Hang on, I can see where this is going after the footage runs showing some ice chunks dropping into the sea off Antarctica (a.k.a. "summer"):

Mumsy yells "Help! Lifeguard! My son THE LAWYER is drowning!"

Thanks for your clearly written article Mr Keim.

If we don't listen to the acknowledged experts and start acting upon their advice then the consequences will be disastrous.

I think Tim Flannery said that Australia didn't need to build nuclear generators but I think he expects more electricity to be generated from non fossil fuel sources

Yeah, but Flannery's that Wentworth Group guy mooted the idea that we should pump sulphur into the atmosphere in order to prevent GW! Yep, Oz of the Year.

I am no admirer of Hansen. Quite the opposite. He is one of these scientists I have spoken to too often of late, who have cast aside all scientific objectivity in favour of alarmism based on a set of really dogy climate models. However, to my astonishment, he has said something sensible. To have even a hope of meeting his carbon dioxide target - or almost any target in the foreseeable future - then nuclear energy is the only way to go. Switching to gas, or alternative energy simply will not cut it - at least not for the drastic cuts required by the aforementioned dodgy theory. Way to go Hanson! The oil companies will be inviting you as guest speaker to their conferences next.

I have long been an objector to the use of nuclear power. The unlimited, cheap, safe power promised by scientist in the 1960's just did not happen. It turned out to be disaster after disaster. And now we have great piles of nuclear waste.
With all new technology there are unforeseen side effects. With nuclear energy they came thick and fast. But now that nuclear power is no-longer a new technology have we learnt enough to use it safely?
If the technology can be explained without any 'sell' and it looks reasonable to me then I would support it. The sorts of things I would want to know are about the waste issues. Where and how long? If the new technology can feed on its waste can existing waste be recycle through 4th generation power plants? Can existing power plants be upgraded?
I hope this issue does not get caught up in the debacle called debate on the GW issue. GW or not, if nuclear power is to be supported it must stand by itself and not just the least objectionable or easiest alternative.
It seems time to drop the fear and dogma, and look at the new technology with a critical, but not judgmental eye.

OK so where are the "next generation" pebble-bed reactors that are supposed to be very safe cheap and wonderful? Do any exist yet? Can they be run by non-military folks with full transparency so we get something viable and well managed?
A lot of the traditional anti-nuke is the link to weapons, the military lies and spin, and the fact that it is *not* cheap energy. If waste costs are factored and military issues removed it is currently *unpriced* because they still haven't solved the waste issue. Even letting it sit around costs more than renewables that are developed to potential.
I'm one of the rare folks that will embrace nukes when they make the grade. But not before, and not based on military misinformation.
Clean coal is indeed a joke. Just mining coal releases methane and CO2 so even CC at the smokestack won't work. Hansen was spot on there.
Glad to see the useless "cap and trade" system being told for what it is too: Another "useless bastard tax".
Alas, we support so many "non-productive millionaires" (AKA "useless bastards") that a few more are hardly likely to factor into this decision.

We should be having an open and public debate on Nuclear Power generation, without all the alarmist bullying you get when the N word is mentioned. The ALP also needs to get off the populism bandwagon as well and face the reality that if they want to do away with Coal, then Nuclear is all we have, wind and solar are not there by any means nor will they ever be able to handle 100% of the community's needs - they are a curiosity at best.

davey - you say disaster after disaster, but there are only 2 aren't there? (I could be wrong, often happens) Harrisburg and Chernobyl, Chernobyl only killed 30 odd people and Harrisburg I'm not sure - there was a lot more spin and bad publicity than substance in both of those. Yes, environmental damage, but that heals, even the reefs in the Bikini atoll used for A and H bomb tests has revived, the planet adapts, amazingly enough (we should too).

Nuclear power has come a long way, Gen III reactors operate in Japan (for instance) and produce power at around US$0.07 per KWh.

I believe the author is talking about Gen IV reactors, which are even better, they could reprocess all the existing waste from older reactors as fuel. Can existing plants be upgraded, not as far as I understand, but then for important things like infrastructure we should be doing first class and building new, not trying to upgrade older facilities built under different safety and building codes.

