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...

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog