BS: Britain Goes Nuclear- Again

Subject: RE: BS: Britain Goes Nuclear- Again
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 May 06 - 08:27 AM

This is likely to be about the first worthwhile thing that Blair has done in a decade, and definitly the last.

P.B., please don't be obtuse deliberatly. We all know ' reducing our reliniance on forign energy supplies' translates as stopping pumping money into the crazy muslims, and and unstable mess that is Russia or possibly just 'reducing our reliance on politically and economically unstable forign energy supplies'

Subject: RE: BS: Britain Goes Nuclear- Again
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 May 06 - 04:48 AM

And now Little Johnny has joined the chorus "we need to have a new debate on Australia having Nuclear Power"!

Subject: RE: BS: Britain Goes Nuclear- Again
From: Terry K
Date: 19 May 06 - 06:32 AM

"..if Britain is to lessen its dependence on foreign energy imports and meet its target for reducing carbon emissions, we may have to build new nuclear power stations in this country."

Nice one - except we haven't got the technology to build them so will be calling on the French again (Electricite de France is the European font of all nuclear knowledge).

Just wondering what effect this may have on my reasonably substantial holding of EDF shares ........

Subject: RE: BS: Britain Goes Nuclear- Again
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:13 AM

So with the largest single deposit in Australia, and with Canada the largest producer, that must mean the the present administration in Britain considers those "friendly countries?" (And that the friendship is stable?)

An advantage sometimes claimed for nuclear power is that once a sufficient quantity of material is assembled to start the production of power, breeder methods can be used to minimize the requirement for a continuous input of fuel. This could have the effect of stabilizing the cost of production, and making it more reliably predictable over a mid-range term of a decade or two, perhaps a little longer.

With fossil fuels especially, there seem to be constant perturbations in the cost of maintaining the continuous flow of fuel.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Britain Goes Nuclear- Again
From: John O'L
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:12 AM

Not only will Australia supply uranium to trustworthy countries, (ie countries that can be trusted...?), but when you've finished satisfying all your nuclear needs, it seems we will also be accepting all your waste, plus that of other trustworthy countires.
That'll make us important. Important enough to make more enemies. Enemies are always good for getting conservative governments re-elected, and the dead don't vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain Goes Nuclear- Again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 06 - 08:43 AM

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Britain Goes Nuclear- Again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 06 - 08:40 AM

Owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors purchased from U.S. and foreign suppliers a total of 21,300 tons of uranium deliveries during 2001. The average price paid was $26.39 per kilogram of uranium, a decrease of 16 percent compared with the 1998 price. In year 2001, the U.S. produced 1,018 tons of uranium from 7 mining operations, all of which are west of the Mississippi River.

Uranium is distributed worldwide. Generally, large countries produce more uranium than smaller ones because the worldwide distribution of uranium is very roughly uniform. Canada is the world's largest producer of uranium, with the world's richest deposits in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan, through three large mines in the Athabasca Basin region, produces over a quarter of the world's uranium. Because of this production, extra capacity, and the close government control of the industry the provincial government plays a central role in setting international uranium prices. Australia also has extensive uranium deposits making up approximately 40% of the world's known uranium reserves. The world's largest single uranium deposit is located at the Olympic Dam Mine in South Australia. [4] [5]

The ultimate supply of uranium is very large. It is estimated that for a ten times increase in price, the supply of uranium that can be economically mined is increased 300 times. See World Uranium Resources.[1]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

Subject: RE: BS: Britain Goes Nuclear- Again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 06 - 08:38 AM

http://www.uic.com.au/pmine.htm

In Australia

Subject: BS: Britain Goes Nuclear- Again
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 May 06 - 08:35 AM

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have decided that the outcome of the ongoing consultation about the future of Britain's energy supplies is going to be new nukes.

"..if Britain is to lessen its dependence on foreign energy imports and meet its target for reducing carbon emissions, we may have to build new nuclear power stations in this country."

Where are the uranium mines in Britain then?