Is the Olympic Dam mine a special case?

Posted on 20 July 2012 by Barry Brook

Here is an Op Ed published by Geoff Russell and me in the The Adelaide Advertiser newspaper this week. It was in response to this piece by Jim Green.

————

OLYMPIC Dam uranium can power Australia four times over and close all our coal mines, write Geoff Russell and Barry Brook.

FRIENDS of the Earth’s Jim Green makes important points on the Olympic Dam expansion (The Advertiser, 10/7/12).

Should BHP be given an easy ride on this project? If so, why?

Here’s some background people need before making a decision.

The expanded Olympic Dam will be a massive hole in the ground.

How big? About 12sq km in area and 1km deep.

For comparison, the proposed alpha coal mine in Queensland will be about 400sq km. The various coal mines in the Hunter Valley are also much bigger, not necessarily individually, but they are all big holes and they add up to a much bigger hole than the proposed Olympic Dam expansion.

An aerial view of BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam mining site at Roxby Downs, which could provide Australia with a new source of clean power. Picture: Matt Turner

The Canadian Athabasca oil sands cover 141,000sq km. These oil sands are not in a desert but under boreal forest. They currently produce 1.3 million barrels of oil a day from those deposits and, at current prices, there are reserves of about 170 billion barrels, which go under 14,000sq km of forest.

Yet Olympic Dam is different. Most of what comes out will be copper but, at peak production, it will also be producing 19,000 tonnes of uranium oxide annually.

How much is that? Enough to power the whole of Australia four times over. Enough to close all of Australia’s coal mines for domestic consumption. So here’s the first question for Jim Green.

We could have nuclear reactors, clean electricity and one mine, just one single mine. Or we could have the whole current nightmare of the Hunter Valley, Latrobe Valley and Bowen Basin disasters, gas fracking and every other filthy deadly fossil fuel industry in Australia.

What’s his choice?

(more…)

Filed under: Clim Ch Q&A, Emissions, Nuclear | 1 Comment »

Does energy efficiency reduce emissions and peak demand?

Posted on 13 July 2012 by Barry Brook

Guest Post by Graham Palmer. Graham is an industrial engineer and energy commenter from Melbourne. For another BNC post featuring his work, see Coal dependence and the renewables paradox.

This post summarises the findings of a paper just published in the peer-reviewed journal Sustainability by Graham Palmer, entitled “Does energy efficiency reduce emissions and peak demand? A case study of 50 years of space heating in Melbourne“.

Energy efficiency is a key component of climate change policy, and is promoted as a low cost means to reduce greenhouse emissions and reduce peak demand. Energy efficiency is also a key component of the “soft energy path”, originally articulated by Amory Lovins in 1976 in his famous article in Foreign Affairs as a solution to energy supply concerns and declining resources, then later adopted as a solution to climate change.

Such is the power and intuitive appeal of the idea of energy efficiency that it has been almost universally adopted as a key plank of the “sustainability project” by environmental NGOs, green parties, and large sections of Government. Yet Jevon’s Paradox, or the energy efficiency rebound effect, suggests that some, or all, of the gains of energy efficiency are “taken back” in the long-run, and has been passionately debated since the 1980s.

The most common explanation for the failure to reduce energy is that we haven’t tried enough; therefore the solution should be increased regulation and greater stringency, along with greater support for efficiency programs. But a historical examination shows that an improvement in efficiency of Melbourne’s space heating has in fact been sustained and significant, yet energy demand continues to grow. An examination of the specific case of Melbourne’s space heating over a 50-year time-scale provides an opportunity to reconcile the contradiction between the short-run gains from efficiency at a household level, with the irrefutable increase in aggregate energy consumption over the long run. Melbourne’s winter heating is an important case study because the heating load is possibly the single largest peak energy load on any energy source in Australia – the demand on the gas network is regularly 10,000 to 15,000 MW (gas) – so any de-carbonisation plan needs to effectively deal with it.

The paper has two main findings.

(more…)

Filed under: Emissions, Policy, Renewables | 1 Comment »

Radio debate on nuclear power for addressing climate change – Brook vs Ludlum

Posted on 10 July 2012 by Barry Brook

Scott Ludlum

Barry Brook

Yesterday I debated nuclear energy and climate change on 891 ABC radio with Greens Senator Scott Ludlum, on the afternoon show hosted by Sonya Feldhoff. (It was a studio interview, so the audio quality is quite good.) We had a decent amount of time to cover off on issues, including answering callers, but as always, there was much more that could have been said!

Download the audio file here (39 minutes, MP3)

Another item of interest are two new articles on the UK proposal to construct the first Integral Fast Reactor to dispose of its separated plutonium inventory (first discussed on BNC in Disposal of UK plutonium stocks with a climate change focus).

(more…)

Filed under: Clim Ch Q&A, Nuclear, Policy, Renewables | 1 Comment »

Notes from the US of A

Posted on 2 July 2012 by Barry Brook

I’ve been travelling internationally for the last few weeks. It’s been a productive time – I’ve drafted a complete paper intended for The Breakthrough Journal (more on this in a later post), increased and enhanced my network of professional connections and friendships, got some robust strategic planning done on how to get ‘big things’ happening in energy and ecology, and generally had a fun time!

First, I was in St Petersburg, Russia, for the awards ceremony of the Global Energy Prize. (Whilst there I saw a performance of Swan Lake at the Alexandrinksy Theatre).

Then I visited Chicago for a few days at the annual meeting of the American Nuclear Society, where we had a full-day workshop on the Integral Fast Reactor, including insights from some of the key engineers (Charles Till, Yoon Chang, Len Koch, Mike Lineberry, John Sackett), followed by some environmental and international perspectives from Joe Shuster, Tom Blees, Mark Lynas and me.

Over the last few days I was in Sausilito for the 2012 Breakthrough Dialogue (here is a link to the 2011 meeting) on dealing with ‘wicked problems’ (energy and biodiversity related) — apart from a great meeting, I got to walk around the beautiful surrounding landscapes of pine (and eucalypt!), and across the Golden Gate Bridge before the typical San Francisco fog started to roll in.

Oh, I also stayed with Tom Blees for a day in Sacramento, along with Mark Lynas – whilst there, we got some education in energy policy from Hobo the Hedgehog (courtesy of Dave Blees):

Mark Lynas, Tom Blees and Barry Brook getting lectured to on ‘energy mixes’

Now, I’m in downtown San Francisco with Ben Heard, preparing to head home tonight. (By the way, check out John Morgan’s report on Ben’s recent nuclear debate in Sydney).

Some other things of general interest, before I sign off:

(more…)

Filed under: Humour, Nuclear, Policy | 2 Comments »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,798 other followers