Selasa, 06 Desember 2011

Call me naive but there seems to be a business case for mining uranium in Australia especially when the association states "Australia has a significant expansion opportunity, as we have nearly 31 per cent of the world's uranium recoverable at reasonable cost". That pretty much spells comparative advantage to me; a situation in which a country, individual, company or region can produce a good at a lower opportunity cost than a competitor (according to Investopedia). ...>>> ...Australia could take the lead in nuclear science, developing safer nuclear technology for power generation, uses/management of nuclear waste, health implications and understanding of nuclear radiation and potentially even the development of nuclear power generation ourselves. ..>> My opinion.. that the most important thing...regarding nuclear.. is 10 the values of benefits for power plant and or mass and cargo transportation, 20 the security and safety for people and environment, 3) the commitment for weaponless [global zero nuclear weapon policy] and demolishing all the existing nuclear weapons in any kind and reasons. So the nuclear countries such like USA and all the peels [Europe, etc, China, India, Pakistan. Israel, Russia, Korea etc] must demolish any kind of nuclear weopons.

Nuclear fears no way to lead the nation

Brett Sprague
I think it is fair to assume that when humans first created fire it would have soon been used in warfare with terrifying and deadly effect.
Come forward a few thousand years and the current ALP would have us sell wood to our neighbours following their National Conference's resolution to slay some of its old anti-uranium dinosaurs on Sunday.
In fact one of the best lines originated from past-president Warren Mundine as he highlighted the exquisite irony in  that  those most vocal in their denunciation of uranium often seem to be those of the Labor aristocracy who regularly jetset in France lapping up its progressive society partially nuclear powered and owning nuclear weapons. Clearly nuclear power has enormous detractions; Fukushima, nuclear waste issues and nuclear weapons make up no mean list but fear should never determine policy especially where a nation enjoys comparative advantage.
To my thinking, understanding business can be about following the money so to support my understanding that uranium is good business for Australia I visited the Australian Uranium Association website, which conveniently has two principal full members - BHP Billiton and Energy Resources Australia ltd - who operate the Olympic and Jabiluka-Ranger mines respectively. Ranger mine is majority owned by Rio Tinto. Call me naive but there seems to be a business case for mining uranium in Australia especially when the association states "Australia has a significant expansion opportunity, as we have nearly 31 per cent of the world's uranium recoverable at reasonable cost". That pretty much spells comparative advantage to me; a situation in which a country, individual, company or region can produce a good at a lower opportunity cost than a competitor (according to Investopedia). I trust companies such as BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto not only understand the opportunity cost of mining uranium far better than most of us but they also put their money where their mouth is, in fact very large quantities of money. Despite this advantage the ALP managed to almost continue their opposition to trading uranium with India despite the collective financial benefits for our country and strategic considerations. Non-proliferation concerns nearly sunk this deal.
Australia needs to deal with its nuclear fears in a logical and sensible manner. The ALP loves to present itself as the principal supporters of education in Australia and yet they consistently deal in ignorance on uranium. Those old dinosaurs need to be mercilessly destroyed. In fact if the ALP were even remotely credible on this subject they would be advocating education about nuclear technology to improve our understanding of uranium use. What better way than harnessing business to education than to encourage BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto to invest in nuclear sciences. Australia could and should be a leader in nuclear science due to the economic interest in uranium and the large amounts of money involved.
Australia could take the lead in nuclear science, developing safer nuclear technology for power generation, uses/management of nuclear waste, health implications and understanding of nuclear radiation and potentially even the development of nuclear power generation ourselves
Just imagine the benefits if Australian scientists developed uses and management of nuclear waste that satisfied our nation, especially if they also developed nuclear power technology to safety standards we set.
As a gunner I have been trained in delivering large scale death and destruction using high explosive, the fact that nuclear weapons exist means I have to consider the death and the destructive capability of these weapons and I trust no-one would advocate ignorance or naivety on this topic. Like all things in the military profession fear can be debilitating or instructive, and those who govern are similarly placed. Our government has got to stop seeing uranium mining and the uranium industry through non-proliferation lenses. Fear of nuclear weapons and their destruction is not leadership and the sooner our Government and major political parties understand this, Australia will not only enjoy enlarging already successful business models, it might show some real leadership in climate concerns.
Brett Sprague is a keen observer and a budding practitioner of Australian politics and is a member of the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery
[Saya pikir adalah wajar untuk mengasumsikan bahwa ketika manusia pertama menciptakan api itu akan segera digunakan dalam peperangan dengan efek menakutkan dan mematikan.

