Skip to main content

Australia Nuclear Update

The head of the opposition Labor party says Australia doesn't need nuclear energy:
Mr [Kim] Beazley today ruled out the need to go nuclear.

"Australia does not need nuclear power and I would not advocate it in government," he said in an address to the National Press Club in Canberra.

He said Australia's neighbours would view such a move with suspicion, which could ultimately be dangerous for the country.

"We have alternatives, it's very expensive, and quite frankly when any nations ... look at the possibility of developing nuclear power, they raise immediately a suspicion in the minds of their neighbours that they intend to utilise it for non-civil purposes, they intend to utilise it for military purposes," Mr Beazley said.
Of course, with some of the largest proven reserves of Uranium in the world, Australia is in the nuclear energy business by default.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Starvid said…
Yes please continue destroying our common climate with you coal power stations dear Australians.

Or do the responsible thing: go nuclear.


An interesting thing is that that guy probably has the miners labor union behind him. In Australia, coal mining is very big...
Matthew66 said…
As an expat Australian, I can confirm that the coal mining union (the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union) is a key constituent of the Australian Labor Party. I really don't see that nuclear power would hurt that union though. Even if Australia replaced all its coal and gas fired power stations with nuclear reactors, they would still be digging up every scrap of coal for sale overseas. Those workers that mine uranium, build and operate nuclear power stations, and fabricate and reprocess fuel would also belong to the CFMEU so it would be win win for the CFMEU.

The ALP has a long history of animosity towards the nuclear power industry.
Anonymous said…
Crikey! I'm Steve Erwin, and this is a fuel pellet! Look at the size of it! This little bugger's a BEAUT!

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …