuclear reactor designs
at advanced stages of planning, while others are at a research
and development stage.
About 85% of the world’s nuclear electricity is generated
by reactors derived from designs originally developed for
naval use. These and other second-generation nuclear power
units have been found to be safe and reliable, but they
are being superseded by better designs. Third-generation
reactors have:
● a standardised design for each type to expedite licensing,
reduce capital cost and reduce construction time
● a simpler and more rugged design, making them easier
to operate and less vulnerable to operational upsets
● higher availability and longer operating life - typically
60 years
● reduced possibility of core melt accidents
● minimal effect on the environment
● higher burn-up to reduce fuel use and the amount of
waste
● burnable absorbers (“poisons”) to extend fuel life.
The greatest departure from second generation designs is that
many incorporate passive or inherent safety features which
require no active controls or operational intervention to
avoid accidents in the event of malfunction, and may rely on
gravity, natural convection or resistance to high temperatures.
Many are larger than predecessors. Increasingly they involve
international collaboration. (Note, traditional reactor safety
systems are ‘active’ in the sense that they involve electrical
or mechanical operation on command. Some engineered
systems operate passively, eg pressure relief valves. Both
require parallel redundant systems. Inherent or full passive
safety depends only on physical phenomena such as
convection, gravity or resistance to high temperatures, not
on functioning of engineered components.)
9 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Light Water Reactors
In the USA, the Department of Energy and the commercial
nuclear industry in the 990s developed four advanced
reactor types. Two of them fall into the category of large
‘evolutionary’ designs which build directly on the experience
of operating light water reactors in the USA, Japan and
Western Europe. These reactors are in the 300 megawatt
range. One is an advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR)
derived from a General Electric design. Four examples
built by Hitachi are in commercial operation in Japan, with
another under construction there and two in Taiwan. Four
more are planned in Japan and another in the USA. The other
type, System 80+, is an advanced pressurised water reactor
(PWR), which was ready for commercialisation but is not
now being promoted for sale. Eight System 80 reactors in
South Korea incorporate many design features of the System
80+, which is the basis of the Korean next generation reactor
program, specifically the APR-1400 which is expected to
be in operation soon after 20 0 and marketed worldwide.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) gave
final design certification for both in May 1997, noting that
they exceeded NRC “safety goals by several orders of
magnitude”. The ABWR has also been certified as meeting
European requirements for advanced reactors. Another,
more innovative US advanced reactor is smaller (600 MWe)
and has passive safety features (its projected core damage
frequency is nearly ,000 times less than today’s NRC
requirements).
The Westinghouse AP-600 gained NRC final design
certification in 1999. (Note, AP = Advanced Passive.) These
NRC approvals were the first such generic certifications
to be issued and are valid for 5 years. As a result of an
exhaustive public process, safety issues within the scope
of the certified designs have been fully resolved and hence
will not be open to legal challenge during licensing for
particular plants. US utilities will be able to obtain a single
NRC licence to both construct and operate a reactor before
construction begins. The Westinghouse AP- 000, scaled-up
from the AP-600, received final design certification from
the NRC in December 2005, the first generation 3+ type to
do so. It represents the culmination of a ,300 man-years
and US$440 million design and testing program. Overnight
capital costs are projected at $ ,200 per kilowatt and
modular design will reduce construction time to 36 months.
The 00 MWe AP- 000 generating costs are expected to
be below US3.5 cents/kWh and it has a 60-year operating
life. It has been selected for building in China and is under
active consideration for building in Europe and USA, and is
capable of running on a full MOX core if required.
General Electric has developed the ESBWR of ,390
MWe with passive safety systems, from its ABWR design.
Originally the European Simplified Boiling Water Reactor,
this is now known as the Economic & Simplified BWR
and a ,500/ ,550 MWe version is at pre-application stage
for NRC design certification in the USA. It is favoured
for early US construction. In Japan, the first two ABWRs
– Kashiwazaki Kariwa-6 & 7 – have been operating since
996 and are expected to have a 60-year life. These GE-
Kashiwazaki Kariwa 6 & 7 in Japan – the first 3rd generation
reactors
Hitachi-Toshiba units cost about US$2,000/kW to build,
and produce power at about US7c/kWh. Two more started
up in 2004 and 2005. Future ABWR units are expected to
cost US$ ,700/kW. Several ,350 MWe units are under
construction in Japan and Taiwan. To complement this
ABWR Hitachi has completed systems design for three
more of the same type – 600, 900 and ,700 MWe versions
of the ,350 MWe design. The smaller versions will have
standardised features which reduce costs.
A large ( ,500 MWe) advanced PWR (APWR) is being
developed by four utilities together with Mitsubishi. The
first two are planned for Tsuruga. It is simpler and combines
active and passive cooling systems to greater effect. It will
be the basis for the next generation of Japanese PWRs.
The US-APWR will be ,700 MWe, due to higher thermal
efficiency (39%) and has a 24-month refuelling cycle and
target cost of $1,500/kW. US design certification is expected
in 20 . In South Korea, the APR- 400 Advanced PWR
design has evolved from the US System 80+ with enhanced
safety and seismic robustness and was earlier known as the
Korean Next-Generation Reactor. Design certification by
the Korean Institute of Nuclear Safety was awarded in May
2003. The first of these 1,450 MWe reactors will be Shin-
Kori-3 & 4, expected to be operating about 20 2. Projected
cost is US$ ,400/kW, falling to $ ,200/kW in later units with
48-month construction time. Plant life is 60 years.
