As Amory Lovins has been suggesting,

Both Areva and EDF have found themselves reprimanded in recent months by nuclear safety authorities during the construction process of the EPR. Areva also remains in a fierce battle with its utility client in Finland, where the reactor is at least three years late and several billion euros over budget.

via FT.com / Europe – France tries to calm reactor concerns.

More Details,

Alongside increasing costs, construction times have proven to be problematic. The last four reactors that were built in France, two units in Chooz and two in Civaux, were only connected on average 10.5 years after construction work began, and subsequent safety problems caused further delays. Their official industrial service only started in 2000 and 2002 respectively, some 15.5 and 12.5 years after construction started.

– French nuclear reactor costs are just as out of control as they are in the U.S. The EPR has been promoted as a technology that makes nuclear energy cheaper and more competitive. When the decision was made to build an EPR in Finland in 2002, the government promised that it would cost Euro 2.5 billion and take only four years to build. The final contract, three years later, put the price at Euro 3 billion and construction time was set at 4.5 years. Since construction began in summer 2005, a variety of technical problems have led to a three and a half-year delay, extending the construction period to at least 7 years. The currently estimated additional cost is Euro 2.3 billion, raising the current price tag to Euro 5.3 billion, almost 75 percent over the initial estimate.

Basically, the higher the bar the better it is and end use efficiency has the most gains of all.

Source: E09-01, Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? (Download – PDF)

Atanu’s response was that as long as the full life cycle costs are taken into consideration and nuclear energy is cheaper than other forms of energy then we should go ahead with it.  He provided me with a NPR newsstory of Lovins and Brand debating on this.

Lovins wrote an article on Grist.org claiming that nuclear is not cost-competitive compared to energy efficiency and micro power. Lovins does not even talk about the safety issues because since it is not competitive to other forms of energy than there is no need to go to the next step.

The world in 2008 invested more in renewable power than in fossil-fueled power. Why? Because renewables are cheaper, faster, vaster, equally or more carbon-free, and more attractive to investors. Worldwide, distributed renewables in 2008 added 40 billion watts and got $100 billion of private investment; nuclear added and got zero, despite its far larger subsidies and generally stronger government support. From August 2005 to August 2008, with new subsidies equivalent to 100+% of construction cost and with the most robust nuclear politics and capital markets in history, the 33 proposed U.S. nuclear projects got not a cent of private equity investment.

Nonetheless, Stewart rejects all non-nuclear options, for four fallacious reasons:
Baseload: Wind and photovoltaics can’t keep the lights on because they can’t run 24/7.
Footprint: Photovoltaics need about 150-175 times, and wind farms from 600+ to nearly 900 times, more land than nuclear power to produce the same electricity.
Portfolio: We need every tool for combating climate change, including nuclear power.
Government role: The climate imperative trumps economics, so governments everywhere must and will do what France did—ensure that nuclear power gets built, regardless of economics or dissent.

I believe each claim is unsupportable

ExternE’s definition of external costs:

An external cost, also known as an externality, arises when the social or economic activities of one group of persons have an impact on another group and when that impact is not fully accounted, or compensated for, by the first group.

External Costs, ExternE, 2003 [1]

The ExternE project considered seven types of damage in its valuation of external costs:

• Impact on human health – mortality;
• Impact on human health – morbidity;
• Impact on building material;
• Impact on crops;
• Impact on global warming;
• Amenity losses;
• Impact on ecosystems;

The impacts range from human mortality effects – cancers, accidents, reduced life expectancy – to amenity losses from noise exposure.

The external costs were calculated using an “impact pathway assessment”:

Impact pathway assessment is a bottom-up-approach in which environmental benefits and costs are estimated by following the pathway from source emissions via quality changes of air, soil and water to physical impacts, before being expressed in monetary benefits and costs.

External Costs, ExternE, 2003 [1]

ExternE certainly doesn’t claim to be the last word on external costs of energy, but it is among the most detailed and comprehensive analyses to date.

