Australia Nuclear Update

An Australian-based think tank is urging that nation to consider using thorium to power a new generation of nuclear reactors:

Australia should consider using its abundant reserves of the radioactive metal thorium to provide the nation with a vital alternative source of energy, a strategic thinktank says.

Australia's centre for strategic analysis, Future Directions International, made the recommendation in a new study on the country's future energy options released.

The study, Australia's Energy Options, says new safer and cleaner nuclear energy technologies could replace the country's reliance on oil, gas and coal for electricity.

It suggested Australia could use thorium instead of uranium to generate a new source of electricity.

"Australia holds the world's largest reserves of thorium, which could possibly fuel low-risk/low waste reactors which did not generate weapons-grade fissionable material, and which also could substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Future Directions said.

The study said Australia has much to gain from looking at the nuclear issue and urged the government to carry out a review of new nuclear technologies.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Energy, Uranium, Thorium, Australia, Mining

Comments

Anonymous said…

IIRC, Thorium is a fertile element rather than a fissionable one. Thorium 232 absorbs a neutron and transmutes to U-233 which is fissionable. I've seen reports that claim U-233 is a better bombmaking material than U-235. According to the following link the US has tested nuclear bombs using U-233:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html#Nfaq4.1.7.1

So much for the assertion that Thorium is not a proliferation threat. (This is no reason not to use it, let's just avoid easily refuted claims of non-proliferation.)

October 7, 2005 at 10:16 AM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog