1. AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR
TECHNOLOGY ENGAGEMENT
Australia is not pursing nuclear power generation technologies as an
alternate option to fossil fuels as part of an integrated
adaptive/resilience strategy for the impacts of climate change.
Prepared for: Mr Matthew Warren
Chief Executive Officer
Energy Supply Association of Australia
Presented by:
Brian Doyle
Aslan Pride Consulting
October 2015
S40493251
2. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
2
TABLES OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION.......................................................................................... 5
2.1 CURRENT REALITY (How a problem is perceived)...............................................................................5
2.1.1 Social.............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Commercial.................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Political .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.4 Environment................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 FUTURE REALITY (Predicted future condition) .....................................................................................9
2.2.1 Social.............................................................................................................................. 9
2.2.2 Commercial.................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Political ........................................................................................................................ 10
2.2.4 Environment................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 DESIRED REALITY (Ideal situation construct) .....................................................................................10
2.4 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION ..............................................................................................................11
3. PROBLEM CLUSTERING...................................................................................... 12
3.1 PROBLEM CLUSTER MODEL .............................................................................................................12
3.1.1. Government.................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.2. Industry ........................................................................................................................ 14
3.1.3. Society.......................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.4. Education system ......................................................................................................... 16
3.1.5. Media ........................................................................................................................... 17
3.1.6. History/Legacy............................................................................................................. 18
3.1.7. Environmental consciousness ...................................................................................... 18
4. PRIORITY ESTABLISHMENT.............................................................................. 19
5. PROBLEM ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................. 22
6. PROBLEM SYSTEM................................................................................................ 23
7. OPTION GENERATION ......................................................................................... 24
8. OPTION EVALUATION.......................................................................................... 25
8.1 MANAGEMENT LEVEL........................................................................................................................25
8.2 OPERATIONAL LEVEL.........................................................................................................................26
9. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 27
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 28
3. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
3
1. INTRODUCTION
The twenty first century will see an enormous increase in the demand for electricity driven by
population growth across the globe (Waughray, 2011). Within an environment where the
world is striving to stem the rate of climate change, energy generation is under the
microscope, not only as a means to establish future energy security, but also to reduce
emissions against traditional energy generation technologies in the fight against climate
change.
In this evolving paradigm Australia faces duel challenges. The first challenge is to develop a
new energy generation regime that will secure Australia’s needs into the future. Implicit in
this new generation regime, is that it is based on low carbon emissions to support Australia’s
international emission commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The second
challenge is to transition its thermoelectric energy generation away from fossil fuels.
Fossil fuel power generation caters for 86% of Australia’s energy needs (chart 1), with coal
the largest contributor at 73% (Origin Energy, 2015). Within the Australian context this level
of reliance on coal has largely been driven by its abundance, reliability and low cost (Origin
Energy, 2015).
Chart 1. Electricity generation mix across Australian. Source: Origin Energy, 2015
4. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
4
Chart 2. World Electricity Production from all Energy Sources in 2012 (TWh). (Source: The Shift Project – Data
Portal)
A comparison of Australia’s electricity generation chart (chart 1), and the World Electricity
Production chart (chart 2), identifies nuclear power generation as being power generation
technology absent from Australia’s energy generating options - a generating option that
makes a signification contribution to global energy needs. While using nuclear power for
energy generation is a topical and contentious issue globally, it continues to contribute to
global energy needs and regardless of recent problems, such as Fukushima Daiichi in Japan,
the industry continues to expand with new reactors under construction and planned across the
world (World Nuclear Association, 2015). However, nuclear power generation’s potential to
establish energy security and reduce carbon emissions appears to be lost on Australia,
particularly at an industry, higher government and public perception and awareness level.
Australia’s general state of disinterest and disengagement is at odds with not only what is
happening overseas, but with the academic and government departmental research being
conducted across the nation. In 2012, the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics
(BREE) undertook an Australian Energy Technology Assessment (AETA) designed to
evaluate 40 utility-sized power generation technologies (World Nuclear Association, 2015).
This analysis projected the suitability, efficiency and electricity cost of these technologies out
to 2050, using the National Transmission Network Development Plan (NTNDP) parameters
from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and the Department of Treasury
5. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
5
(World Nuclear Association, 2015). Based on a levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) the two
nuclear technologies evaluated matched the lowest electricity cost range of the 40
technologies from 2020 to 2050 (World Nuclear Association, 2015). BREE’s analysis
matched a CSIRO eFuture model that shows that including nuclear power generation into the
generation mix from 2025 will have significant greenhouse gas abatement and health savings,
in addition to driving down the LCOE from 2040 onwards (World Nuclear Association,
2015). In considering this information, it is important to note that the LCOE is a measure of
power generation sources that facilitates the comparison of different generation methods. In
the case of nuclear power generation this includes all capital, build, operating and waste
disposal costs (World Nuclear Association, 2015)(CSIRO, 2013).
