Another article from todays paper. Would this impact your decision to buy in these areas?
Coastal sites for nuclear reactors named
January 30, 2007 06:00pm
SEVENTEEN nuclear reactors are likely to be spaced out along the Australian coast from Townsville in Queensland to Port Augusta in South Australia under a nuclear-powered future, a new study has revealed.
Left-wing think tank the Australia Institute said Queensland could have six reactors located in Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island.
Port Stephens, the Central Coast, Port Kembla and Jervis Bay/Sussex Inlet were named as NSW/ACT locations.
In Victoria, South Gippsland, Westernport, Port Phillip and Portland were named as reactor sites, while in South Australia, Mt Gambier/Millicent, Port Adelaide and Port Augusta/Port Pirie were identified.
The reactor sites were chosen based on criteria such as proximity to seawater for cooling and access to the national electricity grid.
The institute also surveyed 1200 Australians on their attitude towards having a reactor in their local area and found that 66 per cent were opposed.
A quarter of those surveyed, 25 per cent, were supportive and nine per cent undecided.
Fifty-five per cent were strongly opposed and just 10 per cent strongly in favour.
The study follows a determined push by the Federal Government towards the nuclear generation of electricity.
A government commissioned inquiry headed by Dr Ziggy Switkowski last year reported reactors would have to be positioned within tens of kilometres of the east coast national power grid.
It found that nuclear generation was attractive in the battle against greenhouse gas emissions and could be viable if there were to be a price on carbon.
That inquiry posed the scenario of 25 reactors producing a third of Australia's electricity needs by the year 2050.
The institute's director Dr Clive Hamilton said overseas experience showed that the siting of power plants is one of the most politically contentious aspects of the nuclear debate.
"The prime minister has called for a thorough and full-blooded debate about nuclear energy," Dr Hamilton said.
"We cannot have this debate without considering siting issues."
Report author Andrew Macintosh said the fact that nuclear energy attracted moderate levels of support at a general level but fierce opposition from local communities when concrete proposals were put forward suggested the presence of the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) phenomenon.
"That is, even if people do not oppose nuclear power plants at a general level, they often object to proposals to construct them in their local areas," he said.
The report raised the possibility that governments might compensate communities in a bid to placate local opposition to nuclear facilities.
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane declined to comment on the report, saying the nuclear debate was too young to be talking about placement of reactors.
"It's too early to start speculating," a spokeswoman for Mr Macfarlane said.
"He just wants to talk about it and start investigating it. Deciding on sites is something that's going to happen way down the track."
Labor's resources and energy spokesman Chris Evans said people in the communities identified by the report should expect a nuclear power plant in their area if Prime Minister John Howard's nuclear plans are successful.
Labor is opposed to a nuclear industry in Australia.
"Instead of talking up nuclear power John Howard should be encouraging an immediate increase in the use of renewable energy and the introduction of clean coal technologies," Senator Evans said.
"With Australia's existing energy resources, there is no reason for us to go down the nuclear path."
Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said the report was further evidence Australia should not go nuclear.
"Australia needs to go on a low carbon diet, not a nuclear binge, and these figures show John Howard is increasingly out of step with Australians who are desperate for real action on climate change," he said.
Greens senator Kerry Nettle said the report unsurprisingly showed that populations close to the suggested sites did not want nuclear power plants.
"Instead of talking about 25 possible nuclear power plants, the prime minister should be looking for another 25 sites for major wind power stations and another 25 solar power stations," she said.
Coastal sites for nuclear reactors named
January 30, 2007 06:00pm
SEVENTEEN nuclear reactors are likely to be spaced out along the Australian coast from Townsville in Queensland to Port Augusta in South Australia under a nuclear-powered future, a new study has revealed.
Left-wing think tank the Australia Institute said Queensland could have six reactors located in Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island.
Port Stephens, the Central Coast, Port Kembla and Jervis Bay/Sussex Inlet were named as NSW/ACT locations.
In Victoria, South Gippsland, Westernport, Port Phillip and Portland were named as reactor sites, while in South Australia, Mt Gambier/Millicent, Port Adelaide and Port Augusta/Port Pirie were identified.
The reactor sites were chosen based on criteria such as proximity to seawater for cooling and access to the national electricity grid.
The institute also surveyed 1200 Australians on their attitude towards having a reactor in their local area and found that 66 per cent were opposed.
A quarter of those surveyed, 25 per cent, were supportive and nine per cent undecided.
Fifty-five per cent were strongly opposed and just 10 per cent strongly in favour.
The study follows a determined push by the Federal Government towards the nuclear generation of electricity.
A government commissioned inquiry headed by Dr Ziggy Switkowski last year reported reactors would have to be positioned within tens of kilometres of the east coast national power grid.
It found that nuclear generation was attractive in the battle against greenhouse gas emissions and could be viable if there were to be a price on carbon.
That inquiry posed the scenario of 25 reactors producing a third of Australia's electricity needs by the year 2050.
The institute's director Dr Clive Hamilton said overseas experience showed that the siting of power plants is one of the most politically contentious aspects of the nuclear debate.
"The prime minister has called for a thorough and full-blooded debate about nuclear energy," Dr Hamilton said.
"We cannot have this debate without considering siting issues."
Report author Andrew Macintosh said the fact that nuclear energy attracted moderate levels of support at a general level but fierce opposition from local communities when concrete proposals were put forward suggested the presence of the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) phenomenon.
"That is, even if people do not oppose nuclear power plants at a general level, they often object to proposals to construct them in their local areas," he said.
The report raised the possibility that governments might compensate communities in a bid to placate local opposition to nuclear facilities.
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane declined to comment on the report, saying the nuclear debate was too young to be talking about placement of reactors.
"It's too early to start speculating," a spokeswoman for Mr Macfarlane said.
"He just wants to talk about it and start investigating it. Deciding on sites is something that's going to happen way down the track."
Labor's resources and energy spokesman Chris Evans said people in the communities identified by the report should expect a nuclear power plant in their area if Prime Minister John Howard's nuclear plans are successful.
Labor is opposed to a nuclear industry in Australia.
"Instead of talking up nuclear power John Howard should be encouraging an immediate increase in the use of renewable energy and the introduction of clean coal technologies," Senator Evans said.
"With Australia's existing energy resources, there is no reason for us to go down the nuclear path."
Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said the report was further evidence Australia should not go nuclear.
"Australia needs to go on a low carbon diet, not a nuclear binge, and these figures show John Howard is increasingly out of step with Australians who are desperate for real action on climate change," he said.
Greens senator Kerry Nettle said the report unsurprisingly showed that populations close to the suggested sites did not want nuclear power plants.
"Instead of talking about 25 possible nuclear power plants, the prime minister should be looking for another 25 sites for major wind power stations and another 25 solar power stations," she said.
