"So Dickie, your reference is an anecdotal newspaper snap shot of two sites from a journalist while mine is from the industry association showing specific detail on the full range of projects in train up to the end of the 2011-2015 five year plan. Not hard to see which is most credible, is it?"

Eh....Perseus your link is inaccessible.

And no it's not hard at all to see which link is the more credible if you are taking your advice from the World Nuclear Association, the desperados who keep flogging a dead horse. These are the soldiers of spin who spruik for nukes. A chain command seeking profits, power and influence.

Here's a couple more links - same advice as I offered previously but you just don't get it Perseus. That's a result of typing with one hand. Told ya so!

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/03/content_7005864.htm

http://www.energy.gov/news/4536.htm

Not one word from anyone about the overriding need to control the third world population explosion.

We are obviously all urinating into the breeze.

A word about population: zero.
However, the real problem is not in the third world - all that population explosion should be of concern the third world still consumes resources at a rate of less than 2.2 hectares per person. (2.2 hectares is generally regarded as about the earth's carrying capacity.) The real problem again lies with the developed world . (see Lincoln, Stephen F Challenged Earth, An Overview of Humanity’s Stewardship of Earth Imperial College Press London 2006 p8) Australia for example needs 9 hectares to meet our lifestyle needs, the USA 10.3 hectares and the rest of the developed world all have lifestyles that require in excess of 5 hectares per person. It follows therefore that we have committed to a lifestyle that requires us to use more than our fair share of the earth's resources. Therefore to blame the third world's population explosion on the ecological crisis we are facing seems to be a device to divert attention away from the real problem: our unchecked consumption of the earth's resources

Baygon,

It is good to see at last that this thread is starting to discuss the population problem. The reason I consider the third world population the more important issue is that the population of the first world, to a reasonable simplification, has stabilised, whereas that of the third world is set to double over the next 25 years. I agree with you that the first world population is consuming more that it should, but at least it is stable. Trying to contain the consumption of countries with rapidly increasing population is futile. This is why it is so important for Australia to restrict its immigration program. Moving someone from the third world to the first will result in a considerable increase of consumption and environmental pollution. All this, of course, is very disturbing to those who harbour the dream that the whole world will be lifted to a standard of living on a par with the US and Australia.

I do believe that peak oil will serve to limit the consumption of the West, albeit with much suffering and social dislocation.

Batten down the hatches! It's going to be an interesting century!

Third world population not a problem? no worry about it or its rate of increase because it's per-capita consumption is lower than the developed world?

Translated, that equates to an appeal for the continuance of apartheid: those buggars must never be allowed to step up to the comfortable lifestyles of the west!

Keep population increasing, no matter where it is, and we will all be carbon-crisped, because keeping the lid on a boiling world kettle seething with divisive affluent/deprived social division is no more than a lousy short-term dream.

Read my comments more carefully. I started with the proposition that we need zero population growth. But I also took pains to argue that it is not just population that is the problem. Lifestyle choices are likewise an important factor. For example the entire world's population could be comfortably accommodated on Tasmania if we were prepared to accept a population density the same as that for Hong Kong. The only problem with that scenario is that even if we were to do that it would not solve the problem for the Hong Kong lifestyle is dependent on a consumption pattern well above what the earth can support.
So the reason for looking at patterns of consumption is to argue against the view that China and India or the Third World are the problem - we in the West are the problem - if we can limit our lifestyle to sustainable levels and promote zero carbon strategies then there is some hope for the future for we will then be in a position to work with the third world to ensure that it does not follow our irresponsible path.