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...