Sir Vivor,

You either misunderstood or ignored the point in my previous comment. Most of the damage costs of nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are due to the irrational response (as I explained). The irrational response is a result of 50 years of anti-nuclear doom-saying by people like Jim Green, and the so-claimed Environmental NGO's such as Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, etc.

As I said in my previous comment, these anti-nuclear activists are responsible for massive damage to the planet and millions of avoidable fatalities. To put a figure on this, if nuclear replaced coal for electricity generation, globally, doing so would avoid over 1 million fatalities per year. (Of course doing so is not possible overnight, but remember that there are some 50 years over which time nuclear power would have produced a lot more electricity than it has, avoided a lot of CO2 emissions, avoided a lot of fatalities, and be more advanced than it is now. We'd be well positioned for a faster roll out across the world to cut GHG emissions at the rate advocated).

These are some examples of the sort of damage and destruction the anti-nuke activists are responsible for. The effects of their irrational and irresponsible actions have caused damages in the past, are doing so now, and the delays in development so far will cause ongoing delays for many decades to come, even if the anti-nuke activists immediately reversed their position and became enthusiastic advocates, the effects of what they've done in the past 50 years will be felt for many decades in the future, perhaps for centuries.

They sure have a lot to answer for!

The values of these people are repugnant. But once a person gets a belief like this, and closes their mind to the possibility they could be wrong, they just cannot see it, can they?

Mr Lang, I don't believe I missed your point.

You responded to my comment, and I gave you an entry into the evidence of massive social dislocation and suffering caused by the Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes. That is part of what I was highlighting, in my initial comment. I acknowledged that radiation phobia may be a diagnosable medical condition.

If you sincerely believe that the Chernobyl and Fukushima locations were evacuated because of irrational fears of radiation,then there is nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.

Personally, I think it's important to distinguish fact from opinion. Otherwise, one risks being the captive of superstitions, which are in the end analysis, just wierd opinions.

If you really believe that there is negligible radiation hazard in the excluded zones around those two places, then you may be able to make a killing on real estate, if you are willing to gamble on your opinions. Perhaps you would like to travel to one place or both, to have a look at what would be investing in.

It would be very good for any power debate for everyone to have the experience I have had, & am in fact still having.

I have had no power for over 80 hours.

The Bar B Que developed a gas leak, so nothing at all hot, for 20 hours. That until flooding allowed access to Beaudesert for a spare part.

Limited availability of fuel means we have had only 35 hours of running a small generator.

The generator would not start the fridge or freezer, only a 1 cubic foot camping fridge. What food was saved ran out after 40 hours.

No decent water flow, just a dribble at the tank, & none hot. Talk about stinky.

The dog & cat hate me. They don't like baked beans.

I now don't give a damn how it is generated, or delivered, but with out power, life is hell. Give the vast majority no power for a few days, & they will agree.

More to above.

Ice at our service station ran out before fuel. None got in even yesterday.

I am typing this on the generator, as we cool the camp fridge, to keep the milk we got today cool.

Please people on TV & radio, don't suggest we check things on the net. It was down for about 20 hours. We don't have fuel to run the generator to run the computer, & the mobile things are very low on power, & being saved for further emergency.

Energex have promised power by 1.00 PM today. This is their third promise, I hope they keep this one.

Hasbeen, I'm with you!
If any of these city central green advocates actually experienced life without power, they'd soon change their broken record rhetoric.
If all the frozen food on the super market shelves thawed, because of lack of energy or fuel for the emergency generator. they'ed go ballistic?
I doubt they'ed be too bothered if all the meat went off, given they're likely to be vegan tree huggers, but milk and eggs going off, would likely be a different story?
It's said that hydrogen will be a fuel of the future?
However, making it with coal fired power would be entirely counter productive!
I personally can't see the point, when we can grow algae.
Some algae are up to 60% oil, and absorb up to 2.5 times their bodyweight in Co2 emission!
Under optimised conditions, quite literally double that absorption capacity and oil production potential, every 24 hours!
Moreover, some types will naturally produce, ready to use as is, diesel or jet fuel.
And we make enough biological waste, converted to methane, to power every home, and much more reliably, than Ergon! Currently, we inject power into it, just to pump it out to sea, where it does nothing but harm, to a surprisingly fragile and finely balanced marine environment!
It's amazing just how much we now rely on power, just to live.
I could install some solar cells and a wind turbine, nonetheless, would still have to power up the genie at night or on a cloudy windless day; or install lots of extremely expensive batteries, which then would contribute to a growing E-waste problem!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

I just posted this on the other thread.
I think we are approaching a point where a decision will be imperative.
If our peak demand is around 30 Gwatt we will need to build x number
of nuclear power stations by the time coal production has declined to
the point it is no longer economic to run coal fired power stations.
With peak coal around 2025, we would need the first nuclear to be on
line about that time, then as coal production decreased, we would
need to install a replacement of one coal fired station at a time.

How long will it take to build and commission one nuclear station ?
I have seen figures like five to twenty years.
I presume that the first ones will take longer.
Would it be possible to convert coal fired to nuclear, that would save
some money.

Can you see the problem I am pointing out ?
We need to start now on building the first replacement power station.
That will enable us to train the engineers and operation people to
run these plants. A new industry like this takes years to crank up.

As I pointed out, if we do not take steps to keep our electrical
energy production up we have no choice but to start diverting people
leaving school into agricultural courses.

Whether the plants are hot rocks geothermal or nuclear does not affect
the argument but we do have to start NOW !

There are some experienced power station people on here, I would like
to hear their comment on this proposal.