Australia’s blinkered vision in China’s commitment to reduce global warming

By Robert Parker
President, Australian Nuclear Association

Two of the most powerful nations on earth have concluded an agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Included in that agreement is reference to nuclear power being used to limit those emissions. Yet in Australia even discussion of nuclear power is taboo. We continue to frame the control measures through a very narrow and parochial lens defined by domestic politics. We luxuriate in a self delusion that despite glaring evidence to the contrary global warming can be addressed solely by renewable energy.

I was motivated to write this piece by the frequent errors and omissions I noted in the reporting of China’s recent commitment to cap carbon dioxide emissions around the year 2030 or earlier if possible. China also announced a target of expanding the share of non-fossil zero-emission sources in primary energy, namely renewables and nuclear, to 20% by 2030.

In Australia China’s commitment has been widely and erroneously reported as a commitment to 20% renewable energy by 2030 with all reference to nuclear being excluded from the reports. Journalists fell into line with Jared Owens in the Australian, Tom Iggulden from the ABC’s Lateline, the opinion piece from the Sydney Morning Herald and even Paul Bongiorno in the Saturday Paper all reporting that China had committed to 20% renewable energy.

Also excluded from comment is China’s commitment to a reduction in “primary” energy as opposed to electricity generation. Primary energy is an important concept and refers to the basic energy resources such as coal, gas, oil, wind, solar or uranium. Electricity on the other hand is a transfer medium, it’s what we get after we use a primary energy source. This means that in addition to reductions in coal consumption China may have to address its use of gas and petroleum products. As reported by the U.S. White House on the 12th November, to meet their commitment will require an additional 800 – 1000 gigawatts of zero-emission generating capacity by 2030, about the same as all their current coal-fired capacity. It’s also nearly as much as the current total installed capacity in the U.S. energy sector.1

The commitment is so large that to meet their target, construction of clean energy would need to start immediately. Any criticism that the target is too modest fails to grasp the enormity of what is proposed. Even if obtained exclusively from nuclear power it would mean the completion of one 1200 megawatt Westinghouse AP1000 reactor each week for the next 16 years.

Using wind or solar is more problematic. While the nuclear reactors work day and night, in good weather or foul and only require 10 percent down time for refuelling, wind and solar cannot be relied upon. Wind, in such a diverse environment will generate less than 25% of its rated capacity and solar not much more than 14%. Even then solar fails to deliver for 16 hours of the day and at times wind fails almost completely. The fossil fuel backup required to support such a system together with an extensive interlinked grid all point to the clarity of a nuclear powered supply system.

As a precedent France built an entire nuclear generating system of 58 reactor units over 22 years from 1977 to 1999 which produce fifty percent more power than Australia’s output. They produce electricity with only 75 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour which is less than a tenth of our emissions. In the laboratory of real life the French example proves that nuclear power reduces emissions while across the border the German experiment with a massive roll out of wind, solar and biomass has resulted in more brown coal power stations being built, rising emissions and cost blowouts in power supply.

Another measure of the benefit of nuclear power versus wind and solar is the energy society invests in the system compared to the energy obtained. Known as the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROI) the calculation of these numbers can be somewhat subjective however nuclear performs very well in most comparisons. One well documented German study by Weissbach and others found that nuclear power’s EROI of 75 units shows a clear benefit over the lower returns for wind of only 16 for and 4 for solar for each unit invested.2

Coal under the same study had an EROI of 30. So we see that society obtains more energy for an equal resource allocation from nuclear power than just about any other power system. The lower values for wind and solar reflect what we intuitively expect for diverse low energy intense sources of energy.

Returning to what the Chinese are actually doing to achieve their commitments, on the nuclear front they have the largest reactor construction and development programme in the world by far. Mainland China has 22 operating nuclear power reactors, 27 under construction, and 60 more planned and 82 proposed. The capacity of these reactors totals 270 GWe compared to Australia’s total generating capacity of about 60 GWe.

The Chinese ongoing commitment to nuclear power is clear. They are leaving no stone unturned in their investigation of all nuclear technologies including thorium fuels, molten salt and metal cooled fast reactors, high temperature reactors and even accelerator driven reactor systems. Chinese reactor technology is already building Generation III reactors such as the Westinghouse AP1000 which offer increased safety. In the future they plan to recycle nuclear waste products in a new fleet of Generation IV fast reactors which will become the dominant technology by 2050.

The payoff in all this low carbon electricity generation is the strategic advantage China gets by weaning itself off imports of petroleum products. In large population dense cities and towns small electrified cars and bikes are an obvious alternative as are electrified public transit systems. Freight can increasingly be hauled by electrified rail and high speed passenger services negate the use of oil hungry air travel.

