Well we all know what time of the day Chris Harries wrote his first line:
"With both John Howard and Kim Beazley egging on a uranium debate, let’s have one."
It was breakfast.
Chris, you are too late with the egg timer. The debate is over, John one, Kim one, the public, nil.

Good article but two points to note :
1..Uranium reserves will increase dramatically now that it is wortwhile spending money on exploration. Virtually nothing took place over the last 25 years.Spot price is now US$47.25 as against underUS$10 for years.
2..Electricity price hardly moves with an increase in the U price [contributes only about 5%to cost compared to oil or coal representing over 55%]because the capital cost of building a nuclear power plant is so much greater.
To me nuclear is the way to go because the greenhouse gas emissions are virtually zero, the latest designs are inherently safer and they can be guaranteed to provide continuous base load electricity.And the waste produced is miniscule in quantity. Wind ,hydro ,solar etc can help but they have visual,environmental and cost disadvantages.

I don't support the mining of uranium or nuclear energy. However, if the mining of uranium comes down to economics, we would be far better of to stick with the 3 mines policy. Restricting supply as demand increases (supposedly) will mean higher prices for our uranium in the future. OPEC sets limits on the amount of oil produced daily which keeps the price high. Flooding the market with uranium just because it is available will lower the price.

ICEBERG,
Why would reserves increase?
Do you find more needles in a haystack just because you look night and day all year. The more you look, the moer the cost.

If the building of a nuclear power plant is so much greater it is also a lot greater in maintenance. Waste emissions are radioactive for thousands of years.

Calculate the maintenance costs for thousands of years or do we just calculate for our own generation.

We have to calculate the maintenance until the radioactivity is nil, maybe to the year 200,006 if you let the geni out of the bottle or it will kill every living thing.

I agree that the temptation to mine uranium will be irresistible. Other reasons might include electrification of transport as oil depletes and watching other countries do well from using Australian uranium. However I think there are two caveats;
1) recognising it as a one-off
2) decisive action on waste
Barring a technical breakthrough (eg fusion, fast breeders) we will eventually have to transition to a solar economy. If everybody is entitled to enjoy the trappings of the middle class that almost certainly means a much lower world population. A half century of nuclear will enable us to cut coal use and massively invest in squeaky clean but low yield technologies. The fact that so much nuclear waste has been stored above ground is inexcusable. In relative terms the annual volume of waste is small and the area for deep dry rock disposal is large. Make terrorism targets just peanuts. Just do it properly and maintain the right long term outlook.

What a lot of nonsense that article was! Uranium is a more limited resource that will run out in 40 years? In fact the amount of energy available in terrestrial Uranium is enormously greater than that in known oil reserves. Perhaps the author is referring to the supply of U235 from current commercial mines. To squander this resource for electrical generation would indeed be criminal because it could deny us the vast energy locked up in U238 and Th232. This is because U235 is the only fissile material which occurs on Earth in significant quantities. It can supply neutrons (n) in large numbers to drive the following reactions:

U238 (fairly useless) + n -> Pu239 (excellent fissile material!)
Th232 (fairly useless) + n -> U233 (excellent fissile material!)

Disputur

Chris Harris sets out a persuasive argument against uranium mining and the nuclear industry. I'd just like to add to his comments. Firstly, the emphasis on nuclear power not only encourages more consumption of energy, but also diverts attention, research and investment away from truly renewable and truly clean energy sources.
Secondly - with the push to sell more uranium, will inevitably come the push to have Australia store nuclear wastes. The U.S.A in particular has already a tremendous problem with unstored nuclear wastes. For sure, they will pay Australian interests big bucks to have us take back their civilian and military wastes. Not only financial, but also moral pressure will be placed upon Australia to get into the nuclear cycle from cradle to grave. It's truly a grave thought.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

The future is nuclear, of that there can be no doubt. Therefore the sooner we enter and play an Australian part in all aspects of the nuclear industry the better. Clearly uranium mining makes good economic sense. But even more important to my mind is the health and safety record of the nuclear industry. As unpalatable as it may seem to some the record of the nuclear industry in this area is outstandingly good.