In Europe, designs are being developed to meet the European
Utility Requirements (EUR) of French and German utilities,
which have stringent safety criteria. Areva NP has developed
a large ( ,600 and up to ,750 MWe) European pressurised
water reactor (EPR), which was confirmed in mid 1995
as the new standard design for France, receiving French
design approval in 2004. It is derived from the French N4
and German Konvoi types and is expected to provide power
about 10% cheaper than the N4. It will operate flexibly
to follow loads, have fuel burn-up of 65 GWd/t and the
highest thermal efficiency of any light water reactor, at 36%.
Availability is expected to be 92% over a 60-year service
life. The first unit is being built at Olkiluoto in Finland, the
second at Flamanville in France. A US version of the EPR
is also undergoing review in USA with intention of a design
certification application in 2007.
20 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

In Russia, several advanced reactor designs have been
developed – advanced PWR with passive safety features.
Gidropress advanced VVER- 000 units with enhanced safety
are being built in India and China. Two more are planned for
Belene in Bulgaria. A third-generation standardised VVER-
200 reactor of , 50- ,300 MWe (AES-2006 power plant)
which is an evolutionary development of the well-proven
VVER- 000 will be built at Leningrad II and Novovoronezh
II, to start operation in 20 3 and 20 2 respectively.
OKBM’s VBER-300 PWR is a 295 MWe unit developed
from naval power plants and was originally envisaged in
pairs as a floating nuclear power plant. It is designed for 60year
life and 90% capacity factor. It now planned to develop
it as a land-based unit with Kazatomprom, with a view to
exports, and the first unit will be built in Kazakhstan.
Heavy Water Reactors
Canada has had two designs under development which
are based on its reliable CANDU-6 reactors, the most
recent of which are operating in China. The Advanced
Candu Reactor (ACR), a third generation reactor, is a
more innovative concept. While retaining the low-pressure
heavy water moderator, it incorporates some features of the
pressurised water reactor. Adopting light water cooling and
a more compact core reduces capital cost and, because the
reactor is run at higher temperature and coolant pressure,
it has higher thermal efficiency. The ACR-700 is 750
MWe but is physically much smaller, simpler and more
efficient as well as 40% cheaper than the CANDU-6. But
the ACR- 000 of ,200 MWe is now the focus of attention
by AECL. It has more fuel channels (each of which can
be regarded as a module of about 2.5 MWe). Projected
overnight capital cost of US$ ,000/kWe and operating costs
of US3 cents/kWh have been claimed. The ACR will run on
low-enriched uranium (about .5–2.0% U-235) with high
burn-up, extending the fuel life by about three times and
reducing high-level waste volumes accordingly. Regulatory
confidence in safety is enhanced by negative void reactivity
for the first time in CANDU, and utilising other passive
safety features. Units will be assembled from prefabricated
modules, cutting construction time to 3.5 years. ACR units
can be built singly but are optimal in pairs. ACR is moving
towards design certification in Canada, with a view to
following in China, USA and UK. The first ACR-1000 unit
is expected to be operating in 20 4 in Ontario.
India is developing the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor
(AHWR) as the third stage in its plan to utilise thorium to
fuel its overall nuclear power program. The AHWR is a 300
MWe reactor moderated by heavy water at low pressure. The
calandria has 500 vertical pressure tubes and the coolant
is boiling light water circulated by convection. Each fuel
assembly has 30 Th-U-233 oxide pins and 24 Pu-Th oxide
pins around a central rod with burnable absorber. Burn-up of
24 GWd/t is envisaged. It is designed to be self-sustaining
in relation to U-233 bred from Th-232 and have a low Pu
inventory and consumption, with slightly negative void
coefficient of reactivity.
High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors
These reactors use helium as a coolant which at up to 950ºC
drives a gas turbine for electricity and a compressor to return
the gas to the reactor core. Fuel is in the form of TRISO
particles less than a millimetre in diameter. Each has a kernel
of uranium oxy-carbide, with the uranium enriched up to
7% U-235. This is surrounded by layers of carbon and
silicon carbide, giving a containment for fission products
which is stable to ,600°C or more. These particles may
be arranged: in blocks – hexagonal ‘prisms’ of graphite
– or in billiard ball-sized pebbles of graphite encased in
silicon carbide. South Africa’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
(PBMR) is being developed by a consortium led by the
utility Eskom, and drawing on German expertise. It aims
for a step change in safety, economics and proliferation
resistance. Production units will be 65 MWe. They will
have a direct-cycle gas turbine generator and thermal
efficiency about 42%. Up to 450,000 fuel pebbles recycle
through the reactor continuously (about six times each)
until they are expended, giving an average enrichment
in the fuel load of 4–5%. This means online refuelling as
expended pebbles are replaced, giving high capacity factor.
Performance includes great flexibility in loads (40–100%),
with rapid change in power settings. Power density in the
core is about one-tenth of that in light water reactor and, if
coolant circulation ceases, the fuel will survive initial high
temperatures while the reactor shuts itself down, giving
inherent safety. Each unit will finally discharge about
9 tpa of spent pebbles to ventilated onsite storage bins.
Overnight construction cost (when in clusters of eight units)
is expected to be US$ ,000/kW and generating cost below
US3 cents/kWh. Investors in the PBMR project are Eskom,
the South African Industrial Development Corporation and
Westinghouse. A demonstration plant is due to be built in
2007 for commercial operation in 20 0. A very similar
design is being developed in China by INET, and approval
for construction of the lead unit has just been given.