Don't take my word for it, go look it up "4th generation nuclear power", there's probably even a Wiki entry, for what that's worth.

What James Hansen really said to Barack and Michelle?
I agree with Hansen that a cap and trade is hopeless and we need to introduce a carbon tax as quickly and progressively as possible. I think the only reason I can see for a cap and trade is that it will not work. Where I disagree with Hansen is proposal that “the revenue raised by the carbon tax to the populace on a per capita basis”. Considering the mass unemployment we are starting to encounter, I think we should reduce all expenses on labour such as taxes on employees and compensation expenses, payroll tax on employers. This would help businesses to employ people and reduce pollution and carbon emissions also improving services especially in the health care, education and public transport. Many other fields that can be worked on would reduce emissions and improve our quality of life such as eliminating waste that is deliberately produced to increase consumption and increase profit for the wealthy. Those measures would be better and quicker than building nuclear power stations that still are using non-renewable fuels.
Tena

I've much respect for Hansen and I endorse the principle that "the polluter pays." The PP principle you will find in the preamble of every state EPA legislation in this nation. Alas it has never been enforced. That's why it's kept in the preamble which is unenforceable.

The EPA's refer to polluters as their clients. The only client the EPA's are entitled to is the environment which has been trashed by the EPA's "clients."

I too have read that some 4th generation reactors can utilise much of the radioactive waste and these may be feasible for other countries. I do not recommend them for any nation which is a large uranium miner:

http://www.jimletourneau.com/2009/01/top-uranium-producing-countries/

In fact I reiterate from another thread - uranium mining uses unacceptably large volumes of water. One mine alone, Olympic Dam, takes from the Great Artesian Basin, 35 million litres a day, free of charge for the next 70 years. Olympic Dam is the largest private user of electricity in the state of SA and that is only one miner.

Uranium mining is a large polluter in terms of radioactive emissions, water, transport, energy, leaks, spills and cover-ups.

WA and Qld are peppered with uranium tenements awaiting the green light. It was reported this week that a large Canadian consortium has their eyes on WA's uranium tenements. Unfortunately, Canadian miners are the largest polluters on the planet - not least their plundering of other nation's resources where they make a big mess and walk away.

The Howard government's Uranium and Nuclear Review's estimates for the construction of nuclear reactors in this country appear extremely dodgy if the following assessment is anywhere near accurate:

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/opeds/nuclear.costs.new.matilda.pdf

Australia has a shabby record in the history of uranium mining and additional large tracts of land will be tied up for perpetuity with tailings dams - areas which are unfit for human or animal habitation.

Some 60% of Australia's land mass is already occupied by alien livestock and the crops which feed them.

How much more of this arid and drought riddled land can we afford to donate to the big polluters?

Hansen will not be the last AGW theorist to consider Nuclear power as an option. The objections to Nuclear energy are 1960's and 1970's based. If you happen to share that perspective it is too easy to refer to commentary that supports your perspective.

This is sad because it's just as easy to obtain current "actuals" rather than dated and myth based commentary. The nuclear power industry has changed dramatically in the past 60 years, so why have the objections not changed?.

In real life as opposed to "objection land" this is what is happening.

China has ordered 100 Nuclear Power Stations from Westinghouse
415 of the 440 NPS's operating today are Gen. II or later.
Time to build is now down to 4-6 years.
It is the cheapest amortised power source
It can not only generate carbon free power, it can create a hydrogen economy to power transport free of carbon.
No spent fuel has been permanently burried, two reasons, the volume is so low after 60 years it is not an imperrative and two, Gen IV reactors are likely to re-use upto 92% of previous spent fuel.

rpg is right about a public and informed debate but given the shear volume of ancient rehtoric, maybe we have to wait until more Hansens step up to the mark?

spindoc:
You cannot say it is the cheapest. They haven't fixed the waste problems! They haven't paid for the cleanup of the mines and reactors yet, so how do you amortise the (unknown but high) cost?
Fact is, so far its like the banks: their profits are propped up by public funding, usually secret or hidden.

The new reactors show promise, but we need to see demonstrated performance in a transparent country and then get the *real* cost.
I agree we need informed decisions here. Fanboys on both sides add nothing to the debate.

