UIC paper number 57 adequately disposes of the argument about energy ratios, often put forward by anti-nuclear greens as an argument against nuclear power.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm

As far as fossil fuel inputs are concerned, all forms of energy production (hydro, wind, solar, coal, petrol, etc) require inputs of energy (including fossil fuel energy) before a return can be envisaged. The EROEI of nuclear is extremely positive and can be compared with that of hydro-power.
It is therefore nonsense to suggest that nuclear can be disqualified on these grounds. As far as diesel fuel requirements are concerned, who says that the vehicles MUST be powered by diesel fuel powered engines in the future?

As anti-green says, it is the market that will decide which forms of energy predominate in the future. There may be a role for all forms of energy production, where they are appropriate. In my opinion nuclear will have a much greater role than at present, for many good reasons.
The fact is that John Busby and his like can never be convinced, because they are psychologically drawn to a “doom and gloom” mentality. They also have a hidden political and social agenda. They are like a hydra, in that each time one head of their argument is totally demolished, they move on to something else to worry about. Yes, we could all worry endlessly about everything that happens in the world and everything that COULD happen. The Earth COULD be hit by a planet destroying asteroid tomorrow, but since there is nothing anyone can currently do about it, there is really no point in worrying about it. Or the planet could be destroyed by the VOGONS to build an interstellar by-pass. Myself, I aim to enjoy Christmas and the New Year, satisfied that one day, all this left-green anti-nuclear rubbish will be consigned to the dustbin of history. A Merry Christmas, and a Happy Nuclear New Year to you all.

So much fuss of a GLOBAL WARMING and so short info of CHANGING MAGNET POLES…