[LINK] Should Australia consider nuclear electricity?

[David]

On 2021-11-25 01:32, Karl Auer wrote:
> 
> It was not meant to be a criticism either of you or the arguments you made. Your arguments are cogent and correct. They just do not belong in the same list as a discussion of the risks inherent in the storage, transport, refining and operational use of nuclear fuel.

Karl, I didn't take it as a criticism of myself, personally, and I'm sure we agree on the general question of nuclear power.  However I think we're discussing different aspects of the issue.

Stephen's original email reported a study which claimed nuclear power presented a lower greenhouse footprint than the usual "green" sources of energy over its lifetime.  (Stephen what's your own view?)

Karl's response was primarily concerned with the long-term risks associated with nuclear fuel.  While not central to his argument, we should note that the radioactivity of an element is usually inversely related to its' half-life.  So for example, plutonium has a half-life of between zero (i.e. spontaneous fission) and about 80,000,000 years, and some isotopes have a half-life of tens of years.  One of the main problems with Pu, apart from nuclear annihilation, is its' toxicity if inhaled.

My response was more concerned with the way a supposedly educated population can be led by the nose to acceptance of a policy which doesn't bear close scrutiny for the reasons I listed.  In this case, those proselytising nuclear power will no doubt wave the report around ("UN crowns nuclear as lowest carbon electricity source") as though it's the beginning and end of the matter.

David L.