Returning to the first comment, by Geoff -- yes, we assess risks by comparing them, however the comment moves swiftly to putative BENEFITS, passively inferring that nuclear can provide benefits such as prevention of climate impacts. The nuclear carbon footprint is significantly smaller than coal (the nuclear fuel cycle relies heavily on petroleum, as Australia knows) however, the excess COST, long DELAYS and as Helen correctly points out, the lack of supply chain for key components (like any moribund industry) mean that nuclear simply cannot deliver the alleged benefit. Therefore radiation risk is not balanced by this benefit.

FURTHER -- pouring public resources into nuclear (there is next to no private finance anywhere in the world) we set ourselves back from real solutions.

To invoke another expert, Dr. Caldicott's credentials and sources are sterling, in support of her: Dr. Amory Lovins' data shows energy efficiency delivers more than TWELVE TIMES the greenhouse gas reduction per dollar compared to investment in new reactors. See: http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf

We must also factor that the impact that an unabated climate crisis would have on nuclear -- it is not pretty. Station black-out is about 50% of the risk of a major reactor accident. Turbulent weather brings down the power grid -- reactors depend heavily on off-site power. Yes, there is back-up, but look at the reliability figures -- what is already risky for health and for wealth, becomes compounded by unbridled climate.

We can prevent this by a UNIFIED investment by all thinking people in bringing the developed world into an "energy-lite" mode...USA first and foremost (yes,I am here, working on it).

FINALLY -- a source on GEN IV reactors including the Integral Fast Reactor (aka breeder reactor) -- also by Amory Lovins of Rocky Mt Institute. http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid601.php

These are not new reactors -- they are in fact, already failed technologies. An economy based on plutonium is not a wise next step for this planet. Let's wake up and start working together on real solutions.

Dr Caldicott's analogy that the push for nuclear power to combat global warming is like telling a patient to smoke to lose weight, is well made. There is pressure for nuclear power from vested interests, and from some scientists who appear to regard promoting nuclear as a test of their authority and a badge of honour. Even in Australia, blessed with abundant solar energy and other alternatives to coal such as hot rocks, we hear the nuclear mantra. Of course, given the Australian government's hypocritical uranium mining stance of "safe for overseas markets, but not for us", that in some ways is not surprising.

Business will keep telling us there is no other solution to the problems created by its extremely profitable burning of fossil fuels, other than for it to generate more profits through dangerous, waste-creating, weapons-proliferating nuclear power, which at the very least will create a profound toxic hazard for thousands of generations to come, if we don't blow ourselves up first. Nuclear proponents cannot deny that it creates toxic waste that we do not know what to do with beyond storing it in leaky drums, and that it creates the material for nuclear weapons. It is a short-term, extremely dangerous solution to the problems of global warming.

Nuclear enthusiasts will assure us that it is safe, that Chernobyl was an old reactor, a Soviet reactor, a Commie reactor - nothing like the turbocharged computer-geeky ultramodern ones they want to foist on us, clean enough to eat your lunch off. They will try to explain away Three Mile Island, blasts at Japanese reactors, the leaking of radon gas, and all the rest. They will tell us - wrongly - that only nuclear energy can step in to provide the base load power that coal does. They will tell us that the world which men like them have profited so much from warming up, now needs their nuclear power plants to cool down.

As Dr Caldicott argues clearly and cogently, we listen to the nuclear fan club at the peril of the entire human race.

We are presented with so many apparently good reasons for not investing in nuclear energy. If we accept these as being valid and that there are better alternatives for saving the planet, what alternatives are there? When are we going to hear about solutions rather than problems?

Can any one of the “no nuclear” subscribers tell us just how they propose to meet our energy needs without nuclear?

For instance, if it is true that the best the UK can ever hope to achieve is a 10% contribution from renewable energy, which can’t even keep up with demand inflation, how can this possibly be a realistic solution?

If “clean coal” is to be part of the solution, how do we avoid burning more coal to raise thermal efficiency so we can actually extract carbon?

If we must use comparisons of nuclear vs. non nuclear, why can’t we use the French who, as I understand it, are the largest contributors of nuclear power with some 75 reactors?

It is so easy to “knock” everything, so if you are so smart, stop doing a “Caldicott”, do the hard yards and tell us what the alternatives are?

Mark,

I am not the one posing as an expert in the field and shamelessly plugging my own book.

I have 20+ years in heavy manufacturing a portion of which was involved in designing, building and maintaining large cogen power systems running off waste and supplemented with biomass for the factories. In addition I was involved in the on sale of the excess power to the network. (never worked for any company with coal or nuclear interests)

So while I do not purport to be an expert, I have sufficient understanding to see that what you writing bears little or no resemblance to reality.

I would love to give my real name, but my position within the company dictates that writing under my own name could be construed as representing the company.

Your comment "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."

Shows that your writings are inherently biased, and political rather than technical in nature.

For wholesale electricity Where does Solar fit?

PEAK PERIOD is from 7.00am–9.00am and 5.00pm–8.00pm on weekdays.
SHOULDER PERIOD is from 9.00am–5.00pm and 8.00pm–10.00pm on weekdays.
TOU OFF-PEAK PERIOD is at all other times.

Either you are out of your depth or you are deliberately liberal with the truth.

There is little solar generation outside the 9am to 3pm window, and heat storage adds hugely to the capital and maintenance cost of generation without any more capacity.

Like wise PV costs per kilowatt are now cheaper than nuclear per kilowatt, but are useless for 18hrs a day.

Mary Olsen,
re-read your Amory Lovins webpage. It states in its first paragraph that:
"... on closer examination, ... Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs) and thorium reactors reveal no economic, environmental, or security rationale, and the thesis is unsound for any nuclear reactor."

Anti-Green,
I’ve done a bit of Googling. Sadly, the item I would dearly love to see downloadable,

Nuclear war: the aftermath
in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences journal Ambio, in 1982.

just isn’t available online.
Therein are pictures of the fallout footprints I mentioned in my earlier post.

but read

"The Effects of Nuclear War on Health Services", 2nd edition, WHO, Geneva, 1987
whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1987/9241561092_(p1-p82).pdf

which states on page 17 that:
"If a nuclear bomb attack struck a nuclear reactor or a nuclear facility its radioactive contents would be carried up in the mushroom cloud along with the fission products of the bomb and add to the fallout hazard. Their contribution to the radioactivity received by the population would be initially small in comparison with the amount of radionuclides of short life that are generated by a bomb. As the short-lived radionuclides decayed, however, the contribution of the reactors would gradually become preponderant, because of the long-lived radionuclides present in reactors and storage tanks. Thus, an attack on reactors in a major nuclear war could result in a significant increase in the long-term radiation dose."

Also, see

The Medical Implications of Nuclear War (1986)
Institute of Medicine (IOM), available free on line.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=940&page=227
showing a fallout map that I expect came from Ambio.

Page 228 tabulates deaths from attacks on US nuclear facilities and I point out the unpredictable effects of attacking nuclear targets, civil or military. The fatality estimates vary by a factor of roughly 5 to 10, meaning you 10. Meaning you can have a catastrophe, or a catastrophe times 5, or a catastrophe times 10. Go figure.

I didn't search the Hollywood film catalogues, but I believe the topic could indeed use a Hollywood thriller. Thank you for the suggestion, I'm passing it on!

Spindoc ("Can any one of the “no nuclear” subscribers tell us just how they propose to meet our energy needs without nuclear?")...
Despite feeling it's been said repeatedly (here and elsewhere), yet nuclear proponents fail to a) listen and b) understand that this is not a "coal OR nuclear" issue...

As I mentioned, for sustainability (if climate change is symptomatic of a bigger issue of ignorant western consumption & waste, on several levels), then energy conservation, then efficiency, must come first. Both of these REDUCE base load and peak load demands, for a given population.

EXISTING efficiency measures could cut energy use in the manufacturing, residential and commercial sectors by up to 30%, reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 15% and it would pay for itself in just four years. This report (by the Australian Ministerial Council on Energy) was signed off by every State environment minister.

Secondly, wind power has had an average annual growth of about 25% over the past 20 years. In recent years grid connected solar power has grown annually by 60%. Renewable energy is now the fastest growing of all energy industries and was worth $54 billion annually (2007 figures).

Australia could supply nearly 10% of its electricity demand from solar by 2020 simply by installing 3kW solar PV systems (ie, solar photo voltaic alone, excluding solar thermal or gas boosted solar) on just a third of Australian households. (Business Council on Sustainable Energy).

AND Australia already generates an equivalent amount of electricity from bio-energy to supply all homes in Tas. By 2020 bio-energy could supply a third of Australia’s electricity if it expands at the current 3% average for industrialised countries, generating an estimated 250,000 jobs.

Finally, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned: “Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power,” Craig A. Severance – one of the most detailed cost analyses publicly available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered. Romm, Joseph, “The Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power,” Center for American Progress, January 5, 2009. http:climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/1/ (nuclear-costs-2009.pdf).