How many times does it have to be explained that the Chernobyl accident will not be reproduced. The 13 or so remaining RBMK reactors have been modified and have functioned well in the last 20 years. Other reactors do not suffer the design faults of the original RBMK(positive void coefficient). The newest 4th generation reactors will be even safer when they come on line.

By the way there is a human mortality associated with wind mills, please see
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/pages/accidentData.htm

Do we Really want another Maralinga in Australia??

It is now over 50 years since the first bomb was detonated!!

When there is an accident (not if, but when) who will foot the bill??

And how long will it take for the Government of the day to accept blame??

Non Liability Health Care Treatment for Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests in Australia.

It has taken various Governments 50 years to release a "Token Package" for the remaining survivors of the testing (to use the latest term) "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION".

http://www.dva.gov.au/health/spec_programs/nuctest/index.htm

http://www.dva.gov.au/health/spec_programs/nuctest/faq.htm

For Information:
Australian Nuclear Veterans Association.

users.bigpond.net.au/anva/

Kryptonite lobby out in force I see. What do they have to say... mining uranium is the same as letting off atomic bombs at Maralinga... uranium is bad because it let's us consume energy.

<sigh> Forum mean IQ lower than expected... such is life.

Chris is right when he says that uranium won't last forever, but as other posters have remarked it will last a lot longer than 40 years. If by that time nuclear fusion has been made practicable, our energy resources will be unlimited, as the fuel for nuclear fusion reactors (remember the world's first fusion power station is currently under construction in France) is sea water. If we cannot get fusion to work, mankind is finished.

Another point that no-one seems to mention. Much has been made of the dangers of uranium, but coal contains on average 6 grams of uranium per ton, and the uranium is released into the atmosphere (along with a lot of other nasty chemicals) when it is burnt. Why don't we hear about this?

As far as abandoning our high energy lifestyle, and going back to the 19th century is concerned, that would be OK of we had the 19th century level of population. Most large cities today would be uninhabitable without energy, and millions would die. It is true we are addicted to a growth economy. The alternative, a non-growth economy, was last experienced in the 1930's and called the Great Depression. People didn't like that much either.

Fancy that, an article from a Bob Brownie about uranium without any facts.. who would have thunk it. Uranium mining has been banned in Australia's most geologically prospective States (WA and QLD) for many years under the weird "three mines policy" of the ALP (but meanwhile encouraged in SA - apparently there are good U atoms and bad U atoms depending on which State they are located). ICEBERG is correct. The increase in U price will see lots more exploration and lots more exploration will result in a lot more U being found. Compared to copper and gold, little historic effort has gone into looking for U.

Chris Harries writes:

“The lure of a financial bonanza may seem worth it now, but nuclear energy as a non-renewable resource will only serve to entrench our addiction to non-sustainable, high-energy consumption. What then?

This is the real nub of the problem and this is when the economic sums simply don’t add up any more.

In the words of Albert Einstein, ‘It is not possible to solve a problem with the same consciousness that made it.’ ”

Absolutely.

With our current way of thinking, getting down and dirty in the nuclear energy arena in this country is only going to take us further away from sustainability and lead us to a bigger crisis, and only another 25 or 30 years down the track. The crisis at that point will be much greater because the population will have built up to a much higher level, thus stressing supplies (or exhausting them) of many other resources. The facilitation of a larger population will lead to the worsening of all sorts of environmental pressures and make it much harder for us to adapt when nuclear energy becomes unviable.

The nub of the problem is to overcome our addiction to continuous expansionism and other grossly unsustainable practices. This will require a major shift in consciousness.

continued

The now widespread realisation in the general community of peak oil, or eternally rising fuel prices, plus the even higher-profile transnational water-supply issues, should serve as triggers for serious consideration and expression of a genuine sustainability paradigm. And the call from Howard and Beazley to have a nuclear debate should most definitely be extended into a sustainability or future-strategy debate that is much wider than just the nuclear issue.

