Skip to main content

Australia Nuclear Update

Aussie Prime Minister John Howard was in Washington this week to talk nuclear energy with top officials of the U.S. Government:
"It may be desirable that Australia in the future builds nuclear power plants," Mr Howard told reporters in Washington, after meetings with US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman and the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke.

Mr Howard's enthusiasm for a possible nuclear future came after he told Mr Bodman that Australia wanted to be fully consulted over plans for the big six nuclear-power countries - the US, France, China, Britain, Russia and Japan - to forge a new informal trading bloc.

But Mr Howard poured cold water on suggestions Australia could become a waste dump for nuclear material from other countries, arguing that this was never contemplated.

"What I indicated to (Mr Bodman) is that we would want to be kept fully informed of how this proposal developed. At this stage, Australia is a willing seller of uranium subject to the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and our own separate safeguards," he said.

"We would continue to want to be in that position, but we would want to be kept informed of any progress towards formation of what could be regarded as a fuel reprocessing group."
Of course, Prime Minister Howard is referring to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, and it only makes sense that a nation that is the world's second leading supplier of uranium ought to be part of that conversation.

Meanwhile, back home, an official with WWF-Australia is challenging a recent report that claimed their top man was urging his WWF compatriots to change their minds about nuclear energy.

UPDATE: Australia's own, Tim Blair, is asking some questions too.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
As an expat Australian, I can tell you there will not, unfortunately in my opinion, be any nuclear power stations built in Australia in the near future. Whilst the federal Liberal Party-National Party coaliton government in Australia may be leaning towards nuclear, it is the state governments, who are responsible for electrical generation. The state governments are currently all formed by the Australian Labor Party, which still has a definite no-nukes policy, which is unlikely to change anytime soon. Further, the two largest states, New South Wales and Victoria, both have statutes prohibiting the construction of nuclear power stations. There would have to be some pretty fundamental political shifts for there to be nuclear power stations in Australia.

The ALP is in the strange juxtaposition of being pro-Kyoto, pro-coal, and anti-nuclear. How they think they can generate the electricity Australia needs without creating greenhouse gases, and without fission, is beyond me. I believe that Australia emits more greenhouse gases per capita than any other nation on earth.

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 …

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…

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…