NationStates Jolt Archive


Australian Uranium

Draneidan
01-07-2007, 06:28
What are your views on this subject? Do you think it makes Australia a target for nuclear-power hungry nations?



For decades, it seemed that the bulk of Australia's massive uranium deposits, an estimated 40 percent of the world's reserves, were destined to remain deep underground.

Depressed prices and a maze of government restrictions arising from popular opposition to nuclear power held mining and exploration in check.

Only three working mines have been allowed since 1988, opening the way for Canada, which has smaller reserves, to remain the world's leading supplier.

Now, China's burgeoning appetite for energy along with soaring international prices for uranium are poised to unlock Australia's reserves and spark a mining and exploration boom.

The Australian and Chinese governments last month agreed to begin negotiating a treaty that would guarantee that Australian uranium would be used only for peaceful purposes, clearing the way for long-term supply contracts.

"China does not have sufficient domestic uranium resources to meet this demand economically, which is why it is set to become a major uranium importer," Alexander Downer, the Australian foreign minister, said in a speech.

Popular attitudes to nuclear power are changing fast as fears mount about the possible environment consequences of greenhouse-gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

"Australian society, led by a few members of the political elite, are waking up to the fact that uranium does less damage," said Tim Treadgold, a veteran mining industry analyst based in Perth.

In the midst of a broad-based commodities boom, Australian export earnings from uranium for the year 2005 rose 30 percent, to 475 million Australian dollars, or $361 million, according to government trade statistics released on Wednesday.

The global spot price for uranium oxide, the form in which the fuel is sold, has soared 200 percent since early 2003, to about $30 a pound.

Some analysts said they expected prices to increase further, perhaps to $50 a pound, as demand increases and the vast stockpile of fuel from decommissioned Soviet nuclear weapons continues to run down.

Two of Australia's three working uranium mines are in South Australia, BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine and General Atomic's Beverley mine. The third is the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory, owned by Energy Resources of Australia.

About 10,600 metric tons of uranium oxide from these mines were last year exported to customers like utilities in the United States, the European Union, Japan and South Korea. This accounted for about 22 percent of global production.

Senior government officials predict that exports could triple by 2010.

Energy Resources of Australia, a 68.4 percent-owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto, is Australia's only pure uranium miner. Its shares have risen almost 150 percent this year, closing at 16.35 dollars, up 2.4 percent, on Wednesday.

Australian government officials and industry analysts estimate that China's demand for uranium by 2020 could be almost equal to Australia's current annual output.

About 80 percent of China's electricity is generated at coal-fired power stations, but the authorities are now investing heavily in nuclear power in a bid to counter blanketing pollution and damaging power shortages.

China has nine nuclear power reactors in operation, two under construction and many more on the drawing board as it attempts to more than double the share of nuclear-generated electricity from about 1.4 percent now to more than 4 percent by 2020.

That could mean up to 30 new power plants, in addition to those now in operation. Three foreign companies, Westinghouse Electric of Pittsburgh, Areva in France and Atomstroiexport in Russia, are bidding for an $8 billion contract to build four third-generation reactors in China.

The China Daily reported in July that China Power Investment, a major power producer, planned to build 10 reactors in Liaoning and Shandong provinces in a bid to cut coal consumption.

While China could become an important customer for Australia, some industry analysts warn that it would be unreasonable to assume a single supplier would dominate the Chinese market.

"China's demand is not going to be that great," said Ian Hore-Lacy, general manager of the Uranium Information Center, an industry financed promotional group based in Melbourne. "It will only be about 12 percent of the current world market."

But the expansion of nuclear power in China could become a catalyst for renewed interest in other countries.

Power industry analysts in the United States, where there has been no new nuclear power plants commissioned for 27 years, are closely monitoring China's nuclear program.

Senior political figures in Australia have also suggested that the country will eventually embrace nuclear power.

In the meantime, Australia's federal government and the opposition Labor Party have both supported increased uranium mining and exports. But not all environmentalists agree that increased uranium sales are a sensible approach to limiting greenhouse emissions.

"There are better alternatives," said Senator Bob Brown from the Australian Greens Party. "Australia should be exporting its solar technology, not its uranium."
Flatus Minor
01-07-2007, 06:35
Well, seeing as nuclear power is one of the medium term solutions to the world's energy deficit, it makes sense for Australia to export the product (#include usual caveats).
Andaras Prime
01-07-2007, 06:47
Imo the uranium reserves need to be nationalized and sold overseas to whoever will pay the highest.
Draneidan
01-07-2007, 06:49
AKA North Korea.
Neo Undelia
01-07-2007, 06:58
What are your views on this subject? Do you think it makes Australia a target for nuclear-power hungry nations?
No.
Imo the uranium reserves need to be nationalized and sold overseas to whoever will pay the highest.
Depending on the structure of the uranium mining industry, that may be a good idea. Could probably go a long ways towards setting up or reinforcing some vital government programs.
Draneidan
01-07-2007, 07:07
It would be good for something to fill the gap between Australia's 600 Billion dollar GDP and a target of an Trillion dollar GDP.
Dododecapod
01-07-2007, 13:41
Anything Bob Brown is against, anyone with a functioning brain is for.
Imperial isa
01-07-2007, 14:19
AKA North Korea.

don't thinks so
Temurdia
02-07-2007, 12:41
Undeniably, Australia has a huge potential for solar energy production. This is rather difficult to export using current technologies however, but it could well ease Australia's need for fossil and nuclear fuels. I do not know very much about the current situation of Australian economy, but an increased export of uranium could finance the large investments necessary for domestic solar power implementation.

China needs a LOT of energy, and the environmental situation in some parts of the country is downright disastrous. It is hard to see any other viable alternatives to fossil fuels than nuclear energy.

China already has nuclear weapons, so fears that they would use Australian uranium for weapon development seems unfounded. Its apparent support for North Korea, or more appropriately, its lack of will to impose pressure on Pyongyang, is due to fears of unwieldy refugee waves from North Korea into China, should it be forced to open its borders. It is thus not likely that China would supply North Korea with uranium either.
The_pantless_hero
02-07-2007, 12:54
"Australian society, led by a few members of the political elite, are waking up to the fact that uranium does less damage," said Tim Treadgold, a veteran mining industry analyst based in Perth.
Except when used in substandard plants like those that would probably be operating in China.
Dododecapod
02-07-2007, 12:58
Except when used in substandard plants like those that would probably be operating in China.

Actually, to be fair, the Chinese have been much more sensible than the old Soviets were.

They got in a bunch of French engineers back in the 1970s, and ever since their plants have looked a lot like US or French nuke plants - complete with containment domes. I don't think they have any of the older ones still online, either.
The_pantless_hero
02-07-2007, 13:09
Actually, to be fair, the Chinese have been much more sensible than the old Soviets were.

They got in a bunch of French engineers back in the 1970s, and ever since their plants have looked a lot like US or French nuke plants - complete with containment domes. I don't think they have any of the older ones still online, either.
Not like the US has ever had problems with nuclear plants, no back in the '70s, no sir..
Neu Leonstein
02-07-2007, 13:33
Depending on the structure of the uranium mining industry, that may be a good idea. Could probably go a long ways towards setting up or reinforcing some vital government programs.
Meh, they've got a big-ass budget surplus every year they can't seem to get rid off regardless of how much money they throw at the baby boomers. The last thing they need is more money (plus, the states would get rather indignant about Canberra taking control of their mines).

I think they should let the mines take out and sell as much as they can, if a uranium trade agreement can be struck (which includes guarantees on civilian usage and safety precautions). And besides, in a world in which you're trying to minimise carbon emissions they're not worried about exporting coal by the freighter-load so uranium should be the least of their worries.
Lunatic Goofballs
02-07-2007, 14:26
Does Australian Uranium have little pouches to protect it's young?

Or does ESPN show it at 2:00am without explaining the rules? :confused:
Risottia
02-07-2007, 14:47
Australian uranium will be used for peaceful purpouses only.

Ok.
Then you place the australian uranium in a chinese fast breeder and get chinese plutonium. It's not uranium anymore!

This is the REAL alchemy.:D
The_pantless_hero
02-07-2007, 15:47
Australian Uranium - headed soon to US children's toys paint in a store near you.
Hamilay
02-07-2007, 15:58
Australian uranium will be used for peaceful purpouses only.

Ok.
Then you place the australian uranium in a chinese fast breeder and get chinese plutonium. It's not uranium anymore!

This is the REAL alchemy.:D

China offers uranium safeguards: will store nuclear waste in Taiwan (http://www.chaser.com.au/content/view/3105/26/)

Premier Jiabao agreed that China had only peaceful designs for the uranium. "What better way to convince Taiwan to peacefully reunify with China than to point several hundred nuclear warheads at it?" he said.

:D
Dododecapod
03-07-2007, 04:25
Not like the US has ever had problems with nuclear plants, no back in the '70s, no sir..

No, actually. They didn't.

You're referring to the Three Mile Island incident, of course. But that wasn't a problem. That was a triumph of American engineering.

Consider: Everything that could possibly go wrong, quite literally everything physically possible, did.

With the result: a few litres of radioactive gas was vented into the atmosphere.

No one was harmed. No environmental damage was done. Gee, what a disaster!

A modern, French or US designed nuclear power plant is the safest, least ecologically damaging form of power generation ever developed. And that's what the Chinese are building or have built since the '70s.
Draneidan
03-07-2007, 04:37
Shmeh, Australia has it's own Nuclear Power Plant.
Ghost Tigers Rise
03-07-2007, 04:40
Undeniably, Australia has a huge potential for solar energy production.

*blackens the sun*

Not anymore.

*evil laughter*
Ghost Tigers Rise
03-07-2007, 04:45
A modern, French or US designed nuclear power plant is the safest, least ecologically damaging form of power generation ever developed. And that's what the Chinese are building or have built since the '70s.

You seriously think a nuclear chain reaction is safer than a bunch of solar panels in the middle of a desert?

I have nothing against nuclear power, and it's a damn sight better than oil, but solar power is safer...
Dododecapod
03-07-2007, 04:48
You seriously think a nuclear chain reaction is safer than a bunch of solar panels in the middle of a desert?

I have nothing against nuclear power, and it's a damn sight better than oil, but solar power is safer...

Except that solar power, right now, is not a viable option. Even in Australia, it's too inefficient to be considered.
I agree it has the potential to be the safest of all. But it's not there yet.
Imperial isa
03-07-2007, 04:50
Shmeh, Australia has it's own Nuclear Power Plant.
that thing in New South Wales is not a power plant
*blackens the sun*

Not anymore.

*evil laughter*

you evil sob :p
Dododecapod
03-07-2007, 04:53
that thing in New South Wales is not a power plant


Nah, it's a research plant (and it makes nuclear medicine materials). I don't think it's even hooked up to the NSW grid.
Imperial isa
03-07-2007, 05:03
Nah, it's a research plant (and it makes nuclear medicine materials). I don't think it's even hooked up to the NSW grid.

it's not
Stadricabia
03-07-2007, 05:11
May I explain something to those who may not be in the know? I can? Great.

Solar power sucks. The amount of energy required to make a solar panel is less than the energy it will produce in its entire lifetime. The only thing solar panels are useful for is low-maintenance isolated power supplies, like a house in the woods or a space station.
We burn coal and we split atoms to make the solar panels to get energy. Instead we could just use the energy from the coal and the atoms.
Lunatic Goofballs
03-07-2007, 06:57
Except that solar power, right now, is not a viable option. Even in Australia, it's too inefficient to be considered.
I agree it has the potential to be the safest of all. But it's not there yet.

*does the quantum dot dance!* :)
Draneidan
03-07-2007, 07:14
that thing in New South Wales is not a power plant


you evil sob :p

Yuh huh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPAL
Nobel Hobos
03-07-2007, 07:56
May I explain something to those who may not be in the know? I can? Great.

Solar power sucks. The amount of energy required to make a solar panel is less than the energy it will produce in its entire lifetime. The only thing solar panels are useful for is low-maintenance isolated power supplies, like a house in the woods or a space station.
We burn coal and we split atoms to make the solar panels to get energy. Instead we could just use the energy from the coal and the atoms.

Photovoltaic panels as they exist now, do kind of suck.
"Entire lifetime" is wrong, they pay off after 15 or so years with optimum usage, though if you consider storage, high amperage cables, etc, it's longer.

That isn't the only kind of solar energy. And the panels are getting better.

Do you have an LCD monitor? Thank all those early adopters who paid top dollar for a laptop. It's like that with solar power: the early adopters are just show-offs, but once the demand is there, more comptetive options will be offered.

I reply to your nooby post because it has some merit. Photovoltaic power isn't competetive in cost or emissions just now, except in niche markets like satellites or remote power applications. You are right in that, but don't write it off just yet.
Imperial isa
03-07-2007, 17:14
Yuh huh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPAL

i don't need to read that i know what it is.
it's a Research reactor all so called non-power reactor
UN Protectorates
03-07-2007, 17:22
We must obviously economically sanction Australia for having acquired Nuclear power, because there's a distinct possibility they might be looking to develop WMD's in the future.

I mean come on...