Comments on: Australia to join the nuclear OPEC? http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/25/australia-to-join-the-nuclear-opec/ Blogging politics, culture, sociology and life from Brisvegas Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:27:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: mark (not B) http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/25/australia-to-join-the-nuclear-opec/#comment-387580 mark (not B) Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:03:03 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/25/australia-to-join-the-nuclear-opec/#comment-387580 This one has been simmering for a while behind all the other issues. Seems like there is a need to whisk this one through under the radar while this mob is still in power. What is the name of the company involved in the construction of the Alice/Darwin railway? Why the sudden negation of aboriginal land rights under the guise of child protection? And there's the matter of Iran, but no, that's probably paraniod b***s*** This one has been simmering for a while behind all the other issues. Seems like there is a need to whisk this one through under the radar while this mob is still in power.
What is the name of the company involved in the construction of the Alice/Darwin railway?
Why the sudden negation of aboriginal land rights under the guise of child protection?
And there’s the matter of Iran, but no, that’s probably paraniod b***s***

]]> By: steve http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/25/australia-to-join-the-nuclear-opec/#comment-387453 steve Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:49:40 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/25/australia-to-join-the-nuclear-opec/#comment-387453 <blockquote>Either outside operators are provided OR you must train the locals to do everything.</blockquote> Or like the Steritech man who was asked in court,what would you do if a nuclear rod jams and won't go back in the water? Replie:Phone Canada!

Either outside operators are provided OR you must train the locals to do everything.

Or like the Steritech man who was asked in court,what would you do if a nuclear rod jams and won’t go back in the water?

Replie:Phone Canada!

]]> By: steve h http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/25/australia-to-join-the-nuclear-opec/#comment-387451 steve h Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:40:55 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/25/australia-to-join-the-nuclear-opec/#comment-387451 Oh bugger - don't tell me "little fatty" Downer has fallen for the old "it won't allow proliferation" fairy-tale...groan...OK, I'll sum up the problems with this approach: 1) You cannot just ship a reactor into a country and expect it to work. Either outside operators are provided OR you must train the locals to do everything. Reactor operations will include startup/shutdown, refueling, storage/shipping of used/new fuels, and a variety of other things. Safe operation will require knowledge of nuclear chemistry including testing and some ongoing material science R&D (yes, even the commercial reactors in the USA do this). 2) Shipment of fuels (even the MOX type "safe" fuels) will increase the likelyhood of an accident/terrorist attack (greater opportunity/etc) - the only way to offset this is to use the navy to provide convoy duties (at great expense). To make sure our local strategic situation is not put at risk we will thus need more ships/crew to make up for the loss of availability. 3) While it is easy to ensure that no materials are diverted within the facility the physical presence of it would require either a massive surveillance effort to prevent properties and/or chemistry from being determined by the "user" country. This also costs money. 4) Assume you are the leader/parliment/dictator of a third/second-world country, you have observed what happened to Iraq after many years of cooperation, you are making a decision about power generation/growth for the next 20-40 years. Would you trust the USA/Australia to provide the critical items for your future energy security? Finally, who pays the bill? If we could ensure that this would decrease proliferation risk then I'd happily pay more tax for it, BUT the above problems mean I'm not very happy at all. Anybody remember "Atoms for Peace"?! Oh bugger - don’t tell me “little fatty” Downer has fallen for the old “it won’t allow proliferation” fairy-tale…groan…OK, I’ll sum up the problems with this approach:
1) You cannot just ship a reactor into a country and expect it to work. Either outside operators are provided OR you must train the locals to do everything. Reactor operations will include startup/shutdown, refueling, storage/shipping of used/new fuels, and a variety of other things. Safe operation will require knowledge of nuclear chemistry including testing and some ongoing material science R&D (yes, even the commercial reactors in the USA do this).
2) Shipment of fuels (even the MOX type “safe” fuels) will increase the likelyhood of an accident/terrorist attack (greater opportunity/etc) - the only way to offset this is to use the navy to provide convoy duties (at great expense). To make sure our local strategic situation is not put at risk we will thus need more ships/crew to make up for the loss of availability.
3) While it is easy to ensure that no materials are diverted within the facility the physical presence of it would require either a massive surveillance effort to prevent properties and/or chemistry from being determined by the “user” country. This also costs money.
4) Assume you are the leader/parliment/dictator of a third/second-world country, you have observed what happened to Iraq after many years of cooperation, you are making a decision about power generation/growth for the next 20-40 years. Would you trust the USA/Australia to provide the critical items for your future energy security?
Finally, who pays the bill? If we could ensure that this would decrease proliferation risk then I’d happily pay more tax for it, BUT the above problems mean I’m not very happy at all. Anybody remember “Atoms for Peace”?!

]]> By: BilB http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/25/australia-to-join-the-nuclear-opec/#comment-387435 BilB Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:21:27 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/25/australia-to-join-the-nuclear-opec/#comment-387435 Robert, you're always on the ball. A quick impression. I would suspect that this proposal would lead to Australia being a spot where American companies could do business with less political fallout than expanding their capability in the US, as well as providing a furtile field for the dumping of waste material. Australia would be to nuclear processing as Asia is to manufacturing, preferred because of its isolation, political stability, vastness and low population. For the sake of a few high technology jobs and some taxation income we would be taking on an eternity of responsibility while the real profit filled American Corporate pockets. It is called "being left holding the baby". Robert, you’re always on the ball.

A quick impression. I would suspect that this proposal would lead to Australia being a spot where American companies could do business with less political fallout than expanding their capability in the US, as well as providing a furtile field for the dumping of waste material. Australia would be to nuclear processing as Asia is to manufacturing, preferred because of its isolation, political stability, vastness and low population. For the sake of a few high technology jobs and some taxation income we would be taking on an eternity of responsibility while the real profit filled American Corporate pockets. It is called “being left holding the baby”.

]]> By: tigtog http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/25/australia-to-join-the-nuclear-opec/#comment-387434 tigtog Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:14:15 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/25/australia-to-join-the-nuclear-opec/#comment-387434 GNEP seems to have Cheney's fingerprints all over it, and he's just as lame a duck as Bush: even though he could theoretically run for Prez he's too old and too detested. The Libs' continued enthusiastic kowtowing to the Bush administration is puzzling, given that even if a Republican takes the Presidency he'll likely only get there if he pledges to renounce most of Bush's agenda. GNEP seems to have Cheney’s fingerprints all over it, and he’s just as lame a duck as Bush: even though he could theoretically run for Prez he’s too old and too detested. The Libs’ continued enthusiastic kowtowing to the Bush administration is puzzling, given that even if a Republican takes the Presidency he’ll likely only get there if he pledges to renounce most of Bush’s agenda.

]]>