This paper was prepared by Aslan Pride Consulting (Brian Doyle) for the Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) of Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA), Mr Matthew Warren.
ESAA, as the peak industry body representing the Australian energy sector, is in an ideal
position to influence the policy decisions of government and contribute to future debates over
which technologies to pursue to secure Australia’s energy future. Importantly, ESAA have
industry members from both the fossil fuel and the renewable sectors, and as the industry
peak body are fuel and technology neutral.
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION
2.1 CURRENT REALITY (How a problem is perceived)
2.1.1 Social
The Australian public perception of nuclear power is largely driven by stereotypes
(Khripunov, 2007). All the evils of the last 70 years from the USA bombing in Japan,
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island through to Fukushima Daiichi are layered upon one another
to create a perception of danger, evil, badness and something Australia would rather not deal
with. The periodic attempt by commercial interests, politicians to use Australia’s geology as a
‘pay as you use’ waste repository has always experienced negative ‘blowback’ from the
public. This negative ‘blowback’ is not based on any understanding of the technology or the
process, as it is normally simply a case of the ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome. These attempts
to use Australia’s backyard have further feed into the existing stereotypes of the Australian
public consciousness (Reiner and Nuttall, 2011).
6. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
6
Even with the negatives of radioactive waste and weapons proliferation, many global societies
have faced having nuclear power on their door step as a way to provide clean economical
electricity and as such have accommodated it, and adjusted to the associated challenges.
Australia, by virtue of its abundant source of cheap and reliable coal has never been in a
position where it has had to face using nuclear power, and therefore not needed look beyond
its superficial understanding of the technology, which presently exists.
2.1.2 Commercial
From a commercial/industry perspective nuclear for power generation is not on the table for
consideration. Cheap, reliable and abundant coal is still the primary source of generation, as
well as a significant export earner. Australia, in pursuit of meeting it international emission
reduction obligations, is actively pursuing alternate renewable technologies to replace coal
and other fossil fuels. The primary diver of any commercial/industry project, whether new
technology for existing fossil fuel generation or renewables, is the price of electricity per
kilowatt-hour (kWh), in conjunction with the associated emissions abatement. Accordingly,
there is no commercial/industry activity to introduce nuclear power generation into Australia.
2.1.3 Political
The existing Australian political landscape is confusing. The current coalition government of
the Liberal Party of Australian (LPA) and the National Party of Australian (NPA) have no
specific or direct policy on nuclear energy (LPA and NPA, 2013). The coalition policy
platform only lists the following policy commitments that have any relationship to a nuclear
energy policy (LPA and NPA, 2013).
• Update the 2012 Energy White paper produced by the Rudd-Gillard Labor
government.
• Formalise the agreement to enable the export of uranium to India.
• Examine the potential of Thorium as an energy source for export.
7. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
7
The existing coalition policy appears to be inconsistent with comment’s made in parliament
by the former Resources Minister, Mr. Ian Macfarlane in 2008, when he called for Australia
to include nuclear in its future energy mix (The Australian, 2008). Coalition Opposition
Minister Ian Macfarlane said in a speech to parliament, "If Australia expects to live up to the
expectations the Rudd Government is creating, and to be taken seriously in claiming to set an
example it expects other nations to follow, we simply must get real on nuclear energy" (The
Australian, 2008). The Australia Labor Party (ALP) government, Environment Minister,
Peter Garrett responded by calling the Liberal Party policy on nuclear energy ‘a dog’s
breakfast’ (The Australian, 2008). However, since Ian Macfarlane’s comments, the coalition
has been returned to government, but little in the way of policy has changed regarding nuclear
power generation.
The ALP is equally confusing in their policy approach. At a Federal government level their
policy on Uranium is very specific. It clearly “prohibits the establishment of nuclear power
plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia” (ALP, 2015). Whereas, at a
State government level the opposite approach is being taken. The South Australian Labor
government is presently conducting the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. The four key
points of reference for the Royal Commission are the following:
1. Exploration, extraction and milling
2. Further processing and manufacture
3. Electricity generation
4. Management, storage and disposal of waste
The Royal Commission is scheduled to present its report to the Federal Government in May
2016.