Ayo maju beberapa ribu tahun dan ALP saat ini ingin kita menjual kayu dengan tetangga kita berikut resolusi Konferensi Nasional mereka membunuh beberapa lama anti-uranium dinosaurus pada hari Minggu.

Bahkan salah satu jalur terbaik berasal dari masa lalu-Presiden Warren Mundine saat ia disorot ironi indah di bahwa mereka yang paling vokal dalam pengecaman uranium mereka sering terlihat adalah mereka dari aristokrasi Buruh yang secara teratur Jetset di Perancis menjilat sebagian masyarakat progresif bertenaga nuklir dan memiliki senjata nuklir. Jelas tenaga nuklir telah detractions sangat besar; Fukushima, masalah limbah nuklir dan senjata nuklir membuat tidak ada daftar berarti tapi takut tidak boleh menentukan kebijakan terutama di mana bangsa menikmati keunggulan komparatif.

Untuk pemikiran saya, bisnis pemahamannya dapat hal-hal berikut uang sehingga untuk mendukung pemahaman saya bahwa uranium adalah bisnis yang baik bagi Australia saya mengunjungi situs Asosiasi Uranium Australia, yang nyaman memiliki dua anggota penuh pokok - BHP Billiton dan Energi Sumber Daya Australia Ltd - yang mengoperasikan tambang Olimpiade dan Jabiluka-Ranger masing-masing. Ranger tambang secara mayoritas dimiliki oleh Rio Tinto. Panggil aku naif, tapi tampaknya ada kasus bisnis untuk pertambangan uranium di Australia terutama ketika asosiasi negara-negara "Australia memiliki peluang ekspansi yang signifikan, karena kami memiliki hampir 31 persen uranium dunia dipulihkan pada biaya yang wajar". Itu cukup banyak mantra keunggulan komparatif kepada saya, sebuah situasi di mana negara, individu, perusahaan atau wilayah dapat menghasilkan yang baik dengan biaya kesempatan yang lebih rendah dari pesaing (menurut Investopedia). Saya percaya perusahaan seperti BHP Billiton dan Rio Tinto tidak hanya memahami biaya kesempatan dari pertambangan uranium jauh lebih baik daripada kebanyakan dari kita tetapi mereka juga menaruh uang mereka di mana mulut mereka, pada kenyataannya jumlah yang sangat besar uang. Meskipun keuntungan ini Partai Buruh berhasil hampir melanjutkan oposisi mereka untuk uranium perdagangan dengan India meskipun manfaat keuangan kolektif untuk negara kita dan pertimbangan strategis. Non-proliferasi menyangkut hampir tenggelam kesepakatan ini.

Australia memerlukan berurusan dengan ketakutan nuklirnya dengan cara yang logis dan masuk akal. Partai Buruh suka menampilkan diri sebagai pendukung utama dari pendidikan di Australia dan namun mereka secara konsisten kesepakatan dalam ketidaktahuan uranium. Mereka dinosaurus tua harus dihancurkan tanpa ampun. Bahkan jika Partai Buruh bahkan jauh kredibel mengenai hal ini mereka akan mendukung pendidikan tentang teknologi nuklir untuk meningkatkan pemahaman kita tentang menggunakan uranium. Apa cara yang lebih baik daripada bisnis memanfaatkan terhadap pendidikan dibandingkan untuk mendorong BHP Billiton dan Rio Tinto untuk berinvestasi dalam ilmu nuklir. 

Australia bisa dan harus menjadi pemimpin dalam ilmu nuklir karena kepentingan ekonomi di uranium dan sejumlah besar uang yang terlibat. Australia bisa mengambil memimpin dalam ilmu nuklir, pengembangan teknologi nuklir yang lebih aman untuk pembangkit listrik, menggunakan/ pengelolaan limbah nuklir, implikasi kesehatan dan pemahaman tentang radiasi nuklir dan berpotensi bahkan pengembangan pembangkit tenaga nuklir diri kita sendiri

Bayangkan saja keuntungan jika para ilmuwan Australia mengembangkan penggunaan dan pengelolaan limbah nuklir yang memuaskan bangsa kita, terutama jika mereka juga mengembangkan teknologi nuklir untuk standar keselamatan kita tentukan.