Ozandy, The European, International and US Energy Commissions have 12,350 reactor years of experience and 60 years of actual energy production to come up with their figures, including decommissioning and storeage of high grade waste. Not my figures, theirs.

As I said, the objections are 60 years old. You are right to say that "fanboys" on both sides add nothing to the debate. If the debate is to progress we each might have to stop visiting sites that support our pro/against stances and start looking for the real information not someone elses article/comment.

I promise, the raw data is out there.

Spindoc

I note your claims. I also note, as in another thread, that your claims are made without substantiation.

It is with regret that I also note your embellishments. Please provide links to support your following assertions:

a)…… 'China has ordered 100 Nuclear Power Stations from Westinghouse

b)…… '415 of the 440 NPS's operating today are Gen. II or later.' (Just the later will do thanks.)

c)……'Time to build is now down to 4-6 years.'

d)……'It is the cheapest amortised power source'

e)…… 'It can not only generate carbon free power, it can create a hydrogen economy to power transport free of carbon.' (Please provide an estimate on the required number of reactors for a hydrogen state)

f)………'No spent fuel has been permanently burried, two reasons, the volume is so low after 60 years it is not an imperrative......'

If you are unable to substantiate these claims from a credible source, please let me know thanks.

ROFL!

AGW-ers depend on scary, abstract models to describe imminent hell unless everyone submits to whichever of their plans eventually gets up - the most emotive usually push "renewables" as the magic.

Advocacy for nukes, on the other hand, must supply an ongoing pool of detailed source data for "verification".

It rather looks like Hansen (if not Gore) is seeing the AGW scam evaporate, and he's covering himself for a future career of relevancy.

Btw folks, thorium reactor technology is another great source of much cleaner and more efficient power. India has made great advances developing a thorium-based cycle, while Australia - if I'm not mistaken - has the world's largest known reserves of thorium.

dickie .. here you go, 30 seconds on a thing called Google

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants yes, it's Wiki. but the China reference links to a hard site.

2. http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkecentre/events/2006events/Nuclear_Debate.asp

The rest you can do yourself, don't be so lazy .. why is it the anti everything (including Nuclear Power conversations) brigade always start name calling e.g. "fan boys", and accompanied with sneering derogatory comments, grow up, it's a different world in case you hadn't noticed, you might have to change some ideas as well.

Nuclear Power debates should be based on current facts, not old scares. If you really believe we need to reduce CO2, and Coal Fired power generation and you don't want to entertain Nuclear Power conversations, well good luck with the renewables.

They have been coming for a long time now, you all just keep waiting there. In the meantime, I would like the benefits of a modern society, not some bleak existance where the lights go out when the wind stops blowing, or at night. One day we might get truely renewable power generators, but we need something in the meantime.

rpg

Thank you for intervening however, I continue to look forward to the information I've requested from spindoc. In the meantime, I've perused the links you provided.

It comes as no surprise that a debater of your calibre, has resorted to supplying information from Wikipedia.

There are many fine debaters on this forum – many qualified to speak on these topics, many who've dedicated years of research on specific interests.I do not recall them ever having to resort to Wikipedia to substantiate their claims.

The information you have provided to my questions comes with a disclaimer from Wik: “ This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate.”

The Hawke Centre link you provided is simply an advertisement announcing a debate to take place between Ian Hore-Lacy, Director of the Uranium information Centre (now defunct) and Dr Mark Diesendorf (not defunct.) The "pending" debate may have evoked some interest if it was still 2006 when the debate was conducted. Alas, it is now 2009.

Included in your post to me, and without provocation, was the following unrestrained catatonic vent:

“The rest you can do yourself, don't be so lazy .. why is it the anti everything (including Nuclear Power conversations) brigade always start name calling e.g. "fan boys", and accompanied with sneering derogatory comments, grow up, it's a different world in case you hadn't noticed, you might have to change some ideas as well.”

Indeed rpg? Please bear in mind that your abusive behaviour is of considerable detriment to the credibility of the nuclear industry.

It is disappointing to find that your irrelevant and obsolete information is of no assistance to me in my quest for supportive links from spindoc. Furthermore, it is also disappointing that your ad hominens and pig-ignorance has seen me sacrifice an entire post on your astonishingly rude and stupefying swill.

Cheers

dickie .. outstanding, at least you're passionate about something.

I may have been a little harsh in my opinion, but I guess my only defence is I get tired of pompous folks who demand everyone they disagree with prove everything to them, all you're going to get is more Google searching aren't you, surely? Do you ever thank people for doing all this research you demand, do you apologise if shown to be incorrect?

BTW - when I wrote .. "yes, it's Wiki. but.." did you not understand I was trying to make the point, that it's Wiki therefore take it as an open unchecked source. Oh well, clearly my fault.

"Considerable detriment to the nuclear industry", I think not - they wouldn't worry about 2 little ants like us would they, or are you really important?

You feel very strongly about nuclear power don't you?

rpg,

I have experienced similar with dickie. When I asked for a reference I was told that I [dickie] am not your "handmaiden". I wonder how this reply went down with her uni professors. In other words, it was up to me to do her work and search the world library for support of her claim. She did the same with another commentator when she could not provide a page reference for a statement she claimed from Lomborg. It was up to the other party to find it for her, bearing in mind the absurdity of searching for something that may not exist! Meanwhile, she has no qualms about demanding that everyone else substantiate whatever claim she wishes.

The other option, of course, is that we simply trust dickie wholesale. Afterall, her adopted tone suggests infallibility and moral superiority. And yet, she seems to acknowledge that she is not one of the "many fine debaters on this forum" who would never have to resort to Wikipedia to substantiate their claims.

A quick search of recent posts located this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8132#127925

Yes, I know dickie, well, I never, indeed, I am aware, the pig-swill of my catatonic, blah blah blah...

It may be a bit late for this thread however, rpg is right, Dickie is passionate and we need more of that in OLO. I didn't provide any links because did not see an open mind, only the need for reinforcement of an existing and seemingly unchangeable view, and that's OK but it won't move the debate into today's reality.

It is vital the we express controlled cynicism of alternate views however, in order to retain some balance we must also subject our own views to the same critical analysis.

I'm not trying to "sell" anyone on Nuclear Energy but, if it is to be an option for humanity we need to look at it rationally. I get so dissapointed at the wealth of real, current and verifiable industry data that exists, but few it seems, are asking the questions, just demanding a link that supports the tired old historical fears and demeaning or even rejecting reality.

Dickie, I appologise unreservedly for not playing by your rules and I thank rpg for taking one on the chin for me.

I'm not going to feed your habit Dickie however, if and when you do go looking for what is in the real world, I am absolutely sure that your energy and quest for information will result in this thread emerging again. Possible with some "questions" from yourself. Enjoy the journey.

"Dickie, I appologise (sic) unreservedly for not playing by your rules and I thank rpg for taking one on the chin for me."

Spindoc

The request for supporting links are not my rules. OLO protocol exists, as it does in other debating forums, where an ethical author's claims are supported by facts - facts which are provided at another's request.

Likewise, in any peer reviewed articles you will see many references, indicating that the author has arrived at a logical conclusion by thoroughly researching the topic.

It is not surprising that the two posters on OLO who have failed at all times to provide links to support their wild assumptions, are the very two here who must resort to ad hominens to mask the rubbish they force-feed to others - namely yourself and fungochumley, who most perceive as wearing a leper's bell and most avoid like the plague.

Your first wild assumption that "China has ordered 100 Nuclear Power Stations from Westinghouse" is a complete and utter fallacy - a figment of your imagination. The rest is similar.

"No spent fuel has been permanently burried (sic), two reasons, the volume is so low after 60 years it is not an imperrative (sic)" is yet another of your pathetic errors and I will not waste my time exposing the rest of your deceitful nonsense.

Deductive and inductive reasoning plus logical conclusions are a prerequisite for sensible debate.

I suggest spindoc that you change your pseudonym to a more inappropriate title. Your deliberate trickery, intended to gain an advantage, has merely corrupted yet another thread.

