Quite a few factoids here; let me focus on one. If the world can get 12% of its energy from windpower by 2020, where will the other 88% come from?

The most important "fact" to concentrate upon is the total quantity of energy required by 6.5 billion human beings to provide for anything like adequate lifestyles for all.
If production of energy to that extent should ever be achieved, for how long can it be maintained?
Can society's economic system be changed from the present one of predominantly using energy to predate upon the environment upon which we depend - to using it in a manner that maintains the resource?
Can Homo sapiens show that it can use its one real speciality - a large, complex brain, to step off the treadmill of rabbit-like reproduction, continuously expanding numbers of its own kind?

Steve Shallhorn puts up a powerful argument about the costs of nuclear power, the fact that the taxpayer subsidises these, and especially the huge costs of dealing with nuclear wastes.
Especially important here is the diversion of attention, of policy, and of funding directed towards truly environmentally sustainable technologies. Yes – a pity that our Prime Minister sycophantically follows those now very unpopular and not trusted world figures - Bush and Blair, rather than learning from the experience and initiatives of Denmark and Sweden.

My only worry about this excellent article is that it has not addressed the looming worry that Mr Howard and his backers will want to start an Australian industry of taking everybody else’s nuclear wastes. By making a promise to do this, Australia could sell heaps more uranium.
No doubt big bucks could be gained, from countries desperate to get rid of their otherwise insolvable problem. As Howard took us into the quagmire of the Iraq invasion, will Australia let him lead us into the expansion of uranium mining and the storage of international wastes?
Christina Macpherson
www.antinuclearaustralia.com

The two questions are: what particular problems will it solve? is it economic?

Then we can expect and explantion how it is to do so. Nothing is self evident.
I assume it is not simply for us unselfishly to sell more uranium.

The author wrote: "What is the net present cost of safe storage of thousands of barrels of nuclear waste for unknown thousands of years? Not only are the costs unimaginable, future generations would be the ones to pay for a few years of electricity for us."

If storage of some amount of waste wil cost $1 per year, for ever, and I can get 2% real interest per year on a bank deposit, then the net present cost of that storage is $50. That is, if I put the $50 in the bank, then I will get $1 per year in interest, for ever, to pay for the storage.

So these costs are far from being unimaginable, and should not be seen as a debt legacy for future generations.

The same sorts of reasoning applies to future decommissioning of the power plant.

If the author is going to bandy around expressions like "net present cost" it would help if he understood what they meant. Perhaps this lack of understanding explains why so many proponents of alternatives like wind power fail to understand how much they really cost.

Sylvia

I agree with Steve - what sane person wouldn't? But Sylvia raises an interesting point, but sadly overlooks some simple truths.

Actinides will leach from any container. Even Cynrok. Actinides may have criticality events (things that go BANG! in the night) even when ceramics employ neutron absorbtion material. Uranium Hexaflorine will leak from metal containers. How long can you keep a 44 gallon drum for anyway?

But Sylvia says the initial investment will pay for the 400,000 years or so that most of this stuff needs to be kept away from the environment. Ummm, yeah right! There is no such thing as a safe level of radioactivity. It damages living things and all the costs are in maintaining safety.

If you remove the safety costs and value humans (and other species) as zero then perhaps nuclear will become cost efficient. Then thousands can die handling waste and old reactor bits by hand and no one will care (or pay).

Perhaps Steve Shallhorn should post his costing and safety estimates for windfarms, and other forms of renewable energy, and we can discuss the bits he leaves out.

Sylvia.

“Antinuclearaustralia” has the honesty to state that it is not offering a “balanced viewpoint” on its web site. Oh that Greenpeace could be so honest and up front.

Bizarre is it not, there are countries in Europe, Asia and America that find nuclear power economical and cost effective. The improved and interesting design features of the modular fourth generation reactors are not reviewed in the discussion by Greenpeace. The new generation nuclear reactors can be coupled with de-salination and /or hydrogen generation plants.

Steve Shallorn ignores the question of subsidies paid to wind and solar power generation companies. What is the cost to the grid of connecting up farms located in remote but windy areas? What is the cost of training maintenance staff and deploying them in remote areas? For the human toll of wind farms please go to
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/pages/accidentData.htm

Interested persons can find a discussion on other matters raised by Mr. Shallorn such as the management of nuclear waste and the supplies of uranium by visiting the uranium information web site.
http://www.uic.com.au/index.htm

A good natural model for the long time storage of nuclear waste is provided by a study of natural nuclear reactors. These started up in geological time at about 1.8Gy ago. The rocks of the Oklo reactor in the Gabon illustrate how nature has stored fission products and actinides.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf

The truth is that nuclear energy is a clean, safe and trusted technology.

>>By 2020 the wind industry alone can supply 12 per cent of the world’s electricity needs<<

I just love numbers like these, so I scurried off to find their source - a paper called Windforce 12 published by Greenpeace in 2005.

Unfortunately, nowhere in its fiftytwo pages does it give a single clue as to how this will be achieved. What I did discover was that according to their own statistics:

12% of world capacity in 2020 is 1,254Gw, indicating a total world capacity figure of 10,450Gw.

The report also points out that this is "against the challenging backdrop of a projected two thirds increase of electricity demand by that date", which, tracking back, gives us a current (sorry!) capacity of 6,300Gw

So, out of the additional 4,200Gw increase between now and then, wind power will supply 1,254Gw, less, of course, the presently installed capacity, which at the time of the report was 48,000 Mw, so that's (quick calculation) 1,206Gw.

If these numbers are correct, wind power will be able to substitute less than thirty percent of the *increase* in electricity consumption between now and 2020.

Call me a cynic, but isn't this whistling in the wind? (sorry, it's a bad habit, I know). If consumption continues to increase, and windfarms continue to take thirty percent of that increase, aren't we looking at a situation where the earth will be entirely covered by whirring windmills, and they still cannot meet the demand?

