as ludwig has pointed out, the real problem is population, not power.
if we start solving this problem now, it will be less painful than if we wait until we have looted the earth.

it's a finite world, people- the oil, coal, and uranium cupboards are not inexhaustible. this fact has finally appeared on the political radar, not because politicians are foresighted leaders, and certainly not because oil profits have been plowed back into windfarms and solar cells, but because petrol prices are prompting restiveness amongst the sheep.

we are going to shift to renewable energy- because soon that's all there will be. if we shift now as fast as we can, we may prevent the collapse of the world economy and consequent population crash. or maybe not- lots of well qualified people guess humanity is vastly over-represented on the face of the planet.

the only visibly sustainable human society is smaller in it's energy demand, much smaller. we can do it by reducing population through planning, or reducing the standard of living. the rich and powerful will ensure the second option is preferred, not for them, of course- for you. the first option will come from democracy, if you had it.

our best efforts may not prevent catastrophe. letting (human) nature take its course will guarantee it. that will reduce population in the traditional way- the four horsemen are waiting.

West

You've recognised Markob's question but you may have chosen to ignore the answer I've alluded to. That is defence priorities underpin the overt energy reasons for nuclear.

The prospect of weapons grade uranium (and other nuclear explosives) may well be sufficient for the Federal Government to pursue the nuclear energy option notwithstanding the enviromental and economic inefficiencies of nuclear.

To achieve weapons grade uranium the Government would need to propose (or accept commecial offers for) a nuclear enrichment industry.

All this will take a lead time of say 20 years to develop. That means we can't wait till nasty little countries have gotten too far ahead of us. Within 5 years North Korea will have progressed from its current crude nuclear bombs to deliverable nuclear weapons. Iran will have crude weapons. This is in addition to Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Russia, France, the UK and the US that can, or soon will be, able to push Australia around with their nuclear weapons threats (or possible use...)

So everyone, continue to be morally and economically surprised why the Government is pushing nuclear over obvious energy alternatives. I've outlined what I see is the answer above and I think the Government is taking the best path on this issue.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Haydon Manning is part of a delusion - the Phantom Pregnancy that hopes for a Nuclear Renaissance! Haydon Manning skims cheerfully over some problem areas. For example - the "pebble bed reactors". For one thing, these are astronomically expensive. Just who is going to invest in them? OK - China - a totalitarian state, where the government foots the bill, has set up one experimental reactor. I've yet to learn of any democratic country where investors are happy to pay up - at least not without tax-payer support for the set-up, the clean-up, and any accident that might occur in the future.
The U.S company Exelon withdrew its involvement in developing pssble bed reactors in 2002.
Pebble bed reactors are not all that safe - quite a risk of accident due to loss of coolant. With the high costs, how does Manning know that the developers might reduce costs by reducing safety measures. Some reactors are planned without containment building.
I am amused that Manning thinks states could not co-operate across borders, regarding wind farms, thus providing base-load electricity. After all, Norway and Denmark are separate nations, and manage to do this quite well. Does Manning seriously think that Australian states would co-operate better with nuclear power stations?

It is depressing indeed to read arguments in favour of outdated and lethal ‘solutions’ to energy needs. 40 years ago the world supply of petroleum was deemed to be inexhaustible. It has now all but run out. Haydon Manning knows perfectly well that, pebble reactors notwithstanding, nothing has changed since Rutherford first split the atom… uranium is as limited a resource as petroleum, and there is no way to safely dispose of the waste.
I’ll repeat that. There is no way to safely dispose of the waste products and there never will be and yet nowhere in this article does he mention that most important fact. Blithely he announces that increasing numbers of Indians, Chinese and Indonesians will demand to live as westerners have lived for the last half century and therefore there is no alternative but to provide the energy.
There are loads of alternatives including an examination of the insane notion that economies and populations can expand forever.
Planet earth has one inexhaustible and reliable source of energy. It is free. There are no toxic by products. It required no mines – it is the sun.
Calculations of the cost of nuclear reactors must take into account the construction of mining equipment, mining itself, refining, enrichment, research and building of reactors, ongoing maintenance, astronomical costs of ongoing security, ongoing fuel costs, astronomical costs associated with present unsafe waste storage, constant stand-by medical centres in case of radiation leaks, the dismantling and decommissioning of these plants after their ‘life’ of around 25 years.
We have poisoned the land, air and water with our toxic wastes. We have destroyed virtually all the nature that clothed the planet up until a century or so ago. We have built mega cities riddled with crime and unhappiness. We are at war everywhere… problems directly resulting from previous decisions to pursue economic growth at all costs. Well, the costs now greatly exceed the benefits.
I'm with Ludwig, West, Demo and Christinamack, and alarmed by Plantaganet’s predictions of imminent nuclear war.

On the basis of Haydon Manning's article, I question his claims to be a "competent generalist" and to be striving to be objective. Membership of ACF does not make him an environmentalist. He carelessly tosses out phrases like "dogmatic", "conspiratorial notions", "anti-nuclear rhetoric" and "fallacious claim", but cannot back them up with any informed arguments or evidence.

His objection to the scientific evidence, that CO2 emissions from uranium mining and milling are increasing as uranium ore grade is decreasing, is a peculiar and illogical one. He claims, contrary to empirical evidence, that uranium "usually" occurs with other minerals, such as copper, and that the uranium is simply a byproduct.

The truth, based on data from the OECD Red Book,is that 9 of the top 10 uranium mines in the world are uranium-only mines. Roxby Downs is the exception, not the rule.

Manning's claim that the nuclear lobby is tiny compared with environmental NGOs is simply ridiculous. What about BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, ANSTO, etc? Manning's article is an excellent demonstration of dogma and delusion about nuclear power.

Finally,I suggest that people consider the evidence presented in my book, "Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy" that Australia could achieve huge reductions in GHG emissions without waiting 20 years plus for nuclear power or so-called "clean coal". As Manning admits, he has no expertise in this field.

Mark Diesendorf

In my previous post I wrote;

“As for the merits of nuclear power, I don’t really have a strong view either way.”

Oh balls! What was I thinking?!

This is the first really regrettable thing I have written on this forum in 1400 posts!

I withdraw that statement…and hang my head in shame (:>(

What I should have said is that I am not willing to completely dismiss nuclear power. But my criteria for its use are so tight that is virtually a complete dismissal.

Most importantly, if it is ever to be used in Australia, it must be to make up a shortfall in energy needs in a society that is making every effort to achieve genuine sustainability, and is very likely to fall apart without that energy source, and where that energy shortfall just cannot be met by other means, nor changes in lifestyle to reduce energy demand be achievable without major conflict erupting.

So I reckon nuclear power could possibly have a small part to play in a future sustainable society. But only as a very distant last resort.