Another Bogus Argument From the Anti-Nukes

The release of a government report on the future of nuclear energy in Australia has inaugurated a new silly season in public political discourse. In the wake of the report, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie said he feared that the construction of new nuclear power plants might harm Australia's tourism industry.

I think this response struck the correct tone:

But federal Tourism Minister Fran Bailey has urged Australians to consider nuclear power, and says it will help deal with climate change.

Ms Bailey says France has combined a nuclear power industry with a successful tourism sector.

She says it is possible to go nuclear and protect Australia's clean green image.

"France is a country that's 14 times smaller than Australia, it has 59 nuclear generators and yet ... it's the most visited country in the world, attracting more than 76 million tourists a year," she said.

"It's able to do this, of course, with nuclear energy."

UPDATE: More, in a similar vein, from Rod Adams.

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

Comments

Brian Mays said…

They're just not using their imaginations. Perhaps "two-headed mutant kangaroos" (which every anti-nuclear activist knows is the only logical outcome of the construction of nuclear plants in Australia) might actually help the tourism industry. I know I'd be willing to fly to Australia to see one.

November 27, 2006 at 1:45 PM

don kosloff said…

Looking at the stuffed two-headed calf at the University of California at Davis back in 1962-1965 was one of the big attractions when I used to go there for Field Day with my high school classmates. It remained a big attraction every year despite having seen it in previous years.

Also the Sioux on the Prairie Island Reservation were concerned that tourists would be dissuaded from visiting their proposed casino by the proximity of the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant and its ISFSI (about 2 miles). However the impressive growth of the Treasure Island Casino indicates that that is not a factor in tourist decisions. The rapid growth of the areas near Davis-Besse (Port Clinton and Catawba Island) is another indication.

November 27, 2006 at 8:53 PM

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 …

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…

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…

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog