And where did I call you “facile, arrogant, ignorant, abusive, outrageously dishonest, petulent, self righteous” ?? I’d like to see a quote of where I did that. Perhaps I’d like to, but so far I’ve refrained.

Just because you call me facile, arrogant, ignorant, abusive, outrageously dishonest, petulent, self righteous who is proselytising diatribes to imaginary criticisms, does not make your arguments more sound. Check my posts, not once have I called you a name, to my mind that makes my points stand up unchallenged, as you have played the man not the ball. It appears you haven’t understood the subtlety required for sound debate on these issues so you have loudly disqualified yourself.

I called you out on your original arrogant and ignorant post.

You have not answered the criticism, but you deflect and make proselytising diatribes to the imaginary criticisms that you’d like to think I made.

Each of your subsequent posts has also been arrogant and ignorant and indeed personally abusive.

The arguments against nuclear power in first world countries are economic, storage and safety.

In first world Western nations the arguments against on safety are much more difficult to sustain.

The strongest argument against, on economic grounds, is diminishing with carbon taxation and diminishing petroleum resources with a concomitant increase in the price of fuel.

Unfortunately, it would seem that is not just your argument that’s facile……

With regard to when I said “we could be jumping out of the coal fired frying pan and into a nuclear wasteland where food, reproduction and many other things that are important to us are lost.” re: one of those things important to us, check this out from the guardian a few months ago.

Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA
A 50-year-old agreement with the IAEA has effectively gagged the WHO from telling the truth about the health risks of radiation. Oliver Tickell, guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 May 2009 08.00

“…research was presented indicating that as many as a million children across Europe and Asia may have died in the womb as a result of radiation from Chernobyl, as well as hundreds of thousands of others exposed to radiation fallout, backing up earlier findings published by the ECRR in Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident. Delegates heard that the standard risk models for radiation risk published by the International Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and accepted by WHO, underestimate the health impacts of low levels of internal radiation by between 100 and 1,000 times – consistent with the ECRR’s own 2003 model of radiological risk (The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes: Regulators’ Edition).

Let us hope that none of the other 439 power stations have any containment problems until we find safe ways of handling this highly toxic stuff. To many the thought of building more nuclear power stations until that time is vile short-termism and puts the expense, risk and technical burden of maintaining highly toxic waste off onto multiple future generations.

As Bernard says, we are already one of the biggest carbon dealers in the world, so I guess it isn’t much of a slide down to nuclear pimp? Now which of us is the facile chap?

Er….. no.

The reason nuclear power is not more prevalent in the world is because of economics in the face of cheap coal and gas not as you self righteously imagine.

and read! “I regrettably mentioned nuclear power”
because individual nations do suspect things does that make it OK for others to do it, or do it some more?

I am so facile because I think long term. huh?

Bob Hawke: “The fact is that Australia has some of the geologically safest places in the world to act as a repository for nuclear waste.”

As of 2005, nuclear power provided 2.1% of the world’s energy and 15% of the world’s electricity, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for 56.5% of nuclear generated electricity. In 2007, the IAEA reported there were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world, operating in 31 countries.

The world’s first commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall in Sellafield, England was opened in 1956 with an initial capacity of 50 MW (later 200 MW).The first commercial nuclear generator to become operational in the United States was the Shippingport Reactor (Pennsylvania, December, 1957)

Michael T - I agree, but what level? Do we really have to revive US Consumer demand to previous levels or something a little more modest?

Neither China nor Australia can keep defying gravity for much longer. Only a revival in US consumer demand can save us, and there is no sign of that happening.

All this supports the view of ultra-Bears such as the US forecaster Harry Dent and our own Steve Keen (who you refer to above), who predict another wave downwards.

LNG is one of these short to medium term solutions that is here now and doesn’t have to prove itself.

Pushing our LNG resource (abroad and in Australia) is far better than doing nothing about coal until the illusory carbon sequestration gizmo gets designed and hooked onto the smoke stacks of everything that burns it; and it may keep those that are flogging nuclear power off the front porch for a little longer.