Stop refering to Chernobyl. That was an intrinsically unsafe design operated in a reckless manner. A full inquiry was held afterwards and Western European and American engineers could not believe there ears when they heard what had happened. The results of the inquiry were never explained in the papers. It is too technical and uninteresting for the non technical to read.

Chernobyl is irrelevent to the discussion. No one outside of the USSR has ever built or will build anything like it.

But don't listen to me. I am only a professional engineer who has studied physics including nuclear physics and worked in the power industry. I can't compete with an army of skeptics who studied Arts Sociology and other opinion influencing Degrees and who write papers frightening people and telling what they would like to hear.

Nuclear scientists are also excluded from this debate, after all they would say that wouldn't they?

Mark,

Why is it that anti-nukes always believe any argument against nuclear without even being the tiniest bit sceptical? Your continued touting of the van Leeuwen and Smith article diminishes your credibility and that of any other points you make. Why haven't they submitted their results for publication in a peer reviewed journal? Why does their data for the energy extraction of uranium, when applied to existing mines with low grade ore, overestimate the energy costs by more than an order of magnitude? Why do they only consider diffusion enrichment with coal stations providing the power (as opposed to nuclear stations providing power or centrifuge enrichment which is 50 times less energy intesive)? Why do they only use an estimate 24 year full power life for nuclear stations when modern plants can have 40-60 year life spans with capacity factors of 90% or greater? Why does Britain's Sustainable Development Commission (which incidentally comes out as against nuclear because of their optimism over renewables), chaired by a former director of Friends of the Earth, conclude that nuclear is a low carbon power source?

The answer to all of these questions is that van Leeuwen & Smith produced a report that supported their (and the Dutch government's) prejudice against nuclear power. It has little credibility beyond those who desperately want to believe it and the smarter critics of nuclear power acknowledge nuclear's low carbon contributions to the energy supply and instead concentrate their critique on nuclear's economic performance and the theoretical advantages of renewables.

Oh, and Vattenfall's full report is available for download from their website. Go have a look.

If Nuclear Power is green as some supporters claim, then why do we have to bury the waste deep underground in hard rock and cement for hundreds, if not thousands of years?

And P Slipper I think there is fundamental error in you looking at reality as The full scientific evaluation of the issue was setup by The Prime Minister, for The Prime Minister Benefit and not the community benefit.

I'm with you Mark!

I shall reiterate a question I've placed on other threads:

The USA has more nuke reactors (103) than any other nation.

Why then is the US the highest polluter per capita on the planet?

Come on pro-nukers - I've yet to receive a response from you dudes!

If Nuclear cannot be that green and clean?

Otherwise many of the pro-Nuclear people would be putting up their hands in saying they want the power station or the waste from Nuclear in their front yard.

Like the liar he has become now for Nuclear Power The PM of some in Australia saying in The Courier Mail 22/11/06 "I think The Public interested...I don't think they have the prejudice against Nuclear Power that Mr Beazley and Bob Brown have".

He would be saying a Nuclear Power station or the nuclear should be in the front yard of The Lodge in Canberra or Kirribilli House, in Sydney.

Logic please tell us why we should stop refering to Chernobyl or that
Chernobyl is irrelevent to the discussion?

As I thought it was a Nuclear Power Station?

And being an a Professional Engineer why haven't you referred to 3 Mile Island and other Nuclear Accidents like in The UK and Japan because aren't these relevent to the discussion or are you scare of the truth about Nuclear?

Also why did you say "Nuclear scientists are also excluded from this debate" as didn't you know Ziggy does have a PhD in nuclear physics from the University of Melbourne?

So yes logic maybe we shouldn't listen to you, an Professional Engineer who even those has studied physics including nuclear physics and worked in the power industry, has came up like other pro-nuclear people with flawed logic and lack of research.