The way that nuclear power is used in the early twenty-first century can be compared to a person who burns all the matches in the house to get warm because he can't be bothered going out to get wood from the back shed. The time comes when he has plenty of wood, but no way to light it.

Most nuclear power stations use only about 1% of the energy available from the uranium that they use as fuel. This is not only a waste of a finite resource; it is a betrayal of our responsibility to future generations.

If humanity mines all the easily available uranium, runs it through our terribly inefficient reactors, uses 1% of the available power and then disposes of the remainder, it means that the other 99% of the energy becomes unavailable. On the other hand, if we use it efficiently, get 100% of the available power out of it, the resource will last much longer.

Natural uranium consists mainly of two varieties, or isotopes; 99.3% is U238 and 0.7% is U235. Current nuclear power reactors use (fission) the U235 and a very little of the U238, but technology is available to get nearly 100% of the energy from the uranium; fast neutron reactors are capable of fissioning both isotopes. U235 is needed to start all nuclear reactors; it can be compared to the match that sets fire to the wood.

Another radioactive element, thorium, while not fissile itself, can be converted into fissile U233 in a nuclear reactor. (Uranium 233 does not occur in nature.) There is estimated to be three times as much thorium in the earth's crust than uranium. If Man 'burns' all the U235 without using it to convert the thorium to uranium that will also be a resource lost to future generations.

References and further reading
Wikipedia has an article on thorium at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium.

Look up fast neutron reactors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_neutron_reactor.

Also an article in Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com), Dec. 2005, "Smarter use of nuclear waste", described fast neutron reactors combined with pyrometallurgical recycling of the fuel.

sunpower and batteries are already capable of supplying australia's consumer electricity needs. geothermal will supply a lot of industrial/commercial needs with the balance using coal.

the coal part can be phased out as new technology appears. hydrogen reactors are getting close to producing power and are very likely to take over base loads in the next 50 years.

there is no need for uranium based power generation. by the time it can be a significant source, it may be obsolete. but the problems of spent fuel will remain, as well as the possibility of catastrophe from operation.

so what is the impetus for a sudden dash into uranium energy? who benefits? just a wild guess: mining interests are funding election campaigns.

I know nothing about the science or efficiencies/inefficiencies of nuclear power, but I do know that NO-ONE has yet said what happens when a plant has to be decommissioned, nor has anyone been able to give guarantees that we will not have to live out the rest of our days wondering when we will be wiped out - slowly and agonizingly - by waste material stored underground in common old steel 44 gallon drums (such a sophisticated way to deal with the deadliest substance known to man, I don't think!)

yep it worries the hell out of me....

I think that the little I do know about nuclear power....
is frightening enough...

just the thought of the old sites, and accidents that have occured world wide, and on submarines and such, and dumping....
is terrifying...
and the proof of human damage.... is even worse....
gross out stuff

are there any experts here, on WIND power, and solar....
after all, australia has tons of sun....
and wind....

I for one, would vote the thing OUT ... nuclear never...grin

why do people think it is such a good idea ?

JHH

hiya all
seems to me to be a non academic argument, when the stuff runs out like coal and oil what's left but renewables why not turn a deaf ear to the miners and even the conservationist and get stuck into researching renewables like wind, solar,tidal etc.etc.
if we follow costello's advice when are we going to have a population not even renewables can satisfy.
lucky for me another ten years it won't be my problem.
good luck people

Forgive my ignorance, but is there any other method we use nuclear substances for, besides using it to blow the living heck out of some country? Ive heard of nuclear reactors and nuclear fusion and the obvious items used in warfare. why not drop one of the unmentionables on the factories that manufacture these banes to mankind.I do not see any efficient use for nuclear resources, because those that use them, are up to no-good and find ways to exploit the people who work with these resources.