<< Back to article
And so if 1/3 of the world’s uranium lies in the ground, locking up 13 years supply until the end of the period of supply by the other countries.
Does this mean Australia must follow the course of nuclear weapons to defend our right to leave it there or suffer the fate of Iraq in an exchange of blood for uranium?.
Is a North America in the dark the same as an Asia without water.
And if Labor was smart enough to reject more mines and go for broke on renewables, how long would they last before the Governor General, on behalf of a great and powerful friend, the energy lobby, declared the sun reprehensible and dismissed such a government.
Whichever way, the progressive elements of Australia are in for a major showdown with the forces of capital.
Gentle at first and using government as their tool the juggernaut will attempt to have its way with the cost to Austalians completely disregarded.
Come to the Territory where when the sun sets it glows in the dark.
Their current poodle and puppet has initiated this so called debate and has taken it under control, so it is a conversation within government followed by a decision by government in the true father knows best style.
77 when the new mines open and 117 when they close, what does he really care about the outcomes.
Fortunately it will not end with Howard’s decision.
And what of the other party representing failed and unsustainable policies on energy among other things.
Here it is adopting a greener tinge daily, with the Bomber now talking about alternative fuels.
Brazil has been doing it since the 1970s’ oil crisis and right through the years of Hawke and Keating nothing happened, no foresight at all.
How interesting it will be when Labor finally abandons what left of the left and goes for uranium mining.
Here is a test of principle for one Garrett and the other suppossedly progressive elements. He will say “there are still things I can achieve in the Labor Party” and “ It was a decision derived democratically” and “I can only achieve change if I remain in the party”.
Ha.
Change has always been achieved from outside that party. The labor party is a follower. For all activists all that is needed is the momentum.
Watch those new media laws come into play.
Rest assured I only vote for them to make my first preference count and the sooner that changes the happier with democracy in Australia I will be.
This usual suspect remains unconvinced by 36 years of their propoganda.
Posted by on 07/08/06 at 10:09 PMThere is a current nuclear issue that should concern us more. Awareness of this issue also informs the debate above. That issue is the use of depleted uranium for weapons. Any use of this product in this manner produces ceramic uranium oxide nanoparticles which are free to travel in air, soil or flesh. These particles are not water soluble and do not degrade physically over time.
Their use in the shock and awe debarcle in Iraq caused a spike in radiation levels in the UK.
The use of these weapons is a crime against humanity, a war crime, and in violation of the US governments own regualtions regarding the use of radioactive material.The residue from the use of depleted uranium threatens ALL life on this planet.
We should be asking our representatives very pointed questions about our complicity in its use, and framing our views on nuclear policy around this. It presents a moral dimension even Howards moral elasticity will struggle to encompass.
For details google depleted uranium or ceramic uranium oxide.
Posted by on 08/08/06 at 03:28 AMIt is understanding that it was weapons grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) rather than plutonium being used in nuclear power stations.
I am sceptical of present estimates of uranium reserves. I predict the estimates will grow.
Supporting carbon taxes or similar without similar taxes on nuclear pollution is certainly asking for trouble.
Is the demand for fissil uranium actually “shooting up exponentially” or is this a prediction?
The expansion of the Olympic Dam project at Roxby Downs will vastly increase the amount of uranium on the market. Because Roxby is a multimineral project then the production costs for uranium are low, despite the low uranium content in the ore (less than 0.1%).
ISL uranium mining is also producing low cost uranium. The trend to highly polluting ISL is driven by low production costs.
Is there much less uranium than oil in energy terms?
The timing of peak uranium will of course depend on the demand. Based on present demand projections 25 years sounds too soon to me.
Posted by on 09/08/06 at 04:19 AMI think that Chris is right that the main stages in the nuclear fuel cycle, that the Howard Government will try to push onto Australia, are increased uranium mining and long term management of high-level nuclear wastes from overseas. Uranium enrichment is unlikely in the short-term, because there is a global over-capacity, and the current generation of nuclear power stations is too expensive, dearer than wind power.
Just a clarification. There is no shortage of uranium per se, but there are quite limited reserves of high-grade uranium ore. Once high-grade ore is used up (possibly within 40 years or so, not 15), then there are vast quantities of low-grade ore. The problem with low-grade ore is that the fossil energy inputs to mining and milling it are large. Imagine mining and milling more than 10 tonnes of ore to obtain just 1 kg of yellowcake (uranium oxide). As a result, CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel chain with low-grade uranium become significant, comparable with those from a gas-fired power station.
Mark
Posted by Mark Diesendorf on 09/08/06 at 01:41 PMThanks for the clarification, Mark.
You are correct about low grade uranium bodies.
As for when uranium supplies will peak, nobody yet precisely knows because it is too soon to say how many nuclear power plants will be commissioned in the near future.
But, like oil, the peak will come well before uraniium supplies run out.
As for the economics of nuclear energy, it is an industry that has to be heavily subsidised. The Green lobby uses this correctly to argue that it is essentially non-viable and therefore will fall flat.
However, I do not altogether agree with that view because in their desperation for energy, western governments WILL heavily subsidise nuclear power, even more so than they have in the past.
Bad policy, but it is what they will do.
The main argument against nuclear, aside from the obvious safety and nuclear prolifieration ones, is the feeeble amount of energy they can supply.
If all of todays thermal generated capacity was to be converted to nuclear there are enough known (and inferred) uranium supplies in the ground to last approximately 4 years. That’s all.
Nuclear is not a solution to climate change.
Posted by on 10/08/06 at 10:51 PMNuclear power is about John Howard earning more brownie points with the US by prostrating Australia even further, thereby demonstrating Howards ‘strong’ leadership.
In fact the best solution to climate change is human extinction.
A brief glance at human affairs is enough to demonstrate that humans don’t deserve to populate such a lovely planet. If John Howard, Paul Lennon and George Bush are the best that humans have got, total annhilation is really the best way.
Leaving local and world affairs to people like that is the best, and most efficient, way to achieve extinction of the human species and leave the planet to us. Nuclear power is just a part of that solution.
Posted by on 11/08/06 at 08:45 AM
