Limited as my scientific knowledge is on this subject, I can still see what appears to be 'a good thing' when I see it.

THORIUM REACTORS cannot experience a Chernobyl type meltdown.

It appears they are an option, but they don't have the by product of producing weapons grade material as a byproduct, hence are less attractive to 'ambitious' governments.

That pretty well summarizes the program I heard on ABC the other day.

If this is the case, then why not have Nuclear power plants based on Thorium fuel ?

Do Manning and O'Neil (M&O) come from a postmodernist school whereby all facts and opinions are equally valid? Have they spent too long at the Flinders Uni bar? Whatever their excuse, their article is illogical and riddled with factual errors.

M&O are happy to export uranium to China because China "ceased producing fissile material in the late 1990s and possesses sufficient weapons grade material to double its existing weapons stockpile". It is believed in some quarters that the Chinese regime stopped producing fissile material (other than that produced via its civil nuclear industry) in the early 1990s, not the late 1990s. There is no independent verification of the claim. And of course if production of fissile material has been suspended, there is no way to be sure that it will not be resumed, and every reason to believe that it WILL be resumed e.g. ongoing expansion of China's conventional military strength, US nuclear/military/political developments in general vis a vis China with missile defence being one important aspect of that.

Nor is there any solid evidence as to how much fissile material the Chinese regime has, despite M&O's assertion that enough exists for the regime to double its existing weapons stockpile. Even if the regime does have that much fissile material, it could very easily seek more fissile material. If the regime wanted even one tenth of the number of weapons as the USA or Russia, it would need far more than it has stockpiled according to M&O's estimate.

As for the M&O argument that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not worth saving, and that we might just as well sell uranium to India (a non-NPT state), their argument is to give up on the NPT (and other nuclear control agreements such as export controls?) and to explore ways that proliferation can be managed through alternative arms control agreements.

Why no detail on how that path is any better than fighting to strengthen existing non-proliferation measures? Why would alternative agreements be any better than those that exist now? Shouldn't we establish firm non-proliferation regimes BEFORE proceeding with nuclear/uranium expansion?

Which environment groups said Australian uranium would be a "likely" source for a terrorist device? Obviously it is one POTENTIAL source, notwithstanding weaker links in the nuclear chain such as smuggling from former Soviet states.

M&O assert that "logic suggests the benefits of nuclear power outweigh its risks, given the projections for carbon use in India and China over the next 50 years. Our uranium has a key role to play in reducing these countries' dependence on oil and coal."

Whose logic? Why pick on China and India - they are still below equitable, sustainable per capita greenhouse gas emissions in stark contrast to Australia and the US. Why is "our" uranium so central to reducing emissions in China and India?

M&O assert that "So-called "Generation 3" nuclear power reactors such as those operating in Japan since 1996 produce relatively cheap electricity, less waste and meltdown is almost impossible."

Relatively cheap in Japan, maybe, and then only by ignoring huge waste management costs. Meltdown almost impossible ... can we have the PRA figures, risk of core reactor accident per year of operation? Can we then adjust the PRA estimate for the usual flaws in PRA assessments and other such factors as commercial pressures (remember Tokai 1999) and slack regulation?

Let's hope that Japan's "Generation 3" reactors - minor modifications of conventional reactors - are much safer because the management and regulation of the Japanese nuclear industry is disgraceful. The Japanese industry has been in turmoil since the August 2002 revelations of 29 cases of false reporting of cracks in reactor components at numerous reactors owned by Tepco dating back to the 1980s. The scandal widened to include utilities Chubu Electric, Tohoku Electric and Japan Atomic Power Co., which also failed to report faults in their reactors.

Patrick Moore and James Lovelock are "renowned" environmentalists according to M&O. Moore is funded by the nuclear industry, as M&O would know, and has previously been funded by other toxic industries. Lovelock is a self-confessed eccentric who has ALWAYS supported nuclear power.

If Australians are to have a debate on Nuclear Energy then it is vital that they are provided with reliable facts. Many of the 'facts' presented so far in this debate are really opinion.
Liam says that the idea that nuclear power is greenhouse friendly is one of those lies that Goebells suggested be repeated until taken as true. However, the UK Sustainable Development Commission (UKSDC) published a paper in March 2006 that stated "Our evidence shows that taking into account the emissions associated with plant construction and the fuel cycle, the emissions associated with nuclear power production are relatively low, with an average value of 4.4tC/GWh, compared to 243tC/GWh for coal and 97tC/GWh for gas." This is despite the UKSDC saying that Nuclear Power is not the best option for preventing climate change. John Busby states that "the sums needed to clean up the working reactors [in the UK] at the end of their lives is yet to be calculated, but the total bill exceeds the revenue from generated electricity by a factor of 3 or 4." However the UK National Audit Office published a review of the Restructuring of British Energy (the only private company operating Nuclear Power Stations in the UK) in March 2006. In it they state that the current estimated cost of the decommissioning of these operating power stations is £2,364 million. During the last full financial year British Energy accounts reported revenues of £1,704 million. Given that these plants are designed to operate for 35 years (or more) then the total revenue (at today’s prices) would be about £59,640 million, or about 25 times the cost of decommissioning.
John Busby also goes on to make unsubstantiated claims about the Sellafield reprocessing plant. As the UK is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty Sellafield is subject to inspection and auditing by the International Atomic Energy Agency. As such it is required to demonstrate that it knows the location of, and can account for, all fissile material that it holds. The records are extensive and detailed and are scrutinised regularly by the IAEA.

northern man asks for facts.

The main source of CO2 emissions is the decommissioning and waste management, the quantity of which only be estimated. For the total cycle see Storm van Leeuwen and Smith on http://www.stormsmith.nl. For the so-called "front-end" emissions see the WISE nuclear calculator on http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfce.html

At the average world ore grade utilised of 0.11% this is 135 g/kWh with an input energy of 0.55 kWh/kWh generated. With low ore grades this rises to equal that from an equivalent gas-fired station and the energy gain over the cycle goes negative.

The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's strategy is on:-

http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/nda_final_strategy,_published_7_april_2006.pdf

The first tranche of £70 billion is for the closed Magnox and research reactors and waste sites. The rest of the Magnox, AGR's and Sizewell B could well cost another £70 billion. This expenditure will be associated with equally massive carbon emissions from fossil fuels, as when the actions take place, the fission is over. This is why the SDC figures northern man quoted are incorrect.

To see where the guano came from and lack of records of the contents of the legacy ponds see:-

http://www.britishnucleargroup.com/UserFiles/ File/Stakeholder-Consultation-Note-V8.pdf

The UK NAO report is on:-

http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/ nao_reports/05-06/0506943.pdf

The estimate for the nuclear liabilities of British Energy at the time of its rescue from bankruptcy was over £5 billion, but that referred only to the reactors in its bailiwick. The task of defining a clean-up strategy and estimating its cost has been given to the NDA, so their figures are now the ones to be taken.

The progamme of nuclear power in the UK has been an economic disaster, but the worse is yet to come with the centuries long clean-up, which will have to be performed with what fossil fuels we can find in a coming energy famine. There are a lot of facts, but few available to the public. Most reside in the annals of government agencies, if they have not been lost in a miasma of incompetence.

Just in case readers have problems with the URL's quoted above, here they are again

http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/nda_final_strategy,_published_7_april_2006.pdf

http://www.britishnucleargroup.com/UserFiles/File/Stakeholder-Consultation-Note-V8.pdf

http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506943.pdf