Spindoc wrote:
"...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?"

Thank you for proving my point about nuclear advocates "cherry picking" their data to reach their self-fulfilling prophecy that we "must have either coal or nuclear."
Within this very thread Spindoc either chose to ignore or did not read the FACTS I provided that THE major US electricity trade group (EPRI) AND three national labs on three separate occasions concluded that the potential exists to displace one to two entire US nuclear industries through conservation and efficiency ALONE. This situation has not changed; such enormous potential still exists -- probably in Australia as well.

For those who have chosen to ignore people like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mt. Institute for the past 30 years, I invite you to read up on just one of many current programs that answer Spindoc's disingenuous question very specifically:
"Carbon-Free/Nuclear-Free -- A Roadmap for US Energy Policy," 2007, by Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (www.ieer.org). The book is available online in .pdf format for FREE at: www.carbonfreenuclearfree.org . Only after you have read, digested and engaged in some debate about this dynamic -- not static -- process of how to meet legitimate enegy needs without fossil or nuclear fuels will you be in a position to make such a preposterous statement that anti-nukers have offered no solutions. Makhijani is not anti-nuke by genetic pre-disposition; but by following the data and reaching that conclusion -- a process many of us have also engaged in.

Atom1, Professor David Mackay of Cambridge University, in his book Sustainable Energy – Without Hot Air ( www.withouthotair) estimates maximum sustainable energy production of theoretical or practical renewable resources in the UK at 18 kWh per day per person against a base demand of 125 kWh per day p.p.

Tide: 3 kWh/d
Offshore: 4 kWh/d
Hydro: 0.3 kWh/d
Biomass: 4 kWh/d
Solar PV: 2 kWh/d
Solar HW: 2 kWh/d
Wind: 3 kWh/d

This analysis is supported by the Institute of Electrical Engineers, the Tyndall Centre, the Interdepartmental Analysts Group, the Performance and Innovation Unit; and the proposals from the Centre for Alternative Technology’s plan.

You can quote 60% growth in solar and 25% in wind power and what we “could” do “if only”. You miss the point that if the maximum possible contribution from renewables is 10% of our needs, what good would even 100% growth in solar or wind be? It’s still 10% of sod all.

The question you have yet to answer remains, how do you propose to improve on a maximum of 10% contribution from renewable sources? To do that you have to counter the above research, not mine.

David Kraft, You have left yourself with the same problem, show us how you propose to better the 10% renewable contribution data. Whilst you’re at it perhaps you can address the economic sustainability of moving from $30-$35 per megawatt hour for coal against $200-$400 per megawatt hour for solar? (Calculated by the Productivity Commission)

You also suggest that nuclear advocates << must have coal or nuclear>>. It is Green advocates who are killing the options, “dirty coal”, “destructive dams”,” unresolved dangers of nuclear” and “scaling back our economies”. It is you who is removing options from the table. Stop creating problems and put solutions on the table.

Stop quoting someone else’s opinion pieces and explain to us dimwit’s how you propose to meet our energy needs without coal, dams and nuclear?

The data and the sources have been provided, all you have to do better the research and challenge the significant organisations who endorsed it.

spindoc perhaps needs more light in his/her room (don't switch on a light.. try opening the blinds) if he/she can't see the table he/she keeps referring to ("It is you who is removing options from the table. Stop creating problems and put solutions on the table."). You and your quoted source seem, yet again, to have blatantly ignored the paramount factors of energy conservation and efficiency.

Perhaps also ignored is that even IF nuclear were a clean, affordable, insurable, GHG emission-free, ionizing radiation emission-free, WMD proliferation-free, terrorism threat-free "solution" it still ignores the TWO THIRDS of global GHG from non-electricity sources. This is irrefutable.

Harry C and Sir Vivor, yes it's no accident the USA's thermonuclear weapons programme is run by the US Department of ENERGY.

Indeed:

'The IPCC considered a scenario involving a ten-fold increase in nuclear power over this century and calculated that it could produce 50-100 thousand tonnes of plutonium. The IPCC concluded that the security threat "would be colossal"'. – IPCC, 1995, 'Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses'.

'Given India's uranium ore crunch and the need to build up our minimum credible nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast as possible, it is to India's advantage to categorize as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refueled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons grade plutonium production.' – K. Subrahmanyam, former head of the India's National Security Advisory Board.

'As China ramps up it's power capacity it is aiming to double the proportion sourced from nuclear energy to 4% by 2010. While it had enough uranium resources to support its nuclear weapons program, Madame Fu said China would need to import uranium to meet it's power demands.'- An admission from China's Australian Ambassador at a Melbourne mining club meeting that Australia supplying uranium to China would support their nuclear weapons program by freeing up their own uranium reserves for this purpose. – 'The Australian', 2/12/05, 'China warning on uranium'.

