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

Problem: We have been satisfying our energy needs using finite resources that create dangerous waste products.

Solution: Satisfy our energy needs using a finite resource that creates dangerous waste products.

Brilliant.

Note: Apologies to James Hanson - I was tripped up by the mistaken author link. So just who is Fred Hanson? Seems he has written quite a bit for the Adam Smith Institute that is, "Britain’s leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies." Typical!

Hohum,

Your post is typical of the followers of the green religion.

You say>>” 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?

All nuclear power plants, when they are costed, take into account the costs of decommissioning and waste storage. So when someone says a plants costs x billion dollars it includes decommissioning and waste.

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

Engineers expect that without maintenance hoover damn will still be around in 10,000 years. There is no reason why a concrete bunker in solid ground in the middle of Australia shouldn’t last as long if not longer.

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

How many alternative energy sites will need to be built, if it were even possible to run all our power using these technologies? 10 or 100 times more, that’s how many.

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

What kind of vast resources will be needed to be 10 times as many alternative energy plants? How long will that take?

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

WTF, Police state politics? What kind of trip are you on? You have obviously never been to a police state, OR maybe you call the communist police states, “workers paradises”. What on earth could possibly be wrong with protecting nuclear waste from criminals and terrorists?

The French decision to go nuclear 35 years ago has certainly put them in an enviable position as the rest of Europe struggles with its fossil fuel dependence and the consequent difficulty of reducing GHG emissions.

But only on OLO would this topic be used as the basis for an anti-environmental diatribe by a medical doctor with no environmental or energy credentials who specialises in polemics outside his area of expertise. Typical.

If "nuclear power can curb dependence on fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases", what will eventually curb dependence on nuclear power and the emissions from radioactivity?

Ultimately this industrial age will decline, as will living standards and population numbers. The pertinent questions are not whether this will happen, the answer to that is in simple physics and the laws of thermodynamics. The greatest challenges humanity faces are:

1) how soon will the decline take hold - it may be we are already seeing the first signs of that, and

2) how do we mange the decline so as to temper the economic and social ructions that will inevitably flow from the 'have nots' not having the basics humans need to survive.

An international 'Oil Depletion Protocol' may not be implemented in time for managing the downside of the oil product life-cycle. Perhaps we will one day see a 'Coal Depletion Protocol', a 'Gas Depletion Protocol', and/or 'Uranium / Thorium Depletion Protocols' to manage the ultimate diminution of all cheap energy sources.

Then we may be able to enter into a post-industrial age with lifestyles that merge the lessons of the industrial age with the resources of the pre-industrial era.

If it is all going to happen eventually, then why not start now? Perhaps we can then find civilisation.

GREENLIGHT

Greenlight,

Maybe we should all live in in mud huts and be vegetarians. I'm sure the green lobby would approve, however i sincerely doubt that most greenies would have the staying power required.

Your hypothesis of the fall of industrialised society is the most laughable nonsense. Why don't you stop breathing air now since it is inevitable that one day you will.

Most of these worshippers of the green religion seem to me they would be happier if there were no humans on earth.

Frankly, if there are no humans left on Earth I could not give less of a f@ck what happens to the planet. Its a resource that has been provided for us. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look after it, but it also doesn't mean we shouldn't use its bounties.

Nuclear is a absolute no-brainer. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, nuclear is the way to go.

It's like people who are afraid of aeroplanes but not driving a car. You are hundreds of times more likely to die in a car, but some people you just can't convince. Nuclear has injured or killed hundreds of times fewer people than the coal and other fossil fuel industries. But the "true believers" don't care.

There is hundreds of years worth of uranium and other nuclear material and they are already working on technology that can reuse spent fuel making the raw material last 10 to 100 times longer. I think we can probably solve the dilemma of sustainable energy within that time period. Don't you?

As a professional engineer I see little hope of getting a mature debate on the use of nuclear power in a forum such as this. Yes the green movement has done a lot of harm after being captured by the humanities based under graduate movement, most of whom have shunned a science based education.

After all misrepresenting things you do not understand and coming up with a pamphlet and slogans are much more fun than the slog of mathematics, physics and chemistry. And then to gain experience in applying that science takes many years. Also a humanities degree teaches you better communication skills than the scientist and engineers so you can make a louder and better noise.

And most people are easily frightened, so a solution to global warming becomes impossible amongst the cloud of well expressed ignorance. Those who do know something and could do something useful feel impotent amongst all of this.

Fear rules and the world warms up while the ersatz greenies glow with satisfaction, scoffing at the babbitts and blaming others for the lack of any solution.

ChristinaMac, your response is nothing more than an emotional knee-jerk reaction to someone who says things you don't like to hear.

The OLO equivalent of placing one's hands over one's ears and muttering "I won't listen, I won't listen, you can't make me".

And if that sounds like a seven year-old having a tantrum when told it's bedtime, then I've made my point.

First the upfront ad hominem - when lost for argument, go for the man, not the ball:

>>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"<<

Being a "paid spruiker" is of course the death-knell of credibility, is it not.

How would you then describe a Green Party politician? They are certainly paid - from the public purse, to boot, not from private enterprise - and they are most definitely spruikers.

Interminably so.

>>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.<<

To make these grand and sweeping claims of failure in the light of a couple of minor contamination incidents is risible - no examples are cited, of course, because their triviality would show up the hyperbole for what it is: hot air.

>>The nuclear industry in France being largely or wholly government owned - the true costs are not public - tax-payer pays them!<<

And are glad to, by all accounts.

>>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<<

Ah, les grenouilles perfides! Nothing more need be said. Just repeat the mantra "Rainbow Warrior", and that relieves you of the need to exercise your brain.

