Please In My Backyard

A town in Australia lobbies for a nuclear power plant.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Australia, New South Wales

Comments

Randal Leavitt said…

A town with a clean energy generator based on fission buried under city hall, a plasma torch so that a garbage dump is not needed, and parking meters with plugs for charging electric cars, will be a good place for clean and quiet industry. Seems like a model that many places would like to follow.

July 12, 2006 at 1:41 AM

Anonymous said…

Unfortunately, it's rather unlikely that anybody would be interested in building a nuclear plant in Bourke without substantial financial incentives, and unless those financial incentives weren't available anywhere else.

Bourke is a town of 4,000 people 800 kilometres (roughly 500 miles) away from Sydney. It is 370 kilometres from the nearest town of any size, Dubbo, which is a town of about 36,000 people.

I'm no electrical engineer, but even allowing for the flat terrain and lack of settlement transmission lines of that length would be a significant fraction of the cost of a power plant itself.

It would be about the equivalent of plonking a nuclear reactor halfway between Calgary and Saskatoon - a great way to deal with the NIMBY factor, but not terribly economically sensible.

July 12, 2006 at 12:57 PM

Anonymous said…

What about a small reactor like the Toshiba 4S envisioned for Galena, Alaska?

More info:
Article at Wikipedia

July 13, 2006 at 11:57 AM

Anonymous said…

Anonymous, that kind of thing might be practical for local generation. What they were proposing was a large-scale plant to supply, essentially, the Sydney market, to take advantage of the relative lack of a NIMBY factor and the, um, ample supply of available labor in the town.

July 14, 2006 at 11:28 AM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog