The article states that:

"The water consumption of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation measures is negligible compared to nuclear or coal. Operating a 2,400 Watt fan heater for one hour consumes 0.01 litres of water if wind is the energy source, 0.26 litres if solar is the energy source, 4.5 litres if coal is the energy source, or 5.5 litres if nuclear power is the energy source."

I'm hoping the authors are following this conversation and can offer the source of this data, and state whether it is offered directly or has been inferred.

And then, there's Democritus' opinion, that:

"Present day Nuclear also has an efficiency of about 1/3 but new design reactors (Gen IV) will have an efficiency of about 45% (close to gas."

which can be can be gotten from the Wikipedia article on Generation IV reactors:

"Supercritical water-cooled reactors (SCWRs) are promising advanced nuclear systems because of their high thermal efficiency (i.e., about 45% vs. about 33% efficiency for current LWRs) and considerable plant simplification."

The remainder of the article suggest to me that Generation IV reactors seem to me a bit far down the line to be of immediate use in dealing with our global warming difficulties.

My humble guess is that the sort of subsidies and federal guarantees necessary to plant any kind of nuclear reactor anywhere in Australia will not be forthcoming in the near future; not even from a Coalition government.

It is good that information about the water use of nucler power is coming out. Water is our most precious resource and although some of the issues surrounding the power station uses are discussed often, the incredible amount used in the mining of uranium is a huge issue for this country to deal with also.
The truth is there are no easy answers. Unfortunately, although the science of nuclear power is clever, is an option that is not intelligent in the long term. Surely the lesson that we have learnt from the impending oil crisis would show humanity that using finite resources is short sighted. We have other options, but there is less centralised profits to be made if we reorganise the agenda, so the push away from nuclear is a difficult one.
It doesn't help when there are sarcastic, misinformed gits suggesting that sea water can be used in Nuclear Power plants, as though the salt would not affect the equipment in any way.

Belated apologies for my North American spelling of "defence" above.

Democritus, Sir Vivor,

The argument from water usage is indeed based on fact; this is the experience of actual nuclear power stations in countries which already produce much of their electricity this way. Nuclear reactors tend to be located according to availability of large volumes of water which is passed through the plant and discharged at a higher temperature rather than evaporated (the thermal efficiency of steam equipment cooled this way depends on the initial temperature of the cooling water -- the cooler the better, which is why inland nuclear power plants have to be shut down during heat waves and fresh-water shortages). "Consumption" usually doesn't refer to the volume of water passed through the plant, but to the net evaporative loss due to the presence of the plant -- this includes excess evaporation from downstream rivers and lakes due to their elevated temperature.

Coal-fired power plants are located near coal mines and are therefore likely to use more cooling towers, which requires less input water but decreases thermal efficiency. Evaporative cooling concentrates contaminants in the small amount of water discharged, whether already present or originating in the power plant.

Of course seawater cooling is possible, and there are other, better, newer ways it might be done (including improving thermal efficiency with an extra thermodynamic cycle or two, costly but eminently possible), but there are also other, better, newer non-nuclear electric generation options as well.

For instance:

"Solar is a nice, soft, easy answer" -- John Howard (Prime Minister of Australia)

"We think we can move much faster than nuclear and on an unsubsidised basis, we will be cheaper than nuclear power, and we should be cheaper than IGCC [integrated gasification combined cycle] coal-based power generation" -- Vinod Khosla, venture capitalist (late of Sun Microsystems, Grameen Bank)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm

This is the same collector technology that supplies a respectable fraction (90MW thermal, converting to 36MW electrical, whenever it's sunny) of the primary energy supply to NSW's Liddell power station:

http://askac.atnf.csiro.au/meetings/2003-09-10-Energy/Solar%20Concentrating%20Power%20Developments-David%20Mills.pdf

Maybe gigawatt-scale generators have a future after all ;-)

Xoddam, re:
"The argument from water usage is indeed based on fact;"

I'm satisfied this is so, as I researched a closely related issue over 30 years ago. My interest is in the details of determining water consumption for each electricity source listed, and hence my request for citations.

For those who doubt it is a problem, perhaps they should have a look through the citations listed at the end of the Parliamentary Library report mentioned in Green and Wareham's article.

See:
"Water requirements of nuclear power stations"
at
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn12.pdf

In particular,

"9. Water & Sustainability (Volume 3):U.S. Water Consumption for
Power Production—The Next Half Century, Topical Report
March 2002, EPRI, Concord,
http://www.epriweb.com/public/000000000001006786.pdf"

provides the US Electric Power Research Institute's projections of water requirements of electric power plants there, over the next 50 or so years. EPRI would not be anti-nuclear or anti-coal; they are more like an industry lobby with a planning perspective.

Perhaps Perseus can read up, have a slice of humble pie and offer some to others who believe Green and Wareham's concern to be baseless propaganda?

Meanwhile, I'd appreciate the added bibliographic detail about water use attributed to wind and solar electricity.

A very interesting post and my thanks to the backgrounding provided.
While logic, scientific or otherwise, should determine 21st century energy generation, we all suspect/know that it will be a political trade-off done in a time frame that almost begars belief.
Thorium reactors along with fusion might be at the far end of that time frame, sustainable cooling systems allowing.
Thinking 'political', wind, solar, hot rocks and wave energy generation will probably be spaced along that continuum perhaps even in that order.
Coal fired power will be like the backyard bbq in a total fire ban.
Energy saving mechanisms will have been politically mandated perhaps even to the point of everyone carrying a carbon credit card.
And yes just as some posts have pointed out, the process will be corrupted by some out of design or stupidity. So lets just keep calm and dignified as we face it together.

Australia's second largest uranium mine, at Olympic Dam uses 12GL/year at the moment, though this may grow to 48GL/year. Currently the water is sourced from the Great Artesian Basin, but there is talk of building a coastal desalination plant and a pipeline to meet future needs.

http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/industry/corporate/eecp/case-studies/wmc.html

12GL/year is really quite a trivial amount - it's only 32 ML per day. Compare this with Metropolitan Sydney's average daily consumption over the last week of 1492 ML.

Given the suggestion that a desalinator and pipeline may be built in future, this indicates that the Artesian Basin (which is yielding salty water anyway) cannot tolerate increased withdrawal, but it also means that expansion of the mine will not further stress the local water resource.

So, while the raw numbers of water usage by the uranium mining industry look large, they are small when seen in context. Further, where necessary, the uranium mining industry can afford to source its water in a way that has no impact on water resources. Add that to the fact that nuclear power stations can be cooled by sea water, or if necessary, air cooled, and it is clear that the authors of the original article have started out with an objection to nuclear power, and are just using water shortage as a spurious pretext for not using it.

Sylvia.