Spindoc

All the anti nuke posters seem to ignorant of any basic engineering principles, and blithly try and apply what is true on a small scale to a larger scale.

For example, peak periods occur in the early morning and early evening with the greatest peak being in the early evening. The ratio between peak consumption to consumption at midday is about 2:1. The big base load generators can cope with a ration of about 1.5:1 and the rest is catered for by expensive swing generators.

PV peak generation is at midday, If the PV peak load increases to 50% of the midday load (to about 10% total load) the ratio between peak and base load is now 4:1, and either the base load generators have to vent steam (which saves nothing) or the expensive swing generators will have to be increased to cover the entire peak and some of the base load, at huge capital and running costs.

Similarily for the unpredictability of wind, above 20% of generation begins to impact drastically on the cost of the rest of the generation.

The holy grail of reducing green house emissions is to find an alternative base load, and renewable technologies have a long way to go before they can do this. The huge growth in sustainable generation is largely due to renewable generation not yet approaching the levels of diminishing returns.

The same applies to energy efficiency. 10% can be achieved without much cost or effort, the next 10% requires expensive alterations to existing infrastructure, and anything beyond that needs to replace infrastructure.

By 2050 the demand for power is predicted to double. If renewables provide 30%, and increased efficiency delivers 25% then we are still only at 90% of today, and have run out of the low hanging fruit.

Nuclear is not the only alternative to coal, but without it we are just spinning our wheels.

Spindoc & Shadow Minister:

Where were you when semiconductors eclipsed thermionic valves?

I ask because I see that change as technological evolution spurred by energy conservation. Transistors can be used to control the same flows of information as valve technology, but with significant savings on materials and energy.

If you ask me, that is what evolution (both organic and cultural) is about: optimising flows of materials, energy and information.

Have you ever thought that you might be living in the past, advocating for technologies that are laying down to rest with the dinosaurs?

However much you want to believe that nuclear electricity is an expanding industry, your belief is at least arguable. Arguing it so trenchantly does not turn your wish into a truth.

The implementation of solar and wind generation of electricity, at exponential growth rates, proceeds in stark contradiction to your arguments. Meanwhile, nuclear electricity generation is forced more and more blatantly back into the niche from which it rapidly expanded in the 1950's: the supply of radioactive materials for weapons.

The ambiguity over Iran's intentions regarding its nuclear electricity program should make clear to all that whether a nation uses nuclear power for peace or for war is a matter of debate between allies and foes.

The expert evidence, as cited above by reputable researchers and reasonable amateurs, suggests to me that nuclear electricity is part of a fatally flawed system, of unsustainable scale, requirements and consequences.

My guess is that it is being replaced by more energy-efficient means of optimising our local and global flows of materials, energy and information. Social evolution in action.

I am guessing because I am not an expert, and am applying my biologist's understanding of biology in a very general way.

Which brings me to another point: Gentlemen, While I respect your right to anonymity, I do wonder exactly what your respective fields of expertise may be.
Are you willing to say?

I thank Bramhall again for his interest. It is well understood that there is considerable on going research into both micro and macro dosimetry. A proper understanding of this new work requires specialist knowledge.

Consider the linear no threshold hypothesis (LNTH) which is still the basis of ICRP recommendations. It is simple and easy to understand and a conservative estimate of cancer risk. The main disadvantages are that it leads to the notion that the smallest of exposures is harmful and can thus be exploited to magnify public fears of radiation.

It is difficult to find authentic examples of harm below exposures of about 50-100 mSv. Not having attending the coroner’s inquest I will not comment directly on the case of Lance Corporal Dyson. However, I fail to see how an isolated coroners finding meets the Hill criteria.

I am of the school that believes a LNTH seriously over estimates the risk of low level exposures. I reason as follows in favour of a ‘J shaped’ curve:

• DNA damage occurs from non radiation processes as well as radiation. Radiation it may cause direct damage or indirect from active species that are formed in cellular fluids. Single strand breaks are more common then double strand breaks. Single strand breaks are more easily repaired.

• Cells which are not repaired or damaged by other mechanisms such as the ‘bystander effect’, or genomic instability may be subject to apoptosis (programmed cell death) and thus eliminated.

• It is by no means certain that cells which show chromosomal defects or radiation markers will necessarily turn into cancers.

• Of those remaining cells which undergo malignant change some again will be eliminated by ‘immune surveillance.’

• Then there is the vast published literature on radiation hormesis or the ‘adaptive response.

• However, the magnitude of these effects is uncertain and subject to biological variation between different body tissues and different people.

I repeat my assertion, the LLRC and similar organisations wilfully and knowledgably exaggerate the dangers of low level exposure to further a political agenda.