In my last post, I blogged about nuclear power in Singapore in Southeast Asia. Today I am going to talk about nuclear power in Australia. I have blogged on this subject before. Uranium is mined in Australia but Australia does not use nuclear power. The nuclear industry is currently working to change that.
About one third of the known uranium reserves on Earth are located in Australia. However, there is a long bipartisan agreement against the creation of an indigenous nuclear industry. There are environmental laws against building nuclear reactors. A separate law against the construction of reactors and uranium enrichment plants recently survived an attempt by an Australian senator to rescind it. There is also strong public concern over the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste.
The Australian Nuclear Association and the CEO of Westinghouse, the leading nuclear company in the U.S., will be meeting with government ministers and business leaders in Canberra and Sydney next week. They will push to overturn an Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act ban on nuclear development.
The ANA is hoping that the recent change of prime ministers will lead to nuclear power being considered on "its merits." The ANA claims that nuclear power will help Australia reduce carbon emission because they have concerns that "renewables won’t get us across the line in terms of emissions reduction.” “Nuclear is more reliable and it has a smaller resources footprint than renewables." The ANA rejects the idea that nuclear power would be prohibitively expensive and estimates that Australia could construct twenty nine reactors for about one hundred and sixty billion dollars.
The Westinghouse CEO claims that nuclear power could help produce “clean, reliable, affordable electricity for more people.” He said that Westinghouse would like to "help Australia explore ways to create jobs and economic opportunity that are also good for the environment." He also said that Westinghouse is eager to invest in an Australian nuclear industry.
Friends of the Earth say that it is unlikely that nuclear power will ever be a viable choice in Australia. They say that not only is nuclear power too expensive but that it will just keep getting more expensive in the future. They point out that the start-up costs alone would be huge. They suggest that the hiring the necessary scientists and technicians, acquiring the land and crafting a whole new regulatory system would probably require government subsidies.
The University of New South Wales has conducted research on energy issues and concluded that it would be feasible to convert Australia to all renewable energy without any need for nuclear power. Separate research on the part of the federal government estimates that it would cost about between two hundred and three hundred billion dollars to convert Australia to all renewable energy by 2050.
Australia has some of the best wind resources in the world with regard to wind power. The Australian continent has the highest solar radiation per square meter of any continent on Earth. Australia is located on top of some of the world's most potent geothermal energy sources. With its long deep water coastline, Australia is a prime location for the development of wave power. If any country on Earth is well-suited to convert to one hundred percent renewable energy, it is Australia. It would be best for them to reject the arguments of the ANA and Westinghouse.
