You also need to include speed at which extra capacity can be generated,
given our unfortunate dependence on gas in the UK. The need for energy is
likely to be more urgent than can be met with the very long lead times of
nuclear. You also need to think about the relevance of nuclear, which is an
electricity rather than transportation fuel, for the time being at least.
These points are made quite strongly by Jeremy Leggett in his recent book.

D

David Ballard
Alexander, Ballard & Associates
Strategy and human change for environmental sustainability
(00 44) (0) 5600 433801 - work
(00 44) (0) 1672 520561 - home
(00 44) (0) 7840 544226 - mobile
Skype: ballardd
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.alexanderballard.co.uk 

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Keene
Sent: 29 January 2006 12:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Independent: Nuclear decision set for this summer

"John Large, a nuclear consultant, said uranium reserves would grow as a 
result. "The extraction technique will improve to get more out. There is 
plenty left."

This suggests we shouldn't be using the argument about lack of uranium.  
That leaves cost, accidents, dealing with the waste, and dangers of 
terrorism and proliferation, and I would also suggest cancer clusters 
around nuclear power stations.  Does anyone have any comments on this list?

The comments on timing also suggest we have to win this one in the next 
few months

Chris

 Nuclear decision set for this summer
By Jason Nissé and Tim Webb
Published: 29 January 2006

Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has vowed 
that the Government will make a definitive decision on whether to build 
new nuclear reactors this summer.

Speaking exclusively to The Independent on Sunday, just days after 
launching a fresh energy review, Mr Johnson said that a decision would 
be made after consideration of the review.

The review will last for three months and will report to Mr Johnson and 
the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, in April. At the same time the 
ministers will receive an interim report from the Committee on 
Radioactive Waste Management, which is looking at options on what to do 
with the UK's nuclear waste. A final report from the committee is due in 
July.

Mr Johnson said that at around that time a final decision would be made 
about nuclear reactors. "We need to decide now whether to go down the 
nuclear route," he said, adding that the decision would depend on "waste 
and affordability".

In the document setting out the energy review, the Government also 
warned that there were only enough known recoverable reserves of uranium 
to last for 50 years. If the expected expansion of nuclear power takes 
place, these supplies would last for even less time, it said.

The energy review cited the figures on uranium reserves from a report by 
the World Nuclear Association. It added that there had been little 
exploration for new deposits of uranium since the mid-1980s and that new 
mines were planned in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Russia, Brazil and 
Namibia.

John Large, a nuclear consultant, said uranium reserves would grow as a 
result. "The extraction technique will improve to get more out. There is 
plenty left."

Prices of uranium for use in the fuel cycle have rocketed in the past 
three years, from $10 per pound to $37.