Are yes, that poorly written article.

Own ideas - don't need the article crutch.

Cheers

I just wanted to make sure I'd made these 2 points loud and clear.

Dr James Hansen, THE climatologist that diagnosed our climate crisis, says believing in 100% renewables is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. http://tinyurl.com/yclaf2sn

Instead he says the world should build 115 reactors a year! http://tinyurl.com/zp3552t

Here is an interesting street debate on this very question.

It is by Friendly Jordies who challenges people to tackle him on NUCLEAR POWER SUCKS - Change My Mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5K1ImzI24M

Layman discussions but pretty informative.

Ha ha ha! Yeah, usually I agree with Friendly Jordies but was of course quite sad when he went off against nuclear power a few months back. More people die every DAY from coal (when it goes right) than in the entire history of nuclear power GOING WRONG! And there is good reason to believe that nukes are going to get exponentially safer and cheaper in the coming years especially with standardised Molten Salt Reactors from ThorCon coming off their shipyard assembly line at 7 c kwh.

Hey, I was anti nuclear for my first 40 years. If I can change when shown the facts, anyone can change.

For the interested layman whose knowledge of the science and the business of nuclear physics is dangerously inadequate, please consider this enquiry genuine and bipartisan. Well, as bipartisan as an honest attempt can be coming from one who is already on record here as resolutely anti-nuclear as demonstrated by the South Australian enquiry roughly two years ago into establishing an international nuclear dump.

[a] Is radioactive nuclear waste included in calculations that confer the awarding of a "clean" certificate? If not, why not?
[b] There are many kinds of nuclear plants that generate electricity. May it correctly be presumed that their waste is significantly different in quantity, degree of toxicity and length of half-life decay?
[c] Will Tom Beigler soon now present a dissertation on nuclear waste management with details of the storage treatment of different kinds of waste and the location of a waste management facility or facilities, including methods of transport of such waste to this facility?

If [c] is not within his field of expertise, could OLO be persuaded to approach someone eminently qualified in order that we are appraised of a complete picture of the nuclear power cycle?

The nuclear electricity generating industry constantly disappoints when it is asked questions it hopes will not be asked. On the question of introducing Australia to nuclear power, it has a woeful record of being open, factual and comprehensive in its participation in public enquiries as evidenced by the blatant bias that saturated the South Australian government-organised Citizen's Jury mentioned in my first post. The way it was conducted doomed the enquiry almost from the start when criticism was stifled in a most amateurish fashion that offended the Jury's intelligence, not to mention that of the interested public.

Once again, the industry has demonstrated its perfidy by avoiding highly pertinent questions. The industry has created a huge cross for its back in prematurely and greedily creating itself before dealing with a waste problem that can remain toxic for thousands of years. It wants a naive beginner, not yet committed as they are, to solve this problem for them BY TRUSTING THE ALTRUISM AND BENEVOLENCE OF MULTI-NATIONAL BUSINESS AND THE POLITICIANS WHO SERVE THEM FOR AS LONG AS THE WASTE REMAINS TOXIC. It presupposes an Earth whose transient regimes will ALWAYS act with a precise and unwavering sense of responsibility to guard and protect nuclear storage facilities, and the modes of transport to rejoice in a Red Cross-like protection zealously and meticulously administered even when it contravenes and or militates against national self-interest.

Earth's first nuclear power plant began operation in 1954 in Russia. The first fully operational commercial plant began operations at Calder Hall in the UK in 1956. If waste problems persist then the industry itself has a problem that its hierarchy must solve or individual executives must be encouraged by the likelihood of disposession and takeover by government.

Private industry obsessed with profit cannot be trusted. Their moral itegrity is skewed [to put it moderately] Government-funded agencies have already spent billions of taxpayer's pelf in research. It's high time the industry paid to solve its own problems by assuming responsibility