Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power seems to be a fairly strong rebuttal to the nuclear lobby’s case.
More importantly it presents the case for wind at the same time, with very favourable results. I wonder if this kind of reasoning will enter Mr Howard’s debate?
Update 25-May: I also just read Net Nuclear Energy at theWatt:
Whenever making a policy decision about energy, what absolutely must be considered is how much net energy can be supplied. For example, in the case of a nuclear power plant, it takes energy to mine and refine uranium, and this energy reduces nuclear’s energy return on energy invested (EROEI) and could mean that nuclear power contributes to CO2 emissions.
… In fact, the [research] paper suggests that a nuclear power plant being fueled by uranium of an ore purity of 1% or more (which represents only 10% of the world’s uranium) would require 10 full years of operation until it becomes a net energy contributor to society. Officially, nuclear power provides 7% of the world’s energy. When including the energy required for the uranium fuel cycle, it contributes just 0.4-0.7%.