"Re: posting of article by James Delingpole

Its seems everyone has made up his/her mind about nuclear energy and then touts opinions. It is shocking to me that a journalist is quoted as an authority on this critical subject. The link to this article begins with, "James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including..."

We have enough opinions, how about some fact, such as the World Nuclear Association "Representing the people and organisations of the global nuclear profession."

Here is just an excerpt:
"There are about 270,000 tonnes of used fuel in storage, much of it at reactor sites. About 90% of this is in storage ponds, the balance in dry storage. Annual arisings of used fuel are about 12,000 tonnes, and 3,000 tonnes of this goes for reprocessing. Final disposal is not urgent in any logistical sense. To ensure that no significant environmental releases occur over tens of thousands of years, 'multiple barrier' geological disposal is planned. This immobilises the radioactive elements in HLW and some ILW and isolates them from the biosphere."

Now let's do some math: For nuclear to have a real impact of energy needs, let's build 10 times the number of plants and run them for 100 years. That will produce 12,000,000 tons of HLW (high level waste) that eventually has to be shielded and safely buried for "tens of thousands of years." The nuclear waste now sitting in pools represents about 30 years worth of spent HLW, not yet stored away, but "planned.

David Fuller's view The two articles to which you refer were sent to me by subscribers who are regular contributors and for whom I have the same high regard as I have for you. All of us share a keen interest in markets, which we peruse for investment opportunities. This means that we are also monitoring opinions, for both information and behavioural clues.

In posting James Delingpole's article on Tuesday, I did introduce it with the following caveat:


Certain to either entertain or irritate, depending on one's views, it is written with the stridency of youth (or narcissistic old men) but also with intelligence.

He is deliberately provocative but also intelligent. He has described himself as "an interpreter of interpretations." Is this not what we all do?

I have posted a number of items on nuclear power, perhaps too many for some tastes but this is one of the defining issues of our era. These postings have included nine previous references to the World Nuclear Association, for which you have kindly provided another link above.


You make an important point about high level [nuclear] waste but this can also be reprocessed and even reused as fuel. France and Russia reprocess what is currently nuclear waste, but it is expensive to do so, which explains why more countries with nuclear power stations do not currently reprocess their used nuclear fuel. Since you provided a 100-year forecast on the amount of nuclear waste which could theoretically accumulate over the next century, do you really not expect science to resolve satisfactorily this problem well before that time? As a 'needs must' project, I would not be surprised if Indian or Chinese scientists render nuclear waste biodegradable in my lifetime.

I maintain that the world will be much safer with more nuclear power because it works, produces almost no carbon dioxide and has killed far fewer people than coal, crude oil, natural gas and even wind farms.

I conclude with the opening bullet points from the World Nuclear Association report quoted in the email above: