Sewell - I guess scaggs is right our debate really should be on...

Sewell - I guess scaggs is right our debate really should be on a separate thread. So picking up on your last post:

"I really only entered this conversation because the early poster invited input and it was clear that readers were unaware of the dangers of uranium mining, thinking that the waste at the end of the chain was the only problem, whereas the problems occur at every stage"

As I recall it you were referring to open cut & underground uranium mining not ISR (in situ recovery) where you had experienced poor past practices - I hope you accept that practices have now changed (probably the majority of uranium is mined by ISR and underground mining (in Canada) is done robotically where the ore is frozen prior to extraction. As I recall it your major concern was with the slurry and it's disposal in a tailings dam (which could burst) and radium (in the liquid phase) escaping. I would dispute that tailings are a problem with ISR (there are minimal talings) - however I accept that an environmental risk associated with ISR is the contamination of groundwater - this is mitigated by flushing out the exhausted ore body with clean water or treating it via reverse osmosis; the problem is the reagent (H₂SO₄) radio activity which is lessened by the extraction of U₃O₈ - the US EPA monitors any reagent contamination for 6 years.
The problem is a lot less than in the past - hopefully you can accept that no solution (including the use of renewable which entails enormous amounts of mining) is perfect; everything it a balance of contamination (including CO₂ emissions) against costs - I would argue that nuclear (including mining uranium) is an good compromise that cost/effectively addresses "firming" which I consider necessary for emissions free electricity generation. I'm really not too sure what your argument is as I appears to oscillate between:

i) there is no need for "firming" if you have enough renewable
ii) 100% of demand on a 24/7 basis (and not infrequent hiccup) throughout the year can be met by renewables with minimal storage (and only H₂ backup)
iii) That the economics of solar PV are not latitude dependent when at these latitudes the highest demand is in winter when PV supply is lowest and the panels do not get covered with snow/leaves and frost
iv) That storage cost required for (ii) above are not part of the system costs and do not compound LCOE of renewables
v) That hiccups (i.e weather related outages) can be met with H2 using thermally inefficient electrolysis/regeneration which again doesn't add to the system costs and thus impact the economics of low renewable LCOE
vi) Radio active waste is long lived (that is only HL waste) and thus a legacy we cannot past to future generations (some how mercury & cadmium and many other nasties are acceptable)
vii) nuclear is too expensive (why not leave this one to the generators) and we cannot wait for SMR's and plug the gap with natural gas "firming"
viii) A nuclear accident is too catastrophic despite nuclear being historically the safest and dams accidents (for hydro) being historically more devastating

"This is not the first time I've entered the lions den. Obviously those who have invested in allied technology related to the nuclear industry have a vested interest in agreeing with any arguments that promote it and conversely disagree with arguments against it"

Thanks for your courage - note that Moosey also doesn't "trust me" and feels I have an "agenda" - join the club

Obviously time will tell and I probably won't be around to see the results, but renewables are here, available and we know how much they cost, unlike SMRs that are unavailable with an unknown cost and deliverable some time in the future.

I have not argued that we should ignore renewables - I agree we should build renewable to combat climate change up to about 60% penetration using (in the interim) gas fired (combined cycle) generation and "peaking" gas turbines - this will cut our emissions. In the 2030 (after/if SMR are proven to be viable) leave it to the electricity generators to decide whether to adopt SMR's for "firming" or other methods and to motivate them (via carbon tax/emissions trading) to climate change friendly solutions. The government should (IMO) set the policy with incentive/rewards/penalties and leave it to private (or public) industry to make the necessary implementation decisions using competition as the motivator