From the Sydney Morning Herald:
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Australia
Prime Minister John Howard backed nuclear power for Australia provided it was economically feasible.For more coverage, click here and here.
"I am of the view that we certainly should not turn our face against it as Mr Beazley has done. I can't understand why he did that," he told Southern Cross Radio in Melbourne.
"I am not saying that we should have it tomorrow. What I am saying is that if the economics of energy lead us to embracing nuclear power than we should be willing to do so."
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Australia
Comments
I really get tired of Senator Lyn Allison saying that nuclear power is expensive and dangerous. In the USA and UK in the 70's and 80's there were huge construction cost overruns, but I don't believe that has been repeated in many other countries. If the GE and Westinghouse experience in Asia is anything to go by, NPPs can be built on schedule and on budget. Compared to the number of people killed by inhaling fumes from coal fired power stations, coal mining and exploding gas mains, claims that nuclear power is "dangerous" are refuted by the empirical evidence.
The Australian Democrats, the Greens and the Australian Labor Party have a long standing prejudice against nuclear power that is not, in my opinion, supported by scientific evidence.
Going nuclear is the only responsible and realistic option.
Without some changes to the market, it may be kind of difficult for new nuclear build to be feasible. As I understand it, it's difficult getting *any* new plants built at those kind of prices ;)