A very timely wake-up article - and congratulations to Online opinion for having the guts to publish it.
Of course the uranium industry isn't going to explore without the expectation of later proceeding to mine for uranium. The areas where uranium is likely to be found cover a huge and much populated area of New South Wales.
It's amazing that the NSW government has the folly of making this possible - in the light of the uranium market's continuing decline, and the public's concern about the dangers of the nuclear industry. Australian uranium mining company Paladin lost $39 billion in the 9 months to March this year. BHP Billiton is doubtful about its proposed new "biggest uranium mine in the world" at Olympic Dam. There are more revelations each week of the dim future for the nuclear industry - (e.g. USA's decision to halt licensing and relicensing of nuclear reactors).
One can only wonder if the NSW government is stupid, or ignorant, or both - about the renewable energy revolution that is now happening. Or are they just bent on pleasing their cashed up mates in fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies?

The usual anti-nuke tripe; go 3rd generation and Thorium.

And good on O'Farrell; I knew he was a good'un when he was elected and told that grub, Kerry O'Brien, to take a hike when O'Brien wanted him to genuflect before the mighty ABC after just being winning the election.

Nuke South Wales?

Sure, why not? Aside from the fact that we don't have any nukes. Other than that it I can't see any holes in the plan - who is going to miss the Welsh? While we're at it we can Nuke Belgium.

Cheers,

Tony

Why the opposition to nuclear? Surely nuclear would provide everything most people want, e.g.:

- energy security
- reliable energy supply
- by far the least cost way to reduce CO2 emissions
- avoid about 900 fatalities per year

What more could we ask for?

Here is a very simple calculation of the number of fatalities that would be avoided by replacing coal with nuclear power in NSW (using USA figures for fatalities from coal and global average figures for nuclear power: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html ).

NSW generates about 60 TWh of electricity from coal each year
USA rate of fatalities from coal fired electricity generation (mostly from air pollution) = 15 fatalities/TWh
= 900 fatalities from coal fired electricity generation in NSW each year

If nuclear replaced coal:
Fatalities per year from nuclear electricity generation = 0.09 fatalities/TWh
= 5 fatalities from nuclear electricity generation in NSW each year
Therefore, fatalities avoided by substituting nuclear for coal generation = 900 - 5 = 895 fatalities avoided per year.

Who wants to argue against that?

Nuclear could be the least cost way to generate electricity and least cost way to reduce global emissions, here’s why and how to get there (globally):

- allowing low-cost, small, modular, factory-built and refuelled nuclear power plants to be certified and built (commercially and competitively throughout the world) would allow the cost of nuclear power to reduce massively

- nuclear substituting for coal would save more than one million lives per year globally by 2050 (its already avoiding around 160,000 fatalities per year)

- nuclear allows fuel transportation (and the energy used in doing so) to be reduce by around a factor of 20,000 with current technology and up to a factor of 2 million in future technology (that's 20,000 to 2 million times less coal ships passing through the Great Barrier Reef)

- nuclear allows countries to have energy security - because they can store virtually unlimited quantities of fuel for future energy supply in a small area.

- cheap nuclear power could allow the developing world to replace coal, wood and dung for heating and cooking more quickly, facilitate improving economies, better health and education systems, better infrastructure and better well-being for all peoples on the planet (its interesting to observe who opposes all these benefits to human well-being).

- cheap nuclear power would more quickly displace gas for heating (in residential commercial and some industrial applications) and oil for land transport – thus reducing emissions from not just electricity but also from gas for heating and oil for land transport.

- nuclear is by far the least cost way to reduce emissions as clearly shown here http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/17/learning-from-the-octopus/#comment-230021 (but the content has been studiously avoided by the anti-nukes.

One must wonder, what is the real reason for the opposition to nuclear power

It seems the majority of climate warmists advocate carbon pricing as the preferred policy to mitigate the impacts of climate change. However, there is an alternative policy which is given little attention by warmists but would seem to be a far superior policy option.

How much better is the 'Low-cost backstop' policy than the "Optimal carbon price policy'?

According to Nordhaus (2008) “A Question of Balance” http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf the ‘cost competitive alternative to carbon pricing’(called 'Low-cost backstop') policy is far better than the ‘Optimal carbon price’ policy. In fact, it is better by 3 times, 5 times, 5 times and 49 times for Benefits, Abatement cost, Net Benefit, and Implied Carbon Tax rate. It is also better for CO2 emissions rate, CO2 concentration reached and temperature increase. Details summarised below. Table numbers refer to Nordhaus (2008). (Costs are in 2005 US $ trillion)

Benefits (reduced damages), ($ trillion) (ref. Table 5-3)
Optimal carbon price policy = 5.23
Low-cost backstop policy = 17.63
ratio = 3

Abatement cost, ($ trillion) (ref. Table 5-3)
Optimal carbon price policy = 2.16
Low-cost backstop policy = 0.44
ratio = 5

Net Benefit, ($ trillion) (ref. Table 5-3)
Optimal carbon price policy = 3.37
Low-cost backstop policy = 17.19
ratio = 5