I call on the Greens, Democrats, Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia, etc, etc, to make sure that the national debate on nuclear futures is fully extended into the realms of true sustainability, and that this includes some very hard debating on the notions that many of us think of as unquestionable - maintaining our high-energy lifestyles, worshipping continuous economic growth, maintaining high immigration, raising our fertility rate, etc.

Again, this means first and foremost, stabilising the whole size of the Australian populace, economy and impact on our environment and resource base, so that the demand for everything can match the supply, rather than supply rates having to struggle to cater for ever-increasing demand.

With this paradigm of stability and balance implemented as a fundamental tenet in our political system and way of life, there might just be a place for a nuclear industry

Cheer up everyone.

The nuclear nongs will have to supply Australia with heaps of liquid fossil sunshine in order to make their dreams come true.

Why? Because the nuclear industry is as dependant upon fossil sunshine as is a squadron of F-16s. What a bonfire of fossil fuel the nuclear boondoggle will be. Bring it on!

Add this warning to all the other global warnings.
Buy gold nuggets, Oz uranium shares, hard rock radioactive waste storage facility shares, sell your city house, shift to the western, water and wind rich hills of NZ and watch the future futility roll on.
A few nights spent on the net googling subprime mortgage, Federal Reserve, climate change, depleted uranium, peak oil,desertification, synthetic oestrogen and their links should be enough. Good luck.

Oooooow

Such a cynical outlook!

No, hold on….

Such a realistic outlook

Bugger!!

(:>(

Well you can't buy gold nuggets with Telstra shares.
Not while you have a broad band that is too slow, and a lot slower about 20 times slower than comparable countries overseas.

Australia:

Rupert wants to own all the media http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/news-and-google-leap-into-bed--for-12b/2006/08/08/1154802887915.html
The new media monopoly laws aren't enough.

Costello and Howard are Out Of Touch. To them Australians are just in the wrong place at the wrong time like this Cabbie http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cabbie-who-tried-to-help-ends-up-dead/2006/08/09/1154802927990.html.
While they engineer a meaner more violent Australia (in their own image) through cheapskating on monopolies, unjustified immigration, State Labor/ Federal Liberal unification and workplace Draconia we the people are being drowned in NEGLECT and pissante tax cuts.

Now, with PEAK oil upon us we need new leadership that puts Australians first. A leader who will say OK we are short on skills? Lets immigrate Teachers and train Australians to hold the keys to their own destiny rather that handing it to a bunch of skilled immigrant heavies. We need the equivalent of 15% of today's GDP in R&D for new energy sources as well to make this country energy independent.

Now such aspirations cost money and that is where Value-added-Uranium sales MUST play a part in our economic portfolio for some 40 years.

If we still need Uranium exports after 40years we have failed! However as I have pointed out on OLO numerous times, Australia COULD afford an umanned space program for ET solar power, a wetland program to control climate, Dry Rock Geothermal power stations and 1% of new jobs going to Nanotech R&D for new fuels, fuel cells and other nanotech-innovations.

As for cutting back human per capita energy usage? It can't be done. The Nature of the human mind is always to want either MORE or WAR. That is the indelible message of our history. Therefore we have just one option. Uranium will help us acheive it.

And lets at least think about closing Canberra. Its the epitomy of "out-of-touch' and it ain't workin'

I was about to sign up for a "Faustino bargain", but ...

Well I subscibe to the theory that we have it, they want it, let's see how much they are will to pay for it!

Mine as much uranium as we can while it lasts.

All this crap about what MAY happen - we already take large risks associated with car travel, airline travel etc. - plenty are killed each day - but we still carry on those activities.

Why the big scare about nuclear stuff?