And so we return to those two key words left out in the Australian media, “nuclear” and “primary”. The Chinese 20 percent reduction of primary energy is a far greater per capita commitment than Australia’s 20% Renewable Energy Target. It affects the 90 percent of their primary energy sector that uses fossil fuels whereas our RET only impacts on 40 percent of our sector which is less than half China’s commitment.

Nuclear will be the corner stone technology in achieving international success in the battle against global warming. Neither the United States nor China are fearful of its use and frankly Australia’s anxiety is self indulgent. Like the Abbott government’s refusal to take action on global warming Australia must face up to what works and what doesn’t. We must embrace nuclear power with all urgency and join with the major powers in using the right tool for the job.

2. Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested) and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants by D. Weissbach, G. Ruprecht, A. Huke, K. Czerski, S. Gottlieb, A. Hussein

The above article was first published online at It was republished here with permission from the author, who holds all copyrights.

David MacKay asks his audience to use arithmetic to understand energy challenges

After posting a couple of videos with Amory Lovins providing his energy mirage, several commenters indicated they would like to hear and see a different point of view. Unlike Amory, David MacKay is a physicist who likes to use real numbers and simple arithmetic to illustrate the scale of the challenge of replacing the power […]

Read more »

Should anti-fossil expansion movement align with pro nuclear movement?

On April 11, 2014, Roger Annis, a member of the Vancouver Ecosocialist Group, gave a talk at the University of California Santa Barbara. The talk was titled Oil, tar sands, coal, natural gas: What’s behind the expansion drive of Canada’s and North America’s fossil fuel industries? It is a fascinating talk with some excellent slides […]

Read more »

Effective government involvement essential for many innovations

The Breakthrough Institute has published a thought-provoking piece titled Reinventing Libertarianism: Jim Manzi and the New Conservative Case for Innovation It is highly recommended reading. Here is a comment that I left on the piece, focusing on my particular interest area of clean nuclear energy development. Interesting observations. I agree with just about everything other […]

Read more »

Fuel resiliency will be part of quadrennial energy review

During his speech at the National Press Club on Wednesday, February 19, Energy Secretary Moniz made a comment about fuel resiliency that is worthy of discussion, especially as it might provide another opportunity for nuclear energy advocates to make the case for the importance of continuing to operate, develop and deploy our technology. Dr. Moniz […]

Read more »

Smoking Gun research continuing in earnest

In 1993, after I had made a decision to resign my active duty commission and design a small atomic engine, a colleague warned me that “the oil companies will never let you succeed.” At the time, I was pretty naive, so I didn’t heed his warning. Over the years, I have gradually learned more about […]

Read more »

McMurdo Station – the New York of the Deep Freeze South

(Note: If you are impatient and do not want to watch cute photos of penguins, skip to 19:06 to learn more about the reasons why the PM-3A, a 1,500 kilowatt nuclear electricity generator and process heat supply system, was such a valuable contributor to sustained Antarctic research.) Nearly all of the images that are used […]

Read more »

Importance of nuclear energy from perspective of developing world

This post originally appeared as a comment in response to an Atomic Insights post titled Global corruption in natural resource industry. It discusses energy issues from the perspective of someone deeply engaged in action to improve conditions for people in the developing world. It is too important to be buried in a comment thread. By […]

Read more »

Tina Gerhardt thinks Obama Administration likes nuclear energy – Huffington Post

Tina Gerhardt has published an almost sadly amusing article on the Huffington Post titled Obama’s Climate Action Plan: Nuclear Energy? in which she tries to make the case that President Obama’s climate action plan is an undeserved endorsement of nuclear energy. Gerhardt is apparently unaware of all of the barriers that the current administration has […]

Read more »

Pandora’s Promise – bullseye against wrong target

I had an experience this weekend that reinforced my growing understanding that pronuclear advocates have been distracted by the wrong target. Instead of focusing our fire against the people — both outside and inside the industry — who have successfully driven up the cost of nuclear energy to a point at which it is unable […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #202 – Atomic Earth Day 2013

Many nuclear professionals have been attracted to the technology because of its inherently light footprint when compared to all other alternative power sources. It uses less land, less metal, less concrete, and a tiny volume of fuel when compared to producing a similar quantity of energy from other sources of reliable power, especially when the […]

Read more »

Dieter Helm – Nuclear saga cannot go on (Leaders must push to a happy ending)

Dieter Helm has generously shared an April 2013 article written for Prospect Magazine titled Stumbling towards crisis. In that article Helm points to US energy decision making as a good example that serves as a contrast to UK energy policy making. He sees chosen path in the UK as almost guaranteeing a crisis. In his […]

Read more »