The Greens party takes a position, which in comparison to the other three major parties, is an
extreme approach to nuclear policy. The Greens policy platform on nuclear and uranium lists
the following imperatives (The Greens, 2015):
8. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
8
• No nuclear power
• No uranium mining
• No uranium export
• No nuclear weapons
The Greens policy platform elaborates on the above four key points with sub-sets of related
principles and aims (The Greens, 2015). The principles and aims are surprisingly detailed,
including the closing of the OPAL nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights and all nuclear research
facilities Australia-wide (The Greens, 2015). Essentially, for anything remotely related to
nuclear, it is a ‘No’ from the Greens party, whether it is related to energy generation, industry,
agriculture or health applications.
2.1.4 Environment
Environmental concerns regarding radioactive waste management and weapons proliferation
is an influencing factor shaping the views of Australian society, politics and commerce.
In the current reality, it is important not to over play, nor under estimate the role of
radioactive waste and nuclear weapons on shaping public opinion. The stark reality is that
Australia is blessed with an abundance of cheap and reliable coal in its fossil fuel mix. Driven
by jobs, investment, commercial and political interest Australia has happily mined, burnt and
exported coal, with all the associated carbon emissions with impunity for countless decades.
Only now, with the challenge of climate change and international pressure is Australia
reluctantly taking steps to reduce emissions. The challenge of managing the world’s
radioactive waste is put into perspective when you consider the global impact of a century of
mining, burning and exporting coal for power generation and steel-making.
Australia does have radioactive waste issues relating to the OPAL facility at Lucas Heights
and other smaller research facilities. These issues are not to be downplayed, but in
comparison to Australia’s current environmental challenges relating to fossil fuels, they are
minor.
9. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
9
2.2 FUTURE REALITY (Predicted future condition)
In predicting a future reality, I have assumed no change in Australia’s engagement with
nuclear as a power generation source. In this scenario we can only speculate about the future
energy generation mix.
2.2.1 Social
There is little or no change in Australian public opinion. The superficial knowledge of nuclear
technology, in the absence of any direct engagement, is still driven by traditional stereotypes.
2.2.2 Commercial
Underpinned by public perception and political policies there has been no incentive for
industry to pursue a nuclear power solution. Australia’s power generation mix still includes a
large contribution from coal and other fossil fuels with the balance supplied by a mix of
renewables.
Australia’s focus on a mix of fossil fuels and renewables for its future energy needs expose it
to the following issues:
• A policy of disengagement with nuclear has shut out Australia from taking advantage
of the evolving nuclear technologies, such as new generation fission reactors and new
fuel options that provide low emissions energy with reduced radioactive waste and
proliferations risk. Advances in large scale fusion power generation, similar to the
ITER project in France, will be lost to Australia. Similarly, advances in small format,
modular fusion power generation, such as being developed by the Skunk Works
research facility of Lockheed Martin will also be lost to Australia.
• An increased risk of failure for Australia’s energy generation mix within the context
of energy security. Many of the renewables, such as solar and wind, are intermittent
energy sources that require an evolving battery storage technology to support future
growing domestic and industrial needs. The intermittent nature of these renewables
presents an uncertain risk when considered with the changing impact of climate
change to weather patterns. There is an unknown risk to fixed location
domestic/industrial solar and industrial wind farm power generation capacities being
impacted by increasingly unpredictable and volatile weather patterns.
10. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
10
2.2.3 Political
Little or no change’s in Australian political party’s policy platforms. The South Australian
Labor government, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission brought clarity to the nuclear
debate and debunked many of the stereotypes held by Australian society and the political
class. Unfortunately, this good work remained a State based initiative that did not transition to
the Federal policy arena, largely due to existing commercial and political self-interest.
2.2.4 Environment
There is little or no change in Australia’s environmental challenges from OPAL and other
research facilities.
2.3 DESIRED REALITY (Ideal situation construct)
From a social, commercial and political perspective Australia has moved passed the negative
stereotypes of nuclear power generation, which has been the legacy of the last 70 years.
Australia now recognises that its early laggard position of disengagement from nuclear
technology for power generation has excluded it from many of the direct challenges early
adopters of nuclear power have had to deal with. In this reality Australia recognises that the
timing for engagement is ideal to seize the opportunities new fission and fusion-based nuclear
technologies can now offer. These technologies can provide large, small and modular fission
and fusion power generation solutions without the radioactive waste and weapons
proliferation risk of legacy technologies. New power generation solutions can be integrated
into mitigation, adaptive and resilience strategies to assist in combating the impacts of climate
change. Together these new solutions offer a long-term consistent base load capability against
the intermittent nature of other renewables. These new technological solutions replicate the
physical reaction process that powers the sun as opposed to just harnessing by-products such
as wind and solar.
By including nuclear power into the energy mix for establishing Australia’s long-term energy
security the benefits established by the early BREE and CSIRO eFuture Model will be able to
be realised. New nuclear technologies offer an energy generation solution that generates very
little in the way of carbon emissions, compared to other technologies over the life of the
projects.
11. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
11
2.4 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
In attempting to understand Australia’s current status with regard to nuclear technology
engagement a detailed examination of the narrative for the ‘current reality’ highlights the core
problem. That is, that the Australian public still embrace the negative stereotypes for nuclear
energy that have evolved over the last 70 years since the USA Army’s decision, through the
Manhattan Project in 1942, to pursue nuclear reactor technologies and a uranium fuel option
that was implicitly driven by the imperative to build a bomb and win the war, as opposed to
altruistic imperatives and concerns for long-term radioactive waste issues and weapons
proliferation.
As discussed earlier in this paper, the Australian public has never been in a position to need
nuclear technology as way to ensure energy security as other countries have had to do to
ensure their energy security. Australia’s abundance of coal and other fossil fuels has allowed
Australia to keep the nuclear ‘genie in the bottle’, for the most part, at arms length. While the
majority of incidents relating to nuclear, such as Three Mile Island (1979) and Ghernobyl
(1986), have occurred overseas. Australia has only experienced incidents related to nuclear
energy when Australian and British armed forces tested nuclear weapons at Maralinga/Emu
Field in the 1950s.
Australia’s social consciousness regarding nuclear is also clouded by the fact that we export
uranium to other countries, where we go to great lengths to unsure that it is only used for
power generation and not for weapons proliferation. This utilisation of Australia’s uranium
resources by other nations reinforces the stereotyping and perceived risks that accompany the
use of nuclear at home and overseas.
By making Australia’s social consciousness or public opinion regarding nuclear the centre
piece of our problem, it is both logical and easy to see how the commercial/industry and
political elements fall into place. To suggest that contemporary political parties run on
opinion polls and the 24-hour news cycle is to understate the political reality. Therefore, it is
logical to expect that the policy platforms of Australia’s major parties reflects the publics
social consciousness regarding nuclear. In this environment, political parties, periodically
poke their heads above or outside of their platform policies to test the publics reaction. I
would speculate and suggest that Ian Macfarlane’s comments in parliament in 2008, were not
only to provoke the government’s Environment Minister, but also to test the reaction of the
12. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
12
public and media. I would further suggest, that the South Australian government Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Royal Commission is in essence the same exercise in testing public opinion, but on a
much larger scale. The South Australian government has identified a number of areas it can
engage with the nuclear industry to generate an income stream for the State. However, before
it can do so it needs to educate and alter public opinion. In this scenario, commerce and
industry are waiting in the rear. Industry will only commit investment capital when public
opinion, government policy and legislation provides a stable environment for long-term
investment.
Through the process of problem definition and identification, the core issue of public
opinion/perceptions relating to the status of Australia’s nuclear technology engagement, and
to understand why Australia is not pursing nuclear as an alternate to fossil fuels, as part of an
integrated adaptive/resilience strategy for the impacts of climate change has been established.
3. PROBLEM CLUSTERING
3.1 PROBLEM CLUSTER MODEL
Figure 1. Public perception (Nuclear power) – Full Problem Cluster Model
PUBLIC
PERCEPTION
Nuclear Power
GOVERNMENT
MEDIA
SOCIETYINDUSTRY
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSCIOUSNESS
HISTORY
LEGACY
EDUCATION
SYSTEMCultural impact Radioactive waste
Weapons
proliferation
Accidents Manhattan project
Academic
leadership
Opion leaders
Funding
Community
engagement and
communication
Curricula
Politics
New
technology risk
Greenhouse gas
emissions
Climate change
Weather patterns
Energy security
needs
Capital investment
Renewable
technologies
Energy security
for industry
Labour unions
Fossil fuel firms
Reliance on others
Apathy to politics
Short term focus
self interest
Level of
engagement
Cultural mix
Predisposition to
drama
Self interest
Paid commentary
Internet and
social media
Revenue and
funding
Political leadership
Unions Energy security Uranium exports
employment
International
obligationsCulture
Communications
and engagement
13. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
13
The centre point of the cluster model shown in Figure 1 is ‘Public perception / opinion’
within the context of nuclear power. All of the clusters examined contain problems that feed
into and shape the Australian publics perception and opinion on nuclear power. In many
instances these relationships feed back into the cluster problems, where the evolving and
changing public perception can magnify or lessen these problems. Section 3.1.1 through to
section 3.1.7 will examine in detail the elements of each problem cluster.
3.1.1. Government
Figure 2. Government Problem Cluster
• Revenue and funding – the inability to fund programs and projects is an impediment
to progress.
• Energy security – the challenge of providing the energy needs of existing and future
generations.
