The movie "The China Syndrome" shown along with "The Day after" was enough to make students wet their pants and convince them of the sheer folly of having anything to do with atoms, let alone splitting them. Science teachers have a lot to answer for by their attempts to engage students in Science with this tripe.

What chance has a kid got when the Greens then come along with their "free energy" mantra, supported by a glee squad of Science teachers full of wide-eyed wonder at the marvellous new technology?

All history now? Nup, it continues today based on what my kids tell me.

Luciferase,

Let me assure you that I have not had any science teacher tell me nuclear was a bad option. As for education, I have chosen a discipline that determines there is very rarely one right answer.

When MIT looked at nuclear they concluded that "In our view, it would be a mistake at this time to exclude any of these four options (consumer efficiency; renewable energy; carbon capture; nuclear) from an overall carbon emissions management strategy."

Nine professors and several additional members of MIT also understood their restrictions "Our survey results show that the public does not yet see nuclear power as a way to address global warming, suggesting that further public education may be necessary."

I think this sums up the problem beautifully, and it is a rational and well considered position that no one can argue against.

Have you noticed I don't tend to argue against nuclear directly, but rather take the approach that politically it won't be implemented, that you'll wonder into the abyss while you do nothing to combat emissions? It makes arguing against me far more difficult than if I started combating Peter on the actual science of nuclear vs renewables in which I would have a much harder time.

So you all have advanced notice, I will be leaving this thread after tonight. I will try to reply later tonight if any further comments are made.

"...politically it (nuclear) won't be implemented, that you'll wonder into the abyss while you do nothing to combat emissions"

So, we should root for RE because nuclear is in a political abyss? Is that the plan, to keep the lid on nuclear while idiocracy rules?

A dollar spent on RE to mitigate AGW is a dollar wasted. No, I'd rather keep the powder dry by opposing RE, which is what the LNP and Labor are up to with their lip-service LRET levels to date, I can only hope.

Spencer,

It’s good to know you do have some real life experience: it’s a pity you didn’t say so in your bio. Also a pity you didn’t say what your companies and relevant policy analysis experience are. I’d like to know about that.

Also a pity you haven’t read the links I’ve posted. If you had you wouldn’t have made your wrong assertions about my background.

And a pity you keep making assertions, disingenuous statements, misrepresent and distort what I’ve said, instead of asking questions (i.e. unloaded questions).

You still haven’t answered my questions about the cost-benefit for Australia subsidising renewables in China. And if your argument were rational and objective, why not subsidise nuclear in China instead?

> “I have determined that instead of building renewables in Australia it should be done in China as they are cheaper”

Why renewables? Why not be te4chnologically neutral? And who’s money? Taxpayers? Electricity consumers? Why should they pay? What’s the cost benefit for them? Clearly you require command and control policy. So there is no chance of success.

>”Renewables, similarly to nuclear power, require fossil fuels for the construction phase.”

As far as your land requirement, there is plenty of otherwise low quality land that is prime for solar or wind.”

These assertions are disingenuous. The second is wrong. You need to understand the importance of scale, perspective and valid comparisons. Clearly you don’t.

> “Have you noticed I don't tend to argue against nuclear directly, but rather take the approach that politically it won't be implemented, that you'll wonder into the abyss while you do nothing to combat emissions?”

You have that backwards. Renewables cannot be a major part of cutting GHG emissions. That’s because of physical constraints.

Nuclear has proven it can do the job. But progress is blocked by irrational paranoia driven by anti-nukes – like you – and those pushing their own self-interest.

The alternative to nuclear having a major role is not renewables. It’s fossil fuels.

Political issues are temporary and change over time. Physical constraints cannot

Peter, whether you like it or not and speaking for myself, I have a sneaking sense of gratification that you certainly don't, distributed renewables are here, they are increasingly acknowledged as the power generation mode of choice by people who actually know rather a lot about the subject and they are not going away.

Centralised mechanisms for power generation, manufacturing, corporate activities such as administration, which have been the model for the past couple of hundred years, are being rapidly phased out and will cease to be dominant within a generation. Efficiency of all of these activities and others is rapidly increasing, as is that of power generation by renewables.

The basis for your argument is being dismantled under your feet, but that's OK, you can keep wandering around in ever decreasing circles happy that nobody will ever be able to prove you wrong on the premises you have chosen.

And we'll all live happily ever after.

Craig,

You're comment is disingenuous and highly misleading. Distributed generation is and always will be a small proportion of electricity generation. Therefore it is irrelevant for reducing global GHG emissions. It's a minor proportion of total generation, and globally it is a shrinking proportion (over the long term). See the first figure here: http://grist.org/climate-energy/a-way-to-get-power-to-the-worlds-poor-without-making-climate-change-worse