(And before anyone rushes to grab their quill pens to point out the error in that statement, it is no worse an application of statistics than much of that produced by Greenpeace to promote their anti-nuclear position.)

I am not a scientist, and my last recorded school mark at physics was 28%, so I would welcome correction on this.

The other numbers that would really interest me is exactly how many windmills this will need, where they will be sited, who will pay for them, and how will they possibly get planning permission from the council in time for 2020.

Apart from that, an inspirational piece.

Nuclear power performs extremely well on the climate change test. For example, the installed French nuclear generation capacity saves more greenhouse gas emissons than is produced by the entire Australian energy and transport sector(including fugitive emissions from coal mines). That's 400 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per annum. For those who are concerned about increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, such abatement is serious stuff.

The issue with nuclear power is that it could make a couple of generations of Aussies very rich. Australia has about 1/4 of the known Uranium supply in the world. A bigger proportion than the Saudis have of oil. Exploitation of this resource would make Peter Costello the Uranium Sheik in Chief and would fund pork barreling and tax cuts for endless elections. Howard is already planning a "UPEC" cartel with the Canadians to control the market.

The problem with renewables is that you can't tax sunshine or wind. A royalty on the suns rays would put us firmly in the banana republic realm and a tax on hot air would see Canberra run up huge deficits.

The nuclear energy "debate" has nothing to do with global warming ( we are not putting a moratorium on coal sales) and everything to do with mineral booms and winning elections.

Gusi,

""The nuclear energy "debate" has nothing to do with global warming ( we are not putting a moratorium on coal sales) and everything to do with mineral booms and winning elections.""

You are right, gusi but you forget a few important things.

Australia will not be able to afford nuclear power for up to 20 years. That is the real red-herring in the debate.

In the meantime, if we are not effective in mining one of the world's most re-wanted resources in the wake of Peak Oil, the world will do it for us. THAT is the SHOWSTOPPER.

To circumvent this problem we MUST mine Uranium and value-add it to PBR pebbles for use in Pebble Bed Reactors.

This has big advantages for Australia:

* Bigger profits from Uranium exports
* No need to worry about mounting external pressures to mine Uranium
* PBR pebbles are useless for bomb making and guarantee World security safety in the use of Uranium for electric power generation
* Developing a scientific infrastructure alongside the very nuclear savvy Canada. An infrastructure that IMO could lead to Australia having a Fusion reactor before we can afford a fission based PBR. The 'laser-printer' style Uranium enrichment technology we have been hearing about in the news is already a stepping stone in this direction.

I have heard that if all the existing coal-fired power stations in the world were replaced by nuclear power stations, all known uranium reserves would be depleted in seven years.

Furthermore, the total amount of energy expended to build and commission a nuclear power station is less that the total amount of energy it would produce in it's working life.

Attractive as it seems in the short term, nuclear power is yet another temporary solution to a growing problem.

Perhaps more effort should be put toward the consumption side of the equation until a better solution is found.

All options are on the table.

Addressing consumption issues IS very important. Preventing Megalomaniacs like Howard and IEMMA from building their power bases by immigrating 140,000 affluent people every year is the best way to address it. These politiTians are running this country like their own private piggy bank by immgrating all these unnecessary energy guzzlers to a country running out of water and greenhouse emission credits. Its got to stop NOW.

But you can't rule out nuclear for the reason I mentioned. If we don't extract ore, someone else WILL. We are not strong enough to resist a world need for ENERGY.

Additionally, there are the advantages to Australia of value-adding Uranium to PBR pebbles as I mentioned.
Pay paticular attention to the last one: cooperation with nuclear savvy Canada is vital along with vast Uranium profits, for Australia to be in the driving seat of research to develop Fusion power. Fusion is where hydrogen, extracted from water, is fused to yield far more energy, far more cleanly than fission reactors. Never mind 7 years, fusion power would last the human race for a billion years even if we didn't branch out to the stars in that time.

In order to experiment with advanced nanotechnologies and concurrent breakthrough advances in fusion technology you need lots of spare money, good international collaberation and LOTS of electric power.

This may be dangerous ground to some minds. But sometimes, to survive in life you have to cross dangerous ground. Its always best to be prepared beforehand if you are lucky enough to have that option in the first place.

"In the meantime, if we are not effective in mining one of the world's most re-wanted resources in the wake of Peak Oil, the world will do it for us. THAT is the SHOWSTOPPER."

KAEP you make it sound like we should build our own bomb to prevent "regime change". Puts Iran in a new light.

Wobbles is concerned that known uranium reserves won't last long if nuclear power generation replaced coal fired power stations. Two things are working strongly in favour of rapid expansion of effective resources. Firstly, reactor efficiency is increasing (more electricity per unit of uranium). Secondly, and more importantly, uranium has been a low value mineral for a long time and uranium mining is banned in prospective places such as Queensland and Western Australia. Hence, it's been much more attractive to go searching for copper and other minerals. Now the price is starting to rise strongly, exploration is starting to take off strongly as a consequence. Reserves will keep on rising - just as they do for nearly all other minerals despite increasing consumption. One shouldn't make the mistake the Club of Rome did, and forget about price.

Siltstone current known uranium deposits would cover the world for around 50 years, estimated undiscovered deposits would cover another 150 years. Uranium is much more abudant than oil, gas and coal as it is found throughout the earth's crust. Problem is that much of it, such as the uranium in sea water, has such a low concentration that it is not economic to mine.

If the whole world goes nuclear does it make sense for us to hold out? Apart from attempts at regime change and other international meddling in our politics nuclear fall out knows no borders. A reactor failure in Java would still share its fallout with us.

