OK, sooner or later humans must transition from fossil fuel (19th century technologies well past their use-by date) dependency to pollution free renewable sources.

Why nuclear technology thinks it has a role to play is only because is currently has a stronger vested interest in the economy than new, cleaner, sustainable technologies such as thermal, solar, hydro, wind and the like.

All alternatives including nuclear will require private/public funding; lots of it. Therefore investment in the most efficient, long-term and economic should be a collective aim for industry, government and individuals.

Nuclear is 20th century technology but struggling to remain viable. It is not. For the following reasons:

1. Nuclear is Too Expensive.

We require cheap, readily available sources of energy if all countries are to achieve a reasonable standard of living – such as the western countries currently experience. Also we need job creation and good return on investment.  Nuclear does not create as many jobs as a diverse range of renewable fuel technologies will. Nuclear requires billions of dollars in government subsidies just to be built and even more funding is required to close down old reactors.

2. Nuclear is Inefficient.

As an energy source it requires a high level of energy input compared to output: construction of plants, mining the uranium, enriching uranium, stringent and necessary safety standards, disposal of waste. This cycle will only worsen over time as the quantity of high grade uranium depletes.

3. Nuclear Power is not “Clean”
While the actual generation of electricity itself produces little carbon, nuclear is promoted as being low impact on environmental pollution. However, this discounts the pollution emitted during mining, plant construction, storage of waste and decommissioning of obsolete reactors.

As well as the problem of storage of radioactive waste, other pollutants include hard-wastes such as mercury, arsenic, cadmium and gases such as fluorine, chlorine and hydrochloric acid are released into the air and surrounding landscape.

Cont'd

Cont'd

The entire cycle of energy produced by nuclear reaction must be included in any configuration of its impact on the environment.
Given these ongoing costs, truly clean renewable energy could deliver much more without all the immediate and long-term side-effects.

4. Nuclear is High Risk

While nuclear technology has advanced, nevertheless it will never be risk free: it remains a fraught method of creating energy. Plants can still melt down, be struck by a terrorist attack or even a seismic or other natural event over which we have no control.

5. Funding Nuclear is Corporate Welfare.

Who stands to benefit from government investment in this questionable energy source? Companies like British Energy, Exelon and General Electric; vast corporations with powerful lobby groups in Britian and the USA respectively, also Foratom which is the European lobby group funded by European corporations like Electricité de France and the German company E.ON. These companies are also associated with other organisations as diverse as Monsanto and Nestle. The web is as extensive as it is pervasive.

As with the Tobacco industry before, these monolithic monopolies will say, pay, do anything to hold the reins on power.

Therefore nuclear is no more a solution to a clean environment than tobacco is to preventing lung cancer.

Severin

Despite your criticism of nuclear power, the fact is that nuclear is currently the only viable non-carbon alternative.

Now had I criticised current inadequacy renewable technology, you might have responded that the technology still had substantial potential. Had I criticised government funding of the technology as nepotism, you might have responded that such assistance was worthwhile when the potential benefits were considered. Yet for nuclear power, you only seem to consider the past and current state of the technology, and acknowledge none of its potential. Had you considered the potential of nuclear power, your concerns of cost, waste, environmental damage and nepotism become grossly exaggerated, as fourth generation reactors offer great promise, including the capacity to eliminate existing nuclear waste. This latter point would make fourth generation reactors an alternative to storing nuclear waste for thousands of years.

Criticising nuclear power as high risk is exaggerated as it ignores the statistical reality of a very safe form of power with the potential to improve further. As for bombs and terrorist attacks, isn't that a world we live in already, and what gives someone the authority to decide whether a technology should be developed? When nuclear reactor research was curtailed three decades ago, coal provided very cheap power, differing little from the predicted cost of electricity from new reactors, and there was little fear of global warming. The fear of nuclear attack was greater than today, so logically no great benefit from the technology was perceived. The irony is that had nuclear reactor technology been pursued then, we might have had a competitive alternative to coal today.

The question of relevance is whether renewables and battery technology will have advantages over fourth generation reactors by the time the reactors are ready to be built? I hope they will be, but I see no harm in having more choices.

Re: " ... the fact is that nuclear is currently the only viable non-carbon alternative."

This statement is an opinion, rather than a fact. What is Fester talking about?

I do not really know, but let me guess: I will guess he/she is talking about base-load electricity.

If I have guessed correctly, then I advise him/her and others to read
http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf

The facts and opinions therein are carefully expressed, and backed up with citations, where the findings are not the author's own, and that is something I have yet to see from our Fester.

Sir Vivor

The article you quoted suggested that wind farms could at best deliver a capacity factor of about 40%. This is at the high end for wind power, which ranges from 20 to 40%. So you would need a generating capacity between two and one half to five times the peak amount required. Dr Diesendorf suggests backup gas turbines. And as far as I know, there isn't 24/7 solar as yet. And if you think you can convince the Tasmanians to dam all their beautiful rivers and become part of a national power grid then go for it. The common theme of the paper is backup. How much will this add to the cost of electricity? As a comparison, the worst nuclear generators today have a capacity of about 80%, and fourth generation reactors have a predicted capacity factor of about 90%. But as I have already stated, the discussion would be better directed toward the future than the present. As Dr Diesendorf points out in his paper, the critical factor in comparing nuclear with renewables will be the development of technology over the next couple of decades. There is little logic in comparing the renewables of the future with the nuclear of the past. And if you dont want to wait another 20 years for fourth generation reactors, you could take Dr Hansen's advice and start building IFRs now.

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

Well now
I remember reading in the papers of a meeting between Ziggy and his rich mates with little johnny howard. If I remember correctly they wanted us taxpayers to stump up the billions to build a reactor and zig and his mates would run it for big fat directors fees. OR AM I WRONG?
In any case alternative power now has baseload capabilities and is a damn sight cheaper than nuclear and we won't have to wait as long. So zig put your money in something useful.