A fascinating romp, after browsing through the pro-nuclear writings of those extolling the virtues of nuclear power stations which they say are necessary to rescue society from the evils of renewables.

colinsett it's not that renewables are evil, they will never keep pace with the demands of more people aspiring to the middle class, declining or constrained fossil fuel use and reduced capital due to the global economic slowdown.

I'm not sure how the IAEA interacts with the Nuclear Suppliers Group championed by the Australian government. So far Australia has declined to sell uranium to India as a non-signatory to the Non Proliferation treaty despite US pressure. Australia is also demurring at continued uranium sales to Russia on the grounds of poor record keeping and inspection access. Like it or not as the owner of perhaps 40% of the world's easily mined uranium Australia must play a role. It may be that withholding uranium is a powerful lever to back up IAEA admonitions. That leverage would be even more so if we undertook local enrichment (using the locally invented laser process) and rented out nuclear fuel on tough conditions of use.

Those who don't want to deal with these issues should ask themselves why the nuclear question never goes away. If renewables are capable of quickly replacing coal, oil and gas why have dozens of countries failed to do it?

"colinsett it's not that renewables are evil, they will never keep pace with the demands of more people"
Taswegian, you are off with the fairies if you believe that any energy source will keep up with demands from ever-increasing numbers of humans.

We can but try. Nuclear power is a resource which must be used, otherwise civilisation will go backwards into the dark ages again.

David

Collinset,

No one has ever said renewables are evil, only incapable of supplying enough reliable power.

The danger comes from those that oppose nuclear so strongly that they would prefer to continue burning coal while waiting for a white knight renewable technology.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

none of which matters. i don't have any power to direct oz government, much less an international agency. nor do any of you, unless you're in parliament. why then is this article published? ask the writer.

the notion that it's a good thing for a few nations to have atom bombs, but not all, is so patently hypocritical that the 'haves' lost all moral authority long ago. those who can get the bomb will get it, as a tool of survival in a world of 'pre-emptive defence', as invasion is now called. the iaea can do nothing to stop this survival-oriented activity, and merely brands itself as a tool of the would-be master class of nations that have made themselves invasion-proof by forcing their way into the club.

an unstable nation run by fundamentalist fanatics is a fearsome thing, but we have learned to live with it already: israel, pakistan, and the usa all qualify. iran with a bomb doesn't frighten me more than those three.