Skip to main content

Australia Nuclear Update

By Eric McErlain
In yesterday's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Duffy wrote about the conundrum facing environmentalists when it comes to nuclear energy, greenhouse gases and global warming:
And yet most environmental activists still oppose nuclear power. Why so? There's naturally some concern about the spread of nuclear weapons, but the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been one of the great successes of international co-operation. As for nuclear plant safety and waste management, these are no longer significant problems. So when you weigh the small risks of going nuclear against the enormous benefits of reducing carbon emissions, you have to wonder why anyone who genuinely believes in a looming greenhouse tragedy would oppose nuclear power . . .

The next time someone lectures you on the greenhouse apocalypse, they should also tell you how they feel about nuclear power. If they don't, you're entitled to have grave doubts about the fundamental seriousness of their environmental concerns.
And we have the numbers on our side. Click here for David Bradish's post from Friday on quantifying the positive environmental impact on air quality here in the U.S. provided by nuclear energy. For a more global perspective from NEI, click here.

And for our last two posts on nuclear energy in Australia, click here and here.

Thanks to Greenie Watch for the pointer.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
The Weekend Australian (www.theaustralian.com.au) also had coverage of the growing nuclear power debate in Australia. The letters in response seem to be very biased towards no nukes, without rational or informed arguments to sustain the writers' objections.
June 6, 2005 at 10:27 AM
Matthew66 said…
There is an interesting forum on nuclear power going on at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's news site, go have your say www.abc.net.au/news/defautl.html. I find it amazing that such a forum even goes on in Australia, it is a pretty anti-nuke place even though it is happy to sell yellow cake to the world.
June 6, 2005 at 8:36 PM
Anonymous said…
i am unaware of the negative effects of nuclear development in australia. the greens mantra of 'no electorate in australia wants a nuclear power station in it', is probably true, but i would rather see a nuclear power staion than a coal one.
November 18, 2006 at 9:47 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more