Skip to main content

Hitting Pay Dirt in Australia

We published a sour editorial the other day from Australia to show we had to go down under for a negative view of our loan guarantee. But let’s not sell Australia short – we’ve run enough material over the last couple of years to show the country is grappling seriously with ending its long standing ban against nuclear energy. Our experience is that once the conversation gets going, it’s hard to imagine it not getting to its conclusion – which is usually to the good of the atom.

Tony Owen told the Paydirt 2010 conference the "enabling investment" would allow Australia to have a serious debate on a nuclear industry. He said nuclear power was likely to be the nation's best option after 2030.

Professor Owen, who heads the Australian energy campus at University College, London, said new power generation plants over the next 20 years would be fired by gas or renewables, the latter driven by government support and eventually a price on carbon.

Well. on the one hand, he would say that and still on the same hand, the Paydirt conference is all about uranium, so this kind of talk is catnip, or perhaps paydirt, to the audience. Here’s another take:

Yet connecting the dots between now and 2050 for electricity should be clear. The widespread use of coal makes way for gas as the primary fuel in Australia, after which nuclear power becomes the load-bearing girder for baseload electricity generation (including that required to power an electric vehicle and hydrogen economy) by mid-century.

And another:

If Australia really wants base-load energy security and an industrial future, together with cost effective carbon reduction, it should follow South Korea's example. South Korea has recently won an international tender to build four nuclear power stations for the United Arab Emirates. Within a few decades it anticipates a nuclear power order book in excess of $300 billion.

Although there is still a lot of anti-nuclear energy activity in Australia – it and neighbor New Zealand were once the least nuclear friendly countries around – that’s rapidly fading, or perhaps, more accurately, being engaged by a strong pro-nuclear contingent with good arguments to offer.

Still a ways to go here, but worth keeping an eye on.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Australia is taking small and consistent steps towards nuclear.
They are considering nuclear power for their new submarine designs. This is exactly the same path by which the US adopted nuclear power in the 1950s and 60s. They will grow an industrial infrastructure, and a technical pipeline of talent by following this path.
They are doing all of the necessary steps to make a competent entry into nuclear power.

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…