Mindless observations like these diminish the argument.

The energy crisis has created some personalities so affronted by the bad news that they have developed a burning hatred of those who are ringing the alarm bells. It would be better for the two sides to draw back and take breath.

Have no doubt, Australia will sell all of its uranium. There is no point trying to stop that from happening. And nuclear power may be able to keep things at bay while soft technologies are developed, albeit with huge risks.

Nuclear power gives us the chance to stay hooked on a high-energy diet for a little bit longer. But the high-energy diet itself is the real problem we face. France had congested cities like everywhere else.

Cheap energy has taught us how to gobble up energy resources as if there was no consequence.

We could enjoy the same quality of life we have now using a fraction of our present energy consumption.

The problem for humanity now is that we have lost control of our own destiny. We are faced with having to make diabolical choices because we failed to heed the early warning signs. Too late. Now freedom of choice have been cut from under us.

To extend the metaphor, there is zero chance that the owners of fossil fuels (coal and oil and shale) will ever agree to leave them in the ground. Therefore most of that fuel will be burned. Therefore unless we bury carbon dioxide, our climate, already spinning out of control, will go ballistic.

That does not make carbon sequestration a sensible policy measure, it is downright mad, but we have lost the breathing space to make sensible decisions. W are faced with desperate decisions.

Since we are all in the same boat we have to confront these realities. We are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't.

We may have run out of time, but I still have to admire those who are championing the cause of soft energy paths. Where these can be developed we can help spare humanity an awful lot of chaos.

Did you know that Robert Oppenheimer who was called the "father" of the atomic bomb was named USA father of the year by the National Baby Association because of his atomic "fathering" of "Little Boy" the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima?

Plus Oppenheimer, Edward Teller and other "fathers of the bomb" were widely heroized after WW2. Of course Teller was a psychopath anyway.

Their colleague Leo Szilard observed: "It is remarkable that all f these scientists....should be listened to, but mass murderers have always commanded the attention of the public, and atomic scientists are no exception to this rule."

It is also interesting to note that the use of term the "nuclear" family did not appear until after the war.

Meanwhile I quite like this comprehensive resource of resources critical of the inherent pathologies of global capitalism

1. http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard.robbins/legacy

And of course Lewis Mumford provides a superb analysis of the Myth of the Invisible Mega-Machine meta-narrative and its relation to nuclear power IMPERATIVE.

Somebody once said that the forces of the "culture" of death are immense, highly organised, supremely confident and with great resources behind them.

Whereas the voices for the culture of life are small, completely over-whelmed, and tragically marginalised.

While in some ways this isn't a very good article - for all the reasons articulated above - I have to say that it does serve the purpose of stimulating a timely discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear energy. As someone who leans obviously towards the green sector of the political spectrum, but who also has qualifications in both science and humanities, I have for some time been disappointed in the quality of anti-nuclear arguments in the context of resource depletion and climate change.

I'm perfectly aware of all the negatives concerning nuclear energy: indeed, I have campaigned actively at times over several decades against it. However, it seems to me that we are currently facing a looming global energy crisis - under which conditions the positives of including nuclear energy in the mix of potential alternative energy sources might ultimately (and very unfortunately) outweigh the negatives in environmental terms.

This is, of course, a simultaneously heretical and tragic observation. It would be far nicer if everybody was to agree to be less materialistic, have less babies and lead simpler lives with less destructive aspirations, but I'm afraid that genie's out of the bottle.

How depressing.

“Yet such cuts jeopardise our standard of living and Western credentials to boot: individual liberty, indispensable economic growth, free trade and markets.”

Indispensable economic growth Fred Hansen?

Look, if we had a stable population, we could afford to have a steady-state economy that would at least not continue to exert ever-greater pressure upon our resource base and environment. This worshipping of continuous never-ending economic growth, that is accepted as the most fundamental necessity by many economists and ‘pseudo-environmentalists’ has got to stop.

If those who want nuclear power in this country want it so that we can just keep on growing, then by jees…no bloody way!!

If nuclear power can help within the mix of alternative energy sources, along with a stabilisation in population and gross economic turnover, then maybe…just maybe, it might have some merit.

Ludwig,

You clearly don’t know much about demographics. It has been over 30 years since we, in Australia, have had a birth rate which was at replacement level. That is, the level at which a population will remain stable. It won’t happen until the generation born around 1965 pass on, but Australia’s population will start going backwards. Unless we make up that difference with migrants, it is inevitable. And if we do make up the shortfall with migrants we could very well find ourselves with a different country altogether.

Many European nations are already at this point. According to the UN, below-replacement fertility is expected in 75% of developed world by the year 2050. Between 1970 and 2000 the developed world declined from 30% of the global population to just over 20%.Thats a 33% reduction. The Muslim world increased its share by 50% in the same period.

Japan, Germany, Poland, Russia, Croatia and a dozen other countries are already in population decline. Countries like Spain, Italy and Greece, Finland and Denmark have such low birth rates that their populations will begin declining soon. Chinas one child policy will ensure that Chinas population is near it peak and will soon recede.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

Africa and the Middle East are the drivers of global population increases. What this means for us is that our populations in the west are going to become older. That is, the average age of the population will increase. This will mean a lot more retirees who need to be funded by far fewer young people. This will be a significant economic problem.

Paul L, as this thread is about nuclear energy, let’s take this line of discussion to http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1773.

I’ll reply to your post in an hour or so.

Paul, I see that you are merrily posting away on other threads. Are you not going to reply to my post on the ‘When growth turns into a monster’ thread?

You had a solid dig with "You clearly don’t know much about demographics.”

Surely you are not going to just abandon the discussion that you have prompted?