Dear Hassie,

Thanks for the sites. I shall look them up
as they sound interesting. As for the maths?
You've hit the nail on the head - some of the
sites I've come across are hard to understand.
Still I find the Conclusions that they draw
useful. I shall give mum a kiss from you.
I'm leaving in a half hour to visit her.
It's a hot day in Melbourne today and I'm
wearing her favourite kaftan with all the
glitter beading that she loves to see on me.
So your kiss will be an extra bonus for her.

As for how I'm doing. So far so good. I'm
due at the Austin hospital on 17th January for
an echo and a six minute walk test - so we'll see
what the results will be. Fingers-crossed.

Take care.

Foxy,

Does the site name reneweconomy.com not give you a clue that you have just linked to a anti nuke site? Just about every "myth" that he quotes is a half truth or outright lie. e.g. (limited by word count)

Myth 1 "Base-load power stations are necessary to supply base-load demand." - Half truth, renewables and gas back up can supply base load, but at many times the cost of large high efficiency base load generators such as coal or nuclear.

Myth 2: There is a renaissance in nuclear energy. - That is an outright lie. It is called a renaissance because there are dozens of large reactors being built now, and possibly by 2020 there will be a record amount of power generated by nuclear, and 2050 it will have doubled again.

Myth 3: Renewable energy is not ready to replace fossil fuels, and nuclear energy could fill the (alleged) gap in low-carbon energy supply. - outright lie, there is no viable scenario where reliable generation can completely replace fossil fuels without nuclear.

Myth 5: The death toll from the Chernobyl disaster was 28-64. - Half truth. The 64 death toll was taken from those that died at the scene, and those that died of radiation induced cancer in the affected area. Note that an adjacent area not affected by fall out had an identical cancer rate.

Myth 8: The world has only a few decades of high-grade uranium ore reserves left. - outright lie. That is based on known deposits, by comparison there is 35yrs low cost copper deposits known today. In 1980 and in 1960 the figure was also 35yrs.

Myth 11: Renewable energies are more expensive than nuclear. - half truth. - Wind and solar might be marginally cheaper than nuclear, but infrastructure for renewables (such as networks and gas backup) is vastly more expensive. The proof of the pudding is that electricity is half the cost in France compared to Germany.

Dear Shadow Minister,

We've passed the point that you seemed to be
locked into in this discussion.

I did give you quite a few other links that
you could have chosen, but never mind.
The future does look interesting and both
Bazz and Paul's insights have been most
useful. We'll have to wait and see what develops
as far as our energy sources go. In the meantime
lets learn about the pros and cons of both
renewables and nuclear in order to make a fair
assessment of each.

Foxy,

Nuclear power is the safety electricity generation system, safer even than wind.

Here are some links from people that actually know nuclear power:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/3ug7ju/deaths_per_pwh_electricity_produced_by_energy/

http://www.enec.gov.ae/learn-about-nuclear-energy/nuclear-energy-myths-and-facts/

http://talknuclear.ca/2016/08/top-10-myths-about-nuclear-energy/

http://nuclear-energy.net/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-nuclear-energy.html

Hasbeen, Fertiliser will be a problem no matter what. We can reserve
our small amount of oil production for fertiliser & import 100% of our
transport fuels.
The fertiliser can be made from natural gas as well so I have read.
We have a lot of coal, which would last us a long time.
The question is should we just allow others to burn it instead ?
If we stop export we will have many years to undertake the energy transition.
If we do not we may not have the time to make the change.
Now all that is my "feeling" of the situation.
What we need is for the politicians to get the accurate figures,
I know from talking to my MHR that he does not have a clue.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank You for the links. It is good to read a variety
of opinions on any issue.

Tor Hundloe in his book, "From Buddha to Bono : Seeking
Sustainability," points out a few interesting facts about
the brilliant minds found at universities as well as
scientific organisations . He used to
believe strongly in the collective staff of
universities to seek and proclaim the truth. He believed
that was the reason universities existed - to further
human knowledge. However he is wary today of the
managerialism that is eroding the very concept of a
university. Making money - seemingly for the sake of
making money - now seems to be the raison d'etre of the
modern university. He tells us that
University Presidents or Vice-Chancellors
are paid an order of magnitude more than their more
accomplished professors for no other reason than the former
have come to see themselves as business people.

We're told that the modern university captured by
a managerial class, views
higher education as simply another good to be
produced and sold according to the dictates of
accountants.

We have to be aware that on issues which require radical
solutions that are likely to harm vested economic and
political interests, censorship exists.

An example that
Hundloe gives - occurred in 2006 when leading climatologists
with the country's pre-eminent public research organisation,
CSIRO, were forbidden by the organisation's management
from publicly discussing the implications of climate
change. Management was acting on behalf of the government.
And Australia is one of the standout countries in terms of
human development status. It is not corrupt. It's science
is world class. None of this mattered. In 2006, the
Australian Government's position was to cast doubt on
global warming and refuse to enter into UN agreements such
as the Kyoto Protocol. With the release of the Stern Report
on climate change, the Australian Government's position
had changed - yet the PM remained half-hearted about a
commitment to counter global warming.
Today we need to question how much has changed and
what is the agenda being pushed?