I think it would be foolish too put all our eggs in one basket though. Lets have nuclear power with wind and solar.

One way to make windfarms more acceptable would be to share some of its electricity revenues with the local government of its location. The new designs have the blades spin about a vertical axis as much more effient and are slightly less than an eyesore.

Hmmm Steve Shallhorn says "On the economics front, nuclear power dramatically increases electricity cost. In fact, high energy costs and massive debt are hallmarks of nuclear power in every free market country where it exists. Nuclear power plants only get built if propped up by unaffordable public subsidies."

Perhaps Steve needs to take a trip to Finland. According to the EC Statistics in Focus and Energy Advice Ltd: Electricity and Gas Price Comparisons in January 2005, Finland had the 3rd lowest domestic electricty prices (including taxes) out of 15 EU member states, compared with the non-nuclear countries like Portugal (7th), Austria (8th), Luxembourg (10th), Ireland (14th) and Denmark (15th). Finland has recently approved the construction of a 5th Nuclear Power Station; this is to be wholly privately financed.

Steve also states that "No power utility comes even close to adequately providing for waste containment; they’d be out of business if they did."

Finland is also leading the world in this respect, they already have privately financed low level and intermediate levels waste disposal facilities and are on target to request planning permission for a disposal facility for used nuclear fuel in the next few years. All of these nuclear waste facilities are or will be financed by the private companies that operate the four existing and fifth planned nuclear power station.

And finally, Steve would have us believe that “More nuclear power will mean we also pay the price of an elevated threat of nuclear war or nuclear terrorism.”
Once again I look to Finland, a country that has developed nuclear power without any concurrent development of nuclear weapons technology.

Nuclear power does not mean nuclear weapons. There are currently 38 countries with nuclear power plants, and as Steve has already pointed out only 9 Nuclear Weapons States. Libya was well on the path to getting nuclear weapons without using a nuclear reactor through uranium enrichment technology. It’s time that we stopped linking these two issues.

The best insight into the feeble "greenpeace" collective whit is provided by the sentence;

"In the event of a nuclear accident the costs are usually borne by others, often individuals who lose their livelihood and or their health".

Note how it starts in the conditional sense, the (remote)possibility of a nuclear accident, shifts to a generalised statement of presumed fact like, "costs are usually borne by others", and finishes with implied specific facts like "individuals lose their livelihoods and their health", all within a single sentence.

Eco-bimbos have minds that routinely fuse hypothetical possibilities with actual recorded facts, treating them all as equally validated certainties. And the rest of the article is no exception.

The investment funds that might flow into "alternate energy", if the entire engineering/science community took a long Prozac holiday, morphs into an actual flow of investment that the nuclear industry will then capture.

The fact is, the investment sector has a long and justified distrust of people who merge imagined potential with recorded results. And they avoid them, as they have done to date with "blow job energy". There is, in contrast, an existing and potential supply of investment funds for nuclear energy. So the notion that this money would be switched from the alternate sector is pure fantasy.

Sylvia is spot on with her point about the discounted cost of storage. Even at 7% interest per annum, the net present value (NPV)of a dollar per year for 50 years is only $13.80 while the NPV over 60 years is still only $14.04. The extra decade of 1 dollar outlays can be paid for today with only 24 cents while the price for additional decades in perpetuity becomes infinitely smaller and smaller.

So any price charged for that service that is over and above that multiple is ALL PROFIT. And only greenfarce appears yet to learn that things rarely get done at all unless they can be done for a profit. Australia can manage this problem better than anyone else so our profit begins long before other nations costs are covered. Hello?

We will all grow rich as we sit on top of an ever growing pile of radioactive waste just waiting for the inevitable leak. Our descendents will not know how to thank us.

Frankly, Sarnian, the best place for a nuke dump would be smack in the middle of Sydney. Why not Homebush Bay? There is nothing left there to kill anyway. The only problem with that site is that half the population would move out and make complete jerks of themselves all over the rest of Australia.

And to seriously suggest that there will be some sort of "nuke change", where people move from the cities to retire to a townhouse overlooking the nuke dump in the central desert is testimony to your grasp of reality.

Get this clear, SOLIDS DON'T LEAK! If the stuff is down a shaft in solid rock and the annual rainfall is only 100mm then the incidence of percolation of even 1mm below a depth of 1 metre is effectively zero. And if the shaft is sealed then it will need someone to go right out of their way, with some very conspicuous, noisy and expensive equipment, to get radiated. Ditto for theft.

It is an absolute disgrace the way you and your kind seek to imply that nuclear waste storage would be similar to an urban rubbish tip located in the Great Artesian Basin.

“Abstractions

CONTEXT: ...an international team of researchers extracted 400 metres of sediment core from the Arctic sea floor. It was a technical achievement that many thought impossible. The team...
Nature 441, xi-xi (01 Jun 2006)
Full Text | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link “

According to researchers, about 55 million years ago the Earth did a gigantic fart – of greenhouse gases – into the atmosphere, pushing the planet’s temperature up by 5C.

Nature reports of excavating an Arctic core that one explained the Arctic transformation from greenhouse to ice house.

