Skip to main content

Australia Nuclear Update

By Eric McErlain
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.
May 17, 2006 at 3:38 PM
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