An interesting discussion of "The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy" on The Oil Drum

I read the paper The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy over the holidays and came away with a very mixed reaction. It's now being discussed on The Oil Drum, and the debate is as vigorous as I expected. I would recommend that everyone who is interested in the nuclear issue (both pro and con) take a look - all the arguments are out on the table.

FWIW, I posted my opinion on the whole debate over there, with the following conclusion:

the money and effort being spent on blowing smoke up our asses about how its the savior to our energy needs could be better spent today to help to find a solution to our energy crises. One thing about it though the pro nukers are a dying breed so here in a few more years time that effort won't be lost anymore, it just simply won't be there.

I agree with you Paul. Even if you can get people to buy into the psychology of nuclear energy (which at some point when energy does get scarce will occur), the large sunk cost required to build a real nuclear infrastructure will be the end of it. Attempts will be made, of course...

They got a lot of "true believers" by using unrealistically low cost estimates.
As more realistic cost estimates came in, one person wrote on the NEI blog "Am I being lied to now or was I being lied to then?"
Since then Moody's came out with even higher estimates.
If you add the cost of building an expensive recycling plant for every 4 or 5 power plants,
the costs just get higher.
Advanced fuel cycles are decades away.
Wind is cheaper now, wind and solar technology keep improving and getting cheaper,
solar PV will be cheaper than coal within a decade.

To get public support for the first Gulf War,
Hill & Knowlton had an actress pretending to be a nurse ("Nurse Nayirah") testify before Congress that she saw Iraqi soldiers pull babies from incubators. It was a moving performance carried on live TV, when this fraud was exposed, it was discovered that she had diplomatic immunity and couldn't be prosecuted for lying before Congress.
The nuclear industry has hired Hill & Knowlton to do their PR campaign, it won't be long before we see a "Nuclear Nayirah" telling all kinds of outrageous lies on live TV to get support for these expensive boondoggles.

edit to add some references:
history of cost estimates: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=123614&mesg_id=123807
"Nurse Nayirah": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=109843

edit to add another reference on the history of cost estimates,
from "Nuclear Engineering International Magazine": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=122569

In reading the discussion of the EROEI of uranium extraction from granite,
it occurs to me that H-bombs could greatly enhance this process,
in a manner analagous to mountain-top removal coal mining.
Chemical extraction of uranium from the pulverized fragments would be much more efficient than from intact mountains.

This is an example of what Buckminster Fuller called synergymnastics,
where the hole is bigger than the sum of the parts:
fission reactions create the necessary temperature and pressure for fusion,
which then blows apart the granite mountain top,
exposing the uranium ores for chemical extraction.

Apparently the US Atomic Energy Commission once drew up plans to flash-cook shale oil in situ with subterranean 50-kiloton atomic bombs.