These conclusions support ideas of “The X-Challenge” and nukes as a reliable source of energy:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/302957/

Proponents of nuclear power say that the benefits of nuclear power are no production of Carbon dioxide. This is completely untrue, fossil fuels,oil in the form of gasoline and diesel, are essential to every stage of the nuclear cycle.
All of the material moved, is moved by truck. These trucks run on diesel.
increase the number of nuclear power stations, you need increases in the number of trucks. The tires on these trucks are energy-intensive.
Ore is trucked to a mill.
Ore is washed and neutralized,the slurry is pumped to the tailings ponds. With diesels powered machinery.
The yellowcake is roasted at 800°C in an oil-fired furnace.
next stage is dissolving the Uranium oxide in Hydrofluoric Acid to form Uranium hex fluoride gas:
The Uranium hex fluoride is then transported in cylinders to be enriched.
enriched Uranium hex fluoride gas is transported to the fuel fabrication plant.
gas is converted to Uranium dioxide powder, pressed into pellets, and baked in an oil-fired furnace to form a ceramic material, then loaded into a tube made of zirconium alloy. Zirconium is a metallic element derived from zircon, ore of Zirconium silicate, which is a by-product of rutile sand mining(energy intensive).Zirconium is always found with Hafnium, which has to be removed for nuclear uses.
For every ton of Uranium in the fuel, 2 tons of Zirconium alloy are needed.
fuel assemblies are then transported to the reactor by truck or train.
The reactor does not produce any CO2. But it does use electricity, and that electricity is largely produced by fossil fuels. It takes a lot of steel to build a nuclear power station.
Nuclear power stations use concrete, made from cement. Cement is CO2-intensive.
Reactor waste moved by road and rail.
Recovered Plutonium is sent by road.
Every step of nuclear power involves expenditure of energy from fossil fuels, which nuclear electricity cannot replace. Thus it is untrue to say that nuclear energy is greenhouse friendly.

The process of nuclear power produces greenhouse gasses. Currently, the generation of power with high grade uranium suppies produces negligable greenhouse gasses compared to coal power stations.

The other myth, however, is the abundance of high grade uranium. This is simply untrue. Once we run out, then we have to use low grade uranium, and that produces as much greenhouse emissions as coal does.

Using Finland and other countries not at war is irrelevant in context. Australia is offially at war in the alliance of the willing. So anything Australia does with nuclear power is internationally scrutinised closely by the United Nations, the same as other countries at war. Nuclear power stations are also a target.

The debate on uranium should continue. I hope I don't bore some of you by quoting Sir Mark Oliphant again: that we should not underestimate the "hot rocks" north of Port Augusta. Hot is good for energy. There are many kinds of power we could be generating in Australia. We could even enter an agreement to have thermal power imported from New Zealand, if we had our common market with them. Iceland has converted thermal power to hydrogen power. We are on the wrong continent to do this, but in the right region. Indonesia could have joint projects: better than nuclear power. Similarly we could generate thermal power in parts of New Guinea, but we would need a trade agreement. Then there is tidal power in WA.

One quick fix is not the answer. Nuclear trade with the US is not the answer either, as we always we end up with a lousy deal. They will send their waste, and their rubbish, for the priveledge of disappointing us. Canada tried to warn John Howard.

Will we learn with the savvy Canadians for fusion power? We could listen to their wisdom first, that would be a start. Fusion power will take time. But what do we do in the meantime?

The absolute highest estimate for the longevity coal resources that I've seen is 250 years, and the highest estimate for uranium about 50 years.

I noticed that here in Germany this year many are celebrating the 250th anniversary of the birth of Mozart. In that same timeframe from now there be no coal or uranium left. Fossil oil neither. However, new solar and tidal power-generating technologies are starting to bloom.

The future does not belong to the current minerals being removed from the ground to generate power.

Nuclear energy is not "safe". Radio active materials are intrinsically hazardous. The question is whether engineering can render the risk small enough over a long enough period for a large number of installations economically. I tend to go with Murphy's law but there are a number of Dr Panglosses out there. Examples of best practice in the world eg Finland hold little comfort when we know what the worst practice can be.

Incidently it is probably true that if waste could be embeded in solid rock deep enough it would pose little risk (though not safe), but though rock is a solid it is rarely unfractured or impermeable and there is more sources of water than rain (see: ground water)

Any further news on the wind-power front?

>>If consumption continues to increase, and windfarms continue to take thirty percent of that increase, aren't we looking at a situation where the earth will be entirely covered by whirring windmills, and they still cannot meet the demand?<<

Anybody?

>>exactly how many windmills [will we] need, where [will they] be sited, who will pay for them, and how will they possibly get planning permission from the council in time for 2020.<<

Or was it just a load of air?

Pericles. no idea about how many windmills are required. It is an excellent question and something that should be covered during the upcoming comprehensive energy debate.

To get planning permission I think counsels will have to get a share of the electricity revenues. Obviously they wouldn't end up in affluent coastal suburbs but those locations aren't candidates for other power stations either.

Why isn't this area ever discussed??

All the comments on the forum are fair enough but why isn't the economics of the recycling of radio-active waste ever logically considered based on the technological advances in this area.

Sure I guess we have all heard of the Aust Synroc process of combining radio-active waste into a cement like mixture that leaves the material relatively inert. Ok completely inert. Yet how about the "Browns Gas" processing of radio-active waste?? Surely a 97% reduction in radiation combined with a extra production of electricity deserves to be considered and taken into economic account.

Dipole reactors as a further processing of radio-active waste has to be also considered, and take into account the re-mixing of low grade waste with other minerals such as copper and then processed in masor laser furnaces to produce preciouse metals also has to be considered for its economic benefits.

The latest technological state of developments in this nuclear industry have to be taken into greater consideration in this debate.

Desalinate water pressure exists at 80 metres below sea level. So cut the costs of desalination in half by building desalination plants 80 metres below the surface of any water well, be it on land or at sea.
Let the gravity of thoughtful endevour lead us forward to Victory!!

Why exclude Finland from the suggested itnerary for Mr Howard of Nordic green economies. This would be certainly be educational for our pragmatic PM to see the 'real politik' that has led the Finnish government to increase its nuclear power capacity from .

Finland is building its fifth nuclear power plant in Lovisa which will be producing energy from 2009.Today 27 % of the electricity comes from nuearpower plants.

