The article strangely omits the effects of carbon taxes or cap-and-trade on the relative economics of nuclear energy. Peversely the nuclear industry is somewhat handicapped in minimising indirect CO2 generation. For example if the proposed Olympic Dam 'super pit' was supported by a nuclear power plant it could get desalinated water and electricity for machinery within the loop so to speak. Waste from reactors could be buried nearby. Some other criticisms cut two ways; for example a technology that might help the penetration of renewables uses liquid sodium in large batteries, surely another NIMBY target. Given the urgency of the clean energy problem it needs to be pointed out nuclear plants can be built anywhere with large output. That's simply not true of geothermal for example. As the years go by it will become clearer that the squeaky clean alternatives don't stack up. We're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise, but wait and see.

The economics and energy accounting are specialist topics, so specialist that an interested lay person is reduced to quoting this or that expert. In referring us to the CSIRO sustainability network I was interested to find a paper “Nuclear power-can we afford to ignore it.” This document in turn refers us to http://world-nuclear.org for different opinions. It should also be noted that the Royal Academy of Engineering-UK estimates 2.3pence per kWh for nuclear generation. About same as coal or gas fired plants. For wind power with stand by generation 5.4p to 7.2p per kWh depend on farm being on or off shore.

I am sure nobody could possible be so crass as to substitute the word “wind” for nuclear in the sentence. “The nuclear industry has disseminated widely the false notion that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gas emissions.”

Really! what about the energy and emissions attendant on mining, milling, smelting the metals required to build a turbine, transport materials etc? What of the large amount of concrete required to mount a large turbine? Let say the life of a turbine is 20 years, the life of a nuclear plant at least 40years.

The empirical evidence is that some 32 countries have found nuclear energy economic and 56 countries operate research reactors. Only 8 or 9 counties have nuclear weapons or potential to fabricate nuclear weapons. According to papers on UIC site, Israel, Iran and N. Korea do not operate power reactors. The NPT argument does not hold water.

First of all, if you know anything about how nuclear reactors are designed you know they are far safer facing terrorist attacks than coal fired stations are. Despite warning of the increased danger of fast breeders, the author neglects to mention that ordinary reactors aren't even remotely dangerous in the first place. Only public ignorance gives the impression that they are.

"A truly ethical and clean investment portfolio in energy", in the author's terms, would send us back to the stone age. No matter how safe or clean it may be, renewable energy will never be able to provide the base load currently generated by coal. Consider, two mice on a wheel connected to a generator are cleaner than wind power. But who cares, when neither can provide our energy requirements?

The author says "Bioenergy is already making valuable contributions to energy supply in Finland and Austria." Can we have percentages of total energy rather than "valuable"? I'm betting less than 1%.

Every step of obtaining uranium for nuclear fuel rods may produce C02, but there are few, if any, products available today that don't.

"But the real choice is between clean power - comprising a mix of efficient energy use, natural gas and renewable sources of energy - and dirty power - comprising coal and nuclear power."

No, the choice is between coal or nuclear, with your sideshow 'renewable' energy providing less than 10%, or no power at all.

Some of you are living in a fool's paradise. Dean, in order to make a nuclear power station safe from terrorist attact, who is going to pay the bill? The big corporations? Fat chance! It just doesn't mean building super expensive bomb proof compounds and bullet proof turbines, it means a labour force of top security 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Any fool can breach security in Australia. The Howard Govt. anti-terrorist task forces are a joke. So many pranksters have proof that penetrating top secret intelligence coumpounds, like Pine Gap, Lucas Heights and Woomera is simple.

If a bunch of Quakers can break into Pine Gap to take some snap shots, of secret information without the US or Australian military even noticing was not difficult. Good thing they were AGAINST terrorism and not terrorists themselves. It is going to cost mega-bucks to keep the compound secure! Australia is a junior in this field. Want safe nuclear power so bad mate? You ready to pay the bill?

The article was well written, credible and researched. At long last, we start to see the full picture. We will run out of high grade uranium with increased use, soon! Low grade uranium is more insecure and produces more CO2 gasses and other toxins. The industry gets dirtier, more expensive and more dangerous as time goes on.

Lets bring the farmers into the mix as stakeholders. Offer them incentives to invest in windmill farms. They farm power to sell into the power grid. Australia's CSIRO is developing better efficient solar energy and they are world leaders breaking ground. Farm this too as efficiency = feasibility. The WA Govt. has tidal power. A wider mix of sustainable and cleaner energy is better. Even gas power stations are cleaner than coal for a temporary transitional period. Even if they are CO2 producers, they are cleaner than coal. The transition must happen. Wait for the Candians to develop fusion power: they are gaining ground on this cleaner and safer power, before we talk of nuclear energy for Australia.

Dean is correct nuclear power reactors are inherently safe. They have many built in safety factors. In fact there are layer upon layer of security. Several papers describing safeguards, especially related to the USA are to be found on the Nuclear Energy Institute web site. http://www.nei.org

If your question is about aircraft crashing on to plants you might download this paper dated December 2002.
http://www.nei.org/documents/eprinuclearplantstructuralstudy200212.

A short paper by Chaplin DM et al in Science [Science 2002; 297:1997-9] considers safety at nuclear plants and their fuel from point of view of a terrorist attack.
http://www.uic.com.au/terrorism.pdf

Finally for a good general overview of safety at nuclear plants try Uranium information Centre Briefing paper 14.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm

Please someone correct me if I remember wrongly but I read somewhere that France has much cheaper electricity than Denmark (or was that Holland). France predominantlyt uses Nuclear and Denmark Wind? If true that is a real world example of the economics? Any one know more?

ALso does some one have an idea of the Footprint a Nuclear plant has versus solar or wind and the consequent environmental impact? They are all part of the debate that is going to occur.

Thanks