Nuclear Power for Australia
April 29th, 2007 at 10:36 am by David FarrarJohn Howard has announced (on the day the ALP was debating whether to remove their policy ban of new uranium mines) steps towards using nuclear power in Australia. Australia has 36% of the world’s low cost uranium reserves, and exports it all currently.
The great quandary for the green movement is that nuclear power produces a minuscule amount of carbon emissions compared to most other forms of high capacity power plants. So this move may lead to Australia doing significantly better with carbon reductions.
But of course there is much kneejerk opposition to nuclear and it is a risky move in terms of public support. What it shows though is that Howard, being behind in the polls, is not afraid to take a risk and to set the agenda. Whether it works or not, time will tell.
Tags: International Politics
April 29th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
The is John Howard delivering a serve right into the heart of the ALP at the time of their conference. This is John Howard at his very best as the formidable politican he is. Meanwhile John Key is proving that he can work with the other parties and marginalising Labour. This too is smart politics in the MMP arena.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Its a load of crap that nuclear energy is carbon friendly.
The carbon cost of building a plant – way worse than any other kind of generator
The carbon cost of dismantling it after its done to prevent contamination – again a huge problem
And its not like you just pump unranium out of the ground and into the power plant. It has to be mined, and enriched and turned into fuel rods – again a huge carbon cost.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Mr Drain – tell the full picture. Of course constructing any sort of plant emits carbon. Building a windmill emits carbon.
But tell us that carbon footprint from say constructing, running for 50 years then decommissioning a nuclear plant compared to say coal.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“What it shows though is that Howard, being behind in the polls, is not afraid to take a risk and to set the agenda.”
Well said. What’s the obvious comparison this remark brings to mind?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Will Tim Barclay shut up when Howard loses ?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Mr Drain – Nuclear energy is actually very carbon freindly. The problem is that the waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10’000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).
Furthermore, Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.
Australia has a a lot of potential for developing solar (Photovotaic cells) electricity generatoin. However its production costs are much higher than Nuclear, as is its carbon footprint (although when compared to coal and gas its footprint is negligable).
Also, massive gains are being made in the development of cost-effective solar. For example The average lowest retail cost of a large photovoltaic array declined from $7.50 to $4 per watt between 1990 and 2005.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
There is one issue that could lose the elction for Howard and that is Industrial relations. The Labour Party is getting as many trivial examples of how workers are being shafted by the new legislation though this has not got them very far so far. Howard has been behind before and he has sprinted to the finish. John Key is a more challenging target for Helen Clark who seems to be very ponderous on policy issues. I am wondering just how bright Clark really is and the depth of her knowldge on many areas.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
“I am wondering just how bright Clark really is and the depth of her knowldge on many areas.”
Were you really?? She’s a university academic and career politician. What’s to wonder about? She knows fuck all about fuck all.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Tim, Key will beat her for exactly the reason you identify. Clark is not particularly bright or intelligent. Key is. Clark is ruthless. Key is. Clark understands politics – or she did until about a year ago. Key does, also.
The major difference is that Key, like Howard, has that extra ZIP factor whereby he identifies directly with the Kiwi battler. Clark does not.
Key is brighter, more intelligent, more at home with the public, and more photogenic.
She’s a goner.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I think anyone who thinks the next election is decided is deluded. Never ever under-estimate how many bribes an incumbent Govt can come up to retain power.
And while National is well ahead of Labour in the polls, the CR is only a small way ahead of the CL.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Yes but Key is being very clever. He is proposing round table talks on a number of issues and getting a response. Remember this: Labour plus Anderton is 50 votes and National plus Act is 50 votes. The other 11 are negotiable and getting more negotiable by the day. Key understands this subtle change in the mood of parliament. It is Labour that is marginalising its-self more and more. Labour is looking less and less like a Government but they will be placing much hope on the next budget to get back the political initiative.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
People were saying the same things about Mark Latham as they’re now saying about Rudd & who won the last Aussie federal election?
Although I prefer Rudd to Latham, who wouldn’t!
DFP is right about the ‘great quandary’ that is nuclear power.
Carbon emissions aside (because they’re an aside), anyone who thinks that damning a river is somehow environmentally friendly needs their head checked.
Will Jennifer Robson shut up when Klark loses?
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
As I have said before,Australia wants nuclear power so that it has the option of nuclear weapons if it so wishes.
The fact that nuclear power is carbon friendly is just a pretense for going nuclear.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
phillipjohn
“Furthermore, Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.”
depending on the actual demand = Actual results may vary
Did the prediction model foresee the sudden unpopularity of coal? Did they foresee a significant driver other than ‘price per unit’ such as ‘carbon footprint’?
If 30-60 years is expected, 20 is a possible worst case scenario given an unexpected level of uptake.
I was always a big supporter of Nuclear energy, but until I see some credible study that proves it’s got a longer life than 30 to 60 years… It would take NZ 20 years to build a nuclear plant. So we would can get ?? years use from it? Why bother? Like you the waste issue worries me.
We seem to finally have something we agree on – the need to invest now into clean renewable forms of energy. Solar, tidal, wind, hydro, geothermal.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Burt,
Its nice to have a mix of renewables, but of those you mention, only geothermal and hydro are base load, tidal is too small and new to be effective on a large scale. Hydro – you recall what happened to Project Aqua? Scuttled because it was politically too hard. We have effectively run out of hydro options, apart from a few small scale regional projects. The only _real_ option now is geothermal… or we burn coal.
Nuclear may yet be an option if new designs are proven to be more economic on a smaller scale than the plants of yesteryear.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
As much as I loathe it, if we are to power light rail etc the main option left is to redo Project Aqua.
Vote:Sad to lose another valley but I just cant see any other source large enough to be able to cope with our needs.
I note they havent resold the land they bought….