I read Barry’s article in Tuesdays “The Australian”, I’m pleased to see this more expansive article appear here. The challenge facing us in relation to nuclear energy is the same as with climate change, that of opening closed minds.

Some of us feel that the need for nuclear power generation stands up well in its own right, unfortunately we need to undo the negative hype that has indoctrinated so many since the “ban the bomb” days in the 1960’s.

Likewise, no amount of contrary scientific evidence on AGW will dislodge the indoctrination of so many.

The 880 page report produced by scientists www.nipccreport.org/index.html and published by the Heartland Institute, not only offers a contrary scientific view of AGW, it offers some insight as to the origins of the IPCC.

Whilst this report is a serious peer review of the IPCC’s conclusions, the NIPCC report will fail to open the minds of AGW’ers in the same way that the “hard science” related to nuclear energy will fail to sway the nay sayers.

I suspect the main reason for this is the fear of ridicule. For those who have taken a strong position on AGW and nuclear energy, there is no way that facts will be allowed to replace stubborn ideology.

Barry Brook is stuck in his own dichotomy, that of accepting AGW in the face of growing scientific contradiction, whilst promoting a solution which suffers the same ideological opposition.

I guess we can expect the next round of comments to attempt to trash the NIPCC report rather than use it to open the debate further.

I have a former colleague who is still working in the nuclear industry after 40 years. I’ve asked him to source some of the nuclear energy “myth buster” research that is available. As soon as I have it I’ll post it on OLO.

<< there is no way that facts will be allowed to replace stubborn ideology. >>

Yep.

Gen IV reactors, like clean coal and flying pigs, can't help us in the short few years that scientists warn us are vital for making deep cuts in global carbon emissions : they are simply not here.

But if they were, we'd be right to be just as concerned about the weapons, waste and safety issues that have always tainted the nuclear industry's bold (and unfulfilled) promises.

existing reactor designs were sold as inherently safe, and the chance of meltdown was laughed off. until it happened. and happened again. So you'll have to forgive me for refusing to swallow the same promise for these 'over the horizon' designs.

the potential for production and proliferation of nuclear weapons materials from integrated fuel reactors has been understated at best, and too often misrepresented.

And while it's easier to get your head around 300 years of nuclear waste, I suspect we'd be back with the same problem of convincing (or coercing) vulnerable and disempowered communities into taking that hit.

Instead of fantasising about solutions that have yet to take shape, while carrying such baggage, let's instead look to the inevitable renewable energy industries that are already emerging around us. Up my way, a number of smaller towns already run off solar dishes with battery storage. The world's largest solar concentrator plant is being built in Mildura, promising 270 GWh per year, while the world's largest solar thermal plant is being built in Whyalla, providing continuous power thanks to an ammonia-based storage system. These, along with a myriad of opportunities presented by existing technologies to make use of Australia's abundant renewable resources, are the real good news stories of Australia's energy future.

Hey Q&A, you're back. We have some unfinished business on that other thread?

I take it you will have more to say on the NIPPC report when you've had time to go through at least some of the 880 pages?

<< there is no way that facts will be allowed to replace stubborn ideology. >> This comment can't possibly be your sum contribution?

Have you visited this report?

http.www.nipccreport.org/index.html

Spindoc

Nothing new in your post as is evident by the link you provided since it's well known that the NIPCC and the Heartland Institute’s use of flawed material to dupe the public has been previously exposed:

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf

Here's some of the "contributors" to the NIPCC/Heartland rave: “Nature not human activity rules the climate:”

1. S. Fred Singer (Author): physicist who has also argued that secondhand smoke doesn't have adverse health effects.
2. R Warren Anderson - "research analyst"
3. Dennis Avery - food policy analyst

4. Robert Carter - marine biologist (correction: should read marine geologist.") Carter's bio advises: 'His more general stratigraphic work contributes towards the research base which underpins the exploration for and development of sedimentary mineral deposits, including the important energy resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium’

5. Richard Courtney - Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry)
6. Vincent Gray - coal chemist
7. Craig Idso - geographer
8. Hans Labohm - economist
9. Christopher Monckton - politician, business consultant
10. Tom Segalstad - geologist
11. Gerd Weber - meteorologist who works for the Association of German coal producers

There will always be a few sycophantic parasites to afflict the unwary with the pathogenic swill provided by the oil and coal shills, Spindoc.

The authors of the $154 "scientific" manual to which you refer, are Fred Singer and Craig Idso. I’d be careful of the company I keep if I were you Spindoc. And is there the remotest chance now of returning to the topic at hand?

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html

<< I guess we can expect the next round of comments to attempt to trash the NIPCC report rather than use it to open the debate further.>> You are so predictable Protagoras, you just jumped in and trashed the report and the people.

I did not say they were right Protagoras, just that they had an opposite scientific opinion and that it might be worth discussion. If on the other hand, you don’t want a debate because you have already made up your mind, that’s fine. All I can suggest is that as the scrambled egg approaches, DUCK!