Geez Chris,

It's not that hard. The waste goes in the green wheelie bin, and the recyclables (DU can be recycled into bullets, shells and Tank Armour)go in the yellow wheelie bin. Any left over gas can go up a really big chimney so people aren't affected.

Seriously though - nice article. Thanks for the links.

Great article, thanks.
Surely though, the world is only re-examining/re-committing to nuclear because the politicians all know that the emperor has no clothes but aren't prepared to tell us poor saps - the general public. In this instance, the emperor's clothes are peak oil and no more cheap energy to power our escapist, spoilt, ignorant and defunct society which will go into terminal decline/crash without our daily fix of the oil drug.

Hitching our hopes to the nuclear star belongs to the same category of improbable solutions as the hydrogen economy, geosequestration, biodiesel and the rest, and simply buys the politicians the next election and makes a few more millions for those addicted to the share market and in particlualr, to BHP Billiton. The chance that nuclear will power the world for a few more years is about as likely as the granting of a wish by some distant star and should be recognised for what it is - a mere distraction to fill the 'opinion' columns of our dailies and keep the public in ignorance for a while longer that there are no answers and no solutions to the inevitable catastrophe awaiting us in the wings.

Great article, Chris. Thanks.

diantod2000 is very close to the mark, EXCEPT that I would have to differ with her conclusion that "that there are no answers and no solutions to the inevitable catastrophe awaiting us in the wings".

If society continues on its present course, disaster is inevitable, with our without nuclear power. However, if we do change course, who can say with absolute certainty that catastrophe is inevitable? We must act with a sense of utmost urgency to ensure that what little chance we have of preserving civilisation is not wasted.

We need a political movement that will demand that our elected representatives act now to make it possible for our society to be reorganised, as advocated by David Holmgren in his book "Pemaculture - Principlea & Pathways Beyond Sustainability", so that our transport, manufacturing and agriculture is not dependant upon non-renewable resources.

At best, nuclear power just may be a short interim stop-gap meausure which may help civilisation meet its energy need as it adapts to the inevitable future of much lower energy consumption and much lower human population. At worst, nuclear power, by further poisoning our biosphere, and, possibly consuming more fossil fuel energy than it generates, if we are to account for all costs instead of externalising them, may make an already very bad situation even worse.

I refer readers to the article "Rebuttal of World Nuclear Association critique of the analysis 'Can nuclear power provide energy for the future; would it solve the CO2-emission problem?'" at http://www.greatchange.org/bb-thermochemical-rebuttal_WNA.html

... which is a rebuttal of:

http://www.greatchange.org/bb-thermochemical-WNA_energy_analysis_of_power_systems.html

... which in turn is ostensibly a rebuttal of:

http://www.greatchange.org/bb-thermochemical-nuclear_sustainability_rev.html

"But certainly no sane person would base plans for a long-term, i.e., fifty to a hundred years, energy future on the limited reserves of rich ores. When the available ore grade drops to around 0.02% it becomes questionable as to whether any more energy will be delivered by a nuclear power system than would be obtained by directly burning the fossil fuels needed for maintaining the nuclear fuel cycle."

A very informative article, as nuclear is an old technology and a failed one. Lead in times for construction of more than 10 years makes it very suspect as being useful. In Germany they've just commissioned a coal fired plant they say is pollution free. Their going to pump the Co2 emissions into the ground and store them in aqaufiers. Hopefully they say forever, but being a gas, forced into the ground under pressure, must have some future drawbacks.

I have to laugh at those denying the part biodiesel and other biofuels will play. The catastrophe, thats being talked about will mainly effect those living within high energy reliant situations, cities.

The only reason politicians push single point energy solutions, is because thats the only way their vested interests can control the economics of energy production and supply. Biofuels will create cottage industries and competition they can't cope with. Just as Woolworth/coles would disappear of the people realised how much extra they are paying to be enslaved to monopolies.

great stuff chris.

i do share the slight concern with one of the other commenters that it's difficult to make draw conclusions from energy input arguments without some numbers to compare.

however the work of philip smith and storm van leeuwen as mentioned by daggett goes a long way into this.

there's a great summary of the smith and van leeuwen's efforts by david fleming available here - which i can highly recommend as a starting point for anyone wishing to come to grips with nuclear energy:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm

it's a timely document which should be spread far and wide in australia.

there's also a speech by fleming here:
http://www.feasta.org/audio/Nuclear_IsItAnOption_Pt1.mp3 (5.7 MB)

i was also impressed to see david holmgren's important approach to peak oil mentioned here. see this link for more on peak oil and permaculture: http://www.energybulletin.net/524.html

as a friend of di's i know she's already working on solutions, so don't believe the hype ;)

Alchemist you are right to define biofuels as a suitable cottage industry rather than for large scale production. But even on that level I would caution that the following questions by asked.

The first four are suggested by The Society of Environmental Journalists, the second two are by my EnergyBulletin.net co-editor Bart:

1. What is the energy content of a gallon of the renewable fuel? (In megajoules or another standard energy unit.)
2. How much biomass feedstock (corn, etc.) does it take to produce a gallon of the fuel? How much energy was required to produce that biomass? (Consider farm equipment, fertilizers, pest management, transportation, storage, etc.)
3. What other substances are required, in which quantities, to produce a gallon of the fuel? (Process chemicals, etc.) How much energy was required to produce each of these?
4. How much energy is required to manufacture a gallon of the renewable fuel? And, on average, to transport and store it?

..Add the answers to 2, 3, and 4 together, and subtract that figure from 1. If the answer is a positive number, ethanol is net energy positive in that case. Perform similar calculations to determine the energy economics of gasoline in your region. You can also extrapolate from this calculation to compare greenhouse gas emissions.

5. What will be the effect of constant cropping on soils, if ethanol production is expanded to a large scale?
6. What will be the effect on the food prices and the foodsupply?

http://www.energybulletin.net/12875.html

Biofuels may be an important niche fuel, but they will never replace oil and gas in quantity.