Plerdsus & taswegian,

Even oil and wind power are nuclear, as the energy derives from the sun. Radon gas already escapes from any uranium-bearing mineral, tapping deep-rock heat will not increase the rate of emission. Radon is not dangerous unless physically concentrated in air people are breathing, because it is inert and decays in days. Moreover, hot rocks are fixed in place; no-one proposes digging them up and relocating them close to cities.

Electricity from nuclear fission requires digging up uranium, transporting it, purifying it, enriching its fissile isotope, somehow disposing of the tailings and DU, transporting the fissile material to a power plant close to electrical demand (not strictly necessary, but Zwitkowski's report says it is), then storing all fission products and irradiated materials while they decay to safe levels, some of them for thousands of years.

No-one touts sodium-sulfur batteries for use without containment, but other molten-salt battries are already in safe automotive use. Grid storage may increasingly use molten salt or vanadium-ion-flow batteries (as on King Island), but combustible fuel and hydroelectric dams will always be perfectly appropriate energy stores. Pumped storage has been commonplace for decades, but innovations continue as in the seawater plant on Okinawa or this intriguing Dutch concept:

http://www.kema.com/corporate/news/corporate/2007/Q3/energie-eiland.asp

KAEP,

The Australian dollar never depended on oil prices! We import almost half the petroleum we use, more by dollar value than LNG exports, and total petroleum expenditure is less than 4% of GDP. OPEC countries that must import *all* their oil spend less than 2% of GDP on it. It is low-income countries that are being hit by peak oil, not us.

Atom1 and Sylvia,

nuclear power is a fruit of WWII weapons development. That effort also yielded bombs specifically designed to destroy hydroelectric dams; surely any country making war against a nuclear-powered opponent would obtain or invent weapons to destroy reactors. But even if an attack failed to damage reactor containment vessels, if the surrounding buildings and equipment are smashed then radioactive material would certainly leak. Spent fuel and other waste is often stored on-site without bomb-proof containment.

Sir Vivor, after an eliptical orbit around the planet Gonzon said,

"Whether it is sea water or fresh water, it has been changed. Its temperature has changed (by a few degrees), its volume has changed (marginally), and if (a very big if) chlorine or other measures for antifouling have been added, then its chemical composition has been changed."

Anything to cling to a sacred cow. The authors went out of their way to imply that the water was scarce. Sea water is hardly scarce.
They went out of their way to claim that this water was being used up. It clearly is not.
They went out of their way to claim that the use of this water would mean shortages of water for other public needs. Bollocks.

They either gave the issue no serious thought or they deliberately set out to mislead the public who has a right to get the truth.

And Ludwig wants me to treat them as anything but lying low life?

For all you bright sparks, consider this:

The classic dictum in medicine states: " If a disease is incurable, prevention is the only recourse " !

While we debate the issues of Global warming - to which Gore received a Nobel Prize, here's another slant worth it's weight in carats.

While the spectre of global warming looms large with associated epidemics of anthropod-borne diseases and trillions of ecological refuges escaping catastropic meteorological conditions, nuclear power as an alternative has an equally dire prognosis.

NC is responsible for the emission of substantial quantities of global warming gases from each step of the nuclear fuel chain, and the medical consequences of NP are equally catastrophic.

Each NC reactor contains 1000 times more long-lived radiation than released by the Hiroshima bomb, and the form of 250 new biologically dangerous isotopes - some with minuscule half-lives and others with half-lives of 17 million years ! This material - radioactive waste - must be isolated from the enviornment for geological time spans, a physical impossibility ? Already radioactive isotopes are leaking into the soil and water from nuclear waste repositories in many countries. These nasties, bioconcentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain. Invisible and cryptogenic to the senses, these mutagenic radioactive materials will migrate and concentrate in specific bodily organs - iodine 131 in the thyroid, cesium 137 in the brain and muscle, strontium 90 in bone, and plutonium 239 ( 24,400 years half-life ) in lung, liver, bone, fetus, and testicle. Ultimately, these radioisotopes will induce malignancy, however, because of the latent period of carcinogenesis, the cancers will not be diagnosed for many years - it maybe too goddamn late !

Over generations, radioisotopes in gonads will increase the incidence of genetic and chromosonal diseases. Animal and plants will be similarly affected. Nuclear power is therefore a fundamentally mutagenic industry that results in cancer with a transient byproduct - electricity generation. As such, NC is medically contradicated.

You can argue till the cows..

I dont belong to Greenpeace either. Build your Nucs elsewhere, preferably not in my backyard.

So Perseus replies:
"And Ludwig wants me to treat them as anything but lying low life?"

But offers no real evidence or opinions to back his argument?

Is this, then, all that remains of the Mythical One who slew the Gorgon?

It's a good thing there is no urgency about climate change or the need for gigawatts of low carbon energy. I read the link on the underwater suction pumps. It sounds like a certain winner: let's replace half the coal fired power stations immediately.

As for genetic disease I haven't heard of recurring problems near well run nuclear plants. I suspect that inbreeding due to lack of transport will be a worse problem..come to think of it I think the problem is already in my neighbourhood.

I do agree that perhaps we could wear transmission losses and cooling tower reduced efficiency (compared to flowing water) from nuclear plant built well inland, perhaps using saline bore water. I suspect the residents of Broken Hill and Woomera may not be quite that sensitive. Urban aesthetes will be able to sip lattes while the source of electricity is out of sight and out of mind.

Taswegian,

Broken Hill won't be needing bore water to cool nuclear reactors:

http://www.barrierminer.com.au/article.php?article=1040

Nuclear power is not a requirement for "Gigawatt-scale generation". Small generators are cheaper than big ones:

http://smallisprofitable.org/

You seem to think renewables can only retire a fraction of existing coal-fired power generation. But it isn't so, because unlike nuclear reactors, the more small ambient-energy generators you commit to buying, the lower the price gets and the more reasonable it seems to buy more. Unlike nuclear or coal power, it is more like buying cars than digging holes in the ground -- except you don't need petrol.

And remember wind/wave/solar/tidal electricity generation is only one facet of renewable energy. Biofuels have always been a major energy carrier (though somewhat neglected in technologically-advanced countries where we have let oil and electricity displace them) and have the long-term potential eventually to deliver more energy than we presently obtain from fossil fuels (which are merely prehistoric biofuels preserved and concentrated by geology).

http://envirofuel.com.au/2007/09/13/new-iea-report-says-bioenergy-can-supply-20-50-of-world-needs/

What would be a realistic timetable for replacing *all* the coal-fired plants if you've picked nuclear as your preferred low-carbon solution?

Once you've done that, how long will proven reserves of nuclear fuel last? How much more energy and water will it take to extract the remaining low-grade ores? Will thorium reactors be ready yet? How long will it take to replace all the uranium reactors with thorium ones? How do you ensure the security of the resulting waste?

As nuclear energy proponents bribe and bluster planning permission for a reactor on Defense land somewhere near Karratha, real developers -- who don't have to put up with NIMBYism or NOMPism -- are creating cheap solar, tidal and wave energy collectors, just as wind power costs are already below the real price of nuclear power.

The market and regular (as opposed to "railroad") planning processes can choose amongst numerous reasonable ways to reduce emissions and replace coal. Concentrate political efforts on persuading state governments to retire the big coal-burning dinosaurs early instead of granting ever-longer extensions of service.