Fast Neutron Reactors
Several countries have research and development programs
for improved Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs), which are a
type of Fast Neutron Reactor. These use the uranium-238
in reactor fuel as well as the fissile U-235 isotope used in
most reactors. About 20 liquid metal-cooled FBRs have
already been operating, some since the 950s, and some
supply electricity commercially. About 290 reactor-years
of operating experience have been accumulated. FBRs can
utilise uranium some 60 times more efficiently than a normal
reactor. They are however expensive to build and could only
be justified economically if uranium prices were to rise to
pre- 980 values, well above the current market price. For
this reason research work on the ,450 MWe European
FBR has almost ceased. Closure of the ,250 MWe French
Superphenix FBR after very little operation over 3 years
also set back developments.
Research continues in India, and in 2004 construction
of a 500 MWe prototype fast breeder reactor started at
Kalpakkam. The unit is expected to be operating in 20 0,
fuelled with uranium-plutonium carbide (the reactor-grade
2 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Pu being from its existing PHWRs) and with a thorium
blanket to breed fissile U-233. This will take India’s
ambitious thorium program to stage two, and set the scene
for eventual full utilisation of the country’s abundant thorium
to fuel reactors. Japan plans to develop FBRs, and its Joyo
experimental reactor which has been operating since 977
is now being boosted to 40 MWt. The 280 MWe Monju
prototype commercial FBR was connected to the grid in
995, but was then shut down due to a sodium leak. The
Russian BN-600 fast breeder reactor has been supplying
electricity to the grid since 98 and is said to have the
best operating and production record of all Russia’s nuclear
power units. It uses uranium oxide fuel and the sodium
coolant delivers 550°C at little more than atmospheric
pressure. The BN-350 FBR operated in Kazakhstan for
27 years and about half of its output was used for water
desalination. Russia plans to reconfigure the BN-600 to burn
the plutonium from its military stockpiles. Construction has
started at Beloyarsk on the first BN-800, a new larger (880
MWe) FBR from OKBM with improved features including
fuel flexibility. It has much enhanced safety and improved
economy, and the operating cost is expected to be only 5%
more than VVER. It is capable of burning two tonnes of
plutonium per year from dismantled weapons and will test
the recycling of minor actinides in the fuel.
In Australia, during the last few weeks of 2006, the results
of two major inquiries into uranium mining, the nuclear fuel
cycle and the use of nuclear power technology within the
nation were published. Both the Prosser and the Zwitkowski
reports gave ‘thumbs-up’ to the use of this greenhouse
friendly fuel and Prime Minister John Howard’s vision
of Australia as an ‘energy superpower’ has come just a
little closer to reality. The present great challenge for the
Commonwealth Government and the Council of Australian
Governments is to implement an energy policy which
incorporates the recommendations of these reports. Australia
needs to provide energy security for herself as well as for her
neighbours and trading partners. Forty years ago Australia
was set to become the first nation south of the Equator to
build and operate nuclear power plants. While this enterprise
failed, global warming and enlightened national interest
together dictate a nuclear future for the nation.
There have been two accidents to civil nuclear power reactors in
12,500 reactor years. The first, a typical Western reactor, harmed
no-one. The second was in a type of reactor that would never have
been built outside the Soviet Union.
The Economics of Nuclear
Power in Australia
By the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
This report compares and contrasts the results of eight recent
studies involving the economic costs of using nuclear, coal,
natural gas, and renewables for electricity generation. These
eight studies were written at highly regarded institutions
and are widely referenced in the literature and in debates
regarding governmental policies on energy and the
environment. The eight studies are:
. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003: Future of
Nuclear Power
2. The University of Chicago, 2004: Economic Future of
Nuclear Power
3. Tarjanne and Luostarinen, 2003: Comparative Comparison
of the Electricity Production Alternatives
4. Gittus, J. H., 2006: Introducing Nuclear Power to
Australia, a Report Prepared for the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)
5. Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE), 2004: The Cost
of Generating Electricity
6. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
- Nuclear Energy Agency / International Energy Agency
(OECD NEA/IEA), 2005: Projected Costs of Generating
Electricity 2005
7. OECD/NEA, 2003: Nuclear Electricity Generation: What
are the External Costs?
8. European Commission EC 2000: Green Paper Towards
a European Strategy for Energy Supply: Annex II
These studies focused on the economic and non-economic
costs of different technologies and examined how
government policies and technological advances might
affect their competitiveness. EPRI conducted an independent
review and analysis of previous work to provide insight on
whether nuclear energy could, in the longer term, prove
competitive with other electricity generation technologies
in Australia.
The variability of results is clearly borne out by Figure ,
which shows base case findings from five previous studies
and sensitivity studies for a sixth, with all LCOE values
reported in year 2006 Australian dollars.
In two studies, nuclear power was the least expensive option,
while in two others it was the most expensive. The bars at
the bottom of the chart show very broad ranges for nuclear,
gas, and coal technologies because the data span OECD
countries with distinct resources, regulatory environments,
pricing expectations, etc. The differences among LCOE
values reflect different algorithms, assumptions, and inputs,
making ‘apples to apples’ comparisons of findings difficult.
As a general rule, the results from previous studies cannot
be applied directly to circumstances in Australia. A bottom-
22 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Figure 1: Comparison of Levelized Cost of Electricity Calculations
for Gas, Coal, and Nuclear Technologies
Brief Summary of the Recent Studies
Six ( –6) studies focused on the economic costs of
different electricity generation technologies. Four ( –4)
of the studies presented proportionately more data on
the costs of nuclear technologies than the competing
fossil-based alternatives. There is a relative paucity
of information on renewables in these studies. All of
the studies used the same levelized cost of electricity
(LCOE) methodology to calculate a constant cost for
each generation option. The levelized cost is the constant
real wholesale price of electricity that recoups owners’
and investors’ capital costs, operating costs, fuel costs,
income taxes, and associated cash flow constraints. The
LCOE approach is widely used and easy to understand
even by non-technical or non-financial readers. Despite
the simplicity and similarity of the basic methodology,
the conclusions based on LCOE analyses are often very
different, mainly because the assumptions and inputs that
go into the calculation can vary widely. The variability
of LCOE results is clearly borne out by the six studies
focused on electricity generation options. All six selected
a base case and then did sensitivity studies around that
base case. In the base cases of the MIT and University
of Chicago studies, nuclear energy without government
assistance is clearly more expensive than coal and natural
gas. These two studies are oriented toward competitive
deregulated energy markets in the United States. Their
calculations are much closer to a financial analysis than
the other studies.