• Culture – influences individual, group, communities and society’s perspective on
issues, which influences government decision making.
• Political leadership – Australia’s government needs to adopt a proactive position and
lead from the front for what is best for the Australian people, as opposed to being
reactive to news polls, media commentary and the influence of lobby groups.
• International obligations – Australian government is required to have policy responses
that may be inconsistent with traditional government policy and community opinions.
• Employment (standard of living) – No matter what domestic or international issue that
the government may be dealing with, there remains an underlying expectation from
PUBLIC
PERCEPTION
Nuclear Power
GOVERNMENT
Revenue and
funding
Political leadership
Unions Energy security Uranium exports
employment
International
obligationsCulture
Communications
and engagement
14. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
14
the community that employment and living standards will be maintained. There
appears to be little scope for social sacrifice in the interest of the nation.
• Uranium exports – Australia’s policy on uranium is a paradox. We export the fuel to
others for financial gain, but will not use it ourselves for fear of the risks. This
position confuses both the Australian people and the international community.
• Communication and engagement – the quality of government communication and
engagement on important future issues has a direct impact on public perceptions and
opinions.
• Unions – A disproportionate influence is exerted by Unions on the government, in
particular, by the ALP.
3.1.2. Industry
Figure 3. Industry Problem Cluster
• Renewables technologies – Australian industry has launched itself into, renewable
technologies to take advantage of the commercial opportunities seen as a result of
Australia needing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition from fossil fuels.
In many cases the race for first entry and market share has been without prudent
consideration and planning. While renewable energy will make a significant
contribution to Australia’s future energy needs there is a litany of businesses that have
failed due to poor business planning.
PUBLIC
PERCEPTION
Nuclear Power
INDUSTRY
Capital investment
Renewable
technologies
Energy security
for industry
Labour unions
Fossil fuel firms
15. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
15
• Labour unions - A disproportionate influence is exerted by Unions on the government,
in particular, by the ALP.
• Capital investment – stable government policy and supportive public opinion is a
necessary ingredient for investors to consider any capital project, including nuclear
projects.
• Fossil fuel firms – existing fossil fuel firms have significant investments still in the
ground. Accordingly, they are resisting the transition to new energy technologies.
Much of this resistance is through lobby groups and media influence.
• Energy security for industy - the challenge to provide the energy needs of the existing
and future generations.
3.1.3. Society
Figure 4. Society Problem Cluster
• Cultural mix - influences individual, group, communities and society’s perspective on
issues.
• Short-term focus/self-interest – individuals generally make rational decision for their
own interest.
• Apathy to politics and media – politics and media are not held in high regard.
• Critical reasoning ability – the public general apathy to issues outside of their direct
interest results in very little, if any, critical reasoning on important national issues.
• Reliance on others (letting politics and media interpret and re-frame opinions) – again
general apathy and self-interest has resulted in the public letting politics and the media
PUBLIC
PERCEPTION
Nuclear Power
SOCIETY
Reliance on others
Apathy to politics
Short term focus
self interest
Level of
engagement
Cultural mix
16. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
16
interpret and re-frame opinions on important national issues. The public is less
inclined to question a position on any issue, other than at a superficial level.
• Level of engagement – a portion of the Australian public do not engage with topical
and current events.
3.1.4. Education system
Figure 5. Education System Problem Cluster
• Academic leadership – academic institutions needs to adopt a proactive position and
lead from the front and not wait for industry or politics.
• Opinion leaders – the absence of eminent educational figures engaging national issues
in debates is allowing minority proponents to disseminate information unchallenged.
• Funding - the inability to fund programs and projects is an impediment to progress.
• Community engagement and communication – educational institutions’ primary focus
is to engage with industry. There is little or no communication, or engagement with
the general community on broader issues.
• Politics – instrumental in setting the educational agenda.
• Curricula (secondary and tertiary) – There is an absence of courses available within
the education system to both educate and better inform new generations of Australian
as to the challenges and opportunities of nuclear power. In addition, there are no
training programs to provide the necessary skills sets should Australia seek to pursue
nuclear power.
PUBLIC
PERCEPTION
Nuclear Power
EDUCATION
SYSTEM
Academic
leadership
Opion leaders
Funding
Community
engagement and
communication
Curricula
Politics
17. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
17
3.1.5. Media
Figure 6. Media Problem Cluster
• Self interest (ownership agenda) – There is a significant risk that media ownership
will run bias commentary.
• Paid commentary – the media has no filter for the quality of information. As a
commercial venture, any paying client can use the media platform to disseminate
incorrect information.
