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.