(skimming through this thread quickly...)

SM ("Nuclear provided about 16% of the world's electricity which is the greatest contributor to GHG") no, last I heard, approx TWO THIRDS of GHG emissions globally stem from industry, agriculture, transport and deforestation, according to the International Energy Agency.

In any case, when it comes to sustainability and safer, cleaner alternative energy sources, energy conservation and efficiency must come first. The remainder can certainly be a *combination* of alternatives, many of them obviously also de-centralised.

Furthermore, in dollar terms, aside from nuclear being un-insurable without the taxpayer, "The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections" - "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors, Renaissance or Relapse?", 18/6/09 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper.

Anti-Green, can you tell me whether Dr. Switkowski's "best record" statistics apply locally in the country around Chernobyl?

As for your regrets over the cancelling of Jervis Bay, did you ever consider how the Jervis Bay naval base might be affected by an attack on a reactor there? Say the base was targeted by an ICBM of the era, what would be the consequence of a nuclear explosion within the "bulls-eye" (CEP) zone of a Soviet missile in, say, 1980?

I would venture that, if the reactor were hit instead of the naval base, you would want the wind to be blowing out to sea for a long time, as the fallout footprint would be substantial. A near miss would also be inconvenient.

Who knows? Perhaps that's why the McMahon government thought better of building a reactor just there.

Despite your dire warnings, I'll still opt for living downwind of a wind farm.

Still, I have to admire your dogged persistence, in the face of a blizzard of change.

It is difficult to respect people who hide behind a pseudonym when they attack a scholar who publishes books and research papers under his own name. No doubt some of these characters are actually working for the coal and nuclear/uranium industries. Come to think of it, there isn’t much difference between these industries, since both of them are partly owned by the same corporations, such as BHP Billiton.

Shadow Minister is completely out of his depth. For instance, he claims incorrectly that “solar does not work when power is most needed”. Well actually, power is most needed during the daytime. During the night power demand is often so low that it is boosted artificially with low off-peak prices for electric hot water, just to keep several coal-fired power stations running. In Australia we could retire 4600 MW of coal power if we replaced off-peak electric hot water with solar and gas hot water. We could also replace the daytime generation from those retired coal stations with a mix of combined-cycle gas and renewables.

Shadow Minister seems to be unaware that some Spanish solar thermal power stations have thermal storage, currently up to 7.5 hours of generating capacity. There is no credible technical or economic reason why this storage could not be extended to 24 hours. At present 7.5 hours is sufficient for gaining maximum economic value during peaks in demand.
Biomass residues supply 10% of Denmark’s electricity and also significant contributions in several other European countries. They could supply at least 20% of Australia’s electricity.
On a global scale wind power has been growing steadily at about 30% per year. In China it has been growing at 100% per year for the past 5 years. This is no boutique industry!

Meanwhile, the percentage contribution to global electricity from nuclear power has shrunk to 14%. Furthermore, according to a recent detailed study by CA Severance, the cost of nuclear electricity has overtaken that of solar PV. No wonder the nuclear industry and its supporters are resorting to abuse, misrepresentation and obfuscation

Sir Vivor, the answer to you question is yes. I quoted from table 6.1 of the Switkowski review. Table 6.1 includes 31 direct fatalities from Chernobyl.

As you are well aware the Russian design RBKM reactor had serious design flaws and inadequate operation manuals. These problems I understand have been corrected. In any case a future Australian reactor will be a state of the art 4th generation machine and thus have none of problems associated with the obsolete Russian reactor.

The Chernobyl story has been described in detail see UNSCEAR 2000 – Annex J and the “Chernobyl Forum” and similar documents.

For information on the effects of a putative nuclear armed intercontinental missile I can only advise that you make a diligent search of the Hollywood film catalogues.

The significance of Kaatch et al (leukaemia near German nuclear plant) is that it confirms many other reports and according to scientific method (after Bradford Hill) strengthens belief in a causal connection. The occurrence of clusters that are not near nuclear plant does not prove that there is no causal link, especially when we consider that the contamination from the plant is, in many cases, deposited far away. Examples are Bradwell, Essex, UK, which discharges to the sea; the highest levels found by official monitoring of sediment are 15 miles inland at Maldon, Essex, which has a doubled mortality from cancer of the female breast, according to official data (we don't have data for leukaemia - sorry). The coast of Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland is another example, and the radioactivity in this instance came mostly from Sellafield.. See http://www.llrc.org/epidemiology/subtopic/dundrennan.htm.
The true death toll from Chernobyl was approaching 1 million by 2005, according to Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature ed. Alexey V. Yablokov, the late Vasilly B. Nesterenko and Alexy V. Nesterenko
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2009. I outlined the mortality data in a BBC broadcast recently - it can be heard at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00kwn5l, 30 minutes into the clip. And see http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobylinformation.htm.
The point is that the radiation risk model advised by ICRP and the absorbed dose quantities on which it is crucially based are bankrupt. There are types of internal exposure for which the concepts of absorbed dose become meaningless (see for example, the Majority Report of the UK Government CERRIE committee reported in 2004 - http://www.cerrie.org). It is therefore impossible to use dose figures to dismiss observations of disease, where there are potential links to internal contamination. An outline of the argument can be seen at http://www.llrc.org/du/subtopic/dysonverdict.htm. The upshot is that comparisons of risk from various power sources have to use a different, more scientific basis for the nuclear option, if it is indeed an option to use a technology which confers such long-term genetic hazards.
Richard Bramhall
CERRIE member 2001 - 2004
Co-author of CERRIE Minority Report

Anyone who continues to quote the preposterous statistic of "31 direct deaths" caused by the Chernobyl accident is either an idealog, a shill for the nuclear industry, or deliberately uninformed.
First, even the "official" toll now is over 50.
Second, the issue of "direct" deaths is grossly misleading -- perhaps deliberately so. If they are "direct" the implication is the victims died from radiation exposure. If this is the issue to be concerned with, a true apples to apples comparison to other industries would beg the question of "how many people have died from direct contact with sunlight at solar facilities; or from contact with the wind at wind farms." To this writer's knowledge -- NONE.

And since the number is so "low" (except to the families of the victims), it is therefore somehow made to appear "acceptable." Acceptable -- to whom? And over what time period? This is the unique feature to nuclear accidents -- they don't end when the "direct deaths" are buried; they have temporal impact most other accidents do not exhibit, and given the wide distribution of the radionuclides a uniquely spatial impact as well - as every nation north of the equator discovered after Chernobyl.
Finally, there are more impacts of meaningful consequence than direct deaths -- such as direct injuries, survivable disabilities, long-term effects, and in the case of radiation, potential genetic impacts.

Anyone willfully choosing to ignore these unique effects of Chernobyl specifically and nuclear accidents generally engages in enormous deliberate distortion and does the public debate on nuclear power an incredible disservice.