Nuclear needs to be part of the solution. There are real concerns - proliferation and safe handling and storage of nuclear materials and wastes - but on the other hand there is AGW. The near certainty of the latter scares me much more than the problems surrounding nuclear as I suspect the problems surrounding nuclear are more more easily solved than AGW - and without nuclear AGW will only be harder to deal with. Still, when it comes to value for the R&D buck, I suspect that low cost production methods for solar and energy storage systems has to be right up there even if development of IFR nuclear and improved waste disposal is deserving of investment. Definitely renewables need to be brought into play right now - let the real costs, with fossil fuels prices including an impost for the future costs it's imposing on us, decide where the main thrust of conversion to low emissions should go.

I think that the Greens investment in anti-nuclear is less of a problem than the Liberal/Nationals investment in climate science denial - or Labor's unfounded faith in Carbon Capture and Storage and it's use as an excuse to promote ever greater global dependence on fossil fuels.

I don't think that anti-nuclear sentiment is unchangeable - a lot of small 'g' greens are coming to concede nuclear may not be the worst option - and a genuine bipartisan approach to emissions reduction could and would bypass the Greens and probably it's anti-nuclear stance. But as long as mainstream politics panders to denialism and the export mining industry no such approach is possible.

“20 tonnes uranium = 1 cubic meter.” Well I doubt that calculation is correct either Shadow Minister but let’s look at a bit of trivia I’ve retrieved from my archives.

‘The excess of 704,000 metric tonnes of uranium hexafluoride in the US Department's of Energy inventory is over 1.5 billions pounds. The entire inventory of 62,000 cylinders (2007) weighs more than all eight of the Navy's Nimitz-class aircraft carriers combined!

‘Stacking 62,000 standard DUF6 cylinders end to end would make a tower 720,000 feet tall! That's over 136 miles high!

‘By 2007, these cylinders ranged in age up to 56 years and come in various models.. Most of the cylinders are carbon steel, and they are subject to corrosion.’ (US DOE)

Uranium from granite

To fuel one reactor with a nominal capacity of 1 GW(e) each year about 162 tonnes natural uranium has to be extracted from the earth’s crust. The mass of 162 tonnes uranium is in 40 million tonnes of granite.

The rock has to be crushed, transported, ground to fine powder and chemically treated with sulfuric acid and other chemicals to extract the uranium compound from the mass. Assumed an overall extraction yield of Y = 0.50, a very optimistic assumption, 80 million tonnes granite have to be processed.

This is a block 100 metres wide, 100 metres high and three kilometres long!

Meanwhile, 60% of greenhouse gas emissions don’t come from electricity generation.

Why are nuclear pushers so anal retentive? Hmm? They continue to ignore the 60% GHGs from other mining (including lime and cement manufacturing) transport, agriculture, deforestation, land grabs and the mere fact that humans are breeding like rabbits.

Let’s first lobby globally for simple vasectomies for all those hit and run deadbeats (black, white and brindle) who prey on gullible women (with or without consent) abandon the mother and children and go on to shag as many others as they possibly can.

Astonishingly, these deadbeats say it's the women who should be "educated!" The Australian deadbeat fugitives and evaders alone, conveniently forget they’ve left Australian taxpayers with a $1 billion debt.

Protagoras,

Look up the Specific gravity of uranium. It is about 19

1 cubic meter of water = 1 ton thus 1 m3 U = 19 tons, 1 ton U =1/19 ton.

The block of granite you describe is 90m tons, nearly twice that Ranger mine exhumes. Ranger produces more than 5000tons of uranium.

I see maths is not your strong point.

There are a number of different threads in response to the original article.
One relates to those who are concerned about AGW and the need to reduce emissions fast. Nuclear is not the solution to that problem - we can reduce our emissions to zero by 2020 using existing renewable technologies. The lead time for constructing nuclear power plants means that we would be lucky to have on stream by 2020 and even then they will not be able to supply all of our energy needs.
An other relates to the argument that nuclear technology has improved to the point that we can build safe power plants.
I do not dispute that the technology has improved. However, the mere fact that technology has improved does not mean that it will be fully utilised - given that power generation is in private hands the cheapest technologies will be used.
The cost factor is what tends to make a mockery of all of these posts - we want to address AGW but are not prepared to make the investment in our future by making the hard political decisions of banning inefficient appliances and work practices. Renewables are condemned on the grounds of cost - politicians do not want a spike in energy prices. Finally the few puny changes that are made are negated by a host of other government policies such as population growth.
We are debating the technology but the technology is not the problem - irrespective of what technologies are used there still needs to be the political will to recognize that to make the transition to a sustainable economy some pain will be involved.

Agree Baygon.

I often experience a range of feelings (disappointment, frustration, sadness, anger, pessimism, etc - but never optimism) when discussing short to medium term energy supply and sustainable living.

Why? Because, at the end of the day, there is no real 'will' to change - either from the 'business as usual' mindset, pollies who can't see past the next election, or the joe/jill citizen who think that future energy is for future citizens to deal with. As to the visionaries, there ain't enough of em' with the capacity to do something about it.

Cost? A price must be put on carbon emissions, otherwise all bets are off. One thing is for sure, energy will cost more - how we distribute (and compensate for) these costs will be a measure of how advanced a society we are.

Shadow Minister

re your earlier calculation,

Did your calculation include the specific gravity of granite? It seems to me a good basis for comparison.

Were you calculating the tonnes of uranium metal, or U235 isotope, the object of enrichment? The latter is a small fraction of a small fraction of the granite volume.

What fractions did you use?

BAYGON,
I appreciate the AGW problem, and its demoralising nature.

There are at least two elephants in the room, population growth (largely under control on a global basis) and greatly increasing rates of energy consumption due to industrial development. The latter elephant is the bigger rogue.

The Limits to Growth, published in 1971, has been updated. I really ought to buy a copy and send it to our current PM and Minister of Population (or whatever the honorific) just to see what kind of bland reply I get back in the snail mail.