Implied carbon tax, ($/ton C) (ref. Table 5-1)
Optimal carbon price policy = 202.4
Low-cost backstop policy = 4.1
ratio = 49

CO2 emissions in 2100, (Gt C/a) (ref. Table 5-6)
Optimal carbon price policy = 11
Low-cost backstop policy = 0

CO2 concentration in 2100, (ppm) (ref. Table 5-7)
Optimal carbon price policy = 586
Low-cost backstop policy = 340

Global temperature change in 2100, (°C from 1900) (ref. Table 5-1)
Optimal carbon price policy = 2.61
Low-cost backstop policy = 0.9

Whatever one says will never be enough to dissuade the purveyors of this kind of recycled tripe about the horrors of nuclear energy. But I never cease to be amazed that the folk who are terrified about radioactivity are the very same who will sit in a treetop in blizzards for 6 months or lie down in the mud in front of a bulldozer. It's weird. Perhaps even more weird is their propensity to offer free business advice to any industry of which they disapprove. Very touching.

This is straight alarmism where the "facts" presented are obviosuly wrong.
This statement:
"Uranium mining causes severe and sustained damage at and around mine sites, especially through the production of large volumes of long lived radioactive mine tailings."

Quite false. the degree of radioactivity in any mine depends on the ventilation. It has nothing to do with the ore being mined. I don't believe they even bother with special protection for those working in the mines with the ore. It seems highly unlikely the post-treatment tailings would be a problem at any stage, particularly as, by definition, they should have less uranium in them than the ore itself.

What may be a problem is the chemicals in any run off from on-site treatment, but that is a matter for existing mining regulations.

I think the best uranium deposits will be just over the SA border in the 'Curnamona' geological province that includes Radium Hill. Whether or not the NSW Bayswater B baseload station needs to be built is unresolved with declining electricity demand. However since a couple of big Victorian brown coal power plants (Hazelwood, Yallourn) have put their hand for 'contracts for closure' perhaps NSW black coal or nuclear will have to take up the slack. Even if they don't eventually we're meant to reduce CO2 by 50-80% so most of the big NSW black coal power stations will have to be replaced. The signs are coal seam gas won't be cheap enough in the long run and coal based CO2 capture appears to be a dud.

While I doubt NSW will find much uranium I think nuclear power is on the cards for the State. Perhaps a north coast site will be less problematic than the Hunter Valley though new transmission may have to be built. Logically I think SA and Vic should consider nuclear before NSW.

Basically agree with the patent pragmatism of Peter Lang's informed commentary!
One option that come to mind is the pebble reactor, which can be mass produced in small modules and the trucked to site to begin almost immediately generating power. The pebble reactor describes a process where small marbles of fissile fuel are encased in a grapefruit sized balls of carbon, able to achieve a fissile reaction but never a meltdown. To reiterate, the fuel design means, there is never ever any likelihood of a fissile fuel meltdown, even where the coolant, helium, is stopped/turned off!
And would I want one in my backyard?
Yes, given I already have a coal-fired one there and vastly more health concerns; than I would have too endure, with a small pebble reactor doing duty.
These very small, very safe reactors could be located comparatively close to intended users, to reduce transmission losses, which still must be paid for by the end user.
Moreover, this would result in much more reliable localised supply and significantly reduced costs! Possibly lower than rock bottom coal fired power costs?
Other than that, we could also build modest thorium reactors, which would likely produce even cheaper carbon free power; and, no weapons spin-offs.
We have around 40% of the world's known Uranium and even larger reserves of thorium, currently a waste product of rare earths/mineral sands processing!?
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty,

No need to lock in on one design. No need to pick winners. Instead, we should encourage competition. Let's just remove the barriers, then competition will do its thing - give us the technologies that best meet requirements at least cost.

There are many small modular nuclear power plant designs. Many have been held up in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commissions processes for very many years. Here is one example and you can see other in the links on the left margin: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/hyperion.html

Okay - I made an effort to read "A Question of Balance".

It quoted heavily from The Stern Report, which was clearly an attempt to reconcile physical reality with the cult of economics, growth and money. They had to twist themselved into pretzels in order to arrive at an inconclusion.

How you can conflate all of this into an appeal for nuclear energy is beyond me, unless you assume the rest of us don't think.

The nuclear boondoggle requires vast inputs of precious liquid fossil fuel. Will we have sufficient resources left to clean up after ourselves when it has inevitably been reduced to a stinking rotten radioactive slag heap? Why should our children be saddled with this?

Once having lit the nuclear fire, it doesn't go out... that's a fact. Just ask the martyrs attending Fukushima Reactor 4 spent fuel pool. And don't give me all that flannel about reactor design. The reality is that the remediation will cost more energy than all the "cheap" electricity that Reactor 4 ever produced! Same for all the rest.

A Question of Balance begins with a quote from Leonardo, "Simplicity is the highest form of sophistication". I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this irony.

The future will be simpler whether we like it or not. It's back to the daily drip of sunshine, because nature always bats last.

You can stick the nuclear fire where the sun don't shine.

.... both literally and metaphorically.

