Peter Lang says "...“safety first” is THE appropriate balance of all costs and risks, including the consequences"

Aidan says "I don't think having a good safety record justifies abandonment of the policies that produce a good safety record."

Great, me too. Let the science rule. Oz should set up a body of scientists to investigate, dispassionately from scratch, what those policies should be in light of ALL the evidence. That body should include Wade Alison, IMO, among the experts in the field. Let's abandon policy that adds nothing to safety, only to cost, which has incrementally grown to favour interests with political clout.

This is the least we can do before allowing ourselves to be sucked any further into the black-hole that is base-load RE.

PS, thanks for the chuckle, Craig, with "The idea of base-load is antiquated and decrepit." S'pose your list of sexy things cures baldness too?

Round and round and round...

>"I'm well aware that driving cars and flying have greater risk by multi-magnitudes than nuclear power production, but I don't think having a good safety record justifies abandonment of the policies that produce a good safety record."

Not even if you understand that those policies are causing about 1.3 million avoidable fatalities per year?

The avoidable fatalities will increase to over 2 million by 2050 if nuclear doesn't replace coal for electricity generation?

That's what excessive, unjustifiable nuclear regulation policies and anti-nuke scaremongering are causeing. The excessive regulations on nuclear have raised the cost massively (4 x up to 1990 http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html and probably double that since). That is making nuclear uneconomic so it is retarding progress and stopping the world having the benefit of much safer electricity supply, as well as more reliable more secure energy supplies (explained in earlier comments).

Read the links I posed up thread if you want to learn about this.

Round and round and round they go...stuck on their merry-go-round.

And meanwhile, in the real world, real people are doing real things to make a real difference to the real future without a merry-go-round in sight.

Peter Lang,

The nuclear safety standards are not to blame for causing about 1.3 million avoidable fatalities per year. AIUI that figure is for all air pollution, not just that from power generation. Not all fossil fuels are that dirty, and most importantly, nuclear power is not the only alternative to fossil fuels.

Lowering the safety standards would greatly increase opposition to nuclear power, and it would introduce an unacceptable risk of a humanitarian crisis if something does go wrong.

Your extrapolation to "over 2 million by 2050" rests on some dodgy assumptions. You seem to take a very lazy view of statistics: assuming the parameters stay the same and looking at where the trends are pointing rather than looking at how the parameters are likely to change and how they could actively be changed to reach a different outcome.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Wright,

Concessional loans would make renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels, therefore it would not result in carbon leakage. And leading by example is the most effective way of changing how things are done overseas.

The RET has reduced prices by supplying more energy regardless of demand, but whether that makes up for the cost of having it in the first place is far from certain. The supply will not stop, but in the future we'll need a lot more despatchable renewable energy or a lot more energy storage.

Meanwhile by making electricity prices more volatile, adding more renewable energy is likely to result in some shifting from coal to gas due to the latter's greater responsiveness.

Wrong! as usual!

As usual you make stuff up and haven't; a clue what you are talking about. $1.3 million is the fatalities avoided if nuclear replaces coal fired electricity generation.

You haven't studied the links I've provided so you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You are continuously on a fishing trip. Making up BS to deceive readers. You are and example of the sort of people - deniers - who have b.locked progress for the past 50 years.