I think the problem of nuclear waste disposal has been over dramatised. Informal groups or criminals would find it difficult to retrieve canisters stored down a deep mine shaft. Remember the economy has to stay cohesive enough for today's kids to even have a future. In my opinion wind and solar power cannot maintain a conventional type of economy with both heavy industry and affordable household electricity supply. I fear that if we all believe that renewables will save us then the economy will weaken to the point that we cannot fund more renewables let alone nuclear.

I think Australia should hold off on any nuclear power stations until they can be built quickly. That could come from either modular design or overseas experience in producing a number of standard plants. Meanwhile Australia's position as the future leading supplier of uranium could ensure material is not diverted to weapons. We could even take used fuel back and bury it in the outback as a condition of sale. After all that's where most of the original radioactive elements came from. Once new design reactors get to 'off the shelf' status then they can take over. That still won't solve the problem of those like North Korea who already have weapon grade material.

Barry, a good article, I don't agree that we are changing, I believe it is doing it all on its own .. with possibly microscopic, and virtually immaterial, additions from us. In 100 years time, our "best science" may be seen as primitive, and heaven forbid, wrong.

I do not believe that we have all the answers today and it is arrogant to state that we know all there is to know about climate, we may never know it is so complex

I do agree with you though on nuclear power and know you've done a lot of work on it, but fear that the people who you dislike for not agreeing with you on Climate Change (I've read your website material) are but mere annoyances when compared to the anti-nuclear lobby for not understanding or not wanting to understand the state of the science.

In a similar way to people questioning the "best science" on climate, do some people question the current science on nuclear power generation. Scientists said in the 1950s that nuclear power was safe and wonderful, "trust us" they said "we know more than you and most importantly we know what's best for you".

A couple of incidents later and most of the reputation is gone. So it is with Climate science, the fact there are dissenting scientists at all is suspiciously “alarming”.

I'd like to have nuclear power, we could get rid of all the coal power stations and all the silly hobby power solutions, wind, waves whatever etc until they were more mature.

I'd go with a Faustian compromise.
If you can come up with a design -or petition, or political will- that requires all the existing nuclear warheads be converted to power stations...
Where do I sign?

[quote]I'd like to have nuclear power, we could get rid of all the coal power stations and all the silly hobby power solutions, wind, waves whatever etc until they were more mature.[/quote]

Coal powered steam turbines were also hobby technology 200 years ago, as were gas fired turbines. Should we have abandoned them as well at the time?

Solar is the future and the more we learn and invest in it now, the sooner it will be improved. Granted, it seems like some of it is junk technology at the moment, but given time and funding, just like steam was earlier, solar will come through and in some cases is already a viable reality!

As someone here posted a while ago. "We based our society on a finite resource that's running out and these nuclear fools want us to move to another finite resource to save us". Makes sense doesn't it?

It Imazes me that the extreme environmental lobby is so agro over the Nuclear issue.

When I listen to the deep green puritans they seem so sure,that the way to future energy sustainability is wind, solar and wave etc and electric cars, push bikes and community travel systems.

All we know is, that what ever we believe now is wrong. Us, economics and technology is Darwinian in it's nature and they must be allowed to evolve and prove themselves over time. Solar etc show promise, but if you want to secure supply from a decision now, then nuclear has to be a high order option

If you except that we (Humans) are causing/contributing to massive climate shift (I do) and we only have a short window of opportunity to shift then Nuclear should be part of the interim mix to secure immediate supply.

Each one of the so called green technologies may be low carbon foot prints, however each comes with their own environmental costs and baggage, as well as being unproven to supply base power so far.

I believe a real rational energy strategy needs to be formulated and when you way up potential technology advances etc in all fields, your right to suggest Nuclear shouldn't be ruled off the table. At least as an interim fuel.

If all the extreme Greens would start a company that produced low emmission energy, I would buy the output and some shares. But unfortunatly they want other people to fund their so cock sure ideas and be abusive to anyone who disagrees.

They need to realise that their not saving the planet, its been wiped out before and will be wiped out again, they are being selfish and just trying to prolong the biosphere that supports us for longer.

The earth has been a radioactive dust ball before and that was its natural state, where not saving anything the earth has allways been in flux, we just happened not to be on it.

I liked your article and its food for thought
Thanks

While Professor Brook presents a case for nuclear energy it remains futuristic. Currently there is not one commercial Generation 1V reactor operating anywhere.

Key findings in the Australian government’s nuclear energy review suggested that one scenario would see deployment of nuclear power starting in 2020 which could see 25 reactors producing about one third of the nation’s electricity by 2050.

Meanwhile, Australia’s obsession with unsustainable growth will see regional, national and multi-national pollutant corporations pollute with impunity for the next forty years and beyond while additional contaminated river systems fail and salinity and desertification further engulfs what’s left of our arable lands. Motor vehicle emissions of carcinogenic, carbon based chemicals will continue to impact on ecosystems and human health; the livestock industry will continue on rampage, consuming massive amounts of Australia's resources and the shoddy uranium industry will be tying up precious lands in perpetuity on radioactive, abandoned mine sites.

However, the Australian reviewers claimed that: “ Countries with successful nuclear power generation programmes have a strong and transparent regulatory environment.” This claim is misleading – particularly since the US has the most reactors in the world (103) yet remains the largest polluter of CO2 emissions on the planet and has a poor history of nuclear obfuscation and downright cover-ups.

The IAEA, which opens its database to regulators so they can learn from others' mistakes, has seen fewer reports in recent years -- 89 in 2006, down from 231 in 1985. It says this doesn't reflect improved safety, but regulators' failure to contribute reports to the voluntary system. "We know about many more events that we think should be reported," says Christer Viktorsson, an official in the IAEA's department of nuclear installation safety.

The report revealed that the French nuclear operator, Electricité de France SA, has reported since 2003 around 700 "significant" safety-related events each year at its 59 reactors to the Institute of Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, a government-funded body. But the institute passes on only about 10 incident reports each year to the IAEA.

"Promethean environmentalism?" Sounds familiar to me.