• Predisposition to drama – Commercial ventures are the primary objective to drive
profits on the sale and distribution of content. Accordingly, there is an implicit
predisposition in the Australian media to generate an atmosphere of drama through the
use of carefully chosen words to elicit a positive commercial impact in addition to
elevating their position in any given debate.
• Internet/Social media – can make a disruptive and negative contribution to public
perceptions due to the quantity, and quality of information.
PUBLIC
PERCEPTION
Nuclear Power
MEDIA
Predisposition to
drama
Self interest
Paid commentary
Internet and
social media
18. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
18
3.1.6. History/Legacy
Figure 7. History/Legacy Problem Cluster
• Cultural impact - influences individual, group, communities and society’s perspective
on issues.
• Radioactive waste – reinforces negative public perceptions.
• Weapons proliferation – reinforces negative public perceptions.
• Accidents – reinforces negative public perceptions.
• Manhattan project – It was the establishment of the Manhattan project by the USA
army 70 years ago and their selection of reactor technology and fuel type that has left
the world with a legacy of radioactive waste and weapons proliferation. It is only now
that new designs, fuels and fusion are being pursued to stop that legacy increasing.
3.1.7. Environmental consciousness
Figure 8. Environmental Consciousness Problem Cluster
PUBLIC
PERCEPTION
Nuclear Power
HISTORY
LEGACY
Cultural impact Radioactive waste
Weapons
proliferation
Accidents Manhattan project
PUBLIC
PERCEPTION
Nuclear Power
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSCIOUSNESS
New
technology risk
Greenhouse gas
emissions
Climate change
Weather patterns
Energy security
needs
19. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
19
• Greenhouse gas emissions – elevated levels of fear and public concern.
• Climate change – elevated levels of fear and public concern.
• New technology risks – elevated levels of fear and public concern for new technology
based on historical track record.
• Weather patterns – concerns about national mitigation, adaptive and resilience
preparedness.
• Energy security needs – uncertainty, as to whether new renewable technologies can
satisfactorily replace fossil fuel energy generation.
4. PRIORITY ESTABLISHMENT
To establish a priority list from the problem cluster analysis, a matrix will be used to measure
the following elements:
• Management sensitivity
• System sensitivity
• Organisational impacts
• Reversibility assessment.
The matrix will be rated using a sensitivity score card that scores elements from ‘low’ (1) to
‘very high’ (5). The scores from the analysis tables will be totalled to determine the priority of
the problem clusters.
Low Moderate Substantial High Very High
1 2 3 4 5
Sensitivity Score Card
Table 1. Sensitivity Score card (represents the degree of problem element difficultly)
20. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
20
Management sensitivity Government Industry Society Education Media History Environment
Physical geography 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Problem trajectory 4 3 4 3 4 2 2
Legal situation 2 2 1 2 3 1 1
Jurisdictional situation 2 3 1 2 2 1 1
Land use dynamics 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Social dynamics 5 4 5 3 3 2 1
Economic change patterns 4 4 4 3 3 2 2
Social change patterns 5 3 4 4 4 2 4
Political landscape 4 4 4 3 4 3 3
Organisational culture and politics 5 4 4 3 4 3 4
Level of risk 4 3 3 3 4 2 4
Total 37 32 32 28 33 20 24
Table 2. Management sensitivity
System sensitivity Government Industry Society Education Media History Environment
Organisational survial 5 4 4 4 5 1 5
Competitive position 3 4 2 4 4 1 5
Infrastructure maintenance 1 1 2 2 2 1 4
Infrastructure development 1 1 1 2 2 1 4
Solution sustainability 4 2 4 3 2 3 4
Solution spin-offs 4 2 3 3 3 3 4
Economic benefits 4 3 3 4 3 1 4
Strategic benefits 4 3 3 3 3 3 4
Policy effectiveness 5 2 3 3 4 3 4
Perceived political positioning 5 2 4 3 3 3 4
Actual political positioning 5 2 4 2 3 3 4
Public perceptions 5 4 4 4 4 3 4
Peer perceptions 5 4 3 4 3 2 4
Total 51 34 40 41 41 28 54
Table 3. System sensitivity
Organisational Impacts Government Industry Society Education Media History Environment
Organisational development impact 4 3 4 4 4 1 4
Organisational objectives impact 4 4 5 3 4 1 4
Organisational survival impact 5 3 4 4 4 1 3
Organisational resilience 4 4 3 3 4 1 4
Organisational culture impact 4 4 4 4 3 3 4
Organisational structural impact 4 4 3 3 3 1 4
Organisational power dynamic impact 3 3 3 3 4 2 3
Total 28 25 26 24 26 10 26
Table 4. Organisational Impacts
Reversibility Assessment Government Industry Society Education Media History Environment
Problem reversibility 4 3 3 3 2 1 2
Decelerating capability 2 2 2 2 3 1 3
Deterioration probability 2 2 2 1 2 1 3
Worsening pattern of change 3 2 2 2 2 1 3
Point of irreversibility 2 2 2 2 2 1 3
Total 13 11 11 10 11 5 14
Table 5. Reversibility Assessment
21. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
21
Clusters
Management System Organisational Reversibility Total
sensitivity sensitivity impacts assessment
Government 37 51 28 13 129
Industry 32 34 25 11 102
Society 32 40 26 11 109
Education 28 41 24 10 103
Media 33 41 26 11 111
History 20 28 10 5 63
Environment 24 54 26 14 118
Prescribed Criteria
Table 6. Prescribed Criteria Totals
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Government Industry Society Education Media History Environment
129
102
109
103
111
63
118
Problem Cluster Sensitivity, Impact andReversibilityAnalysis
Chart 3. Problem Cluster Sensitivity, Impact and Reversibility Analysis
The priority establishment analysis has identified the Government problem cluster as the
priority focus. For the remainder of this paper, the problem environment, system, option
generation and evaluation will focus on the government problem cluster.
22. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
22
5. PROBLEM ENVIRONMENT
Figure 9. Management Environment
Given the nature of the environmental problem discussed in this paper, the scope of the
problem environment is large. In essence, this presentation to the Energy Supply Association
of Australia is designed as a call to action to consider the issue of nuclear power and its
application for Australia’s future energy security. Implicit in the idea of this presentation is
the notion that solutions be identified to the objections that presently have nuclear power,
within the Australian context, sitting on the bench, to use a football analogy.
The priority analysis has identified the Australian government problem cluster as the area to
focus on for options. The problem environment for this problem is expansive. This
environment is inclusive of every Australian citizen and all the groupings that define each
individual. Whether you are a consultant for an industry peak body, a head of industry,
factory worker or a mother raising a family at home, the notion to put nuclear power on the
table for consideration in Australia’s future energy supply mix has a direct relationship.
In this analysis, the management environment is all encompassing, as it also goes beyond
Australia boarders to include the rest of the world. Australia, as a member of the global
community, has obligations it is required to comply with. Some obligations, within the
context of nuclear power are direct obligations such as treaties for non-proliferation and the
PUBLIC
PERCEPTION
Nuclear Power
GOVERNMENT
MEDIA
SOCIETY
INDUSTRY
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSCIOUSNESS
HISTORY
LEGACY
EDUCATION
SYSTEM
GLOBAL
COMMUNITY
Climate Change
International
Obligations
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
National Interest
Ongoing Energy
Security for the
Australian People
Energy Supply Association of
Australia (ESAA) Power
Generation Industry Peak Body
23. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
23
exportation of uranium. Other obligations, such as managing greenhouse gas emission to meet
the nations climate change target are less direct in their relationship, but equally important as
a potential solution to reducing energy generation emissions.
For Australia, the question of nuclear power and it potential use is relevant to every individual
Australian citizen and our global community.
6. PROBLEM SYSTEM
Figure 10. Problem Environment
The problem system are those parts or elements that are directly related to the problem. In this
analysis, the Australian government has been identified as the priority problem on which to
establish options.
While I could argue that the Australian community through its individual citizens is directly
related to what the government does or does not do, for this analysis the Australian
community will remain in the background. I am assuming in this analysis that the views of the
community are being directed to government through the various mechanism detailed in
Figure 10.
AUSTRALIAN
GOVERNMENT
Union movement policy
influence with community
and government
National Party of
Australia (NPA)
Liberal Party of
Australia (LPA)
Australian Labor
Party (ALP)
The Greens Party
Minor Party's and
Independents
Industry direct
Industry Peak
Body's
Independent and
Special Interest Lobby
Groups
Media Interests International
Community
International
Trading Partners
EnvironmentClimate Change
Historical
Perspective
Australian
Community
Interests Health
Education
Budget
Constraints
Economic
Performance
Industry
Transformation
Energy Supply
Association of
Australia
24. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
24
In simplistic terms many of the elements in Figure 10 are a conduit for the views, needs and
aspirations of the community. Political party’s, union movements, media organisations and
industry bodies seek to directly influence government policy formulation, to satisfy the needs
of their specific constituents. At the opposite end of the problem environment spectrum is
what can be classified as the ‘realities’ of the problem environment. Elements, such as budget
constraints, economic performance, climate change, environmental issues, international
obligations are areas that the Australian government has little or no control. This is largely
due the actions of government is to work with the ‘realities’ presented to it and manage the
expectations of the influencing elements as best it can. Essentially, a case of unlimited needs
against limited resources.