Climate policy is a major reason for the Finnish government support for the proposal, while its detractors supported a massive increase in natural gas use (from Russia) for electricity generation.

Considering the Russians predeliction for cutting of its gas supplies to excert political pressure it is a no-brainer.

For electricity, Finland is part of the deregulated Nordic system which faces shortages in the midterm. Denmark is relying on the base load from Swedish hydro electric power generation propped up by Finnis and Swedish nuclear power plants to safeguard its supply of power when the wind is not blowing. So Finland seems to be on the money here to.

Wind power can't solve a nation states power gneration capacity for that its much to fickle.

Trying to postpone nuke energy utilization in Australia is similar to propaganda of job places / social status inherited as the best choice for a world.

Surprisingly, a national-liberal monarchist, Mr. J.Howard, has aired a really innovative vital to this stacked in the time sleepy place option – potential development of nuclear industry, but public bumbles (oooops, deliberates)again something of green gases, greenhouse effect and renewable energies.

A respectable science magazine Nature on 01 June 2006 provides a strong data from Antarctic that is strong evidence to a global warming occurred 55 ml. years ago when a temperature had risen by five degrees because of a natural planetary reason.

All the energy from renewable resources hardly powers shaving if in Australia simultaneously all males to do. And to generate it a special equipment should be provided-that should also be counted in a grand effect of energy consumption at the end.

World Energy Council, 2004 Survey of Energy Resources (http://www.worldenergy.org):

"the annual solar radiation which reaches the earth and its atmosphere is 2 895 000 EJ, compared to the total non-renewable energy resources of 325 300 EJ (oil, 8 690 EJ; gas, 17 280 EJ; uranium, 114 000 EJ; coal, 185 330 EJ"

So what more needs to be said? If we take a strategic view of energy supply then the answer is obvious, isn't it?

But just how much is 325 000 EJ, sounds like a lot?

So just how much is 325 000 EJ of non-renewable energy (the total estimated world supply remaining)?

- look at the Peak Oil estimates from the optimists - US EIA, OECD IEA, OPEC - they say we probably have about 30 or so years "at current consumption rates"

- look at the Peak Oil estimates from the credible realists - e.g. Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (http://www.peakoil.net/) - they say 7 to 10 years to peak.

- look at the "Years of Supply" graph in the Howard Governments 2004 Energy White Paper (page 5). Australia's oil is finished within 10 years.

- look at the International Atomic Energy Agency's 2 June 2006 press release on Uranium Resources (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/), they are thrilled to tell us that the world has about 85 years "at current consumption rates" of reasonably priced ore. So what happens if use doubles? Something for the mathematicians to go figure out!

- look at the Australian Coal Association's website (http://www.australiancoal.com.au), who will tell you that "the future is a renewable one" (but I'm sure they have about a 200-300 year timespan in their minds till we get there)

If you put aside the emotions around the complex and vast environmental, security and economic issues for a moment. Close your eyes and think about the future for your family, friends, neighbours, fellow citizens, fellow humans ... and their life asirations and consequent needs ...

... It's simple, there is only one answer ... Renewables. It's the logic of the numbers and prudent risk management.

Energy is going to be more expensive. Get used to it. But renewables won't run out, won't pollute (beyond the earth's waste processing capacity), won't be proliferated or a target (By the way does anyone know what it costs to have a 24hour aircraft exclusion zone around reactors?)

If you think that putting all your faith in fusion, fast breeder reactors and geosequestration is the way to go then tell your kids and grand kids NOW to go solve their own problems after your gone (kids are so selfish now days).

"If you think that putting all your faith in fusion, fast breeder reactors and geosequestration is the way to go .."

Its not about faith. We will feel PEAK oil in 5 years. We are feeling it already and that is why this debate will escalate from here. Without a replacement for oil, 2/3 of the worlds people will be getting their pink slip one way or another as thermodynamic forces (war, disease, famine and climate change) equalise world energy flows. This is why there is an imperative to gap-fill with coal and Uranium solutions. I don't think world leaders are AFRAID to let the worst happen but they have enough humanity in them to TRY to prevent it as best they can. People like Artur are unwise to stand in their way!

As for Uranium, its PRACTICAL to value add our uranium to PBR (pebble bed) fuels such that WE control the security and the waste disposal issues and not our customers (China, India etc).
When the cost equations are right we WILL build PBRs here. I estimate we need 20 years of big PBR pebble shipments to afford to build the number of reactors required for our secure mid term (50-100 years only) energy future. This is why debating positioning of reactors at this point in time is so inane.

Additionally, there are interesting new ways to experiment with fusion. Australia and Canada OUGHT to be putting future uranium export profits, from the get-go, into specialised-fusion-research. There is a reason why Australia was first in the world to separate U235 using laser-activation. I cannot say what it is in this forum but I can tell you that it opens up the possibility of new avenues of fusion research that don't cost CERN style $trillions. However it will need some $billions and access to U235 in a variety of expermental forms. A solid NUCLEAR-PROCESSING-industry in Australia will facilitate this new avenue-of-research. This kind of nuclear industry adjunct-research is critical if we are to solve our LONG TERM energy requirements and those of an energy-hungry-planet as well.

continuing ..

Continued ..

Our longest term energy source is coal and it will only last about 1000 years. Thus we have an obligation to be thinking of fusion NOW if the ball comes into our court. I assure you that nuclear ball IS in our court.

As for solar energy. The environmental cost of producing photovoltaics and the inabiliy of solar to meet rising world energy usage patterns (low density eneergy) makes it imperative that Australia also develop an unmanned space program with the main objective of transmitting power form as far as Merury orbit back to Earth. Australia has the potential to fit such a space program into a uranium-export-based-budget if it has the wisdom to try.

