Thank you Tom for an excellent post. Informative and sound logic.

It seems to me that there is a real opportunity for Australia to become an influence for good in uranium and its safe useage. If we were to engage in processing through to fuel rods here, then lease the rods to the power companies, then take them back for reprocessing, and then dispose of the wastes in a safe manner (using Synroc, and burying), then we would be able to exert considerable control over the material.

By using this approach, we would have good records as to where the material is, and prevent it from being misused. I think that the power companies would be delighted if Australia were to offer a go-to-whoa service, and I am sure that it could be a very profitable enterprise.

The main issue, of course, is the politics of it all, and the irrational fears that influence the voters. But surely, if the case is made well enough, and the right leadership is provided, all that can be overcome?

If fossil fuels are contributing to long term environmental damage (and that's a big if currently), then nuclear is the solution. It's potentially unlimited, base load, can be sited almost anywhere (subject to earthquake and tsunami risk), has zero emissions, and with end-to-end management won't encourage nuclear weapons proliferation.

It's way ahead of wind, solar, tidal and hydro.

Until such time as renewable energy generation is capable of fulfilling our needs, nuclear energy and gas are the only viable means of substantial reduction of GHG emissions.

The only thing stopping Australia meeting its targets is the mindless factually deficient scare campaign run by the greens.

Quite so.. alternative energy is a bust. If emissions are a problem then how else would we go about reduce them? However, individuals have an extraordinarily adverse to nuclear power. During the recent Japanese reactor problem, one colleague kept on expressing concern. I pointed out that the news reports at the time are very little indication of what is actually happening and, as its in another hemisphere, wait until the official reports come out. Didn't prevent him from obsessing over the matter.

I later found out that a vast oil fire, which was having far more effect on the environment, had gone almost entirely unreported.

Very informative article Tom; thanks. Your points about shipping, rail and pollution caused by coal/ oil compared to Uranium are pertinent; analayses of all energy sources should take into account all aspects of life cycles as you clearly point out.

I am shocked by the huge cost of reprocessing and disposing of nuclear waste (>1/3 of cost) and the huge amount (>70%) sitting in repositories awaiting disposal. These are of course major arguments against nuclear.

'Perhaps the greatest contribution that Australia can make to non-proliferation and more generally enhancing the security of nuclear power users around the Pacific and Indian Oceans is the development of a repository for spent nuclear fuel.' ....... over the dead bodies of a majority of Australians including me.

Solar has none of the disadvantages you have pointed to for both nuclear and fossil fuels. Why not pull out all stops and maximise solar? Together with wind and biomass it can deliver a sustainable, secure energy supply. Your oft-repeated protestations against renewable - 'cant produce base load etc'Curm and Shadow are looking increasingly tired and refutable. You are obviously not aware of the solar thermal / storage advances or of the potential of biomass (Sweden already obtains 32% of its energy from this source and is aiming to be free of oil imports by 2050).

I do admit that, horror of horrors, a renewables future would mean many small decentralized generators taking the power of of the hands of a few big corporations (pun intended).

Let's get up with the leaders instead of staying with the laggards. Long live the carbon price - it's a good start to a bright future n renewables.

Roses1

Whilst solar does not have the problems with CO2 emissions or waste storage, it is still 4x as costly per MW than nuclear, and suffers from the inability to generate at night or whilst overcast.

All renewable generation will still need gas turbines with all the infrastructure to back it up.