Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The future of sustainable energy

By Martin Nicholson - posted Thursday, 15 October 2009


MacKay also seriously questions whether Britain could ever generate enough energy from renewable resources to meet its energy needs even if technology was not an issue. Britain (and possibly Australia) may have to look at other options to find sustainable energy.

Are there any other sustainable energy sources on the horizon?

According to the World Nuclear Association, today’s generation of nuclear reactors use an average of 175 tonnes a year of uranium per GW. These reactors are largely using the uranium in a “once-through” cycle where less than 1 per cent of the uranium is actually used to generate energy.

Advertisement

MacKay estimates that the total world recoverable uranium is about 27 million tonnes. This includes resources mineable at less than $130 per kg (the higher-grade resources of around five million tonnes) and lower-grade resources contained in phosphate deposits that will be more expensive to mine. According to the International Energy Agency, because nuclear reactors use relatively little fuel most of the cost in generating nuclear energy is in the planning, construction and decommissioning of the power station not in the fuel. This means that a significant increase in the price of uranium has a much lower impact on the price of electricity. So it is reasonable to suppose that as the cheaper higher-grade resources become depleted the industry will be able to turn to the lower-grade resources.

Using all this recoverable uranium, our current nuclear reactors could operate for 400 years so they would fail the 1,000-year test but comfortable satisfy a 100-year test. But the WNA expects the world’s reactor numbers to more than double over the next few years so our current once-through reactors using uranium may not be sustainable depending on your view of sustainability.

Thorium can be used as an alternative to uranium. It is three times as abundant in the earth’s crust as uranium and is more evenly distributed around the world including Australia. Thorium has the added advantage that, unlike uranium, it can be completely burned up in simple reactors so it creates less long-lived radioactive waste. India already uses thorium in nuclear reactors so the technology is not new, but it will still not be sustainable using current generation reactors.

The newer generation fast breeder reactors burn up all the uranium so they can extract much more energy from uranium than traditional once-through reactors. MacKay estimates that fast breeder reactors obtain roughly 60 times as much energy from the same amount of uranium. They can also use all the discarded uranium from existing once-through reactors. This technology is not new either and several experimental reactors have been constructed over the last few decades but the promising Integral Fast Reactor technology might take several decades to become a commercial standard.

Fast breeder nuclear reactors could be the sustainable energy source we are looking for.

To the Greens this will all be bad news. First renewable sources will not deliver reliable, sustainable energy on their own - at least not in Australia. But worse news for the Greens is that the most likely source of sustainable energy will actually be nuclear power. James Lovelock knew this all along of course.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Martin Nicholson lives in the Byron Bay hinterland. He studied mathematics, engineering and electrical sciences at Cambridge University in the UK and graduated with a Masters degree in 1974. He has spent most of his working life as business owner and chief executive of a number of information technology companies in Australia. He is the author of the book Energy in a Changing Climate and has had several opinion pieces published in The Australian and The Financial Review. Martin Nicholson's website is here.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Martin Nicholson

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Martin Nicholson
Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy