Skip to main content

Australia Nuclear Update

By Eric McErlain
Yesterday, we gave you a general update on happenings in Australia around nuclear energy, and it's clear now that the debate is really heating up. Click here to participate in an online debate that's been sparked by comments by New South Wales Premier Bob Carr that Australia needs to have a national debate on nuclear energy.

The Skeleton is one blogger who is ready for an honest discussion on the topic:
It'’s time to more beyond the screeching of extreme conservationists and at least have a civilised public discussion on the issue. I can't see that nuclear power used properly would be any worse than a coal-fired power station. Time for people to stop going off their respective rockers and discuss the factual pros and cons.
And in many ways, it's clear that nuclear energy has some important advantages over other elements of the fuel supply.

Here's Leslie Kemeny of the International Nuclear Energy Academy, writing in the Australian:
Japan's 54 nuclear power stations alone save the equivalent of Australia's total greenhouse emissions. And the secret of this success is uranium fuel imported from Australia. Over a critical window of the next 20 years no other energy technology can achieve such results and satisfy the immense growth in energy demand by the world's developing nations.
For more from reporter Dave King, click here.

Thanks to reader Matthew Bohun and Pharoz for the links.

UPDATE: Here's more from the Brisbane Courier-Mail.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
The electronic forum on the ABC's website has now closed. The forum canvassed a wide variety of views - 360 responses were posted. The ABC will likely keep the responses on its site for six months or so, so there is plenty of opportunity to read the different threads. It was interesting to see the wide variety of responses. Unfortunately, many contributors based their arguments on outdated scientific opinions, or just plain prejudice. I was also disappointed to read that Bob Carr, the NSW Premier who started the ball rolling, is willing to have Nuclear Power plants in his State, but does not want to accept responsibility for managing used nuclear fuel. I don't think you can do one without the other.
June 8, 2005 at 4:47 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more