Nuclear also has the added benefit of being a very capable terrorist target. Not only does a plane crash release radioactive material, but limits your response as you have no power to respond with. With all the technology around in the 21st century it would make a lot more sense to invest in renewable energy sources, solar, wind, hydro are just a few that the government should have commissioned R&D into years ago, to reduce demand for oil, and provide clean green energy. Conservative governments really are conservative, what a surprise.

As usual I have gone off half cocked, I forgot to mention that the renewable energy does not have the added burden of waste disposal, no wonder Howard wants nuclear, he doesn't even know what his own C.S.I.R.O. research can tell him, or could it be of benefit to some of his wealthy mates?

What a joke. Dude quotes a 1998 study that found nuclear power to be uncompetitive with coal and oil/gas but didn't bother to point out that prices have more than doubled since then. To fail to mention this is not just sloppy, it is seriously biased and sleazy propaganda masquerading as intelligent analysis.

And of course nuclear energy would be uneconomic at market interest rates of 10% per annum. The only problem with that argument is that market interest rates are only 6.5% in Australia and much lower in the USA and Japan. And that makes a major difference to the economics of large, long term investments.

So where does that leave us? The price comparisons in the quoted material are less than half of the current actual price while the interest rates are almost double the current actual. It is Bull$hit to the power of 3. But standard fare for the bimboscenti.

Mark Diesendorf has again given a clear explanation of the facts on the nuclear industry. He uses language that an ordinary person can understand. I've noticed how the proponents of the nuclear industry like to dazzle us with scientific language, and subtly teach the ordibary person that "you can't really understand these matters" (? you poor dill).
What is nearly as bad, the various academic experts who are not in favour of the nuclear industry seem sometimes to feel obliged to respond in like high-powered language.
Anyway, thanks Mark Diesendorf, escpecially on the investment advice. I'd been thinking that people shouldn't invest in nuclear, on ethical grounds. Now I'll be telling them that it's a bad financial investment.
Christina www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Here's an email I sent to Qld politicians, after being incensed by a news item on John Howard's nuclear ambitions:-

"Goodmorning,

Here's a reality check.

As Bill Clinton said on the 28th March 2006 that the World is at Peak Oil production now, and the price of petrol will spiral, I'd say the politicians in place now will have a hard enough time just holding on to power - let alone introducing nuclear power to the electorate.

Here's a "Letter to the Editor" I've just sent to over 300 local papers all over Australia (128 words, and easy to read - at least, according Microsoft):-

'Nuclear power’s a loss without huge tax payer grants, so why’s John Howard so keen? Maybe his friends are licking their lips at all that money from you and me. Who cares about more kids with cancer when you can make a buck? Want more info on that? Put "Jean-Francois Viel"+"La Hague" into your computer search engine. And here’s a quote from medical researcher Prof Jean-Francois Viel “I know better than most how powerful the nuclear lobby is. I have experienced attacks and intimidations at the expense of my professional and family life.” And as for cutting green house gases, nuclear’s a pricey dud compared to wind, solar and biomass. But what’s the key difference? Why of course, it’s profits (or rather our money), for the fat cats.'

. . . Interestingly, I got this reply from Peter Slipper (a Queensland Federal MP):-

"Kim There is a fundamental error in your email. The PM is not "so keen" on nuclear as you suggest. He just wants to have a full scientific evaluation of the issue. What's wrong with that? Peter"

Puhleeeeeez . . . does Peter Slipper think we're all that naive? I gave up "Play School" when I lost the plaits. So I replied:-

Thanks for getting back to me Peter. Much appreciated.

A full scientific evaluation of nuclear power has already been carried out in the UK (it reported just recently). Here it is:-

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=344

And this article in "The Australian Financial Review" says it all:-

http://afr.com/articles/2005/06/23/1119321845502.html

C'mon Peter, I'm not naive, and neither are you. Bottom line is getting the Australian public to accept nuclear power is about as palatable as getting them to eat dog meat. And trying to push something like that through, while dealing with the very nasty consequences Peak Oil (likely to make any central Government as popular as a skunk at a dinner party), is called "Hubris." All the best, Kim