Sebagai penembak, saya telah dilatih dalam memberikan kematian dan kehancuran skala besar menggunakan ledak tinggi, kenyataan bahwa senjata nuklir ada berarti saya harus mempertimbangkan kematian dan merusak kemampuan senjata-senjata dan saya percaya tidak ada yang akan menganjurkan ketidaktahuan atau kenaifan pada topik ini.Seperti semua hal dalam profesi militer takut dapat melemahkan atau instruktif, dan mereka yang memerintah sama-sama ditempatkan. Pemerintah kami telah mendapat berhenti melihat penambangan uranium dan industri uranium melalui lensa non-proliferasi. Takut senjata nuklir dan kehancuran mereka tidak kepemimpinan dan semakin cepat Pemerintah dan partai politik besar memahami hal ini, Australia akan tidak hanya menikmati memperbesar sudah model bisnis yang sukses, mungkin menunjukkan beberapa kepemimpinan yang nyata dalam masalah iklim.

Brett Sprague adalah pengamat dan praktisi pemula politik Australia dan merupakan anggota dari Resimen Artileri Royal Australia.]

11 COMMENTS for Nuclear Development in Australia

·                                               bewildered in grafton :

 

07 Dec 2011 5:30:55pm
The trouble with using nuclear technology is "dumb engineering" such as was exposed in spades by the recent disaster in Japan. Any claim that the situation there was NOT a disaster will have me vomiting all over my keyboard.

·                                               leigh of Tregevis :

07 Dec 2011 4:43:16pm
Sure, the business of mining yellow cake in Australia is very profitable. But the profitability of the nuclear industry is questionable I wonder what the Balance Sheet of the operators of Japan's power stations will look like when all the costs of the multiple meltdowns is added up? Can the cost ever be calculated? I doubt it. What cost just this bit?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-05/fukushima-plant-leaks-radioactive-water/3713696?section=world

I agree that the research you propose would be a valuable pursuit, and it should have been done before any of the cake had been sold to anyone.

And just because a venture is profitable doesn't make it a worthwhile venture. eg people smuggling, slavery, selling water pipes made of lead, asbestos products.. etc, as the cost of "cleaning up" is never borne in full by the profiteers.

·                                               Greig :

07 Dec 2011 4:39:11pm
Bravo Brett.

As a keen observer of the politics of nuclear issues over the last 4 decades, I have noted that Australians are particularly fearful and ignorant of nuclear technology. For example, nowhere else in the world will you find anyone claiming that HL nuclear waste management still needs to be resolved (it has been solved technically for over 20 years, and ironically Australia even has its own home-grown technical solution based on Synroc.)

A poor general knowledge about nuclear issues has been fuelled over the years by a disproportionate prominence in Oz of anti-nuclear groups in the media; MAUM, CANE, FOE, ACF, NDP, ANFA, ANAWA, The Australia Institute, The Wilderness Society, and the CEFG to name a few. These groups are well known for the deliberate spreading of anti-nuclear fear-mongering and propaganda.

Interestingly a 2009 poll conducted by the UIC found that Australians in the 40 to 55 years age group are the "most trenchantly opposed to nuclear power", whilst younger people are "less resistant" to the idea of nuclear power for Australia. The older generation experienced the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s, and so was more exposed to the media campaigns from anti-nuclear groups.

·                                               I think I think :

07 Dec 2011 4:31:46pm
Oh dear, they have moved on from ripping coal out of the ground to the next quick buck. Soil the nest for our decendents to clean up. This selfish mentality must change, and the power mongers and champions of greed must be made accountable for the effect of their decisions on future generations.

Who gets to say I told you so when a train carrying yellow cake derails near a community? Who gets to say I told you so when the fuel is used to make enriched plutonium? Who gets to say I told you so when the waste seeps into the groundwater? Will your children pay along bloodlines? They will pay, along with everybody else's.

