Vic recently brought in new compulsory enviro bldg stds. All the reaction, if any, was +ve. (Must have been bipartisan.)

Whether or not there is enough uranium to go around there is definitely not enough wealth and stability to build nuke power plants across the globe. Unrestrained use of the remaining fossils will have flow on effects for conflict and global warming.

There are many sides to this question. None of them can be ignored. There is no easy and safe and equitable way to power the lives of 6 or 10 or 15 billion people and not make compromises somewhere. Certainly cannot be left to market or technologist ideologies.

If our civilisation is to survive, we need to be able to stretch temporary resources until we can develop long-term resources such as fusion power or orbiting solar arrays. It’s a race between resource depletion and development of new technologies, and fifty or a hundred years of uranium power can make a big difference.

There might be a bit of superstitious fear on the “con” side; certainly some of the arguments get a bit hysterical. But that’s more than adequately matched by the superstitious reverence some arguing the pro-nuclear case show for technology and all its wonders. And then there’s that whole “we really truly believe this is the solution to our problems and don’t you dare tell us otherwise” thing.

The debate over nuclear energy is a struggle between realism on the “pro” side of the debate, and superstitious fear on the “con” side.

Nuclear power is also a short-term option; as well as being one of the most expensive.

“…Suppose, however, that the industry were to be set up on a scale large enough to make a difference. For how long could it continue to provide the needed energy before, for practical purposes, it had used up all the uranium ores rich enough to produce a positive energy balance? If it supplied the world with all its electricity, then the total quantity of useful ores on the planet would be sufficient to keep the nuclear industry going for just six years…”
From http://afr.com/articles/2005/06/23/1119321845502.html

Nuclear power is also a short-term option…

Entropy - things tend to disperse over time.

The deaths in the Chinese coal industry. There would have been similar kinds of problems in the coal industry during the early industrial revolution - how was that situation turned around - through trade unions, regulation, political action to make the workplaces safe. If Chinese workers feel compelled to go into unsafe mines and risk their lives, this is part of a social and political environment where those people probably feel they have no reasonable alternatives for make a living. A simple utilitarian calculus in this context with regard to coal versus nuclear seems to me to be inappropriate. There are many other factors involved. Yes, the Chinese coal mining industry needs to be made safer, no I don’t think this is a valid argument for nuclear power.

What concerns me in the Chinese case is that the Chinese government wants to build dozens of nuclear power stations. What if they apply a similar lax regard for human safety and working conditions that apply in the coal industry to the nuclear industry? A major failure in a nuclear power station could polute a river, or the air etc, and could lead to widescale harm beyond even the numerical scale of the coal industry fatalities. Especially with a government that might try to cover up failures until after serious damage is already done.

How bad is ‘really wrong’?

The nuclear industry and scientists are aware of the risks, and they work accordingly. [Sometimes workers don’t understand the nature of the risks - as with the Tokaimura accident where some workers, eager to finish early, mixed together so much uranium that the critical point was passed].
With due care, the nuclear industry can keep the probability for mishaps extremely low. The problem is that the danger in the event of a mishap can be extremely large, long lasting and difficult to fix.

The problem with the Chinese coal industry is that they do not maintain an adequate level of due care for their workers. You are comparing the poorest of the poor in an underindustrialised situation, to some of the most highly educated people working in a highly regulated high-tech industry. Different problems. Apples and oranges.

But if Chernobyl is a bad as it gets, then how bad is “really wrong”? With all due respect & sympathy to those affected, it wasn’t the end of the world. Particularly when you consider the 20,000+ people killed in the Chinese coal mining industry every year.

I’d just like to show some solidarity with Philip Gomes on the subject of nuclear power generation and storage. Whether or not you you believe in the whole climate change deal, or that we are fast running out of oil, coal and ozone layer, the need fo…

Nicely raised, Phil.

But when things go wrong, they go really wrong.

Even the pro-nuke peple admit that while the standards are such that the probabilities for an accident are very low, the risks in the event of an accident are very high. One of the problems with the nuclear industries in the USA is that insurance companies won’t insure nuclear power plants. The govt had to pass legislation putting a cap on insurance payouts to try to get the insurance industry on board.

Just because standards are kept high up till now, does not mean that standands would be kept high in all the circumstances.

That probability you quoted could possibly also give similar average values for something like terrorism, or being caught in a huricane, etc, but this goes off past statistics. One big accident, and there could be alot of - irrepairable - damage. ‘Radioactivity’ is a word, but its effects are real.

There are alternatives that are safer, cheaper, cleaner, and that will have a more positive social and environmental impact.

Being male rather than female: 2800

Heart Disease: 2100

Cigarettes (1 pack a day): 1600

Stroke: 520

6.8kgs overweight: 450

Motor vehicle accidents: 200

Alcohol: 130

Firearms: 11

All eletric power in the US nuclear: 1.5 (Anti-Nuclear Society) 0.03 (NRC)