<Energy's Role in Europe's Trade Deficits The Oil Drum DrumBeat: March 2, 2007>

301 comments on Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Prof. Goose on March 1, 2007 - 11:17am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Hit reddit, hit digg, hit your favorite link farm! :) Send it to slashdot, metafilter, del.icio.us, stumbleupon, etc.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SP on March 5, 2007 - 10:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Readers might like to know that sourcewatch describes the organisation Uranium Information Centre (also based in Melbourne) as "a front group for the Australian uranium mining industry. It campaigns for increased access to uranium and increased use of nuclear power around the world."

Several posters make reference to this site in the following thread.

The anti nuclear site linked to by sourcewatch (if true) makes interesting reading.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MCrab on March 5, 2007 - 10:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Readers might like to know that sourcewatch describes the organisation Uranium Information Centre (also based in Melbourne) as "a front group for the Australian uranium mining industry. It campaigns for increased access to uranium and increased use of nuclear power around the world."

Yes (sorry, yeah), that's a fine piece of investigative work by Sourcewatch. Must've taken them all of five seconds to go to UIC's website and check out how they describe themselves:

In September 2006 we became part of the newly-formed Australian Uranium Association, a trade association representing the interests of uranium mining and exploration companies.

Congratulations on uncovering their smokescreen.

They also go on to say:

Finally, before any briefing paper is published, or extensively revised, it is reviewed by someone expert in the subject matter to ensure that there are no errors or oversights. The Centre therefore can vouch for and support anything it publishes, and unreservedly offers to correct promptly anything that might be shown as wrong or misleading in what it publishes.

Which is a level of accuracy almost completely eschewed by the type of anti-nuclear site you link to.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SP on March 6, 2007 - 9:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My point was simply to make that clear.
No one else linked to the UIC "about page".

In my view there is a difference between the somewhat nebulous "funded by companies involved in uranium exploration, mining and export in Australia" and the detail of former employees of said companies being staff of UIC.

The "about page" also has this;
"The Centre also subscribes to relevant journals, some of which provide authoritative articles and papers."
Either the peer reviewed literature is authoratative (at the time of publication) or are they wasting their money subscribing to non authoritative journals?

And when they say, "it is reviewed by someone expert in the subject matter", what does this mean? If it's not peer reviewed... is it Bruce in the room next door? He used to work for WMC!

What's your interest?
Do you dislike sourcewatch?
Are you a fan of nuclear?
Do you have shares?

And, as has been linked to at Energy Bulletin the distance between the mining industry and current Government Policy in Australia is curiously close.

(I did provide the disclaimer "if true")

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MCrab on March 6, 2007 - 1:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yeah Right:

The "about page" also has this;
"The Centre also subscribes to relevant journals, some of which provide authoritative articles and papers."
Either the peer reviewed literature is authoratative (at the time of publication) or are they wasting their money subscribing to non authoritative journals?

You'd have to query the centre on exactly what they mean by this, but they do state above this:

UIC has a standing order for all relevant OECD and IAEA publications, including annual statistical material as well as publications reviewing the state of affairs in aspects of nuclear energy. WNA market reports and the Nuclear Engineering handbook are other prime references. All of these enable regular updating of briefing papers and other publications. All major references or sources are quoted.

Yeah Right:

And when they say, "it is reviewed by someone expert in the subject matter", what does this mean? If it's not peer reviewed... is it Bruce in the room next door? He used to work for WMC!

Again, you would have to query the UIC on who exactly their experts are, but since they are funded by the uranium mining industry what makes you think they wouldn't have access to or use data from experts in nuclear power? Furthermore, if you doubt any of the information published on their site then take them up on their offer:

The Centre therefore can vouch for and support anything it publishes, and unreservedly offers to correct promptly anything that might be shown as wrong or misleading in what it publishes.

Yeah Right:

What's your interest?
Do you dislike sourcewatch?
Are you a fan of nuclear?
Do you have shares?

I have an interest in energy issues in general.
I have nothing in particular against Sourcewatch.
I am most definitely a fan of nuclear power.
I have no shares in the nuclear industry and have never worked for or earned money from any enterprise connected with it.
I would consider buying shares if I had money spare to invest.

Now, perhaps you would like to make clear what the UIC has to do with Martin Sevior and nuclerinfo.net, other than the fact that they are both based in Melbourne?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SP on March 6, 2007 - 11:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, maybe that was a cheeky link.

Mr Seviors site appears to be geniune, and it was very astute of a member of one of the ~5 remaining functioning Physics Departments in an Australian university to anticipate the direction the PM would take the "nuclear debate" and set up this site.

The site is to be commended for its open exchange with Storm van Leeuwen and Smith, though I felt that it was a bit "apples and oranges" until about the second rebuttal. Ie SvL&S are taking a "whole of process" emergy approach, and its not clear (IMO) that Mr Sevior et al realise this in the earlier exchange (read it yourselves).

I was a little amused where we find that "Sevior contacted Dr. Roger Higgins head of Base-Metals operation for BHP-Billiton. He confirmed that the numbers listed in the document refer to the total energy usage of the entire operation. ie It includes all the energy used for all the mine outputs." But we have no idea about how BHP did the calculation.... ie does it inlcude the energy cost of manufacturing the acids brought onto the site etc, this is what I understand the SvL&S study is attempting to include.

Also, I feel the use of words like "need" in places where it could be meant "want" or "desire" indicates a simplistic projection of the status quo, indicating an underlying support or assumption of "growth" (surely not infinite?!). I would have thought a particle physicist might have shown less Newtonian thinking.

In any case, here in the bunyip democracy we have the situation that;
- The PM decides to have a "nuclear debate"
- Appoints ex Melbourne Uni physics graduate Ziggy Switkowski to investigate
- The report basically says "lets go nuclear"
- We later learn that three Melbourne business men spoke to the PM before the PM set up this process.
- The men in question are planning to set up a "Nuclear Power" company and inlcude former head of WMC (since bought out by BHP) Hugh Morgan and former Liberal Party treasurer Ron Walker
- the PM has denied any links between these events.
- Meanwhile, Hugh Morgan and other mining magnates gathered in Canberra for a presentation by the Lavosier Group.

Lets just say I'm sceptical about the transparency of some of these dealings.

Cheers.
(no more from me on this topic)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
poumny on March 9, 2007 - 3:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

!1 !2 !3 !4 !5 !6 !7 !8 !9 !10 !11 !12 !13 !14 !15 !16 !17 !18 !19 !20 !21 !22 !23 !24 !25 !26 !27 !28 !29 !30 !31 !32 !33 !34 !35 !36 !37 !38 !39 !40 !41 !42 !43 !44 !45 !46 !47 !48 !49 !50 !51 !52 !53 !54 !55 !56 !57 !58 !59 !60 !61 !62 !63 !64 !65 !66 !67 !68 !69 !70 !71 !72 !73 !74 !75 !76 !77 !78 !79 !80 !81

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

301 comments on Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version