Sir Vivor,

>"Somehow, to me, an energy source that can produce such catastrophic conseqences and dire threats is arguably neither clean nor green."

Where are these catastrophic consequences and dire consequences? Any examples? What is your objective basis for determining that a accident is "catastrophic" or "dire threat" if it is not on the basis of fatalities, health effects, or other measurable consequences?

Have you considered whether perhaps you are suffering from radiation phobia?

>"Chernobyl and Fukushima are stark reminders of catastrophe. To write off the social dislocation and suffering they have caused by claiming that few people have died is to selectively ignore the actions of governments who must make grim choices to protect their citizens in the face of an internationally acknowledged threat of radioactivity, and the real consequences of exposure to ionising radiation. "

The evacuations and disruption are a response to the widespread nuclear paranoia in the community. The evaccuations are not a rational or objective response. We don't evacuate hundreds of thousands of people when far more dangerous toxic chemicals are leaked. The evacuation response is a response by governments which in turn respond to the widespread nuclear phobia in the community.

And guess why there is widespread nuclear phobia in the community? It is a result of 50 years of anti-nuclear scaremongering by doomsayers like Jim Green and you. Guys like you are causing the cost of nuclear accidents to be so high. It is not the actual damage, but the irrational response to it. It is also the anti-nuclear doomsayers who have caused global CO2 emissions to be some 10% to 20% higher now that they would have been if not for 50 years of anti-nuke activism delaying progress on development of nuclear power and increasing its cost unnecessarily.

The facts are clear, nuclear is about the safest way to generate our electricity and is the least cost way to make substantial cuts to CO2 emissions from electricity.

The anti-nuke doomsayers have a lot to answer for for the damage they have caused to the planet.

"he continually denigrates opponents", isn't that what the author has done throughout this piece? We need an actual factual debate about nuclear energy in Australia, instead of Anti-Nuclear scare mongering/Pro-Nuclear cherry picking!

Jim,

The bottom line in this debate is that the physics of nuclear energy is absolutely on Lelie's side. If the fearful prognostications of the man made CO2 climate crisis are true, or even probably true as you undoubtedly advocate then it is only a matter of time and the sooner Australia realises this the better off it will be.

Nuclear energy does not need water!
The latest examples are cooled with helium!
Pebble reactors can be mass produced in factories and then trucked onsite, to begin providing power within days. As demand increases, more modules can be trucked out and simply bolted on!
Pebble reactors can lose all their coolant without melting down, thanks to the design features of the carbon encased fuel capsules.
Had this technology been applied to either Chernobyl or Fukushima, disaster could have been avoided or prevented!
Coal-fired power stations spew out their own cocktail of contaminants, including uranium, lead, mercury, cadmium and other heavy metal or highly toxic oxides!
There's an interesting book written on nuclear power, titled, thorium cheaper than coal.
Fossil fuel prices can only rise with depletion.
Even so, we have enough known thorium to power the world for 600 years!
When green advocates talk about renewables, their options are usually limited to solar voltaic and wind turbines.
It's no accident that these two are also the most expensive options!
In reality, the green agenda is simply anti development?
And or, a highly romanticised return to agrarian economies, and the dawn to dark gut-bust, that made them barely possible!
They have acted for decades as a virtual handbrake on Indigenous economic development and or economic self sufficiency?
And they would allow famine and epidemics to rage unattended, sans any assistance.
Too many people and natures reaction, is the usual response, or dehumanising calloused indifference, not seen since the decline of the third Reich?
Our economic wealth was purchased with cheap energy, and will be resuscitated and revived, with more of the same!
Rhrosty.

There is one point of which no one seems to be aware.
Food production needs very large amounts of energy, more than will ever
be attained from solar and wind.

If we can't make hot rocks geothermal work then we only have nuclear.
To support the worlds population of 7 billion or even at half what it
is now will require very large amounts of electricity.

In the 19th century multi furrow ploughs and other machines were
pulled back and forth across paddocks by steam tractors.
We will have to replace them with electric winches or overhead wires.
It is either that or we forget industrial farming and all go back to
working the land and let 6 billion starve.

They are the only choices you have.
How many years do you have to make the choice ?

Peter Lang, I thought I made clear that I was talking about "social dislocation and suffering".

The followinginformation may interest you and/or other readers, in this regard:

Chernobyl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl#Economic_and_political_consequences
Economic and political consequences
It is difficult to establish the total economic cost of the disaster. According to Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union spent 18 billion rubles (the equivalent of US$18 billion at that time) on containment and decontamination, virtually bankrupting itself.[2] In Belarus the total cost over 30 years is estimated at US$235 billion (in 2005 dollars).[119] On-going costs are well known; in their 2003–2005 report, The Chernobyl Forum stated that between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine still related to Chernobyl, while in Belarus over $13 billion is thought to have been spent between 1991 and 2003, with 22% of national budget having been Chernobyl-related in 1991, falling to 6% by 2002.[119] Much of the current cost relates to the payment of Chernobyl-related social benefits to some 7 million people across the 3 countries.[119]

Fukushima
http://www.devast-project.org/img/project/events/pdf/Dasha_Mokhnacheva_slides.pdf

This puts the evacuee figure at about 160,000, and a map shows an area of 600 square km or more, designated as a restricted zone. My short search has not revealed any of the detail such as is given above, but hardly two years has passed, compared to over 25, for Chernobyl.

As for radiation phobia, perhaps you can recommend a psychiatrist who is competent to diagnose this illness. If Belarusian and Japanese citizens have suffered this, I'm not surprised.

As for your opinions as to the cause of radiophobia, they are opinions, not facts. Do you understand the difference?