As they say, fusion is 40 years away and it always will be. Curious that this debate is now so urgent when the problems have been forseen for years. I would like posters to define what the problem is they are addressing as there is not and never will be a shortage of energy. as everyone on this forum points out in their own way, just the form it comes in . There is oodles of wind coal sun geothermal tidal even uranium thorium etc. Oil seems a special case as it is its convenience for transport that sets it apart. It is the convenience of oil that must be replaced and it is not obvious what alternative can do it. But most would say that nuclear has an insignificant part to play in that

The urgency must be CO2 if it is not what is?. If you accept this to address this problem not only has much of the future needs for energy be addressed by an alternative low CO2 to coal and possibly oil, but not only the expansion but much of the present energy sources have either to be replaced or rendered less obnoxious. I am not sure whether nuclear, given all the constraints, any sort of pancea given that the expansion of energy wants seems to be remorseless (China India etc). Does not bear to think about forest clearing and other possiblities such as of anerobic production of methane from melting thermafrost bog.

The Greenpeace mantra is being chanted throughout this dribble.

Suggesting nuclear energy is “not affordable”, how about presenting some numbers.

Suggesting Wind farms and Solar energy is “viable” – how about presenting some numbers?

What are the energy costs consumed in constructing and producing the infrastructure which produces the energy (viz, cost of big pylons for wind and cost of the cells for solar) and not forgetting, electricity is a JIT industry, what happens when the wind does not blow and it is overcast or at night? So include the cost of producing and disposing of the batteries (used to balance the supply and demand equation) too.

Lets look at ALL the numbers, interpret the consequences, financial, social and environmental before we discard the idea for another generation.

Beazley's hissing fit about liberals being obsessed with nuclear power is just another knee-jerk from a jerk who is, patently, without a clue on what to do about anything.

Steve Shallhorn is thick on the “scare tactics” rhetoric and short on numbers. No wonder the Federal government want a committee to review Australia’s strategy. All credit to the PM for using those with some knowledge of the risks and benefits

I guess Steve Shallhorn and the Greenpeace “rent a mob” will not be a part of it, It is tough to present cohesive argument when all you can do is blubber (something not limited to whales).

Ultimately “Power supply” strategies are long term, by virtue of the lead time needed to build and commission infrastructure. They are not impulse buys and should not be limited by the knee-jerk attitudes of a group of tree huggers who are happier existing on welfare than working like the rest of us.

Regarding solar - a drastic reduction in production costs is taking place right now:
http://solar.anu.edu.au/level_1/pubs/sliver.php

Regarding geothermal - abundant, and not radioactive. New Zealand already produces about 7% of its power from geothermal sources. Here is a pertinent piece from the Energy & Geoscience Institute, University of Utah:
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull19-2/art65.htm

Regarding tidal - 'predictable, invisible and economic' is the slogan of Lunar Energy:
http://www.lunarenergy.co.uk/environment-benefits.htm

Making someother foolish more then ones are is a very
common trend in Australia, Artur: if solar energy even reached the Earth, it does not mean it can a l l be used on producing the energy for/by mankind.

The current push is amusing. Both Howard and Bush claim there's no warming, no warming, no warming... Then BANG. We should go nuclear. Well sure enough - since the politicians were right about the warming thing, and since they've been highly successful in the middle east (driving the oil prices) I guess I'd better trust them in relation to nuclear also.

At the same time though, the side effects of nuclear power are being misrepresented or misunderstood. I have two points there.

My first point is that although there is no 'safe' level of radioactivity, the natural world is radioactive. So in fact there is definitely a point where the danger of a given radiation source falls (or can fall) significantly below that of our normal surroundings.

My second point is that a long half life is not necessarily bad. From memory, the longer the half-life of a substance, the less radioactive it is (in terms of emissions per second). This is potentially a good thing - although plutonium complicates this as it is a conventional poison also.

Why has this debate come to a head now?

Because the world has been run by oil companies since WWII. ENERGY is the Number one driving force on the Planet in every aspect of maths, science, social dynamics and politics.

Oil giants have never wanted the general masses to know the truth as it takes the heat off them. But since 9/11 and more recently with extraordinary petrol price rises, both of which reflect the true cost and availability of oil, cracks have opened up in the oil companies' facade of lies. The cracks are wide enough that after a recent visit to George Bush, our own PM has seen the light and gone red hot nuclear. What was said between them we will never know, but we do know that GWBush is on the inside of the greatest oil monopoly in the world and that our PM looked like a stunned mullet after leaving the White House. If GWB is telling our PM to diversify energy stocks you can bet your life its time to diversify energy options.

Seeing through the cracks, the bottom line is that all the published estimates of available oil are overinflated to prevent global panic.

So maybe we should all keep a cool head, not panic and calmly discuss the most positive way to move forward on nuclear. This is likely to be value-adding Uranium exports to Pebble Bed Reactor form and maximising our Uranium profits to pay for research into better alternative options like fusion or an unmanned space generator option rather than building nuclear reactors.

To all the dissenters: we can't go back and we can't stay the same. The World's population is too big, growing rapidly and too energy hungry for delaying action. We really need to take this nuclear BRIDGE to our future or watch a collapse of human civilasations that will rival the extinction of the dinosaurs.

I repeat that low energy density sources like wind, tide and local-solar will not satify burgeoning world energy hunger no matter how much money we invest in them.

You're not looking hard enough. These new technologies are moving forward in leaps and bounds.

Nuclear power is unnecessary in Australia. We have plenty of other options staring us right in the face.

Nuclear power is too much of a liability at every stage.

EV,

Over the next 10 years everyone of the 7 Billion people on the planet will expect the first world lifestyles they see on TV, Video and Internet. Age old conceptions of first world people being intellectually or racially superior or special will be dragged into the dust. It is a myth that green alternative energy sources from Wind, local-solar and tides will satisfy 7 billion energy hungry needs (SUVs, Childcare, boats whitegoods, plamsa screens etc) when those needs rapidly and competitively become identical to ours. New Technology and low density sources are not nearly enough.

