Sir Vivor,

The final sentence of my posting was: “A civil Australian nuclear industry will have no relevance to undesirable military activities in other countries.” From the public information available I see no reason to revise that statement or to postulate any connection between a future Australian industry and the nuclear ambitions of Iranian ayatollahs.

Given that the laws of physics are universal one can always make the claim that civil and military industries are in some way connected. For instance manufacture of cars and lorries on the one hand, tanks and military vehicles on the other. The same can be said for ship building, steel making, the chemical industry and many other arbitrary nominated industries.

As for the Rocky Mountain Institute and its spokesman, it is my understanding that this is just another anti-nuclear and environmental advocacy group.

The question of nuclear waste disposal has again been raised by some. A reading of the Switkowski report or the papers on the Uranium Information Centre indicates that technically this is not an insoluble problem. Clearly waste has to be managed with care, but this does not mean it can not be managed. The main obstacles to waste management in this country are sections of the ALP and the environmental movement.

On the question of transport of high level nuclear waste, I suggest that there is far greater potential of explosive damage in a km of natural gas piping or a fully laden petrol lorry driving through the streets of a capital city.

I can attest to the devastation a petrol tanker can do. We get snow here and this January my house was repeatedly shaken by bursting tires and gas tanks after a number of cars crashed and blocked the highway, and a petrol tanker either crashed or stopped safely, and another trucker hit it. I'm told he died.

But the tax on that load had, I believe, been paid; that tax is what animates this debate. It is between the oil and gas interests, especially those who get their cut through the tax man, and everyone else. Many truckloads of nuclear waste have been transported, none has ever harmed a living soul, and no-one is concerned that any ever might.

I hope to win the world over to incombustible motor fuel, which would in theory be less risky, when trucked, than nuclear waste, and would, I think, match its record of harmlessness in practice.

re:
"Given that the laws of physics are universal one can always make the claim that civil and military industries are in some way connected."

I am not talking about universal laws of physics, I am talking about the influences on and interactions of decisionmakers in sovereign states. In short, what one nation does influences what another nation does.

In the case of nuclear proliferation, both horizontal and vertical, this set of interactions may be be arguably dated back to August, 1939, when Albert Einstein wrote to Franklin D Roosevelt about his concerns, arising from his understanding that "Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from mines that she has taken over" and that, at the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute, at that time, "some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated."
(see http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html for comment and letter text)

The consequence of this pattern of interactions has been the development of nuclear arms, and a supporting and subsidised industry producing nuclear electricity and feedstocks for the nuclear arms industry. This is a matter of common knowledge and widespread concern.

These concerns, among others pertinent to this forum, are raised in a current "Roundtable Discussion" at The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' website.

But since Amory Lovins is one of the 3 invited contributors to that discussion, anti-green may wish to look elsewhere for facts and opinions.

See
http://www.thebulletin.org/roundtable/nuclear-power-climate-change/

"Nuclear power and climate change

"In Progress: 13 June 2007

"When considering ways to limit carbon dioxide emissions, experts argue that all options should be considered—including nuclear power.

"But with nuclear power comes concerns about proliferation, waste disposal, and cost.

"R. Stephen Berry, the former Special Advisor to the Director of Argonne National Laboratory for National Security, Amory B. Lovins (PDF, 35 KB), the chairman and chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, and Peter A. Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, consider the feasibility of nuclear power as a remedy to climate change in the Bulletin Online’s inaugural roundtable."

"subsidised industry producing nuclear electricity ..."

This appears to be a lie. Several countries with no nuclear weapons have a nuclear electricity industry, and some have declared an intention to shut it down. Simply withdrawing the subsidy, if one existed, would accomplish this quickly and lucratively (the subsidy money would be freed up). The fact that countries declaring this intention tend to delay and delay and delay suggests they can find no quick, rewarding way of doing it, and specifically, that there is no subsidy.

" ... and feedstocks for the nuclear arms industry. This is a matter of common knowledge and widespread concern."

It is a commonly uttered lie. The concern is not genuine.

“Flexibility of Australian employees” has been cited as the most requirement of Australian employers. Practically, a “letter manager” might carry babysitting functions by driving boss’s kids to school, not speaking of other cliché-known more intimate functions, engineers are seen as simple evaluators and handymen, and a book-keeper told me she was asked to clean office toilets as a part of her duties, during interview recently.

Ones should be very naïve or hypocritical convincing themselves that nuclear energy is for a peaceful goal only. Yes, it is, but…

And Australia is ALWAYS to rely on the US military capability as long as islamists did not size power locally-or in the States.

re:
"subsidised industry producing nuclear electricity ..."

This appears to be a lie. Several countries with no nuclear weapons have a nuclear electricity industry ... "

" ... and feedstocks for the nuclear arms industry. This is a matter of common knowledge and widespread concern."

It is a commonly uttered lie. The concern is not genuine."

Wrong.

These quotes from my post are not lies, they are generalisations. To be lies, specific and untrue examples would need to be cited. I have given none.

I suggest you rule out any subsidies, anywhere, with a more convincing argument. You may start with the USA, since they are a free market economy with a well-developed nuclear industry.

Regarding the US nuclear industry, The Glennan Editorial also states that:

"... all parties [Monsanto, Commonwealth-Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and Dow Chemical Co]concur in the belief that dual- purpose reactors are technically feasable and could be operated in such a fashion that the power credit would reduce the cost of plutonium by a considerable amount.

"Conversely, all groups agree that no reactor could be constructed in the very near future which would be economic on the basis of power generation alone. The significance of these conclusions should not be overlooked. They imply that there now exists a basis for the creation of semirisk industrial nuclear- power enterprise while the military demand for plutonium continues."

Concerns about dual-use nuclear technology are genuine. What evidence can you offer that Australia will not offer substantial subsidies for the development and ongoing operation of a nuclear electricity industry, and then embark on a nuclear weapons program? Some contributors here already are positive about that idea.

My own guess is that our current Australian Government will use the Zwitkowski Report, produced at the taxpayer's expense, to justify preferentially developing nuclear electricity, with taxpayer subsidies. I expect this will be at the cost of better energy strategies which address our overall energy needs, here and now; and at the cost of developing an energy policy and strategy which offers greater genuine national independence and security.