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

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…