Even so it would still be 10+ years from idea to working plant. With gas
going the way it is going (and the UK will stop exporting gas very soon),
and with the insecurity of pipeline arrangements in North Eastern Europe,
and with so much electricity coming from gas, we cannot be sure that those
10 years are available to us. Wind is less capital and energy intensive to
construct and much much quicker. If we want the lights kept on, I doubt that
nuclear is the way to go.

As for uranium reserves growing as demand grows, where have I heard that
before? Sounds a bit like the cornucopian Julian Simon to me. The reality
with petroleum is that in the 20s it cost 5% of extracted energy to get it
out, nowadays it costs more than 100% in Athabasca. People go to the easy
places first.

David Ballard


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Keene [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 29 January 2006 13:38
To: David Ballard
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Independent: Nuclear decision set for this summer

Thanks David.  That is a good point.  Nuclear is far slower to build 
(although the government appears to want to speed things up  by 
streamlining the planning process)

Chris

David Ballard wrote:

>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.
>
>  
>