The world is going to require very high-energy-density energy sources with an imperative to gradually phase out climate changing coal technologies.

Like I said we can't go back now and we can't stay the same. Even though folks like you cannot see the pressure, the pressure is there in the hearts, minds and aspirations of a sea of mankind that nothing rational can stop and that paltry ill conceived ideas about mega high tech trickle feed energy cannot satisfy. Ie, we don't need Evs (electron violts), we need Terawatts.

One green technology I did not mention is Geothermal (>4Km Hot Rock) to replace coal fired power stations. With new flexible Laser drill rigs this should have been a cinch by now. I did not mention it because I am wondering why the delay in implementation. The only serious installation is in he Cooper Basin in South Australia.

But even PB nuclear Reactors will not hold off the inevitable civil collapse over the next 50 or so years as exponentially growing populations and aspirations collide. THAT is why Australia has got to stop business as usual immigration programs and develop the Nuclear BRIDGE I have spoken of for a real and sustainable future.

With Peak oil looming closer,unrestrained overpopulation, severe weather due to global warming, 9 billion population is a pipe dream. There will not be enough food or water for that amount. Power supply will be the least of human problems.
Already the death rate due to starvation is in the millions and increasing.

As far as I can see, nuclear energy is not being proposed as an alternative to oil but to coal. Why?. The lack of enegy is not an impediment to current or future growth. There is plenty of coal. The proposal that nuclear energy is a solution to oil shortages or the lack of energy is plainly and absolutely incorrect, wrong and completely misconceived. Economic growth may need energy ie a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. There is always a limiting factor in growth, if it is not energy it will be something else, water, capital, labour, customer demand, space (eg how many cars can fit on Hong Kong roads?) Also there is not a linear relationship between energy use and wealth and certainly not wellbeing

The industrial revolution did not occur because coal was discovered but the happy(?) concurrence of the steam engine and capital amongst other things. Which included cheap slave produced cotton and a large pool of displaced agricultural labour etc etc.

If the problem is not CO2 methane and other greenhouse gases what is? If unless the question is correct then it is unlikely the solution will be.

What had really cracked among the Australian miracles of unique prosperity, growth and wealth was a continuingly steady lying of energy self-independence: oil country import is 50% of consumed and in a few decades it to grow up to 75%.

Nuclear power stations is a step for straightening national security as well at the time as neighbouring Indonesia is to build own nuke capabilities-a domino effect, lol's.

Problems with coal.

The late 1800's saw world-population rise to 2-billion-people and the overpopulation strains resulted in two-world-wars and many mass-executions-of-civilians (putschs) in many countries.

The world-wars sped up the introduction of oil-exploration. Further world-wars have been averted since then under the misguided beliefs that advancement-in-civilised-morals-and-ethics along with the nuclear=deterrent have-been-solely-responsible.

The thermodynamics of human popoluations and the science of population dynamics tell a vastly different story. Only with a liquid high energy density fuel have we been able to invoke the technologies that make coal more efficient and clean with resultant surges in human populations to 6-billion with another billion coming over-the-next-ten-years.

As in all population-dynamics-studies, when the main source of energy or food that supports a population suddenly runs out, populations collapse catastrophically to reflect energy movements within that population. When oil runs dry we will be forced back to late 1800's thermodynamic status with perhaps enough residual non oil structured technology to support a global population of around 2.5 billion people. This population reversion will occur rapidly once gasoline prices reach a nominal $30 per gallon. And its already on the way.

Now converting coal and oil sands to oil will delay this reversion but only DELAY it and at a huge cost to already threatened environmental support structures. Structures upon which our civilisations silently depend. Coal is basically a rock and there are no serious ways to avert the sidestream pullutants from the many ways in which it can be processed. In the meantime the serious dent in our current free flow of oil energy will have a knock on effect in health as services are cut and conditions for pandemic diseases manifest. I expect that this is how the majority of 4-5 billion people will perish. Hospitals and sanitation depend on gasoline and oil and without them in a crisis a majority of the large number of sick people will die if not exterminated for quarantines. Panic greed, racism and all manner of human follies will also take their toll till a stable population that matches free energy flows throughout remaining-societal-elements is attained.

Continuing ..

Yes KAEP,everyone is side stepping the real problem,that of over population.Everyone cries out for more food ,aid and energy to solve the world's woes but ignore the reality of us breeding ourselves into extinction.

China is being responsible but in India,The Middle East,Africa,South America,and other Asian countries,there is almost no birth control.

If we breed like flies,we have to expect at some stage to die like them.

Continued ..

After a world collapse, coal will be the main energy source again. The world will take a-long-while-to-recover-before-other-alternative-energy-formats-are-viable-again after a spate of violent destruction. Coal could then support a population of around 2.5 billion for-over-a-thousand-years, provided the lesson of unwarranted-population-growth is learned. However 30-40% of coal output would need to be diverted to research into the high density alternative energy formats of Geothermal, Fission, Fusion and unmanned space-generator programs to-ensure-long-term-viability.

Additionally an unmanned space network for 'packetised' materials will be a priority. It will be roughly based on the internet and provide a safety valve so future populations do not have to inhumanely collapse in the event of world extinction events. At some point such a SWW or space-net would be able to take up millions of people for permanent or semi permanent space residence.

Of course a world collapse does not have to happen. A big component in averting it is to maximise Pebble Bed nuclear reactors NOW, in countries that can afford them like India and China. It is up to Australia to do its part and PROCESS uranium to PBR formats that are safe, non-polluting and unable to be used in bombs. This will give Australia enormous profit streams and a heavy nuclear industry that could support the Fusion and Space-based solar-generator programs above. These are are the real benefits to Australia of a going nuclear. At our current population level we don't need nuclear power stations. Maybe never, provided short sighted sartorial polititians do not bully, immigrate and high-rise us into needing them. We CAN be playing a BIG part in averting a currently inevitable world collapse.

