The entire nuclear mis-adventure is a tragic drama of the hubris of short term thinking.

And who is going to clean up and look after the radioactive mess of the dismantled sites and the waste produced in the process, for the next how many tens of thousands of years?

And will the dump/disposal sites maintain their structural integrity over these vast time scales?

Are the French going to bury or keep the waste in their own back yard or "export" (that is DUMP) it to/on one of their former colonies.

It is said that some native American tribes had a seven generation time scale with which they evaluated the possible consequences of what they were doing.

I wonder how many generations they would use in evaluating whether or not to go nuclear, especially if they knew about the vast time scales involved.

And how many hundreds of nuclear plants would we have to build to cater for the burgeoning world-wide energy demands.

And how long would it take to build them, and what kind of vast resources would be necessary to do so?

And what about the NECESSARILY coercive police state politics involved. Including the secure guarding of the waste sites.

I'm surprised that a climatologist would emerge from the sheltered corridors of academia to take an advocacy position. No doubt there will be accusations of payoffs along with a list of objections already answered by the article. The success of the French nuclear industry in terms of cheapness and safety must rankle with those who want different conclusions.

I think the most serious objections to nuclear must be long term dependence if extended fuel cycle technology fails to materialise. The critical period seems to be from now to year 2050. I think there is agreement that wind power can supply 20% of the grid on average. Low carbon alternatives for the other 80% seem to require leaps of faith on immature technology. Meanwhile coal and gas use continues with huge price increases and a looming supply crunch within a generation as well as unsafe CO2 levels. Somethin's gotta give.

I think we must factor in substantial nuclear power for Australia and start preparing sites for reactors. Or we can dream about carbon capture and solar baseload while in reality burning and flogging off huge amounts of fossil fuels. That will continue until there is a crisis if there isn't one already.

Maybe the physics pariah "cold fusion" will provide our future energy?
http://www.lenr-canr.org/

It seems that Taswegian as well as the editor of OLO is confused on this one. Today's contents list says the article is by James Hansen but it seems that it is actually by Fred Hansen.

Here's a thought - let's actually build the FINAL waste repository BEFORE we build a nuclear reactor. If you can't even agree and do the former then you should not do the latter. France has not solved that problem and neither has the USA. Just look at what we have done at Maralinga -hundreds of millions of dollars spent on a cleanup and then we buried the plutonium under a few metres of earth. WELL DONE AUSTRALIA!! That is going to be safe for a couple of hundred thousand years no problem.

"The Green movement has already created a lost generation of science-illiterate youths in many Western countries with long-lasting cultural effects." ?? Since when has the green movement been in charge of education policy and funding? It is still struggling to get a foothold in power anywhere in the world! Give me a break Hanson!!

"An assault on human freedom to procreate"?? What about the human freedom not to stave to death? Which is more important?

You're a dangerous fool Hanson. Maybe it is a good thing that the energy decline on the far side of the peak of oil production (where we are now) will mean the end of the space program and NASA. If you are lucky you might get to retire to France where you can grow vegetables with the other peasants in the shadow of a disused (but not "cleaned up") nuclear reactor shut down through lack of cheap uranium.

Oh dear - that tired old argument about France, Patrick Moore and James Lovelock and how wonderful is nuclear power!
Firstly, I thought that everybody knew by now that Patrick Moore is only a pretend environmentalist, with his long record as paid spruiker for the logging industries, and nowdays, for the nuclear industry. James Lovelock , of Gaia fame, might be more ethical than Moore, but is still closely involved with "Environmentalists for nuclear power", run by France's Bruno Comby, (well known for his crank health theories, and selling quack gadgetry)

Secondly - any closer look at France's nuclear energy situation shows that it is far from a success. Nuclear power and reprocessing in France have been a costly mistake and have contaminated groundwater,air and the sea.
The concentration on nuclear power has caused costly shutdowns of electricity, especially due to heat waves - as reactors could not manage cooling water in those conditions, (and France can expect more heat waves)
The nuclear industry in France being largely or wholly government owned - the true costs are not public - tax-payer pays them!
Finally, France has a fine record of deceit and dubious practices, ranging from the attack on the Rainbow Warrior to their disposal of toxic wastes in Third World countries.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net