Sir VIVOR

Thank you for your reference to the Szilard-Einstein letter. This is clearly a document of great historical importance. The story is told by Richard Rhodes in “the Making of the Atomic Bomb.”

As for your statement:

“…… the influences on and interactions of decision makers in sovereign states. In short, what one nation does influences what another nation does.”

I can only say such a wide and general statement may be true. However, the relevance of the statement to a civil Australian nuclear industry is entirely speculative?

The arguments of Amory Lovins are less convincing. Ultimately the economics of nuclear power will be settled by a combination of government legislation and regulation on the one hand, and investment opportunities on the other. It is anybodies guess how this will work out in future years. A carbon tax and the costs of a so-called carbon market and credits system will clearly favour nuclear generation over coal and even clean coal.

I can not accept the assertion of environmentalist that nuclear waste disposal and transportation are insoluble problems. Expert opinion offers the solution of geological sequestration. Recall that waste decays exponentially and that after 40-50years of storage both the heat and radioactivity have fallen to one thousandths of the initial level. By 1000 years most of the radioactivity will have decayed. A good source of information is the UIC briefing paper no 9 updated to April 2007.

Let us make the assumption that the principal forcing factor for climate change is anthropogenic CO2 emission. Nobody, as far as I am aware, suggests that nuclear power is the only solution. The suggestion is that it should have a prominent role in the mix of possible solutions.

As I stated previously, I find the health and safety aspect of nuclear power, a most compelling reason for adopting this technology.

Overall I believe the prospects for the future development of nuclear power industry in this country are very good indeed

This is short and sweet. I've read all the diatribes about nuclear power...mostly negative, but, happily, a growing number of people are coming to their senses and are beginning to understand the following truth: THERE IS ONE, AND ONLY ONE, WAY TO END GLOBAL WARMING AND THAT IS WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY REPLACING ALL OTHER FORMS OF POWER.

Anything else, such as windmills, solar panels, and fuel made from vegetables are nothing more than "band-aids" and will do little or nothing to solve our environmental problems. They don't even BEGIN to keep up with population growth. If you want this planet to have a future, nuclear energy is the only way to go! Please visit our website, www.nucleargreen.org.

Troublemaker, can you please tell me why you're ignoring geothermal or solar-thermal as a source for base load energy apart from the fact you may have a vested interest as part of the nuclear lobby?
Cheers

DEMOS made this comment on a different thread where it was off-topic:

“…but he [Ludwig] did admit to tolerating nuclear power”

In response I repeat:

“But my criteria for its use are so tight that it is virtually a complete dismissal.”

“if it is ever to be used in Australia, it must be to make up a shortfall in energy needs in a society that is making every effort to achieve genuine sustainability, and is very likely to fall apart without that energy source, and where that energy shortfall just cannot be met by other means, nor changes in lifestyle to reduce energy demand be achievable without major conflict erupting.”

“So I reckon nuclear power could possibly have a small part to play in a future sustainable society. But only as a very distant last resort.”

Sustainability comes first. Nuclear could possibly have a part to play in achieving it, despite its very considerable negative aspects. But the length of time before any nuclear power station could come on line makes it extremely unlikely.

To Davsab

You are referring to exhaustible forms of energy. They are, at best, like the ones I mentioned: Simply band-aids that cannot possibly keep up with population growth. There are no other permanent solutions...only nuclear. Our long-range target MUST be nuclear, and only nuclear. When all power on this planet is generated by clean, safe and inexhaustible nuclear power it will, indeed, be a "green" planet once again.

Troublemaker it is a suburban myth that nuclear energy does not contribute to global warming. Lets put aside the fact that to start up a nuclear powerstation requires more pollution producing electricity than the gains made in later decades when the nuclear plant meets maximum efficiency. The pollution created in mining and refining and disposing of the waste are still major contributors of greenhouse gasses. Nuclear energy is a greenhouse gas producer but it is twice as bad polluter than coal because not only is there radio active waste to contend with , inevitable radiation leaks of both plant and waste depot over 1000's of years but also the immense resources to cap aging power plants over decades let alone 1000's of years.

Nuclear power contributes nothing to stop climate change, nuclear power contributes to global warming.

Nobody benefits from nuclear energy except companies that recieve welfare/subsidies from governments to produce it.

Just by washing your dishes by hand in cold water rather than using a dishwasher you are doing more to prevent climate change than by finding alternative forms of power.

It is ridiculous to even contemplate nuclear energy (nuclear energy will take 30 years to supply a few percent of our energy needs for only 10-15 years) when more greenhouse could be stopped simply by making motorists ride bicycles to work. Most motorists live within 20km of their employment a short bike ride.