The way ahead for Australia
Once again, although we disagree on many issues of climate, Barry Brook is right on the money on nuclear power:
Nuclear power will be needed to supply up to 75 per cent of Australia’s baseload electricity by 2060, a climate change expert says.
Barry Brook, chair of climate change at Adelaide University, said the scenario would be the same for other modern and emerging economies if the current demand for low-carbon energy continued.
He said such a change in supply dynamics would require a large-scale but prudent expansion of nuclear energy infrastructure, including incorporating lessons learnt from the nuclear crisis in Japan.
‘Globally, to service such power demands will need current levels of nuclear energy supply to increase 21-fold around the world,’ Professor Brook told the Paydirt 2011 Uranium Conference in Adelaide on Tuesday.
‘For the protagonists of alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind, those contributors would have to increase their infrastructure more than 40-fold to take even a 15 per cent slice of the future energy mix.’
Prof Brook said the problems with the earthquake and tsunami-damaged Japanese nuclear reactors would, in time, be seen in their proper context.
‘They will lead to improved measures at protecting against extreme natural events,’ he said.
‘They also provide greater encouragement for governments and energy utilities to move even more rapidly now to the very latest nuclear power technologies.
Prof Brook said it should be kept in mind that the explosions at the Japanese reactors were chemical, not nuclear.
‘The radiation dose threat to the public has been small, not one member of the public has died as a direct consequence of the reactor challenges, there has not been a failure of the primary containment vessels nor any large-scale release of radiation,’ he said.
But Prof Brook said the Japanese crisis was a salient lesson for what the nuclear power had to do in the future.
‘As long as any industry learns from the lessons of the past and continues to maintain a high culture of safety, I see a very bright future ahead for nuclear power,‘ he said. (source)
If CO2-related climate change is the apocalypse in waiting the climate change alarmists say it is, then nuclear electricity generation is the only option. Barry Brook correctly acknowledges this fact, and ACM applauds him for that.
Australian Climate Madness 
Are you for real? Nuclear power yes please? OMG…to say no one has died as a result from Japan’s reactor disaster is plan studpidity. Are you going to be monotoring the increase in cancer for the next 20yrs in Japan? Do you know how many people may die from the cancer they contract through the radiation exposure? I am going to dislike your page from here on in. Carbon tax is bull shit, but so was this article.
That’s your prerogative, Kelly. Sorry to see you go. But I’m afraid you are wrong on the risks of nuclear power. Do some research on the actual deaths from nuclear accidents compared to other forms of electricity generation. The results may surprise you.
Kelly, look at this graph published on this page:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/03/acm-graphic-understanding-nuclear-power/
The graph;
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c014e5ffd5825970c-pi
clearly defines that the radiation levels are very low in Japan, ie: 4 times less than having 1 tooth x-ray!
Yes, according to the main stream scream team propaganda machine it is a distinct possibility that within the next 20 to 30 years there could be a mutant surge because of the massive amounts of radiation that people have been exposed to……….or it may not have been as serious as it was made out to be.I suppose the truth depends on how much of the illusion you buy into Kelly.
Kelly- if a dam broke (hydro power source)- and they do- tens of thousands would die. The Japanese nuclear power plants were old and built next to the sea. They survived the earthquake- but the tsunami flooded the basement where the generators were housed. Pure human error and design fault.
Oh,sorry i forgot to quote one of my all time favorite really real journalists,not the hacks that report the report.”It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surround it.” JOHN PILGER.
Marinate on that Kelly.
I am not surprised to see Barry Brook writing in favour of nuclear power, as he has been promoting thorium power for some time. More surprising was reading George Monbiot’s conversion in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
Thanks, Konrad. Have posted on this. Cheers.
have known about the thorium reactors for some time, brother in law worked@u.s thorium reactor, which got shut down, withdrew funds. now works on nuclear submarines… india has 3 thorium reactors, and china have plans to build quite a few i hear…. the molten salt thorium core can also reuse spent plutonium from old reactors. no chance of fallout/leaking either, it cant generate the same heat us a uranium reactor and in an emergency the core is shut down and its core cools down within minutes. not to mention its low radiation levels. but is not as efficient as uranium…yet!! the u.k had big plans for a super thorium reactor, last i heard it was also lacking funding to get started. still, its all very promising progress.
Slightly O/T:
Judge places California’s global warming program on hold
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/03/california-global-warming-program-put-on-hold.html
But…but…didn’t the No. 1 imbecile in Canberra tell us:
“There are more than 30 countries with emissions trading schemes, and 10 American States with emissions trading schemes. The world is moving.”
Would California be “Moving Forward”, I wonder?
Poor Kelly is suffering from an age old problem … when fact and ideology are on a collision course simply ignore the facts … problem solved. Kelly will find another website or source of information that will match precisely with the ideology then peace will reign. Who knows? Kelly may even have to support a carbon tax in order not to offend the ideology.
as for kelly, my thoughts were conveyed on this same post on facebook!
Kim Sattler-Nelson@facebook
what hypocrisy! on one hand you refute the festering bile from the agenda riddled media regarding global warming, yet indulge their piss-soaked misrepresentations of nuclear issues as being gospel. as you are all aware, with all fields of science, the physicists that research, test and study (in this case) nuclear science, are the only ones qualified to assert the facts. many australians have been indoctrinated with fear campaigns and media hyperbole, creating irrational sensationalism. frequent dismissing of dialogue and facts, let alone researching the answers for themselves is evident here also…posting or referencing media stories in defense of any debate wont cut it. and kelly, please do find another fb page, your insults at acm was uncalled for and i assure you, your bad taste wont be missed.