This isn't about fear, it is about accurate risk assessment. And the logical failure that the pro-nuclear lobby makes is that they only need to assess risk against the present - and not the long term future.

It is quite obvious that such risk assessment cannot be made accurately, and as such, Brett, you are gambling with lives that are not yours to gamble with in a greedy grab for cash.

You and the pro-nuclear industry really don't have the right to speak for the rest of Australia, let alone the hundreds of billions your greed could negatively effect around the world and in the future. Lay out a suitable guarantee against that and I might reconsider, lets say insurance for a stable population of 9 billion people over the next three or four thousand years, at least? That seems fair.

The economics of the true potential cost would ensure this product remained in the ground where it belongs.

·                                               Shanu :

07 Dec 2011 4:25:01pm
Australia could and should be a leader in a lot of things but so long as there are idiots running the show that will never happen.

Australia should be working towards replacing all it's coal power with nuclear power.

·                                               DocStrange :

07 Dec 2011 4:21:36pm
Thank you for exposing the military connection of uranium, plutonium, the bomb and the threat they pose, not just in the hands of criminal dictators.

Surely this was written as a sarcastic accusation by an undercover eco-pacifist who tries to expose how dangerous and uncontrollable the whole nuclear business proves?

·                                               David :

07 Dec 2011 4:19:11pm
In my opinion we need less opinions on nuclear power that can not differentiate between U-235 and U-238

One is useful for nuclear energy and horrible for uranium bombs. The other is horrible for nuclear energy and useful for uranium bombs. 

Decades ago we could separate the two. There is no link.

Then we need to question why we should sell uranium and not use it our self. If it is so bad (which I doubt) we should not be selling it. If it is good to use, we could be using it. 

The current policy is madness or callous towards the countries that we trade with.

And if we are to use Uranium why not store it in the mines it came from? You dig a hole, take the Uranium out, use it, seal it in a thick metal box and put it down the same mine again. 

Our current policy of storage is keeping the Uranium at hospitals and other public areas. Something lead sealed, buried underground and in the middle of nowhere is very good security. 

It would take a massive operation involving heavy machinery without any detection for anyone to dig it up again. plus its another business for Aus

§                                                                                               WN :

07 Dec 2011 4:50:39pm
David,
I'm afraid I've forgotten more about the physical sciences than I can quickly recall, but even if there were only one isotope the politics of this in Australia is Neanderthal. The fact I can kill lots of people with fire doesn't undermine its utility, I see nuclear in the same basket. I can remember the nuclear bomb shelters and storage of canned food from the 80s. In retrospect it really wasn't that long after Hiroshima & Nagasaki and the origins of all things nuclear so the shadow we lived under is more understandable. After living in the US in the 90s for 6 years next to "apparently" to prime Russian nuclear targets- the Rock Island Arsenal and a Nuclear storage facility in South Carolina, it puts all my fears nuclear in perspective.
Brett

§                                                                                               I think I think :

07 Dec 2011 4:55:16pm
U-238 can be used to make Pu-239, and is not very useful for reactors, correct? Whereas U-235 is mostly used for fission reactors, correct?

Four questions then.

1. How do you dig up the U-235 whilst leaving the U-238 in the ground?

2. If you can't do that, what do you do with the U-238 once you have separated it from the useful U-235? You certainly wouldn't put it in a metal box sealed with lead.

3. Did you realise that U-235 along with Pu-239 are the most commonly used fissile materials for nuclear weapons applications?

4. How do you prevent the U-238 being used in depleted uranium munitions? It doesn't need to produce a fission reaction to be dangerous.

I am afraid your ignorance makes you deadly wrong.

·                                               Jenny Taylor :

07 Dec 2011 4:08:20pm
What tosh. The stuff has so many problems it should be left in the ground.

·                                               wave function :

 

07 Dec 2011 3:55:38pm
It's not just the weapons, it's everything about the power source which repels people. In today’s news it was stated that infant milk formula was found to be contaminated from the Fukushima meltdown. It is dangerous, its toxic by products last for thousands of years, and disasters will unquestionably occur again in the future. Nobody wants nuclear except a few people usually with vested interests. In my opinion, the best thing to do with uranium is leave it alone in the ground.


Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar