Skip to main content

Australia Nuclear Update

By Kevin McCoy
Australia does not have any nuclear power reactors, and it is all too easy for the nuclear industry to consider it as an important but sleepy source of uranium. It is time to take another look.

For over 20 years, Australia has had a “three-mines policy”: only three mines (Beverley, Olympic Dam, and Ranger) are licensed to mine uranium. The policy was instituted by the Australian Labor Party in response to antinuclear sentiment.

But last week, the Australian Federal government, under opposition leader John Howard, announced that it would take responsibility for licensing new mines in the Northern Territory. Most of Australia’s area is administered by state governments, and the Federal government does not have the constitutional authority to license mines in the states, but the legal status of the Northern Territory is different.

Over the weekend, there was more news that Australia had been in talks with China about uranium exports. And as noted here by Duncan Bell, Australian Minister of Science Brendan Nelson has just today strengthened his support for nuclear power.

Our friends down under may not have any power reactors today, but look for them to play an important role in the nuclear renaissance.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Rod Adams said…
Australia has a long history of organized anti-nuclear activity, but it is important to understand the basis for that movement.

The leaders in the 1970s were unions, led by railroad unions. That is no surprise, coal transportation represents a large portion of the rail freight traffic in Australia.

It is no surprise that activity to limit supplies of uranium continue - Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal, with nearly 30% of the world trade in the material. This trade netted exporters a bit more than $13 Billion in 2004.

Uranium miners themselves have economic reasons to limit exploration and mining activity. In the past three years, the world price of uranium has trippled from about $10 per pound to nearly $30 per pound. This increase would not be supportable if new supplies were allowed to be developed without restriction.

Follow the money, find the anti-nuclear support.
August 11, 2005 at 5:22 AM
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