Antinuclear

Labor and Liberal in lockstep in not supporting nuclear disarmament

Dennis Matthews, 17 April 14 Given that both the ALP’s and the LP’s political agenda are tied to economic growth above all else then it is easy to understand why they would not support the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Every time that there has been a reduction in nuclear weapons stockpiles the price of uranium has gone down due to the increased supply of uranium in the form of highly enriched uranium (HEU) from nuclear weapons. Flooding the market with uranium means less income for uranium mining companies.

At the moment we are seeing the other side of the supply-demand uranium market equation. Rather than increased supply we are seeing a Fukushima driven decreased demand. The end result is the same, a decrease in the spot price ahead of a decreased contract price for uranium.

After Chernobyl in 1986 ( I was in Switzerland at the time) I came to the conclusion that the probability of a nuclear reactor disaster was primarily a matter of reactor hours. The more hours of nuclear reactor operation in a country the greater the chance of another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. On this basis I concluded that the next major disaster would occur in either France or Japan.

I still consider that nuclear hours (including processing and enrichment of uranium and plutonium) is a major determinant of nuclear disaster probability. France is still a prime suspect but it is being joined by China where nuclear, along with all other forms of electricity generation, is expanding. Despite the slowness of this expansion, the magnitude of the demand for electricity means that Chinese nuclear hours may soon overtake that of most other countries.

April 17, 2014 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | General News