Skip to main content

Australia Nuclear Update

Australian Prime Minister John Howard gave the strongest signal yet that his nation intends to develop a peaceful nuclear power program in an interview with national broadcaster Channel 9:
"In an age where we're worried about global warming we should be looking seriously at nuclear power as an option, because it's clean and it doesn't emit greenhouse gases and I can't understand why the extreme Greenies oppose it," he said.
Howard's comments came against the backdrop of the 15th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference, being held this week in Sydney. For more coverage on Howard's comments, visit the following links:

PM gives strong backing to nuclear power, The Age
Reactors could be up and running by 2015, The Australian
Nuclear Australia 'a decade away', news.com.au

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
In Australia, electrical power generation is largely the responsibility of state governments. All the state governments in Australia are formed by the Australian Labor Party which remains intractably opposed to nuclear power. Further, as the Chief Executive of Silex stated in his evidence to the Prime Minister's inquiry on the nuclear industry, no company is going to make multi-billion dollar investments in nuclear infrastructure in Australia unless there is bipartisan support. The risk that a later Labor government would shut down a project is currently too great for any private investors.
Anonymous said…
Matthew is right.

The Prime Minister's push on nuclear is kind of strange. In much of Australia, our power stations are pretty much built on top of coalfields. Consequently, in Australia, coal is cheaper than nuclear, at least until the kinks in the new reactor designs on the drawing board are ironed out in the first few builds. The only way this is likely to change is with the introduction of a carbon charge, or if the government provides big subsidies to nuclear power operators.

However, the government is implacably opposed to carbon charging, and there has been no mention of any plans to subsidise nuclear construction.

Furthermore, there is a federal election due somewhere between now and November 2007, and the government is facing a very tough re-election fight. Given that substantial majorities of Australians remain opposed to nuclear power, I can't see the government spending political capital to push this. I would like things to be different, but it's important to look at things as they are rather than as we would like them to be.

The Australian public hasn't yet realised that if it wants cuts in carbon emissions, that nuclear may be the only thing that can provide baseload electricity at a similar price to what they now pay. Until that realization hits, to approximately render a favourite Australianism, those advocating nuclear energy in Australia are pushing sewerage uphill.
Anonymous said…
Pretty simple really. Howard is trying to legitimise nuclear power by calling it a solution to climate change. He will use this as a cover to increase uranium mining in Australia.

His goal is to make Australia an "energy superpower", by increasing exports of Uranium to the US, China and whoever else will take it.

Read more about it here.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin