renysol

If you look at the environment and human safety, nuclear is many times safer and environmentally friendly than coal.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

Similarily that there is a shortage of nuclear fuel is also a myth. With newer reactors there is sufficient for thousands of years.

Shadow minister says Similarly that there is a shortage of nuclear fuel is also a myth. With newer reactors there is sufficient for thousands of years.

Please point out where there are commercially available newer reactors and when could one become on line in Australia, perhaps by 2050.

Peak uranium is when?

It may be all the existing (and proposed) nuclear power stations (life times are 40 years and can be rebuilt for 80 years) would use all the available fuel before Shadow ministers newer, generation 3 and 4, are commercially available if ever.

India and China are planning on a very large number of nuclear power plants and they will all be using existing technologies.

Last night I asked some energy guys in Europe about those PBMR nuclear reactors, however, they don't exist. It is hoped they will exist one day.

I lived near such a research reactor, the THTR in Hamm in Germany when that 'inherently safe design reactor' surprisingly broke down in 1986, releasing radioactivity, and consequently has been buried under 5 metres of concrete in 1989.

So those telling us about thousands of years of supply should be so honest and also tell us that they are talking about hopes, not reality.

What is wrong with renewable energy? Anybody doubting that Australia could be supplied with electricity including cars from concentrated solar power, wind and wave energy?

I have a friend, now retired, who was THE expert on nuclear reactors
in Australia and he tells me that with the reprocessing techniques now
available, all the waste can be reused for an extremely long time to
the point that the residue has very low activity.

Now I know no more than that about it all. I think peak uranium
production is not that far away and it would I imagine put a limit on
existing style plants because of their economic lifetime.
However the peak is the production or uranium not the use and reuse
of it, that could be a very long time.

I have not seen him for some time, so I don't know his recent opinion.

Renysol and PeterA,

Please google the CANDU reactors of which there are 6 presently running for a decade or more.

Their requirement for much lower levels of enrichment and the ability to use lower quality reprocessed waste enables at least 10x the amount of energy to be produced per ton of natural uranium.

Also the existing reserves are based on what can be mined at $80 per kg (or 0.05c per kWhr) for which there is 30+yrs supply at 100% of the worlds electricity supply with 1970s reactors.

If the price is increased to $160 /kg, the reserves increase 10 fold again.

So with existing technologies that can be installed by 2020 there is no shortage in reality for 1000s of years.

This should be sufficient time for the Gen IV and thorium reactors to come on line which will increase the energy capability by orders of magnitude again. (India will have a test thorium reactor on line in 2010)

The intrinsically safe reactors are still under development, but use similar fuel to existing reactors. Their purpose is completely different, to provide smaller safer power supplies to far flung communities and save on distribution costs. Existing designs are functioning, but not at a viable cost (yet).

Here's a good debate on fast reactors from BraveNewClimate (there are 45 comments)

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/04/clean-future-in-nuclear-power/

As I noted above, here in Australia, natural gas can tide us over in the short to medium term until nuclear or other sources become viable (including compressed natural gas for cars)