- Does nuclear power produce CO2 emissions?
- To what extent is nuclear energy used now?
- Can nuclear power capacity be expanded quickly?
- Are supplies of nuclear fuel adequate?
- What about safety, waste and proliferation concerns?
Friday, 11 December 2009
OECD - Nuclear Energy in Perspective
Sunday, 14 September 2008
Uranium mining now likely in WA
The result follows an aggressive anti-Uranium mining election campaign by outgoing WA PM Allen Carpenter.
Uranium mining in West Australia could – in the coming years – exploit up to eight major deposits according to Reuters.
Queensland is now Australia’s sole anti-Uranium mining state with significant, identified Uranium reserves according to the Australian Uranium Association.
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Beverley uranium mine expansion approved
Environment minister Peter Garret issued the following statement.
"I am satisfied that the tough conditions attached to this approval will ensure the highest standards of environmental management by the mine operator."Heathgate is working to obtain approval to mine the Four Mile deposit sometime next year.
Friday, 4 April 2008
Speaking out for nuclear
"I am not talking about next year or in five years but long-term energy policy. We have got to think about all these sources of energy and that includes coal and that must include nuclear,'' he [recently-appointed chairman of Qantas, Leigh Clifford] said.
OUR two major political parties are in coy agreement over the benefits of nuclear energy. At the same time, however, they both refuse to say it would help Australia.
They recommend that other countries use uranium, preferably the stuff we produce, to fuel power stations which otherwise would be pumping out harmful carbon emissions from incinerated fossils. But, for purely political reasons, they won't say the same for their own country.
This two-faced approach to nuclear energy is one of the starkest instances of policy hypocrisy we have seen.
The logical conflict is increasingly uncomfortable for some senior figures in Labor and the Liberal Party as they contort themselves to avoid saying what they really believe. The strain is starting to tell. Bouts of nuclear frankness may be ahead.
"Around the world nuclear power today reduces global emissions by more than 2 billion tonnes a year.''
Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, an enthusiastic industry advocate, has reconvened the Uranium Industry Framework, a hand-picked advisory group appointed by the previous government.
But Mr Ferguson says the Government will not pursue an idea the previous government flirted with — over-riding state bans in Western Australia and Queensland that prevent new uranium mines or other nuclear activities.
Mr Ferguson says Canberra will not override those states, but says it is only a matter of time before mining developments occur in those states, which have large uranium deposits.
He predicts substantial growth in nuclear power outside Australia.
"Some countries see nuclear as part of their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Mr Ferguson said.
"Uranium mining has got a bright future and it's going to lead to increased export earnings for Australia and jobs."
Monday, 17 March 2008
Energy 'collapse' will force nuclear use, says expert
Full Report from the ABC.
"If people start dying in hospitals because there's no electricity, if people can't get water because there's no electricity to pump water from dams, if people can't keep their food cool because there's no electricity for refrigeration, then I think there'll be a very, very, very rapid change of opinion."He's making these comments during the Paydirt 2008 Uranium conference in Adelaide.
But it that's what it takes to turn Australia on to nuclear power, it could end up being a very stressful time. There's precedence already in South Africa - where after years of inaction, rolling blackouts are doing just what the professor states above - changing minds on a spot.
Nuclear's not suited for reactive, populist policy making. It performs much better through deliberate, interim- to longer-term planning [ex. the approaches taking place in several European nations like the UK, Finland, France and most probably several others].
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
EPA gives green light to uranium mine
Full report from the ABC.
The Honeymoon Uranium Project is an advanced in situ recovery (ISR) project. The Board of Directors of Uranium One approved the development of the Honeymoon Project in August of 2006. Production is expected to begin in 2008 with a ramp-up to steady state production of 880,000 pounds U3O8 per year. Planned technical processes for uranium extraction have been confirmed through the operation of a demonstration plant and a field leach trial over an 18 month period.
