The claim that nuclear power produces significant quantities of CO2 comes solely from the non-peer reviewed article by van Leeuwen and Smith. This has been comprehensively debunked at http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power. I'll just post the highlights of the extremes they went to to reach this conclusion:

1) Assumed theoretical relationships between the cost in dollars and energy costs of building a nuclear plant. Measured energy costs for modern plants are 100 times lower than SvL&S's figures

2) Assumed diffusion enrichment was used exclusively. This is an old technology; modern centrifuge plants use a fiftieth of this energy.

3) Assumed energy of mining and milling low grade ores was so large that, if true, would mean one mine in Namibia using more energy than the entire country and making a multi-billion dollar loss each year.

Anti-green only refers to the Nuclear Energy Institute. They are the network to promote all nuclear power stations world wide. They are not from independent science institutes.

"NEI’s objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world."

Even the science journal that anti-green refers to was sponsored by the NEI. OK, lets read the junk mail anyway.

According to the "science journal" funded by the NEI there was a study of an unmanned light aircraft for science, not a domestic jumbo full of fuel. The test crash was into a 3.6 metre thich wall. The light aircraft penetrated 5cm.

According to the NEI, The first layer of the model nuclear power station has a 1 metre thick shield building wall.

The 9/11 expample proves that the jumbo full of fuel would crash through 1 metre of concrete at high speed, from the WTC example, and the Pentagon example. The Pentagon had reinforced thick walls and layers of them, for security. They crumbled.

Within the walls of powerstations, the reactors were: 4cm thick cylanders within this. The NEI study showed that even a light aircraft penetrated 5-6cm. So a jumbo full of exploding fuel would easily destroy this too. The reactor vessel is 10-20 cm thick. That might not be broken, but it would be seriously damaged due to melting from the exploding fuel, causing a leak. Leeking radiactivity would add to the explosion causing a chain reaction.

The reference is nothing more than propaganda, not science.

The general public know too well how lethal a domestic jumbo can destroy large blocks of concrete, melt steal instantly, and cause further explosions.

We all saw it at least 500 times from 9 /11. The promotional material will not convice us after what we have seen ourselves. We know that a terrorist disaster is possible, that a jumbo full of fuel will destroy all "Sahra Lee" shields, layer upon layer, as easy as pastry. The NEI, and their boy: anti-green, will of course, deny this.

John G. de Armond deals capably with the hardness of the shells at http://yarchive.net/nuke/reactor_safeguards.html , reminding us how an actual missile-designed-as-such was tried against the Superphenix containment dome. Using any kind of aircraft is like splitting a firelog with a watermelon; a bigger one doesn't help.

Per Peterson reviews nuclear plants' and wind turbines' concrete requirements here:

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-5S3Q6M?OpenDocument

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: fire without flue gas:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

Your article further exemplifies the need for an adequate unbiased study into the pro's and cons of nuclear energy. Your article is riddled with ulterior motives. You seem to have an answer to every nuclear question posed before a full analysis of the facts. Yes, nuclear power can be dangerous and must be met with caution as the potential to develop nuclear arms is apparent. But your economic analysis is extremely misleading. France, the largest developer of nuclear power currently sells nuclear power to the public at 3 cents/KWhr which is among the cheapest in Europe. There is definate advantages of nuclear power, and to say wind power has the capacity to replace current oil/coal power stations is obsurd. For this to occur we must reduce our energy consumption, and i havnt heard anyone yet put foward this idea. Not sure how you derive natural gas as being clean compared to coal and oil aswell. Still has large CO2 emmisions.

I thank saintfletcher for his observations and interest. He correctly points out that my references were from nuclear industry web sites. This raises in my mind a number of important questions?
• Is it not commendable that the industry performs simulations and computer models of accidents and publishes the findings in reputable scientific journals?
• I agree no destructive test covers every possible situation. Perhaps further suitable tests could be nominated by the industry critics?
• I wonder if there are anti-nuclear activists who would like to test every one of the world’s several hundred power and research reactors to destruction. Can this be performed by an administrative instrument? For instance a general closure (chapter 7) order from the United Nations Security Council?
• Clearly all members of the public including myself must have a deep knowledge of the power of a crashing Jumbo jet. Could the mechanically literate general public inform me, if the blow from a jumbo or similar missile on to a circular structure requires the flight path to be normal to the surface for maximum impact?
• Is it reasonable to assume that the writings on anti-nuclear web sites are objective and with out any bias what soever? Is it true that Green advocacy groups never stoop to propaganda?

The author claims "This means that to obtain 1kg of yellowcake, at least 10 tonnes of ore will have to be mined and milled, using fossil fuels and emitting substantial quantities of CO2. These emissions are comparable with those from a combined cycle gas-fired power station." The claim that CO2 emissions due to producing yellow cake are significant is nonsense. In 2005 the Rossing uranium mine, for example, processed 12,027,000 tonnes of ore, produced 3,711 tonnes of U3O8 and this resulted in the production of 161,000 tonnes of CO2 (from diesel and electricity consumption). The U3O8 produced was sufficient to keep nearly thirty 500 MW nuclear power stations running (none of which produce CO2). By contrast, a single 500 MW gas-fired power station produces about 0.5 tonne CO2/MWh, or over 2,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum. Gas and coal fired power sations produce about 30 to 50 times more CO2 per MWh (full life cycle) than nuclear power stations. For those who think CO2 emissions are already too high, the solution is more nuclear power.