You neglect to mention that nuclear power stations rely for their economic viability on massive subsidies from government.
without subsidies they are unviable.

Jedimaster,

I wondered when anyone would be dumb enough to bring up that study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen.

This report is the foundation for most of the anti nuke claims. The most stunning failure of this report is that the calculated energy required to extract low grade ore is out by a factor of 100, as evidenced by Rossing uranium mine and Olympic dam who are using about 1% of the power he predicted.

Similarily nearly all his other calculations such as the cost of reprocessing, waste production are also out by similar orders of magnitude, and he has ignore the newer more efficient reactors and their reuse of existing waste.

All in all the report is no longer a point of debate but ridicule, for all those that actually have anything to do with nuclear power.

Shadow Minister
Thank you for bringing these purported errors to my attention- although I have found that his conclusions are close to mine by different methodology.

I can now see why you call yourself "Shadow Minister" as your offensive and personally abusive language is only befitting of the political sub-class. I would much prefer to keep to the main line of argument and try to maintain some standards on OLO.

Jedimaster,

I am sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities. You presented an outdated and wildly inaccurate "study" commissioned and paid for by the greens.

To quote:

"This study has been widely discredited by various authors and institutions. For example, using assumptions from this study, the Rössing Uranium Mine, processing 125 ppm ore, would require 69 PJ/year to operate - seven times more than total electricity consumption and 1.1 times more than total energy consumption of Namibia. The measured energy usage at this mine is 1 PJ/year. Similar gross overestimations occur when applying the study's methodology for other low grade mines, like Olympic Dam, South Australia. Other less severe overestimations of energy usage and CO2 emissions are also found in the study."

JWSvL as a "top scientist" does not even possess a PhD and I can't find Ceedata consultancy.

If you purport that your methodology gets results close to his, I wonder how you can explain such a huge deviation from reality? I suspect that you methodology mimics most of the greens' studies which chose an answer and work the calculations until they get it.

The rejections of the studies by independent bodies does not stop them being circulated endlessly as "proof".

If you are so thin skinned, then dishing this tripe up as "reasoned discussion" and not expecting slurs on your intellect is naive.

Perhaps your name "Jedimaster" alludes to your preference for science fiction over science fact.

Q&A a statement such as:
“Renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar) use significantly more raw materials per unit of energy generated than even present-generation nuclear power stations and the full life-cycle emissions, including nuclear fuel production, are similar from both sources. When energy storage and fossil-fuel back-up are included, wind and solar emissions are much higher.”
That is a slap in the face for scientific colleagues specialising in renewables.

The ability of renewables to contribute to energy needs was the focus of a series of public lectures hosted by the Australian Academy of Science during the past year. Presentations were made from these industries, and from transitional ones.

Whether the energy to be generated came from waves, wind, solar/solar thermal, hot rocks, biofuel (not predating upon agriculture), gas, the developments outlined for scale and cost were impressive and plausible. They had no reason to defer to pronouncements of a competitive nature from outside their own areas of expertise. Were they in pursuit of exciting new technologies? Yes, and within reasonable time frames.

It is a pity that the fossil fuel industries will have us all tarred, feathered, and hung out to dry before the economic growth paradigm in which they are embedded can be reined in. All the alternatives, if given a reasonable chance, still have potential to provide the necessary breathing space. An optimistic IF.

Guys - the first two paragraphs refer to two separate problems - the "climate" and "energy" crises - both used as arguments for the establishment of a nuclear power industry (which I don't oppose). But aren't these two problems mutually exclusive? Surely the "dwindling supplies" of fossil fuels renders attempts to engineer a peak in CO2 emissions within the next two decades completely redundant?