WI Nuclear power in Australia?

[Riain]

Up until the late 60s nuclear technology was seen as the new whiz-bang thing that countries had to get. Australia got a small research reactor from Britain in 1958, an even smaller research/training reactor from the US in 1961 but there was also a proposal to get a British power reactor as part of the Snowy mountains project but, the British withdrew from in 1958 and the Jervis Bay proposal that was abandoned after some preliminary site prep in 1971.

WI Australia had got one or more nuclear power plants during the 50s and 60s when it was seen as the newest technology that we had to have? What sort would be get, where would be put it, when would be get it, who would supply it?

 

[Gunnarnz]

One of the Nevil Shute books (maybe In The Wet? I can't remember) makes an off-hand reference to nuclear-powered desalination of seawater as making expanded settlement of the Top End practical, so there's one potential use-case. Not a bad idea, actually, since you could use the reactor for power and still get a useful amount of distilled water simply by not sealing the secondary coolant loop.
I have the impression that even up until the 1960s, Australia still felt closer to the UK than the US, so it would probably be British reactors of some sort.

 

[Sport25ing]

What's worse than the men-killers fauna in Australia? Radioactive men-killers fauna!!

 

[alspug]

In some ways I am glad they did not go nuclear at the time due to the potential for various issues caused by the older designs but at the same time the fact they did not when Australia is geologically the best country in the world for storage and operation of nuclear waste/operation.

Australia with desalination powerplants that also generate power would be awesome. as a side effect the salts and minerals could be harvested as well with ease.

Their is an ongoing debate right now for the purchase of several nuclear power plants to make green energy and also increase institutional awareness of nuc power along with shore side training for military personal. I for one am all for it.

 

[Aghasverov]

Up until the late 60s nuclear technology was seen as the new whiz-bang thing that countries had to get. Australia got a small research reactor from Britain in 1958, an even smaller research/training reactor from the US in 1961 but there was also a proposal to get a British power reactor as part of the Snowy mountains project but, the British withdrew from in 1958 and the Jervis Bay proposal that was abandoned after some preliminary site prep in 1971.

WI Australia had got one or more nuclear power plants during the 50s and 60s when it was seen as the newest technology that we had to have? What sort would be get, where would be put it, when would be get it, who would supply it?

Wait, what? There's no nuclear power production in Australia?
OK, learn something new every day... I guess I'm so accustomed to having two within about a 20-mile radius of me, that I just assume they're all around in developed countries....

 

[Avrorrange]

Wait, what? There's no nuclear power production in Australia?
OK, learn something new every day... I guess I'm so accustomed to having two within about a 20-mile radius of me, that I just assume they're all around in developed countries....

No.We sell uranium but we are NIMBYS when in comes to actually using them for energy.

 

[Gunnarnz]

Wait, what? There's no nuclear power production in Australia?
OK, learn something new every day... I guess I'm so accustomed to having two within about a 20-mile radius of me, that I just assume they're all around in developed countries....

There aren't actually very many countries with active nuclear power plants. US, UK, France, China, Russia, and some of the former USSR states... that's about it, I think. Japan ISTR took theirs out of service after the 2011 radiation incident, and Germany closed down their ex-Soviet reactors around the same time.

 

[Aghasverov]

No.We sell uranium but we are NIMBYS when in comes to actually using them for energy.

So lemme get this straight... you have the fuel, which can be sourced locally... you certainly have the technology... and I assume that the capital investment could be come up with, somehow...
My head is starting to hurt, a little bit...

 

[Prof Yoshie]

It's a political issue here and also a anti nuclear weapons hold over
Also we are big in fossil fuels and they tend to fund anti nuclear power groups

 

[Riain]

No.We sell uranium but we are NIMBYS when in comes to actually using them for energy.

We became NIMBYs, I think if we got a power reactor or two when they were the cool thing in the 60s we wouldn't be NIBMYs now.

There aren't actually very many countries with active nuclear power plants. US, UK, France, China, Russia, and some of the former USSR states... that's about it, I think. Japan ISTR took theirs out of service after the 2011 radiation incident.

There are 32 countries with power reactors, a lot more countries have research reactors.

 

[Gunnarnz]

There are 32 countries with power reactors, a lot more countries have research reactors.

Wow. That's way more common than I thought! I knew there were plenty of research reactors, but power plants are a different story.

 

[Aghasverov]

There aren't actually very many countries with active nuclear power plants. US, UK, France, China, Russia, and some of the former USSR states... that's about it, I think. Japan ISTR took theirs out of service after the 2011 radiation incident, and Germany closed down their ex-Soviet reactors around the same time.

I didn't think Japan took all their reactors out-of-service after Fukushima?

 

[Avrorrange]

We became NIMBYs, I think if we got a power reactor or two when they were the cool thing in the 60s we wouldn't be NIBMYs now.



There are 32 countries with power reactors, a lot more countries have research reactors.

Question is are there places in this country where people are more comfortable a reactor is built and can still feed energy to major cities?We do have a lot of unused land.

 

[Riain]

I have the impression that even up until the 1960s, Australia still felt closer to the UK than the US, so it would probably be British reactors of some sort.

Britain exported Magnox gas cooled reactors to Italy starting in 1958 and Japan starting in 1961 with 160 and 166MWe respectively.

The US exported a 15MWe Boiling Water Reactor starting 1958 and a 62MWe Pressurised Water Reactor starting 1960 to Germany, so the US also had options.

 

[Riain]

I didn't think Japan took all their reactors out-of-service after Fukushima?

They have 10 in operation and 15 suspended but under review as opposed to the 8 suspended that are not under review.

 

[Titanium49]

I imagine the millions of $ given to the anti-nuclear movement by the fossil-fuel companies has helped. Eventually everyone will go nuclear because wind & solar simply lead to expensive electricity without much in the way of CO2 reductions. But how many trillions of tons of CO2 will be added to the atmosphere before that happens, I shudder to think.

 

[Riain]

Question is are there places in this country where people are more comfortable a reactor is built and can still feed energy to major cities?We do have a lot of unused land.

I don't think this would be much of a problem in the 60s because I think there would be virtually no questions asked about why we need a power reactor, we'd get it because we're a modern country and modern countries have power reactors and people wouldn't think too much about it. In 1971 the Jervis Bay Territory was used because it was Federal Territory and they lacked independent representation, so perhaps Canberra/ACT could be used for the same reasons.

 

[Riain]

The Jervis Bay reactor was to use a British 600MWe Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor, which was prototyped at Winfrith in the 60s but lost out to the AGR for a few reasons, including lack of export prospects.

That leads to an interesting TL possibility, Australia buys the SGHWR from Britain and Britain goes with the SGHWR rather than the AGR design. The Winfrith came in on time and under budget, if that happened again the 70s nuclear programme in Britain might be transformed instead of the 5 twin AGR plants cost and time blowouts.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

As the general consensus goes, get it in place in the 1960s and the paradigm shifts before the anti-nuclear movement becomes a factor.

I read something in The Australian the other day about scientists at Lucas Heights proposing to save money on the power costs by installing a few Stirling engines in the heat outflow; it was knocked on the head as being illegal as it would count as nuclear energy. The NIMBY is strong here.

 

[Riain]

As the general consensus goes, get it in place in the 1960s and the paradigm shifts before the anti-nuclear movement becomes a factor.

I read something in The Australian the other day about scientists at Lucas Heights proposing to save money on the power costs by installing a few Stirling engines in the heat outflow; it was knocked on the head as being illegal as it would count as nuclear energy. The NIMBY is strong here.

100%.

That's unbelievable, but I get the feeling that SSNs and climate change will weaken that.