The ANSTO and Tarjanne studies model conditions in
Australia and Finland, respectively. Both studies concluded
that nuclear power is the least expensive option. In the
base case of the study sponsored by Royal Academy of
Engineering in the United Kingdom, the combined-cycle
gas turbine (CCGT) and nuclear options are about equal
in cost, and both cost less than the pulverized combustion
coal (PCC) plant. The OECD study analyzed historical
costs from 9 predominantly European countries and two
up, site-specific cost study based on the specific design,
financing, and construction plans would be required to
develop cost information for competing technology options
in Australia.
However, understanding how the results from previous
studies were derived and why they differ offers a number of
useful insights. To provide a more detailed look at the relative
costs of electricity generating options in Australia, the costs
of similar PCC plants in Australia and the south-central
United States were examined at a summary level and scaled
to account for obvious differences. In addition, the costs of
other technologies were assessed based on available data. It
is quite apparent that the costs of PCC plants in Australia
and the United States are comparable, that coal generation is
highly competitive in Australia, and that the competitiveness
international organizations. OECD reported a large spread
in costs within each technology and considerable overlap
in the costs because local conditions varied considerably
among the different countries. All six of these studies
included calculations to show how government policies,
future technologies, and other uncertainties might affect
the costs of fossil-fuelled generation. Many nations and
international organizations are actively in the process of
levying taxes, developing technologies such as integrated
gasification-combined cycle (IGCC) plants for higherefficiency
coal utilization and carbon capture and storage
options for fossil power systems, and implementing
policies and programs to stabilize greenhouse gases.
Since there are no historical data on many of these
possibilities, the values used in the LCOE analyses are
notional or speculative based on engineering, ie paper,
studies. The calculations indicate what could happen, but
a large uncertainty exists. Nevertheless, it is clear that
carbon taxes or meaningful carbon mitigation efforts may
radically alter the competitive landscape of electricity
generation technologies.
At present, the societal costs of carbon emissions are
largely externalized, ie they are not reflected in the prices
paid for energy commodities. Many of the potential
impacts of climate change have yet to be identified,
and the associated costs are impossible to monetize
accurately. Other external costs include proliferation of
nuclear materials and security and availability of the fuel
supply. ‘External’ costs are the subject of the seventh of
the eight studies. Several of the studies stress that LCOE
calculations are not a substitute for detailed, site-specific
financial calculations when making long-term generation
planning and investment decisions. LCOE results should
not be blindly extended to other regions or nations. The
calculated LCOE could be very different than the ultimate
market price of the electricity.
23 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Table 1: Key Attributes of Base Load Electricity Generation Technologies
Technology Unit Size Lead Time Capital Costs O&M Costs Fuel Prices CO2 Emissions Regulatory Risk
CCGT Medium Short Low Low High Medium Low
Coal Large Long High Medium Medium High High
Nuclear Very Large Long High Medium Low Nil High
Hydro Large Long Very High Very Low Nil Nil High
Photovoltaics Very Small Very Short Very High Very Low Nil Nil Low
of gas generation in Australia depends on fuel price, as is the
case in other countries. Because of the proximity of cheap
and abundant coal supplies to existing population centres
and the domestic availability of natural gas, it is anticipated
that these two fossil fuels will continue to play a major
role in future power generation capacity expansion within
Australia. However, it is clear that carbon taxes or meaningful
carbon mitigation efforts may radically alter the competitive
landscape of electricity generation technologies.
For nuclear power, the LCOE ranges presented in recent
studies could apply to Australia, depending on assumed
scenarios regarding government policies and other
factors. Instead of making the many specific and detailed
assumptions required to develop accurate cost estimates for
nuclear power in Australia, EPRI identified fundamental
differences between establishing a commercial nuclear
program in Australia and adding to the nuclear capacity
in the United States, as has been intensively examined in
previous studies for specified or implied locations. Based on
these differences, scaling factors were developed for issues
relating to regulatory capabilities; design, engineering,
and licensing; siting; financing; construction; construction
duration; production; capacity factor; and spent fuel, waste,
and decommissioning. The overall estimate is that the
nuclear LCOE in Australia would be about 0– 5% higher
than the nuclear LCOE calculated using input assumptions
applicable to the United States. The main reasons for this are
the lack of experience and infrastructure, as well as higher
labour costs for construction and operation. While the costs
are judged to be greater, they are not grossly different, and
the factors underlying them could be managed so that nuclear
power costs in Australia are comparable to the costs for new
nuclear capacity in the United States.
Future Nuclear v. Fossil Base Load Plants
Around the world, choices for base load generation capacity
over the next several decades are expected to predominately
focus on fossil and nuclear technologies. New hydropower
opportunities are limited, while the contributions of other
renewable sources are expected to expand but at relatively
small scale. Nuclear power has several advantageous
economic characteristics, but it also suffers from a number
of disadvantageous characteristics as perceived by investors.
Advantageous economic characteristics are:
• Low and predictable fuel and O&M production costs
– Nuclear production costs exhibit low volatility over
both the short and long term because the primary energy
source, uranium ore, represents a very small fraction of
the total production cost.