The results for electricity generation are summarised in the ExternE brochure “External Costs” [1], and more detail is available in the “National Implementation” document [2].

Fifteen countries and nine electricity generating technologies were studied. Table 1 has the summarised results for the external costs by country and by electricity technology. The external costs are expressed in euro cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated.

What do the numbers show? There’s a significant spread in the country-to-country figures, but overall coal and oil have the highest external costs, and wind has the lowest external costs. Nuclear and solar PV have roughly similar external costs, with nuclear slightly lower, and both are lower than biomass and gas. The hydro figures have a thirty-fold spread between the highest and lowest values, reflecting the very site-specific nature of the impacts from hydropower.

To my mind, the Green path forward begins with environmentalists realizing that nuclear power will grow no matter what we do. Our customary opposition would make it grow badly – slowly, expensively, unsystemically, and with dangerously poor overall coordination. But if we encourage it in the right way, nuclear energy growing well would mean that it minimizes humanity’s carbon-loading of the atmosphere; that it collaborates well with other carbon-free or superefficient energy forms; that it helps generate other Green services such as desalination or hydrogen . . . that it helps eliminate nuclear weapons; that it securely energizes cities and thereby helps to reduce world poverty . . .

via NEI Nuclear Notes: Stewart Brand’s “Whole Earth Discipline”.

In his lecture at the Longnow Foundation (from Fora.tv) he explains how slum dwellers in Dharavi, Mumbai, India are the greenest people on earth who live on very less energy and resources and recycle everything. However, this is possible because they are some of the poorest people on earth. And, they do not want to be like that.

From one of his TED talks

Here is the biggest paradigm that the developed world does not want to understand.

You cannot be rich without abundant and cheap energy.

How do you become rich and have low per-capita emissions? – Nuclear Energy, Geothermal and Hydro.

LightBucket has some fantastic analysis in this regard.

Table 1 shows the energy mix and carbon emissions data for the so-called “developed regions” as defined by the UN Statistics Division ^[1]. I’ve highlighted some of the stand-out numbers, both highest and lowest, and I’ll discuss these below.

Table 1. Energy mix, energy use and CO₂ emissions by GDP and by population

Country	Energy Mix				Power/ Capita	CO2/GDP	CO2/Capita
	fossil	nuclear	renew- ables	other	kW/capita	tonnes CO2/ US$10000	tonnes CO2/ capita
Luxembourg	92%	0%	2%	6%	13.9	3.4	26.5
United States [6]	86%	8%	6%	0%	10.5	5.2	20.4
Australia [7]	97%	0%	3%	0%	7.9	5.1	19.0
Canada [8]	67%	7%	25%	0%	11.2	6.4	18.5
Estonia	87%	0%	10%	3%	5.0	16.3	14.3
Finland	59%	16%	23%	2%	8.9	3.5	13.2
Czech Republic	79%	15%	3%	3%	5.9	10.8	12.5
Belgium	75%	22%	2%	1%	7.2	2.8	12.2
Ireland	97%	0%	2%	1%	4.9	2.3	11.1
Netherlands	94%	1%	3%	2%	6.7	2.4	11.1
Germany	84%	12%	4%	0%	5.5	2.9	10.7
Denmark	85%	0%	14%	1%	4.8	2.2	10.2
Japan [9]	83%	12%	5%	0%	5.5	2.7	10.1
Greece	94%	0%	5%	1%	3.7	3.7	10.0
Norway [10]	37%	0%	60%	0%	9.2	3.4	9.6
Austria	77%	0%	21%	2%	5.5	2.4	9.4
United Kingdom	89%	9%	2%	0%	5.2	2.7	9.4
Italy	90%	0%	7%	3%	4.2	2.6	8.5
New Zealand [11]	71%	0%	29%	0%	5.5	3.2	8.4
Poland	95%	0%	5%	0%	3.2	12.2	8.3
Spain	82%	12%	6%	0%	4.4	3.2	8.3
Slovenia	69%	19%	11%	1%	4.9	5.0	8.2
Slovakia	72%	23%	4%	1%	4.6	8.6	7.9
Iceland [12]	28%	0%	73%	0%	16.3	1.7	7.8
France	52%	40%	6%	2%	5.8	1.9	6.9
Bulgaria	71%	22%	5%	2%	3.4	17.5	6.8
Portugal	83%	0%	15%	2%	3.4	3.3	6.3
Sweden	37%	37%	26%	0%	7.7	1.5	6.2
Switzerland [13]	63%	24%	13%	0%	4.8	1.1	6.1
Hungary	81%	12%	4%	3%	3.7	5.6	5.9
Romania	84%	4%	12%	0%	2.3	12.0	5.4
Lithuania	50%	37%	7%	6%	3.3	5.9	3.9
Latvia	60%	0%	36%	4%	2.7	5.2	3.2
World Mean [14]	87%	6%	6%	1%	2.4	5.6	4.0
Data are sorted by descending order of CO2 emissions per capita; Units of CO2/GDP are metric tons of CO2 per US$10,000 of GDP; Units of CO2/Capita are metric tons of CO2 per capita per annum; Units of Power/Capita are kilowatts per capita. Power refers to Total Primary Energy Supply; There are small rounding errors in some of the percentages; Data are for 2004 except where noted; Data are for “developed regions” as defined by the UN Statistics Division; CO2/capita data are from ref [1]; CO2/GDP data are calculated from refs [2] and [3]; Power/Capita data are from ref [4]; Energy mix data for EU nations are from ref [5]; Remaining energy mix data are from refs [6] to [14], and are noted in the table.

What do these numbers show?

Four developed countries have emissions intensities below 2 tonnes-CO2 per US$10,000 of GDP. They are France, Iceland, Sweden and Switzerland. These are working models of low-emissions, high-income industrialised economies. How do they do it?

Iceland has the highest per capita energy consumption of any country (it’s the cold winters), so one might expect it to have high carbon emissions, yet it is among the very lowest carbon emitters – how? It’s thanks to its very large geothermal and hydroelectric resources, sufficient for its small population. Iceland’s energy mix has the highest fraction of renewables of any country (geothermal 56.0%, hydroelectric 16.6%) [12], giving it the lowest emissions intensity of any “developed region” nation that doesn’t use nuclear power.

France has the highest nuclear fraction at 40% – about 80% of its electricity is nuclear-fuelled – and Sweden is close behind with 37% nuclear energy. Sweden’s mix of hydroelectric and nuclear power, and France’s heavy use of nuclear power, give both of them very low emissions by population and by GDP.

The best performer of all by emissions intensity is Switzerland.

Switzerland has by far the lowest CO2 emissions per unit GDP of any developed nation, and the third lowest emissions/GDP ratio of any nation at all (only Chad and Cambodia have lower emissions intensities). This isn’t just down to its very high GDP; Switzerland also has the lowest per capita CO2 emissions of the western economies (four eastern European nations have lower per capita emissions).

How does Switzerland do it? It is a very wealthy nation, which certainly explains one side of the emissions-to-GDP ratio, but that doesn’t explain the emissions per capita ratio, which is also among the very lowest. Its electricity generation is almost entirely hydroelectric and nuclear. These are the two low-carbon energy sources available in quantity. Coal use is confined to two specific industries, foundries and cement factories [15]. These are the factors that combine to deliver Switzerland’s very low emissions figures.

At the other extreme, the U.S. stands out as a poor performer in every respect. It’s not just that its per capita emissions are the second highest of all (after Luxembourg), it also performs poorly on the economic measure of emissions intensity. Also noteworthy are Australia and Ireland, two economies almost entirely reliant on fossil fuels. Ireland has high per capita emissions despite low energy use, while Australia combines a high-carbon energy mix with high energy use to end up with the third highest per capita emissions of all. Given its low population density and natural advantages, it’s an extraordinary position to be in.

