Nuclear notes

Alternative dares not speak | The Australian

Alan Moran writes about Garnaut's interim report, noting that it doesn't mention the "N" word.

He mentions a bit of history of interest:

Now there's a rich irony. ALP ministers, many of whom have spent their lives demonising nuclear power, may soon have to start promoting it. Actually, that's a U-turn not without precedent, as nuclear power was once strongly advocated by the ALP: in the mid-1970s, the Dunstan government in South Australia even claimed that a nuclear industry in the state would create 500,000 jobs.

That would be one way Kevin Rudd's reputation would soar in my eyes: if he could actually lead his party into accepting nuclear. (Go have a look at Pebble Beds, Kevin.)

Speaking of nuclear, and energy generally, the Mother Jones current issue is all about the topic. In the article about nuclear, it notes:

To be useful as nuclear fuel, uranium ore has to be refined into uranium oxide (the yellowcake of Niger fame) and then enriched—turned into pellets of 4 percent U-235. The sole U.S. plant that enriches uranium for civilian power reactors, located in Paducah, Kentucky, accomplishes this via an energy-hogging process that consumes 15 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity a year. Even so, carbon emissions for the entire nuclear fuel cycle come to no more than 55 grams of CO₂ per kilowatt-hour—roughly even with solar. By 2010, when the U.S. Enrichment Corporation is slated to switch to the more efficient method used in Europe, that number should come down closer to 12 grams per kilowatt-hour—on par with wind.