Nuclear may not be the answer. See "Goin' Fission for Uranium"
By SPENCER JAKAB in Monday, January 2, 2006 Barrons online. The article indicates that "Annual demand for nuclear fuel is now equal to 180 million pounds [about 82 million kilos] of uranium, while only 108 million pounds of ore were produced in 2005, according to estimates by Ux Consulting. Mine output will not increase substantially until the huge Cigar Lake facility in Canada run by Cameco comes online in 2007, but even by 2008 output will be about 130 million pounds. BHP is considering a huge expansion at its Olympia Dam site in Australia, but this would not hit the market until 2013 or later. A number of smaller projects are also coming.

Meanwhile, there are about 140 new reactors planned worldwide, many in Asia, versus the 440 existing today. Of the 104 U.S. reactors, most have applied for or have received multi-decade license extensions, and the first approvals for new plants since the 1970's are expected soon by industry observers."

If I recall the frequently cited BP annual data on oil, gas and other reserves correctly, there is a 42 year proven supply of uranium at current levels of use. But just about everywhere, nuclear is seen as the answer - or at least a major one - to the fossil-fuel supply problem. We see in the above excerpt from the Barrons piece that 140 new reactors are being planned. I live in Japan, and can tell you that the nuclear industry is a real fan of peak oil (even featuring peak oil articles on their lobby group's web site). Like the UK nuclear industry, they see the fossil-fuel pinch as a great business opportunity. And they have lots of voices backing them, including the UK science advisor David King.

Personally, I'm agnostic on nuclear while being wary of cost, waste problems, the proliferation issue, and other concerns. Yet the fuel-supply issue appears to have received inadequate attention. At present, the supply gap is being filled from 100 million pounds of stockpiles as well as "downblending" old USSR warheads and recovery from mine tailings. But the gap appears to be a problem that will only worsen as new plants come online. To the extent that this is true, we seem to risk wasting a lot of time and intellectual/physical/financial resources if we shift massively to nuclear technology rather than pursue energy alternatives that have more abundant supplies.