Will Australia’s Carbon Price Lead It to Rethink Nuclear?

Australia has decided to put a price on carbon in the hope that it can kick-start its renewable energy i Julia explains. ndustry and reduce emissions.

The Australian government has unveiled plans to impose a tax on carbon emissions for the worst polluters.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said carbon dioxide emissions would be taxed at A$23 ($25) per ton from 2012.

The country's biggest economic reform in a generation will cover some 500 companies. In 2015, a market-based trading scheme will be introduced.

Households are expected to see consumer prices rise by nearly 1%, and the move has been criticised by the opposition.

The announcement by Gillard has led to a healthy debate about the plan, to put it mildly, as you can see on the comment section of this article. The greater question is: Will this lead to Australia to reconsider nuclear power?

"No one will build coal-fired power plants," he [Paul Breslin]said. "It is already sending a signal to prospective investors 'don't do it'. You couldn't possibly build a new coal-fired power station at $20 per ton, and the price is definitely going to rise.

"If the carbon price keeps going up in the 2030s, we will need to be moving to gas-fired electricity generation. Safe nuclear, although politically difficult, should be looked at."

Nuclear energy would seem a natural fit for Australia. It has high per capita emissions, abundant uranium resources and seems especially sensitive to the nastier consequences of climate change in Australia itself. But then again, the country has never really shown any great enthusiasm for embracing nuclear. Even the prime minister has distanced herself from the technology. And there’s the question of whether and how the whole carbon pricing plan will come to fruition.

But with the need to keep the lights on (and the air conditioners humming) and with a potentially rising price on carbon, nuclear energy will surely become more attractive over time. Stay tuned.

For more on the carbon price plan, see this website from the Australian government.

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