The statistics to do with leukemia have been and will continue to be arguable, but the balance keeps tipping against the nuclear electricity proponents and their experts.

Visit http://www.llrc.org for an update on the change in public view about low level radiation exposure. A jury of commoners has found that a UK soldier's fatal cancer is due to exposure to depleted uranium (in the first Gulf War).

Argue all you like, those of you who support nuclear electricity, But put your share money in alternative energy and energy efficiency technologies. That's where the smart money is going, following the exponential growth rates of these new industries and their encroachment on the centralised electricity generation market.

I don't think uranium will ever provide electricity too cheap to meter. What it does provide (but maybe only in Iran? ha ha!) is increased risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear war.

It's a shame tha the ALP has forgotten that among the conclusions of the Ranger Uranium Inquiry of the 1970's was the expert opinion, never refuted, that uranium mining contributes to the risk of nuclear war.

Myself, I prefer to live downwind of a windmill. No routine radioactive noble gas emissions, no deadly-force security culture, no threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack. Go figure.

And my best regards to Helen Caldicott.

Several commentators have made the invalid assumption that we have to choose between nuclear power and coal. To the contrary, the real choice is between dirty and dangerous energy sources (coal and nuclear) on one hand and sustainable energy sources on the other. Sustainable energy includes the myriad of technologies and practices of efficient energy use, solar hot water, wind power, solar thermal power with thermal storage, solar PV, and very soon hot rock geothermal power. We already have the technologies to begin a rapid transition to a 100% renewable electricity system, given the political will. Last year, the technology that added the most generating capacity to the European grid was wind power. Further down the track are wave and ocean current power.

Sustainable energy technologies and the policies needed to implement them are discussed in my book Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy (UNSW Press, 2007). However, federal and state governments in Australia have been captured by the Greenhouse Mafia and are failing to implement the necessary policies. Strategies and tactics for the climate action movement to overcome government inertia are discussed in my new book Climate Action: A Campaign Manual for Greenhouse Solutions (UNSW Press, 2009).

Thank you, Dr Caldicott for this very lucid and comprehensive article, covering the health, financial cost, and security/practical aspects of nuclear power.
Alas, it is not surprising, really, that the Australian government is supporting the present "rush for uranium".

Even the World Nuclear Association knows that the "nuclear renaissance" is not happening, as reactors close down faster than they are being built, and investors and tax-payers are reluctant to take on the financial burden of nuclear power
The short-sighted view of governments, seeing no further than the next election, is to promote their corporate backers. And who needs backing more than the uranium industry - to sell the stuff fast, before its market disappears?

At the same time, the pro-nuclear/uranium hype goes on. Part of it appears to be the wave of critical comments right here. These writers make little real attempt to answer the aspects raised by Dr Caldicott. Indeed, some of their efforts are laughable, appearing in what is supposed to be an informed, intelligent forum. ( It must be hard for some people to be faced with factual, well expressed information, when they have the job of countering it). I quote:
"Helen spouted so much rubbish" …."The malevolent stare and almost frantic scribbling" ..."a megalomaniac whose only concern if for yourself and if you say it, I do not believe it". (not very convincing, pro-nukers. You'll have to do better, or maybe rethink your position?)

Mark,

I went and read your article "The Base-Load Fallacy" where you start out defining base load as:

"A base-load power station is one that is in theory available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and operates most of the time at full power."

Rubbish.

"Baseload plants are the production facilities used to meet some or all of a given region's continuous energy demand, and produce energy at a constant rate, usually at a low cost relative to other production facilities available to the system"

The reason most of them run 24/7 is because to achieve high efficiencies they are built on enormous scales and take days to start and hours to stop, (Which is why they cannot be used for peak power not the need to repay capital cost) but produce power for a fraction of the cost of the peak or swing supplies.

Secondly you claim:

-The average generation capacity of a wind farm is about 34% (850/2600) - The large scale wind farms in Spain achieve about 20%

-"For widely dispersed wind farms, the back-up capacity only has to be onefifth to one-third of the wind capacity" - The CSIRO modelling indicates that this would need to be closer to 90% of installed capacity, due to the high correlation of wind velocities in various areas in NSW and Australia.

The other solutions you mention ie:

- Solar does not work when power is most needed,
- Hot rocks has yet to produce a single economically viable plant,
- Biomass because of the high water content is only viable when the boiler is close to a large continuous source of fuel otherwise the cost of transport is excessive.

My conclusion is that this paper could only have been written by someone with no practical experience of power generation and distribution, such as a student.

I look forward to you supplying supporting references not published by yourself.

It has been our experience in Illinois, USA -- the most nuclear-reliant state in the US -- that nuclear advocates are the ones who cherry-pick the most convenient data. Just one example:
In 1990 the Electric Power Research Institute study, "Efficient Electricity use: Estimates of Maximum Energy Savings" concluded: "RESULTS: Use of energy-savings technologies would result in a saving of...24-44% of electric energy consumption." This same conclusion was reached by three subsequent national laboratory studies in the 1990s and beyond.
Since the entire output of the whole US reactor fleet of 103 reactors only contributes ~19-20% of electricity need per year, we have known that simply being smarter and more efficient with the electricity we produce would obviate the need for the entire US nuclear industry electricity contribution -- and all the concomitant liabilities like: nuclear waste, "allowable" emissions, accidental releases, nuclear proliferation, security risks, etc.
As a previous comment correctly stated, the REAL choice is not between coal or nuclear; it is between sustainable renewables and efficiency vs. unsustainable, polluting and political destabilizing sources.
The facts to be faced are: 1.) both Americans and Australians are energy gluttons and highly inefficient users;
2.) the costs of new nuclear projects are simply off the charts compared to viable, already performing alternatives; and finally
3.) in a climate disrupted world, where WATER will become an even more premium resource, ANY technologies tied to steam cycles will be at an economic and environmental disadvantage. We have already seen that thousands of reactor-days of operation have been curtailed or eliminated entirely worldwide because of lack of needed water volumes and flows during severe drought conditions. Surely, the droughts in Australia, SW United Stated this year; SE US last year; and parts of Europe this year and in 2003 should be warning enough that steam-cycle fossil fuels and nuclear are a liability, not an asset.

The gallant and noble knight Sir Vivor is free to live where ever takes his fancy. There can be no possible objection to a dwelling down wind of a wind farm.

He might like to know that there is a reported mortality and morbidity incidence from wind electric generation.

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk

Data presented by Dr. Switkowski in “Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy” indicates that for per GWe energy generation the nuclear industry has the best record of all. [0.006 direct fatalities per GWe/year].

Anecdotal stories of alleged and highly improbable harm from depleted uranium etc is hardly worthy of being called evidence. It is my view that the risks and hazards of low level radiation exposure are wilfully exaggerated by the anti-nuclear organisations.

I believe that there is a very strong case for Australia to restart a nuclear energy program. When Prime Minister McMahon cancelled the Jervis Bay Nuclear Reactor in 1972 much expertise in nuclear engineering was lost to Australia. Now is surely the time to regain that knowledge and experience.

Truly there is no such thing as a “Risk-Fee World.” The message from the Switkowski report is that the benefits of nuclear energy by far out weigh the risks.

The boutique energy solutions as suggested by Dr, Mark Diesendorf - assisted by generous government subsidies - have their place in the Australian energy mix. None-the-less with out the continuing use of coal and hopefully nuclear, it is very doubtful if our future energy requirements can be satisfied.