You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Down Under
Howard: 'Foolish' not to consider nuclear energy
2006-11-05
Australia would be "foolish" not to consider using nuclear energy, given its vast reserves of uranium, Prime Minister John Howard said Saturday, giving his strongest hint yet the government planned to kick-start an atomic energy industry. "Nuclear power is potentially the cleanest and greenest of them all," Howard said in a speech to the Queensland state branch of his Liberal Party. "And we would be foolish, from the national interest point of view, with our vast resources of uranium, to say that we are not going to consider nuclear power," he said.

Australia is one of the world's biggest producers of uranium, the ore used to fire nuclear reactors, but has only one reactor, a small medical facility. Nuclear issues have been contentious in Australia for years because many people are worried about the dangers of radiation and how to dispose of nuclear waste. But Howard said growing concern about global warming caused by the burning of greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels to make electricity was causing people to rethink their opposition to nuclear energy.
Posted by:Fred

#8  Given their proximity to the world's largest Muslim population, in Indonesia, it might be foolish for Australia not to consider nuclear weapons as well.
For now, they can depend on the American "nuclear umbrella" but what if the worst happens: the Dems win and are able to consolidate moonbat rule in America?
Imagine Dennis Kucinich as "Secretary of Peace," as some have suggested. The umbrella will be shredded by a chorus of Kumbaya policy-makers and peacenik media indoctrination.

Can the US really go the way of Helengrad (formerly New Zealand)? Best not to take a chance: Cobble up some nukes of your own, cobbers. The RAAF's trusty F-111s are an ideal platform for these, and F-18s can light up the jihadis at shorter range.

In any case, I would give the Oz boffins about 12 hours to put together a working thermo-nuke if the PM gives the go ahead.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2006-11-05 16:45  

#7  You are way off the mark if you think we're in Iraq primarily because of the oil we import, although that is one of several interacting issues which present during this massive geopolitical realignment that's underway.
Posted by: lotp   2006-11-05 14:18  

#6  NS - I'm not sure which country you're writing about. In the US, natural gas is used to produce
18.7 percent of all production. Nearly all power plants built over the past 15 years are fueled by natural gas.
Source
Natural gas can also be used to propel vehicles, this is the tie-in between electricity production and oil importation. Electricity can be used on railroads.
Currently the "market" in the US, near-sighted as always, has decided to import as much oil as it can pay for. The "commons externality" of US military resources and battle deaths to protect and stabilize major oil-producing regions (most of whose residents hate us and want to see us destroyed) is of no concern to the "market."
---- To Hell with this "market."
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2006-11-05 13:58  

#5  So? Can't the electricity from the nuclear plant be used to reduce the coal to oil to power automobiles? (Or, electricity from the coal-fired power plant...) Win/win, surely?
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-11-05 12:08  

#4  use ample electric power to curb our need of oil.

We do not have an energy problem, we have a petroleum ownership problem.

We use NO oil to generate electric power. Oil is used to fuel transport, cars, planes, trains, and ships.

Electricity comes from coal, uranium and hydro. Thus the Queensland conflict to which phil_b alludes. Otherwise known as competition. The government has no place in this competition except to assure that commons externalities are included in the costing appropriately. Let the market decide if nuclear makes sense, not government. Just make nuclear pay and provide for saftey and water and coal for pollution and reclamation.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-11-05 10:17  

#3  Sounds like a win-win situation, sell the valuable coal and keep the more valuable Uranium.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-11-05 09:18  

#2  America should be building them as well. Surely with today's more modern and hopefully safer designs we could use ample electric power to curb our need of oil.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO   2006-11-05 09:03  

#1  Australia (mostly from Queensland) is also the world's biggest coal exporter, which is the subtext of this. Queenslanders see nuclear energy as harming their coal exports.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-11-05 04:33  

00:00