With the number of grass-roots pro-nuclear energy voices these days reaching critical mass, the volume of evidence-based nuclear-inclusive analysis rapidly expanding, and the specific cause of this blog – the removal of Australia’s unjustifiable nuclear energy prohibition – being taken up by organisations like The Minerals Council Uranium Forum, I’ll be focusing a lot less on updates and analysis. So I’d like to leave, for now, with a collection of authoritative and indispensible resources to help continue the spread of awareness around the issue of climate-friendly nuclear energy, the residual myths clinging to it and the stubborn opposition it unfortunately still faces.
Science Update: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Paul Willis is Associate Professor of palaeontology at Flinders University
The report and wide-ranging resources of the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
Nuclear medicine comes from nuclear reactors
Dr Geoff Currie is Associate Professor in medical radiation science at Charles Sturt University and Clinical Professor of molecular imaging at Macquarie University
China-U.S. cooperation to advance nuclear power: mass-manufacturing and coordinated approvals are key
Cao, Cohen, Hansen, Lester, Peterson and Xu, 2016, and their response to anti-nuclear critics.
Did you really come from Fukushima?
Ryugo Hayano is Professor of physics at Tokyo University
Fear is a killer: Nuclear expert reveals radiation’s real danger
Experience in Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Fukushima has taught Shunichi Yamashita that anxiety and disruption can hurt people far worse than radiation itself
Shunichi Yamashita is vice-president of Nagasaki University and radiation health management adviser for Fukushima Prefecture
Culture of safety can make or break nuclear power plants
The safe shutdown of Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, with the 2014 Nuclear Technology journal article here
The fantasy of quick and easy renewable energy
The Brookings Institution is a highly-regarded, non-partisan US research group
Related critical analysis in the literature of various “100% renewable energy” propositions can be examined in this article: Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems
An effective response to climate change demands rapid replacement of fossil carbon energy sources. This must occur concurrently with an ongoing rise in total global energy consumption. While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible.
Ben Heard is an Australian environmentalist, PhD candidate at the University of Adelaide and founder of Bright New World
How renewable energy advocates are hurting the climate cause
Paul McDivitt is a science and environmental writer with a master’s degree in journalism and mass communication from the University of Colorado Boulder
Baseload capacity – which nuclear energy opponents variously denounce as mythical, irrelevant or unnecessary – operates in modern national supply systems such as these to affordably and consistently ensure low-emissions electricity. Be wary of what truly motivates anyone who would discard this proven model of supply. Sources: Electricity Map, France, Belgium, Sweden, Ontario.
Excerpts from Climate Gamble
by a talented pair of independent Finnish environmentalists. Insisting both on serious climate action and excluding nuclear energy is, fundamentally, a gamble with the global climate.
Michael Shellenberger is an American environmentalist and author, and founder of Environmental Progress
The Actinide Age 
I wonder if the current talk of coal plant refurbishments is a veiled hint at nuclear. The N-word can’t be used even by the PM for fear of being leapt upon by thought ninjas. If I recall the Minerals Council were recently spruiking HELE and CCS for coal so their new found liking for nuclear rings a bit hollow.
I have an SA house guest at the moment. They won’t have a bar of nuclear regardless of the potential economic benefits. Despite glaring signs like the closure of their biggest private employer somehow everything will turn out OK.
That’s why I included a link to the Uranium Forum, which in my experience has a somewhat different focus. I feel it’s overall very positive that the Minerals Council proper is formally endorsing the Forum’s work.
BHP shareholders want to leave MCA
http://www.msn.com/en-au/money/company-news/bhp-investors-push-to-exit-mca-membership/ar-AAsclJW?li=AA54Gb&ocid=spartandhp
Euratom says that each kg of natural uranium can generate 45 Gwh of net electricity in light water reactors. That means Olympic Dam uranium could replace all of Australia’s coal. Instead we’re depending on one hour batteries and dwindling gas supplies.