While much of the rest of the world embraces nuclear technology as part of a mix of measures to reduce carbon emissions, Australia stands virtually alone among the majors in turning its back on the nuclear options while at the same time supplying most of the other nations with uranium.

But I don’t think Penny Wong will need to be reminded by the Chinese of Australia’s odd position because, as I will explain below, there is a dramatic community change taking place.

I am indebted to The Australians contributing editor Peter Van Onselen for explaining what actually happened at the Bali carbon conference and reminding me that 19 of the G20 countries have nuclear power in their energy mix or are planning the construction of reactors. There is only one G20 country that turns its back on the nuclear option – Australia.

I have been saying this for more than 18 months now that if Australia is serious about carbon than nuclear is the way to go. With Australian’s only ready to pay about $10 a month more on energy and no other base load solution comes near nuclear right now this is the way to go.

I think the Australian public will change their mind in the next couple of years.

Meanwhile, our major trading partner, China, looks like showing Australians (and Copenhagen) what is needed to reduce carbon emissions. The New York Times reports that although China took over from the US as the main carbon emitter in 2007, China has approached carbon reduction using a three pronged attack and it’s starting to show results.

The first prong of the China carbon reduction plan is to use nuclear energy. On the basis of current technology, including waste management, nuclear is an attractive option which is why the world wants our uranium. Australia sells the world huge tonnages of uranium, but we don’t use it ourselves to cut carbon. The popular Australian jokes in Asia haven’t cottoned onto this yet but they will.

China is also going all out for wind generation. In this area Australia is on the same path. And thirdly China is really working on making itself more energy efficient.

Australia (and the US) can reduce carbon emissions quickly via coal gas but because carbon reduction has degenerated into an political play-thing we have not taken clear steps.

And Europe has discovered the carbon reduction advantages of Ceramic Fuel’s household generators, which are based on gas. Again, Australia sticks to the same old rhetoric.

What we are looking to do is introduce what Geoff Carmody describes as a “GST from hell”. We plan to make exporters buy carbon permits which are simply a tax and we will allow imports in without taxation.

via China is winning the emissions race – Robert Gottliebsen – News – Business Spectator.

He cites the potential of harvesting geothermal energy from Australia’s hot rocks, near the earth’s surface. Australia’s geothermal industry is growing with about 400 geothermal tenements nationwide and $1.5 billion in work programs underway, according to the report.

In particular, Cooper Basin, a sedimentary geological area located mainly in the northeastern South Australia and extending into southwestern Queensland, holds energy potential, according to the report. And it’s an area companies like Sydney, Australia-based Origin Energy are already tapping into. In 2008, the company upped its investment in a geothermal joint venture it owns with Milton, Australia’s Geodynamics (see Origin Energy puts more cash into geothermal venture).

By 2050, the report states, geothermal energy could cut one-quarter of emissions coming from electricity generation. It also estimates if 1 percent of Australia’s geothermal energy was utilized, it could provide more than 26,000 times the country’s annual energy consumption.

Via – Cleantech

“Wicked problem” is a phrase used in social planning to describe a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problems.

[...]

Classic examples of wicked problems include economic, environmental, and political issues. A problem whose solution requires large groups of individuals to change their mindsets and behaviors is likely to be a wicked problem.

Specific examples of wicked problems include global climate change, healthcare in the United States and elsewhere, the AIDS epidemic, pandemic influenza, international drug trafficking, homeland security, and nuclear energy and waste. In the United States, wicked problems at the national, state and local levels include drugs, crime, mental health, education, poverty, urban decay and issues related to the foregoing list.

[...]

According to Ritchey (2007)^[3], the ten characteristics are:

1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
10. The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).

Good idea. Many years ago, I covered protests again the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire for a left-wing publication. My sympathies were with the protestors. Now I’m firmly undecided, and determined to learn more. Given the threat of climate change and the safety record of nuclear plants in the U.S. since Three Mile Island—especially compared the alternative of mining and burning coal—it seems like the right time to rethink nukes.

I have rethought my views. In the end, what we need is Solar. That will be the most abundant source of clean energy.