d/t, do you even read these things before you post them?
Location: He's assuming a certain MW o/p - why?
Lifetime: Another assumption based on generation 1 stations.
Nuclear waste: The only reason there's so much waste produced now is because the G1 reactors were built to create material for weapons. Current designs create little to no waste. Besides, if it's such a problem dig holes in front of tectonic subduction zones - the material will return to the core soon enough.
“Accident rate: To date, there have been 11 nuclear accidents at the level of a full or partial core-melt.” So what? Core melt != THE END OF THE WORLD. In Three Mile Island the molten mass froze when it hit the colder reactor vessel, and stopped its downward journey at five-eights of an inch through the five-inch thick vessel wall. I've no data on Fukushima yet. Chernobyl had no containment vessel – total deaths, 52.
Proliferation: Yes, true. But also true of a lot of chemical processes etc.
Uranium abundance: Not true. Funny this guy’s an Aussie, that’s where most of the available uranium is. The world could survive on the *currently mined* uranium for 5 years without breaking apart any bombs – and uranium isn’t the only fuel.
Exotic metals: this isn’t even funny. He does know it takes material to build anything, doesn’t he?
“More information: Derek Abbott. “Is nuclear power globally scalable?” Proceedings of the IEEE. To be published.”
Yeah I'll wait for that thanks.