It is for this problem environment that this paper seeks to identify options that can have a
positive impact on the Government and elicit a proactive response that will facilitate future
consideration of nuclear as an alternate energy option to fossil fuels.
7. OPTION GENERATION
After a review of all the information analysed within researching this paper and the priority
problem cluster within the context of the management environment and problem system the
following options have been identified for evaluation:
• Do nothing – this is always an option for consideration. Doing nothing may well result
in the ‘future reality’ discussed earlier in this paper occurring when the ‘current
reality’ level of disinterest with nuclear power continued. Alternatively, other
domestic and international influence could come into play and result in Australia
considering nuclear without any direct intervention from the Energy Supply
Association of Australia.
• Energy Supply Association of Australia to adopt nuclear power generation as a
technology to promote within their industry and through their political contacts.
• Investigate, research, plan and initiate a stakeholder engagement and communication
plan designed for Australia’s political parties, with particular focus on the small
number of individuals in each party of high social standing that could be categorised
as community leaders. This strategy is to focus on changing individual political
attitudes towards nuclear power, as opposed to individual opinions.
25. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
25
8. OPTION EVALUATION
To establish an option priority from the list of options generated, a matrix will be used to
measure the following elements:
• Management level
• Operational level.
The matrix will be rated using a score card that scores elements from ‘low’ (1) to ‘very high’
(5) probability of success. The scores from the analysis tables will be totalled to determine the
priority of the options as is outlined in sections 8.1 and 8.2.
8.1 MANAGEMENT LEVEL
Low Moderate Substantial High Very High
1 2 3 4 5
Score Card
Table 7. Score Card - Management level option evaluation (represents the degree of problem element
difficultly/complexity)
Option Evaluation - Management Level Do Nothing Endorsement Engagement
Mission indicators (strategic position) 2 4 3
Economic (cost-benefit assessment) 2 3 3
Public relations 1 4 3
Political 2 4 3
Technological (life of solution) 2 3 4
Environmental impacts 2 3 4
Physical capital 1 3 3
Human capital 2 3 3
Social capital 1 4 3
Knowledge capital 2 3 3
Psychological capital 1 3 3
Total 18 37 35
Table 8. Option Evaluation – Management Level
27. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
27
9. CONCLUSION
The best option to progress Australia’s engagement with nuclear power as an energy
generation options is for Energy Supply Association of Australia to adopt nuclear power
generation as a technology to promote within their industry and through their political
contacts.
28. ENVM7512 – Environmental Problem Solving
Brian Doyle - 40493251
28
REFERENCES
CSIRO: efuture sensitivity analysis 2013. Retrieved from:
http://efuture.csiro.au/docs/efuture_summary_report_26-06-
2013.pdf;jsessionid=28B5DC10CE5F16C977FC1B315C31D6C0
Khripunov, I. (2007). How safe is Russia? Public risk perception and nuclear security.
Problems of Post-Communism, 54(5), 19-29.
Labor – National Platform: A smart, modern, fair Australia. Retrieved from:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/australianlaborparty/pages/121/attachments/orig
inal/1439953357/ALP_National_Platform___Constitution.pdf?1439953357
Origin Energy: Energy in Australia. Retrieved from:
https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/about-energy/energy-in-australia.html
OUR PLAN- Real Solutions for all Australians: The direction, values and policy priorities of
the next coalition government. Retrieved from:
http://lpa.webcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/realsolutions/LPA%20Policy%20Booklet%20
210x210_pages.pdf
Reiner, D. M., & Nuttall, W. J. (2011). Public acceptance of geological disposal of carbon
dioxide and radioactive waste: similarities and differences. In Geological disposal of
carbon dioxide and radioactive waste: A comparative assessment (pp. 295-315).
Springer Netherlands.
The Australian, August 2008: Liberal Party Policy ‘mixed up on nuclear energy’. Retrieved
from:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/libs-mixed-up-on-
nuclear/story-e6frg6xf-1111117244409
The Greens – Standing up for what matters: The Greens plan for a better Australia. Retrieved
from: http://greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/election_platform_screen.pdf
The Shift Project Data Portal: Breakdown of Electricity Capacity by Energy Source in 2012.
Retrieved from:
http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Capacity-by-Energy-
Source#tspQvChart
Waughray, D. (Ed.). (2011). Water security: the water-food-energy-climate nexus. Island
Press.
World Nuclear Association: Plans for new reactors. Retrieved from
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Plans-For-New-
Reactors-Worldwide/
World Nuclear Association: Australia’s Electricity – Appendix to Australia’s Uranium paper.
Retrieved from:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-
F/Appendices/Australia-s-Electricity/