Extraction Method
The basic wellfield design will be based on “7-spot” patterns, which consist of six injection wells arranged in a 20 – 60 metre hexagon, with a centrally located production well. Local variations in pattern size may occur on wellfield margins and where low-permeability ore zones require closer-spaced patterns.The wellfield requires conditioning prior to the commencement of leaching operations to achieve optimum uranium production. Conditioning involves lowering the pH of the ground water in the ore zone to a range of 2.0 to 2.5 (equivalent to the pH of lemon juice). Leach solution will then be introduced into the ore zone via injection wells causing the uranium minerals to be extracted (creating pregnant leach solution).
Approximately 30 production wells will be required to be in operation at any one time in order to meet the process plant design feed requirements. The selected production rate is 400 tonnes per annum U3O8 equivalent which will result in a mine life of between 6 and 7 years.
Processing Method
Pregnant leach solution will be pumped back to surface for processing via the production wells. The process plant will utilize solvent extraction (SX) technology to recover uranium from the pregnant leach solution. The uranium product will consist predominantly of uranium peroxide and will be precipitated from aqueous strip solution from solvent extraction. The uranium product will be de-watered and dried prior to packaging for transport.
More information
In-situ leaching (quicktime video)
In Situ Leach (ISL) Mining of Uranium (UIC Briefing Paper)
Friday, 11 January 2008
New uranium mine gets go ahead
Full story from ABC.
The mine - expected to begin production in 2008 - is expected to produce up to 400 tonnes of uranium oxide annually, generate about $40 million a year in exports and create about 60 jobs
Friday, 4 January 2008
More nuclear deployment - we're getting closer
Dan at Idaho Shamizdat has an informative post on the anticipated UK announcement regarding a renewed nuclear energy programme.
Almost just as fast, over at the Oil Drum: Europe, Chris Vernon submitted this post about anti-nuke David Fleming's 'concerns' about 'peak uranium'. I gather from this post and the subsequent comments that Fleming is referencing 'Storm and Smith', a uranium / energy balance analysis that has been discredited by, among others Australian, Professor Martin Sevior. There's plenty of economically recoverable uranium out there. For details, see the links below.
These posts and this argument are more good news for nuclear power for a variety of reasons:
- First, the world is progressing still further through anti-nuclear rhetoric and what I see as pretty much 'junk' science (or at least poor quality / biased science) by, for example Storm Smith. First it was safety. Then following decades of operational excellence, that was grudgingly conceded. Then it was cost and construction time, but now with the true capabilities of renewables becoming better understood, the undefinable lead time of 'clean coal' and the ever increasing costs of gas and oil; nuclear plants on a 10 to 15 year horizon are looking more desirable. So now we have the 'peak uranium' argument. Recall my 'stages of grief' post? This is bargaining, simply a stage in the process.
- Next, I note the quick rebuttals from the scientific and engineering community. I'm not so certain this would have been as swift or thorough in previous decades. Maybe the Internet has provided a medium where scientific information can be presented fully, without interruption, to a broad and interested audience. If so, this change seems to have liberated individuals who would have previously shared their ideas in papers buried in scientific journals, to close fiends over dinner or via brief chats at cocktail parties. In any case, this is another tick in the 'good' column.
- Finally, I note the interest level in general. For good or bad, a rapidly growing number of people are interested in nuclear power again and are seeing fit to actually discuss different issues. I look forward to a day [I don't think we're quite there yet] where indignation, and arrogant, dismissive attitudes are, themselves, no longer considered valid anti-nuclear arguments by the general public.
For more information:
Storm and Smith debated by Prof Servior and Dr. A. Flintly
Another Oil Drum Post - M. Sevior
U of Melbourn article
Lifecycle of Nuclear Power
Sunday, 30 December 2007
Efforts to accelerate for uranium mining in Queensland
More information reported in The Australian.
There is estimated to be about $20 billion in proven deposits in the state and global energy demand is expected to double by 2030.
Queensland Resources Council executive director Michael Roach said, ""A government that has such a sound economic grasp as that of Anna Bligh, we believe, will see a more constructive attitude to uranium mining over time."
He said, however, that he did not believe the anti-uranium mining policy would be overturned in the short to medium term, considering the strength of old-fashioned opposition in the Queensland Labor Party.
"Anna Bligh may have to do what NSW Premier Morris Iemma has done in staring down union opposition to electricity sector reform," he said.
