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.