An onshore heavy nuclear industry may even enable us to participate in a rudimentary SWW or Space-Net off-planet-population safety valve system if international support is forthcoming. Australia can and must be a major player in future world space programs with the profits from a value-added-Uranium-export-industry.

Its not only sport that Australian's can excel at. Provided there is honesty, safe waste disposal and fiscal equity in a local uranium enrichment industry its something we can all-get-excited-about.

Come-on-Aussie-come-on!

a number of contributors have indicated the apparent benefits and advantages of geothermal power.

I have been interested in this and followed the progress of the various commercial companies. However the system is never seriously considered or reviewed by government.

Can anyone explain why this is so?

Is it for example because of remoteness of supply, or high capital costs or transmission losses over the large distances.

Surely there must be valid reasons for ignoring what on the face of it seems to be the perfect system?

Last Word,

Here is a 1999 link on HDR (Hot Dry Rock) Geothermal energy in Australia and its future Challenges.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s18546.htm

Mind you, given the potential cost savings of laser drilling I still don't know why more progress has not been made since 1999.

Perhaps the oil industry has found it a threat and they are the guardians of global laser drilling capacity. I cannot say but it doesn't make sense.

Also I find it hard to understand how John Howard expects a rational debate on Australia's nuclear future if PBR (Pebble Bed Reactor) basics and advantages over past nuclear reactor designds are not fully circulated and discussed.

Without PBR technology and our role in being a major world value added PBR supplier, there is no debate because it is 100% certain in that case that we should not be expanding our nuclear export potential. It would just be like selling pig-iron to the Japanese before WWII all over again, but with the potential for far more sophisticated and dangerous enemies.

The following link is a good basic appreciation of PBR and why it is in our interests to embrace it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

I am asserting that the problem is greenhouse and not the lack of energy so pebble reactors or any other nuclear system - and seeing that pbr are experimental - will be implemented much too slowly to make the slightest difference. In general, they are not replacing coal but supplementing it as coal consumption (and all other carbon energy forms) is increasing and will continue to increase. Also there is a initial energy debt for any power system and particulary nuclear so in the short term make matters worse. What about the long term? In the longterm to quote Keynes we are all dead.
If we want to decrease greenhouse then direct restriction of greenhouse gases is the simplest and most direct action required. Alternative will spring from that action not vice versa. There must be a pithy way of expressing the folly of seeking circuitous solutions to simple problems. Simple in this contenxt does not mean painless

Problem with nuclear power is rather mental than technical/environmental.

Richard,

There is no such thing as greenhouse warming. It is THERMODYNAMICALLY impossible in our biosphere at this time in Geological history. Read this and you'll see what REAL scientists are saying:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

PS I will make you a bet that in 5 years there will be NO greenhouse warming scientists keft. It may be a lot sooner if there are NO major landfall hurricanes in the US this year. Last I looked at the Satellite maps, that was a distinct possibility

Aha, surely – see my message above.

Great! an authorative answer from "real science" in a film criticism film. If no global warming then why in the hell is the debate about alternative source of energy to one that is both cheap and plentiful. I give up.

Richard,

Greenhouse gases from coal and petrochemicals contrubute around 10% to Global overheating but it is all whisked away to the poles where it is radiated to space in a complex set of quantum chemistries. The whisking away is climate change and the Earth is not WARMING or ice caps melting. The big downside is toxic components of combusting essentilly-what-is-rocks-and-minerals. They are poisoning-us-all-and-it-will-get-worse.

As intense-pressure is placed on world-economies and social-systems by PEAK-oil (regular 50cent rises in fuel per litre from now) PBR nuclear-alternatives can BRIDGE us to high-density, clean-skies, energy. Waste-disposal is a problem but in concentrated-sites-only. Once the world realises we ALL have the same energy problem, terrorism will vanish and people WILL work together provided they feel there is HOPE. An Australian heavy-nuclear-processing-industry is a BIG part of that HOPE. We have an obligation as-well-as-commercial-need.

In the meantime, proof of these assertions is on-the-way in the current-US-hurricane-season. Changes are being made to wastewater disposal methods. These are showing on current satellite maps(SHA/SST). Marine Pollution attracts high-energy-hurricanes by the second-law-of-thermodynamics. Without pollution in the US-Gulf heat is being shunted up the US east coast away from the mainland. Thus there MAY be no major US landfall hurricanes this year. This will be proof that global warming is false and that climate change originates in oceanic pollution and that it can be controlled.

With climate change finally-under-control, the world MUST focus on Overpopulation-instabilities as the greatest-threat-to-our-future. The solution is to develop HIGH DENSITY CLEAN ENERGY SOURCES. Wind, tide, local-solar and biofuel power cannot do this. Their development is like using a-garden-hose-to-fill-Sydney-Harbour. They are low-density,-unsatisfying-and-inconstant.

Note, the main aim of PBRs is to give the world breathing-space while Fusion, Space-based-solar and Geothermal options
get-proper-R&D-funding. Australia has a big part to play in this. . Without our role, the oil companies will continue to sit on world innovation and capital in the hope of being BIG WINNERS in a world collapse. Oil executives should take note that there will be NO winners, only SURVIVORS and that Australia intends to develop world-HOPE through infinite energy alternatives, using Uranium processing as an-initial-leverage.

Yeah, is it hard to understand, Richard, either warming or not, traditional natural fossil power sources are limited, and a question is, how much nukes should be used to NOW rather than considering a usage of nuclear power generally?