Oh dear, & here I thought this was going to be an expose on our little Julia's plan to get the spot light off her continual stuff ups.

It is certainly no mere fanciful than the others she's floated in the last few days, & probably a lot more fun, too.

Besides, it would result in a better class of boat people arriving on our door step in a few years time.

Tassy for heavens sake stop worrying about CO2, we need it. In a few years of the continual cooling we are now experiencing, they will be tearing down those ridiculous wind mills to build coal burning incinerators to generate as much CO2 as possible. This in the vain hope it will increase the global temperature, which it wont of course.

If you want to see what Greens policy will and is doing to Australia look at Tasmania. What a basket case and yet the Greens persist with their people hating policies.

"Renewable energy is the world's fastest growing energy sector. ". Yep, gotta love those incredible 'renuables'. Close to 1/2 a TRILLION invested in 2011/12 to produce approx ..........3% of the worlds electricity. Insane.

First I'm not lucky enough to be living in NSW...

Next those that are should think twice before allowing any additional radioactivy anywhere near them because of the health implications, France Germany and now the USA are starting to release data that does not look good! Germany has decided to shutter their reactors and everyone knows (hopefully) about the Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster at Fukushima THAT IS STILL SPEWING radioactive pollution!

Here is a great graphic that will help everyone visualize what is downwind of any of the US reactors! NRDC Nuclear Fallout Map: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/fallout/
Just click on a reactor and zoom in... (BTW: These are conservative fallout estimates).

Where will the US Government get the REST of the money if it happened at SORE (or a reactor where you live) next week, probably from Social Security and or Medicare? Where will people relocate to for how long, Las Vegas and or Yuma?

In reality, ALL those affected are doomed! Tens of thousands are still living in nuclear refugee camps in Japan and it has been over a year since their triple meltdowns which are BTW still sending radioactive pollution Globally!

Remember:

Solar (of all flavors) is far less costly and has no health problems and N☢ RISK!

NSW has the land mass to go Solar (of all flavors) in a big way and even become a Energy exporter all with taking any Nuclear Reactor RISKS...

Remember if Germany can go GREEN/ Solar (of all flavors) and has STARTED to phase out it's Nuclear reactors because they are too RISKY why should NSW even think about it, unless your Leaders are receiving some sort of Nuclear Payback*?

+
Here is the latest story on Nuclear reactor Health effects from the Los Angles Times (USA):
http://is.gd/SY6iPU
Note all the comments...

+
Check out the excellent Blog site by Paul Langley (AU), it is packed full of well researched information on all things nuclear:
http://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/payment-for-nuclear-veteran-not-enough-the-australian-2010/#comment-7014

DONT 'BE MISLEAD BY THOSE HOPING TO PROFIT FROM NUCLEAR ENERGY!
How would NSW pay for a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima?

* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback

Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other "costs" are for others.

I'm not lucky enough to live in NSW, but I wish they would let me...

Why not look instead at Germany, they are now going GREEN and NON Nuclear by decommissioning their nuclear reactors, if they can do it so can NSW
IF (and it is a BIG IF)
You start doing it ASAP, before China buys up* all the Copper, Silver, Gold and rare earths you need to do it with...

Think what that could mean to not only the NSW but the Planet...

Remember as the Earth's resources start "peaking out" (which many believe Oil, copper, coal and even silver have done) what NSW has in the Earth will become ever more valuable, why sell today what will be worth double or much more later?

*Read Red Alert for more on what delaying conversion to Solar will cost...

Peter Lang; not picking winners mate. Just the only oxide reactor type, to my knowledge, able to be mass produced and trucked on site.
Not in favour of privatisation or the "so-called competition" among suppliers.
I also understand that thorium reactors are traditionally small and safe enough to be placed onsite in any defence or similar facility? That's where the natural competition, and supply side could conceivably evolve.
The past problem with public ownership has been the huge monopolies and the lack of competition/British disease, that that then created.
We could, even in a public model, create fully incorporated duopolies, who could then be tasked with competition for both market share and their very survival/future contract terms, whatever?
Given the proof of the pudding is in the eating! All one can observe at this time, is quite massive price gouging, by debt laden/debt servicing private players, with most of it blamed on the carbon tax.
Carbon free power would never ever be subject to a carbon tax.
And one should never ever overlook the huge social benefit of lower cost, publicly owned and supplied power, and the quite massive boon that would be once again, delivered to business and our now almost derelict manufacturing industries.
We should do what we need to do to reverse recent trends; and privatisation; to once again supply very cheap energy to our manufacturing industries; and or, the Australian entrepreneurs, who will once again get busy growing their/our enterprises, and our national prosperity!
Very small pebble reactors could be trucked onsite to any industrial precinct, and then supply much more reliable, much lower cost, carbon free power direct to the industrial users.
Virtually eliminating transmission line losses would virtually halve the cost of energy, and create a super reliable format that would keep it the least costly in the world?
Keeping our manufacturing alive and kicking, while it affordablly transitions to the high tech future waiting for it; is clearly in the national interest and that of every Australian; even those that allow others to do all their thinking for them?
Cheers, Rhrosty.