Skip to main content

Australia Nuclear Update

By Eric McErlain
In yesterday's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Duffy wrote about the conundrum facing environmentalists when it comes to nuclear energy, greenhouse gases and global warming:
And yet most environmental activists still oppose nuclear power. Why so? There's naturally some concern about the spread of nuclear weapons, but the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been one of the great successes of international co-operation. As for nuclear plant safety and waste management, these are no longer significant problems. So when you weigh the small risks of going nuclear against the enormous benefits of reducing carbon emissions, you have to wonder why anyone who genuinely believes in a looming greenhouse tragedy would oppose nuclear power . . .

The next time someone lectures you on the greenhouse apocalypse, they should also tell you how they feel about nuclear power. If they don't, you're entitled to have grave doubts about the fundamental seriousness of their environmental concerns.
And we have the numbers on our side. Click here for David Bradish's post from Friday on quantifying the positive environmental impact on air quality here in the U.S. provided by nuclear energy. For a more global perspective from NEI, click here.

And for our last two posts on nuclear energy in Australia, click here and here.

Thanks to Greenie Watch for the pointer.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
The Weekend Australian (www.theaustralian.com.au) also had coverage of the growing nuclear power debate in Australia. The letters in response seem to be very biased towards no nukes, without rational or informed arguments to sustain the writers' objections.
June 6, 2005 at 10:27 AM
Matthew66 said…
There is an interesting forum on nuclear power going on at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's news site, go have your say www.abc.net.au/news/defautl.html. I find it amazing that such a forum even goes on in Australia, it is a pretty anti-nuke place even though it is happy to sell yellow cake to the world.
June 6, 2005 at 8:36 PM
Anonymous said…
i am unaware of the negative effects of nuclear development in australia. the greens mantra of 'no electorate in australia wants a nuclear power station in it', is probably true, but i would rather see a nuclear power staion than a coal one.
November 18, 2006 at 9:47 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more