Skip to main content

Australia Nuclear Update

By Eric McErlain
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

Anonymous 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...
February 1, 2006 at 6:01 PM
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.
February 2, 2006 at 12:26 PM
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!
February 5, 2006 at 1:11 AM
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