• High capacity factors – The operating nuclear plants in
the United States now consistently achieve fleet-average
capacity factors in the 90% range.
• Long operating lifetime – Operating lifetime licensing
extensions have been obtained for several US nuclear
plants, and more are expected in the future. New nuclear
plants are being designed for a 60-year life.
Disadvantageous economic characteristics of nuclear power
are:
• Large plant size – Most new nuclear power plants are
designed in the size range of , 00 to ,600 MW to gain
economies of scale and reduce capital costs per kW. A
drawback of this size range is high potential for exceeding
demand growth.
• Large capital outlay – Total overnight costs of new nuclear
plants are estimated to be in the range of US$ ,200 to
US$2,000/kW.
• Long construction time – The construction time for
new nuclear plants, even if optimized to achieve short
construction times, is four years or more.
• Investment financing – The higher capital cost results in a
higher total investment at risk, and the longer construction
time results in higher interest costs during construction,
as well as a longer period of risk exposure.
Table summarizes the comparison of key attributes of
CCGT, coal, and nuclear technologies, as well as hydro and
photovoltaic options.
No single technology has an unquestionable advantage
from the perspective of investors and in many cases the
disadvantages of individual options may be managed
via government intervention or other means. A mix of
technologies provides diversity against future economic
risks due to factors such as fuel price increases and
environmental policy changes. Given abundant domestic
coal reserves, adding nuclear power to Australia’s portfolio
of electricity supply options could represent a valuable
hedge against future policies to restrict greenhouse gas
emissions. Further study is recommended to examine the
potential issues, costs, benefits, and risks associated with
using individual fossil, nuclear, and renewable generating
technologies, including carbon capture and sequestration
systems, to meet Australia’s future demands on national,
regional, and site-specific bases.
24 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Perth hydrogen bus trials
The ‘STEP’ project – a trial of three fuel cell buses in Perth – has
been extended for another 2 months. This project has joined
with other bus demonstration projects under the acronyms of
CUTE-ECTOS-STEP-BEIJING CUTE and HyFLEET:CUTE in
receiving the inaugural 2006 Technical Achievement Award of
the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE).
The award recognizes the substantial role that these fuel cell bus
projects play in advancing the global public and commercial
acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell transportation systems. The
IPHE has now issued a call for nominations for 2007 IPHE
Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Project Recognition. See www.iphe.net.
News from Europe
The European Commission presented its Energy Package on 0
January 2007. Hydrogen and fuel cells are listed as priorities
in the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SETP) that will be
finalized by the end of 2007. This underlines the growing strategic
importance attached to hydrogen and fuel cells in the developed
world. For more information see www.ec.europa.eu/energy. Also
the first call for proposal under the Seventh Framework Program
has been launched with hydrogen energy featuring strongly.
The European Hydrogen Association organized a session on
Pathways to Sustainable Hydrogen Production in Europe
during the EU Sustainable Energy Week on February 2007 in
Brussels. See www.eusew.eu.The EHA is a partner of the EU’s
Sustainable Energy Partnership. Topics discussed included
Climate change has been propelled onto the world stage yet again.
The latest publication by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) unequivocally concurs that global warming is
occurring, and that the probability of it being caused by human
emission of greenhouse gases is over 90% (IPCC, 2007). On
the flip side, there is a less than 5% probability that natural
climatic processes are the causes. A 200 IPCC report previously
concluded that greater than three-quarters of CO2 emissions in
the twenty years prior were caused by the burning of fossil fuels
(Houghton et al, 200 ). The energy industry, therefore, is in a key
position to influence the future wellbeing of our planet.
Linked to the issue of climate change is the prospect of more
frequent extreme events, such as floods and droughts, which
does not augur well for the driest continent on earth. Prolonged
drought periods will have alarming implications for the energy
industry. At a basic level, thermal and hydropower generators
use water. Trading on the wholesale electricity market, however,
may result in precious water flowing out of a drought-affected
region, because it can supply electricity cheaper than other
generators. In this situation, the cheaper price may not often be
the best option. If we look beyond fossil fuels to hydrogen (based
on electrolysis of water) and biomass, greenhouse gas emissions
may be reduced, yet we are still heavily dependent on water.
In the United States, the Department of Energy, in cooperation
with the national laboratories, is exploring the links between
energy and water in the Energy-Water Nexus Roadmap Project.
In Australia, however, we are only beginning to make inroads into
this issue. For example, research at the University of Technology
Hydrogen Matters
‘Where does the energy for hydrogen production come from?’
an issue that continues to generate debate amongst proponents
of different energy sources. Many papers from the meeting can
be downloaded from the EHA website at www.h2euro.org.
Meetings
The National Hydrogen Association of the USA is holding
its annual conference in San Antonio Texas on 2 –23 March.
Australia will be represented at the conference and will take part
in the second meeting of PATH (Partnership for the Advancing the
Transition to Hydrogen). More key meetings will be held over the
coming months. A good source of information is the website http://
www.fuecelltoday.com. Of the international conferences later this
year, the Grove Fuel Cell Symposium (www.grovefuelcell.com)
and the World Hydrogen Technologies Conference (http://www.
whtc2007.com/) are worth considering.
WHEC 2008
During the second half of 2007, we will be holding meetings in
some of the key Australian states to promote the World Hydrogen
Energy Conference in 2008. Details will be made available on the
AIE website at www.aie.org.au. The call for abstracts for WHEC
2008 will be distributed in June 2007 and the registration brochure
will be released in November 2007. Sponsorship opportunities
for WHEC 2008 are now open and to secure branding on the
early publications we urge companies to contact the conference
organizers now at whec2008@icms.com.au.
Young Energy Professionals
Debborah Marsh, convenor of the Sydney Branch YEPs, presents her views of climate change and water scarcity
and calls on other young energy professionals to get involved in the debate.
Sydney’s (UTS’) Faculty of Engineering is examining the links
between energy and water, and the implications for the wider
economy. Further, at the recent annual meeting of the four
societies hosted by the AIE, Professor Stuart White of the UTS
Institute for Sustainable Futures presented on the links between
water and energy infrastructure in our cities.
REFERENCES
Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden,
P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. & Johnson, C.A. (eds) 200 , Climate
Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group
I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, .
IPCC 2007, Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report Summary
for Policymakers (SPM).
Contemporary issues of climate change and water scarcity are
likely to be part of our future energy landscape. It is in this
wider context that young energy professionals have an important
contribution to make to the future of the industry. AIE is committed
to providing YEPs the forums to discuss contemporary issues, to
develop professional skills, and to make life-long networks…of
course while also having fun! If you would like to see more
initiatives for younger members or have ideas for events, please
contact your branch chair, or email Debborah.Marsh@uts.edu.
au. For those based in Sydney, the YEP Working Group has been
putting together an exciting program of events for the year, so stay
tuned for further updates!
25 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Nuclear Energy in the 21 st Century: The World
Nuclear University Primer, by Ian Hore-Lacy*,
World Nuclear University Press & Elsevier Inc.,
2006, 167 pages, RRP $49.50 (incl. GST).
AIE Members are entitled to a 10% discount
and free postage and handling in Australia
and New Zealand. Contact Elsevier Australia
Customer Service on 1800 263 951 or email
customerserviceau@elsevier.com.
Nuclear Energy in the 21st
Century is the eighth in a
series previously titled Nuclear
Electricity that has brought
together technical information
on nuclear power since 978.
The book is presented as “an
authoritative resource for
educators, students, policymakers
and interested laypeople”.
In his forward, Dr
Patrick Moore, co-founder of
Greenpeace, commends the
text as a comprehensive introduction to nuclear power, with a
scientific basis and pitch. “That is where I believe discussion and
public debate on the question – and energy policies generally
– needs to begin and remain based,” said Dr Moore.
Although Australia has only one of the approximately 900
nuclear reactors in the world, it has 30% of the world’s
uranium, and the issues of uranium fuel and nuclear energy
are back on the public agenda. Therefore, it is important to
understand the physics of nuclear fission and to be informed
about the technologies associated with the nuclear fuel cycle.
The physics and technologies are the focus of this text, but it
devotes some space to the history of nuclear energy (Chapter
9) and issues such as environment, health and safety (Chapter
7) and weapons proliferation (Chapter 8). That being said,
this is not meant to be a debate of the social issues; rather it
presents many of the facts behind the controversies.
For nearly thirty years, the first seven editions confined the
story to the generation of electricity. Acknowledging present
and potential future roles of nuclear power, the scope of
the text has been expanded to include making hydrogen for
transport, desalination, marine propulsion, space exploration
and research reactors for making radioisotopes. These are
covered in Chapter 6: Other nuclear energy applications.
The first five chapters cover energy use; electricity today
and tomorrow, nuclear power, the ‘front end’ of the nuclear
fuel cycle, and the ‘back end’ of the nuclear fuel cycle. If
you don’t know the ‘front end’ from the ‘back end’ this text
is essential reading amid the heated debates. In the early
chapters the author takes readers right back to energy basics
using relatively simple language and OECD 2004 data.
Book Review
Readers more familiar with coal, oil and gas could skip the
first couple of chapters though the latter sections lead into
the material on nuclear power with a comparison of coal and
uranium as fuels for base load electricity generation.
Chapter 3 is where it gets more interesting and a bit more
complicated for the novice. For that reason, it was a bit
annoying when the figures referred to as illustrations are
not near the text but some 40 pages later in the text. This
was the case for explaining a key concept – the atomic
composition of uranium. In the same section the concept
of ‘mass to energy’ is explained in terms of a light water
reactor but the adjacent illustration is of a pressurized water
reactor. Only later does the reader find out that pressurized
water reactors are a subset of light water reactors. However,
this is a minor quibble with it all becoming clear when the
reader sticks with it through all of chapters 4, 5 and 6. The
statistics are a revelation. Some of us had heard that the
biggest generator of nuclear electricity is the United States
and that France generates nearly 80% of its electricity in
nuclear reactors, but did you know that 29 other countries
generate nuclear power and seven more are joining them?
More intriguing is the extent to which nuclear weapons are
a source of nuclear fuel. The highly-enriched uranium from
USA and USSR arsenals is equivalent to more than 50,000
tonnes of uranium, or more than twice annual world demand.
Similarly, disarmament will release up to 200 tonnes of
weapons-grade plutonium.
“If all the plutonium were used in fast neutron reactors in
conjunction with the depleted uranium from enrichment
plant stockpiles, there would be enough to run the world’s
commercial nuclear electricity programmes for several
decades without any further uranium mining.” p. 46
No matter which way you look at it, that’s a ‘wake-up’
statistic. Chapters 4 and 5 explain how this could be so,
among many other things. In these chapters the jargon is a
bit of a challenge so the glossary and appendixes (including
measuring radiation and radioactive decay) are welcome
additions at the back of the book. The ‘front end’ and ‘back
end’ cover the topic from mining to milling through the range
of reactors, waste and transport, to decommissioning.
The special feature in this issue of Energy News is nuclear
power (see pages 6-24). The feature notes that there are
passionate advocates on both sides of the debate and that the
Australian Institute of Energy hopes that it will be considered
and informed. Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century is a
valuable resource for participants in the nuclear power
debate and all who are interested in energy issues.
Joy Claridge
Editor, AIE
* Ian Hore-Lacy is Director Information with the Australian
Uranium Association and Head of Communications with the
World Nuclear Association.
26 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

Editor,
The carbon capture and storage (CCS) feature in December
2006 issue of Energy News did not state the costs involved
or comment on the facts on climate change. I am a member
of a group which has been studying, for over six years, the
way in which the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) has seriously influenced people
and governments around the world with their scary reports
containing falsely-based assumptions.
We have presented the facts to many gatherings including
Commonwealth Government ministers and professional
engineers, the large majority of whom now feel that the scare
campaign being staged is the worst international scandal in
recent times. An increasing number of the world’s scientists
have challenged the IPCC’s reports.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas and, due to the
concentration effect (which the Stern report acknowledges), a
doubling of the present CO2 in the atmosphere would increase
the direct warming effect by only degree centigrade. Also,
human induced emissions of CO2 amount to only 3% of CO2
entering the atmosphere annually and is a tiny percentage of
all the gases present. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a
fertiliser. When (about 500 million years ago) the quantity was
8 times higher, forest growth increased dramatically and then
decayed to our great coal fields.
CALENDAR
APRIL 2007 TO MARCH 2008
6-20 April in Hanover, Germany Hannover Messe 2007 Hydrogen and Fuel Cells http://www.fair-pr.com
7-20 April in Melbourne Ethanol Australia 2007 http://www.bbibiofuels.com/ethanol2007/index.shtml
8 April in Brisbane Queensland Energy Forum www.euaa.com.au
9-2 April in Budapest, Hungary RENEXPO ® Central & South East Europe 2007
http://www.renexpo-budapest.com
22-27 April in Surfers Paradise The Mathematics of Electricity Supply & Pricing, Industry Workshop
http://www.amsi.org.au/electricity.php
29 April – 2 May in Vancouver, Canada Hydrogen & Fuel Cells 2007 http://www.hfc2007.com/
23-24 May in Aberdeen, Scotland H2O7 Conference http://www.all-energy.co.uk/H207.html
-3 June in Sydney 2nd Australian International Green Build & Renewable Energy Expo
http://www.grex.com.au
6 June in Melbourne Energy Price and Market Update Seminar (EPMU) www.euaa.com.au
7- 8 July in Sydney Australian Energy & Utility Summit http://www.acevents.com.au/energy2007/
9- 3 September in Brisbane 4th IUAPPA World Congress & 8th CASANZ Conference
http://www.icms.com.au/iuappa2007/
25-27 September in London, UK Fuel Cells in a Changing World: 0th Grove Fuel Cell Symposium
http://www.grovefuelcell.com
24-27 September in California, USA Solar Power 2007 http://www.solarpowerconference.com/
5- 7 October in Granada, Spain Hydro 2007 http://www.hydropower-dams.com
7- 8 October in Gold Coast Australian Energy User 2007 www.euaa.com.au
4-7 November in Montecatini Terme, Italy World Hydrogen Technologies Convention 2007 http://www.whtc2007.com/
- 4 November in Sydney Energy 2 C, 9th International Transmission & Distribution Conference
http://www.energy2 c.com.au/
- 5 November in Rome, Italy 20th World Energy Congress http://www.rome2007.it
Letter to the Editor
The Stern report scare is based on a dramatic rise in sea levels
which can only take place if higher level ice in the mountains
of Antarctica and Greenland melt. We know from ice core data
that such ice has been stable and unmelted for over a million
years – often warmer than now. Lower level and floating
ice often melts each year and this is demonstrated annually,
particularly in the Arctic. Such melting has little effect on sea
levels as registered around the world by tidal gauges which
have reported a rise on only two millimetres.
Most people have only seen the IPCC reports which have been
amplified by ‘green’ groups and activists and therefore believe
their reports. Governments tend to act according to these beliefs
for political reasons even when they know that the IPCC reports
are based on falsehoods.
Our mission is to achieve the best possible outcome for the
people of Australia. They should not be asked to pay for human
induced emissions of carbon dioxide but learn to adapt to the
climate changes that humans have coped with for centuries. The
Australian Institute of Energy’s aim appears to be to persuade
readers to support CCS regardless of the facts which show that
the effect of CCS to be negligible.
Yours sincerely,
George Fox, FAIE
ECF Engineering Pty Ltd
9-2 November in Bonn, Germany The case of energy autonomy: Storing Renewable Energies (ISES II)
http://www.eurosolar.org
If you know of any conferences or other major events that would be of interest to AIE members
and will be held from July 2007 to June 2008 please email details and web link to editor@aie.org.au.
27 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

NEW MEMBERS
naMe graDe Branch
Dr David Reynolds Member Sydney
Dr Dean Ilievski Fellow Perth
Dr John Boland Member Adelaide
Dr Kenneth McGregor Member Melbourne
Dr Neil Wong Member Melbourne
Dr Tom Beer Fellow Melbourne
Dr Walter Pickel Member Sydney
Dr Yanping Sun Member Newcastle
Miss Alison Baxter Member Perth
Miss Eleanor Wood Student Sydney
Miss Tam Chau Student Melbourne
Mr Adrian Horin Graduate Brisbane
Mr Akshat Tanksale Student Brisbane
Mr Angus Stanley Member Brisbane
Mr Arnae Denkel Member Brisbane
Mr Byron Kennedy Member Melbourne
Mr Crispin Cannon Member Brisbane
Mr Derek Anderton Member Melbourne
Mr Devin Ramdutt Student Canberra
Mr Donald Cummings Member Sydney
Mr Emmanuel Rossi Student Sydney
Mr Grant Schuster Member Melbourne
Mr Hassan Al-Khalidi Member Melbourne
Mr John Seaton Member Adelaide
Mr John Gregory Member Melbourne
Mr Jose Luis Valenzuela Student Melbourne
Mr Jose Brandeo Student Melbourne
NEW COMPANY MEMBERS
cOMPany naMe rePresentatiVes Branch
Chamber of Minerals
and Energy WA
Cornwall Stodart
Lawyers
Department of
Sustainability and
Environment
Mr David Parker
Mr Greg Golinski
Mr Damien Wurzel
Mr Stephen Newman
Mr Darren Gladman
Mr Ian Porter
Perth
Perth
Melbourne
Melbourne
Melbourne
Melbourne
MEMBERS RESIGNED
naMe Branch
Mr Martin Chambers Melbourne
Mr Philip Thomson Melbourne
Mr Phillip Hubbard Melbourne
Ms Heather Lewis Melbourne
Mr Duncan Mackinnon Melbourne
Mr Keith Berg Sydney
MEMBERS DECEASED (VALE)
naMe Branch
Mr Robert Watson Perth
Mr John Skidmore Sydney
Dr Howard Worner Sydney
naMe graDe Branch
Mr Julian Ludowici Member Sydney
Mr Keith Sutherland Fellow Melbourne
Mr Kong Yip Student Perth
Mr Mohammad Haghighi Student Perth
Mr Nipen Shah Student Melbourne
Mr Paul Gladwin Fellow Sydney
Mr Paul Riordan Member Adelaide
Mr Philip Hart Member Melbourne
Mr Raza Hasan Graduate Melbourne
Mr Renu Rathnam Student Newcastle
Mr Scott Grierson Student Melbourne
Mr Seamus Delaney Student Melbourne
Mr Shashikumar Madhusudanan Fellow Perth
Mr Stephen Ewings Member Canberra
Mr Timothy Forcey Member Melbourne
Mr Vigneswaran Kumaran Member Melbourne
Mr Young Park Associate Sydney
Mrs Joanne Flint Member Brisbane
Mrs Katie Cafouros Raih Graduate Sydney
Ms Elizabeth Hodge Student Brisbane
Ms Faye Burton Member Melbourne
Ms Leonore Ryan Member Melbourne
Ms Maria Kordjamshidi Student Sydney
Ms Mursheda Jahan Student Melbourne
Ms Rowena Cantley-Smith Fellow Melbourne
Ms Tina Hunter Member Brisbane
Ms Xiaojing Hao Student Sydney
cOMPany naMe rePresentatiVes Branch
Leighton Contractors
Pty Ltd
Mr Jeremy Connor
Mr Tim Larkin
Monash Energy Mr Greg Eagle
Mr Scott Hargreaves
Royal Automobile
Association of SA Inc
The Shell Company
of Australia
Mr Hamilton Calder
Mr Matthew Hanton
Mr Peter Drohan
Ms Karyn Freeman
Perth
Perth
Melbourne
Melbourne
Adelaide
Adelaide
Melbourne
Melbourne
naMe Branch
Mr Tony Martin Brisbane
Mr Peter Mostran Brisbane
Ms Julianna Franco Melbourne
Mr Paul Olowski Melbourne
Mr Peter Baker Perth
COMPANY MEMBERS RESIGNED
cOMPany Branch
Aurora Energy Hobart
Fuelink Adelaide
National Power Services Melbourne
28 EnErgy nEws Vol 25 no. 1, March 2007

PRESIDENT
Murray Meaton
Economics Consulting Services
Ph: (08) 93 5 9969
email: murray@econs.com.au
VICE-PRESIDENT & WEBMASTER
Tony Forster
Forster Engineering Services
Ph: (03) 9796 8 6
email: forster@ozonline.com.au
TREASURER
David Allardice
Ph: (03) 9874 280
Mobile: 04 8 00 36
email: allad@bigpond.net.au
SECRETARY
Colin Paulson
Ph: (02) 4393 0
Mobile: 0422 030 830
email: vivcol@adsl.on.net
Rob Fowler
Abatement Solutions - Asia Pacific
Ph: (02) 8347 0883
Mobile: 0402 298 569
email: rob.fowler@abatementsolutionsap.com
Paul McGregor
McGregor & Associates
Ph: (02) 94 8 9544
email: paul@pmac.com.au
Malcolm Messenger
Messenger Consulting Group
Ph: (08) 836 2 55
email: mjmessenger_aie@yahoo.com.au
Tony Vassallo
Ph: (02) 98 0 22 6
email: tvassallo@invenergy.com
A I E BOArD 2007
Gerry Watts
Ph: (03) 6259 30 3
Mobile: 04 8 352 543
email: gapwatts@bigpond.com
BRANCH REPRESENTATIVES
BRISBANE
Andrew Dicks
Ph: (07) 3365.3699
email: andrewd@cheque.uq.edu.au
CANBERRA
Ross Calvert
Ph: (02) 624 2856
Mobile: 0404 822 300
email: rcalvert@homemail.com.au
PERTH
Murray Meaton
Economics Consulting Services
Ph: (08) 93 5 9969
email: murray@econs.com.au
EDITOR
Joy Claridge
PO Box 298, Brighton, VIC 3 86
Ph: (03) 9530 6258
Mobile: 0402 078 07
email: editor@aie.org.au
SECRETARIAT
Australian Institute of Energy
PO Box 534, Raymond Terrace, NSW 2324
Ph: 800 629 945
Fax: (02) 4964 9599
email: aie@aie.org.au