I'm not sure what this article is saying. Perhaps it is a lament for the realisation that 'squeaky clean' wind and solar energy cannot replace coal despite the efforts of countries like Spain, Denmark and Germany. The choice now appears to be between a nuclear revival and a return to 19th century living standards. If nuclear gets the nod (before the economy loses its ability to make large investments) then we have to make it as safe and proliferation resistant as possible.

The green movement is now faced with a catch 22.

It has to choose between global warming or nuclear power.

If they wait long enough we will have both.

History is repeating itself.

Two centuries ago there were those who fought against mechanisation. There main concern was jobs but some might have argued that steam engines driven by dirty coal were polluting the environment. If only they had understood global warming theory in those day they might have been able to stop mechanisation in its tracks and we could still be living in peace and harmony tending our farms and enjoying our life expectancy of 25 years.

Now we not only have dirty fossil fuels we have dirty uranium as well to fight against. If we get rid of both we also say goodbye to reliable electricity which will largely fix the mechanisation problem that the luddites fought so hard against back in the early part of the 19th century.

We could wind the clock back to those good old days. Is that what you want Professor Lynch?

All issues of the military and chemical dangers of uranium aside, the basic numbers for a nuclear electricity future just don’t stack up. Consider the following, based on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IEA) own numbers:

World reserves of uranium (commercial at $US130/kg- present price $US120/kg): 5.5 million tonnes.
Present annual consumption by reactors: 66,500 tonnes.
Therefore, present lifetime of reserves: about 80 years.
Proportion of world’s electricity presently supplied: 16%.
Proportion of total energy demand: 6%
“Expected” (by IEA) annual demand by 2030: about100,000 tonnes.
Therefore lifetime of reserves in 2030: about 30 years- ie to 2060.
Present annual increase in global energy demand: 2.4% = 30 year doubling period.

The IEA optimistically estimates possible reserves at 10.5 million tonnes, which would stretch the lifetime to 60 years (2090) at expected 2030 production rates. This barely maintains the proportion of the total energy contributed by nuclear.

What does a “nuclear future” mean? Even if the proportion of nuclear energy were to double by 2050 (to about 30% of electricity and about 15% of total energy, assuming a moderate shift to electricity, the nuclear supply would have to quadruple (ie 4 times present). Assuming a linear ramp-up between now and 2050, about 6 million tonnes of uranium will have been consumed by that date, and the estimated 10.5 million tones will have been exhausted in about another 16 years (about 2075).

The IEA is optimistic that advanced reactors will extend the reserves to 1000 years. However, none are yet being built commercially, and commencement still looks decades away. Any sensible scenario for developing a stable of advanced reactors, starting from scratch in 2010, given the time taken to build a reactor (about 10 years at present), will still have the uranium resources pretty well depleted before advanced reactors can take over.

These numbers are never addressed publicly by nuclear boosters. And they are the IEA’s own numbers.

Surprisingly I agree with all the other commentators to date, even including Taswegian. The article does not acknowledge the basic reason for the increased interest in nuclear energy, that it remains the only partical way to provide base load power that does not emit many tonne of carbon.
The concern over nuclear proliferation which seems to be that article's main argument is sooo 70s, and arguably a shaky idea back then. Since then the Soviet Union had gone through a considerable period of upheaval in which a lot of its conventional arsenal found its way onto the black market. Why wasn't there a black market in soviet nuclear devices? Not sure, but one would have thought that was the real danger period for terrorist use of nuclear weapons - one of the arguments against nuclear proliferation. As for Nth Korea and Iran, where is that uranium coming from?
Then there is the issue of waste which has to be stored, but the volumes involved are infinitismal compared to the waste from a coal station. Safe storage is really only a problem in the mind of the article's author.

A long rambling essay which doesn't say very much at all!
Of course the world could be decimated by nuclear bombs,but that is a political matter which has nothing to do with the necessity of establishing nuclear power plants.
Already they are a major contributor to electricity production in Europe,for example in France 70% of requirements are made by them.
Australia is living in its usual isolated lotus land intellectual vacuum.We are still fantasizing about all the usual silly alternatives,none of which are realistic
If we really proceed to shut down the coal fired plants, we wiil really have no choice other than nuclear plants.
The latest ones are light years in advance of the Chernobyl designs as regards efficiency and safety.
In Australia,it has been calculated that an area the size of 5 Olympic pools could contain all our waste requirements for the next 1000 years!
If Nuclear fusion becomes practical within a few decades,there would be no waste at all.
Wake up Australia!