I am neutral on this issue in that I do not know enough, nor can I find sufficient non-partisan information to make an informed decision.
From what I have seen in this and other debates is name calling, insults, put downs and general dogmatic pig headedness. That does not apply to all the 'debaters' but it does seem to be a trend. All that will lead to is that if we go nuclear or not it will be a case of mob rule rather than informed decision making.
This is an issue where we need informed information. That does not seem to be available at this time, and Wikipedia does not seem to be any worse in this than any other site I have seen. Scientist are the finders of information, but when it comes to how to use that information all are equal. Scientists can be as partisan as any one else and accepting their view because they are a scientist is not valid.
Clever people do things because they can, Intelligent people know when not to. On this issue we need intelligent answers not clever ones.
Please step back and look at the scale of the decision. It is not a petty squabble between school children. We need to get it right.
I have been insulted in other debates for my propensity to err on the side of caution when I am uncertain. So I ask the pro nuclear camp to cut the dogma and rhetoric and show me nuclear can be safe. If you can do that you may just find you can get a lot of support from people such as myself.
Please no more of the 'only 30 people died at Chernobyl' crap from the pro nuclear camp. The ones that died where the lucky ones

"It is not surprising that the two posters on OLO who have failed at all times to provide links to support their wild assumptions, are the very two here who must resort to ad hominens to mask the rubbish they force-feed to others - namely yourself and fungochumley, who most perceive as wearing a leper's bell and most avoid like the plague"

If nothing else, dickie, you really are good for a laugh.

You know Dickie, it might be worse than being a Leper with a bell round my neck, I might "glow in the dark".

The following links will get you started in understanding the Nuclear Energy Industry. The site is both independent and accountable, not opinion, not journalistic comment.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

http://wna.snetglobalindexes.com/

Don't miss "Info. sources" or "Further Reading".

Please don't assume that everything you need to know is on the web in a nicely packaged comment or article. For instance, I "might" have spent the last 40 years in the industry.

All I suggested was that if someone like you is so passionate about truth and facts, it is out there. I also suspected that you don't wish to hear, see or read anything that doesn't fit your entrenched oposition, a closed mind. This is evidenced by the tendency to totally ignore the "content" of of a response to you, yet you react alarmingly to the "emotion" it evokes in you, and the pseudo-acedemic belligerence you spray around does nothing to indicate an open mind.

If you do wish to understand, visit the sites provided, please don't prove me right by trashing it.

Nuclear energy cannot power the whole world economy to the same affluence as we have in Australia for any length of time. This is beside the fact that there’s not enough stuff for every one if we try to maintain and have all people living to the same wasteful way that the capitalist system demands for it to be functional. The matter of safety and cost is immaterial if nuclear energy cannot solve world’s energy demands and able to produce the continues amount of food, water, metals and a host of minerals to our level of need under a wasteful capitalism. If we try to keep global capitalism by using nuclear energy or any other energy source that cannot fulfil those requirements then one must expect wars that can annihilate all of us by setting us on the path of Venues or nuclear war. We will have to abandon centralised systems of capitalism or socialism to survive and to have a better life. (What people think of me is not essential, as I’m not that important to matter.)

Dear Tena

I disagree. You are extremely important. The nuclear industry has much to do with your past and much to do with your future and that of your children.

When you have pro-nuclear spin doctors condescendingly advising: “The following links will get you started in understanding the Nuclear Energy Industry. The site is both independent and accountable…”

Rest assured the deception continues for the World Nuclear Association is NOT independent nor held to account, but represents the beast itself, his false prophets and their progeny:

“Current WNA Members are responsible for virtually all of world uranium, conversion, and enrichment production and some 95% of the world's nuclear-generated electricity outside the USA (85% of world nuclear generation, including the USA ).” (WNA)

The following is what the Beast would have you believe:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf50.html

The facts are different. These excerpts are taken at random from a massive file I have gathered over 30 years:

1. Mt Walton in WA has a shallow grave unmanned repository for low level radioactive waste. The Health Department’s release of the final report in 1993 (No.93/26) includes 4 items of plutonium.

2. "The US spent over $52 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs in the fiscal year 2008, but only 10 percent of that went toward preventing a nuclear attack."

3. "Pakistan's leading nuclear scientist confessed on national television to leaking the country's nuclear secrets.This is what AQ Khan did in Pakistan:

"He stole designs for centrifuges and for a centrifuge plant when he was working in Holland. He was in Holland in the '70s, stole these blueprints, brought them to Pakistan, gave them to Pakistan. That enabled Pakistan then to build its nuclear bomb. He then took those same blueprints and other things he'd acquired, and he went around the world selling that know-how and these designs. The AQ Khan network secretly passed on nuclear technology to Libya, North Korea and Iran."

4. 1997: “Exceptional elevation of children's leukemia appearing 5 years after the 1983 startup of the Krümmel nuclear power plant Germany, accompanied by a significant increase of adult leukemia cases":

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1469929

Contd……

Contd……

5. 2008: CHILD LEUKEMIA DEATH RATES INCREASE NEAR U.S. NUCLEAR PLANTS:

http://www.radiation.org/press/pressrelease081111ejcc_leukemia.html

6. From 1993 to 2001, the IAEA tracked 175 cases of trafficking in nuclear materials and 201 cases of trafficking in radioactive materials used for medical and industrial purposes.

7. 2007: “ Twenty years after a blast in the nuclear plant at Chernobyl spread radioactive debris across Europe, it has been revealed that 375 farms in Britain, with 200,000 sheep, are still contaminated by fallout after two decades, the legacy of the Chernobyl disaster is still casting its poisonous shadow over Britain's countryside.

"The Department of Health has admitted that more than 200,000 sheep are grazing on land contaminated by fallout from the explosion at the Ukrainian nuclear plant 1,500 miles away. Emergency orders still apply to 355 Welsh farms, 11 in Scotland and nine in England as a result of the catastrophe in April 1986.

“Some of the Scottish hills are also still affected. No sheep can be moved out of any of these areas without a special licence, under Emergency Orders imposed in 1986. Sheep that have higher than the permitted level of radiation have to be marked with a special dye that does not wash off in the rain, and have to spend months grazing on uncontaminated grass before they are passed as fit to go into the food chain.”

8. “Since 1945, the United States has manufactured and deployed more than 70,000 nuclear weapons to deter and if necessary fight a nuclear war. Up to 1998, bases and facilities with significant current or historical U.S. nuclear weapons or naval nuclear propulsion missions, in and out of the US, reveal that the Nuclear weapons facilities have occupied over 10,018,628.70 acres of land:

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/basesize.aspx

9. WASHINGTON, DC, August 5, 2008 (ENS) - It will cost 38 percent more to build, operate and decommission the nation's first nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada than the federal government estimated seven years ago, the U.S. Department of Energy said today in an updated life cycle cost estimate of $96.2 billion.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2008/2008-08-05-091.asp

A major problem. The Genie is already out of the bottle. No stopping nuclear power now even if America did destroy North Korea and Iran. That is unless non-nuclear alternatives can be developed very quickly.
My preference would have been that nuclear power had been by-passed for alternatives such as solar and wave power, but it wasn't.
One possibility is to develop alternative power sources very quickly and give it to developing and other countries that need it. Or possible give safe nuclear technology (if it exists) to countries that need it.
I do realise that giving something away that could help everyone instead of using to make mega-bucks for a few is a radical idea. I am not talking about communism or any other ideology. It is just that to my non-political mind it seems sensible to give away something that is safe rather than let very dodgy technology become a problem for the whole world.
Even if developed countries develop safe nuclear power it is still of no use unless everyone has safe nuclear power. That is one of my concerns. If there is safe nuclear power everyone must have it, or it is not safe.
Unless America's stance on nuclear power for North Korea, Iran and others changes it makes no difference how safe our nuclear technology is. America will force countries who need power into some very dated and dodgy technologies unless it is prepared to give technology away. That technology could easily be technology that cannot produce nuclear weapons.
This is of course a dream. I cannot see America giving anything to anybody for free

Yes, Germany donated (i.e., "for free") to Indonesia nuclear technology shouted down by green fanatics at home. The area of the free technology's application has been transformed from arid and poor to fertile and rich - a success story. The people concerned in such success couldn't give a toss what western green degenerates believe.

So-called "alternative" power generation is inefficient and unreliable; to even suggest propagating its use in the developing world is like saying: "let them weave baskets".

France and Sweden have been relying on nuclear power for decades as their main sources of electricity, and n.p.