The main issue I have with nuclear is simple and that is it is too expensive.

First let me state I see no theoretical problem in dealing with the radiation and waste produced by nuclear power stations. Unfortunately this has not eventuated in practice.

The problems are:-
We have failed dismally to deal with the problem of high level waste from both a political and practical aspect.
No private company will insure a nuclear plant so governments are left to carry the can.
When they reach their use by date the cost of decommissioning them can be astronomical.
Commercial banks are generally unwilling to finance them so they are for the most part financed by governments.
Proliferation of nuclear weapons, If a nation can build a nuclear power station it is relatively easy to go the next step to build a nuclear bomb.

Some of the real costs of a nuclear power station are simply ignored and ultimately pushed on the the taxpayer.

Just as mater of interest of all the nuclear power stations ever started only half of them were actually completed, which should ring alarm bells to any rational person. The nuclear lobby continuously underestimate the real costs.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/07/japanese-nuclear-power-plant-fukushima-restart

Quote
"All 48 workable reactors in Japan have been offline for safety checks or repairs since the 2011 disaster, except for two that have temporarily operated for about a year. Sendai would be the first to restart under safety rules imposed after the Fukushima crisis."

The bottom line is that nearly all of Japan's nuclear power stations have been offline four 4 years.
My estimate of the cost to the Japanese economy is conservatively 5% of 50 times 8 billion US dollars times 4 =$US80 billion.

Then we have another 29 billion US to pay for the imported fuel that they had to buy to make up for the short fall.

Then there there is the cost of the clean up I have no idea what that might finally add up to but 100 billion US does seem unreasonable.

Anyone for cheap nuclear power?

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/responses/costs-and-consequences-of-fukushima.htm

Oh dear the "ad hominem" attacks start as soon as someone disagrees with a pet theory.
For the record do NOT think that the answer is "renewables" to keep our lifestyle going in the manner that we think we deserve.
I DO think that we are not going to be able to continue with our present lifestyle.
The planet will not allow it.
So sorry to disagree with you again.
Instead of dreaming up a slew of ideas to provide power for the people, just think up a way to reduce the population slowly and without too much pain.

I really hear you on cost, and nuclear costs have been going up over the last few decades. There are many ways we can bring costs down, especially when we finally stop building a 1950's Light Water Reactor! Water really isn't the best coolant and massively complicates the reactor core, requiring an enormous single cast high pressure flange vessel. This will be solved with IFR's and LFTR's that don't use high-pressure vessels. They have other challenges, like managing sodium (explosive) or fluoride salts (corrosive), but both of these have unique solutions and allow the MASS PRODUCTION of nuclear reactors. Standardised. Factory line. Safe. Cheap!

But what really concerns me is that renewables can *look* cheap on a simple per-watt delivered to the grid basis, but try making them baseload!

"An analysis by the Breakthrough Institute finds that the entire German solar sector produces less than half the power that Fukushima Daiichi – a single nuclear complex – generated before it was hit by the tsunami. To build a Fukushima-sized solar industry in Germany would, it estimates, cost $155bn. To build a Fukushima-sized nuclear plant would cost $53.5bn. And the power would be there on winter evenings."
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/doing_the_math_comparing_germa.shtml

Proliferation? Banning nuclear power because of nuclear weapons is like locking the gate after the horse has bolted. The majority of CO2 emitting nations *already* have nuclear weapons. But here's what recent history tells us. The Russians found that old Soviet bombs were expensive to maintain, so they sold many to America for 20 years. America 'burner' reactors fissioned 16,000 bombs-worth of material and provided 10% of American electricity for 2 decades! That’s like running the whole of Australia for 20 years on old Soviet bombs! Safe, clean nuclear power provides a market for burning warheads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program

Hey Robert,
how about actually looking at humane ways to reduce human population growth, like providing everyone with everything they need to run a safe, dignified, modern lifestyle in a modern convenient eco-city, which could look quite different to today's energy inefficient suburbia. But once we give everyone modern health and education and especially empower women, population growth settles down and declines.

So rather than let things go "Mad Max", how about we ask some smart boffins how to provide all our energy needs, and come up with a vision of a more sustainable future where 10 billion people will not entirely use up this planet because we've tightened up the human industrial ecosystem to hardly impact on the natural ecosystem? That's where the Eco-Modernist Manifesto comes in!
http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto-english/

The EM is an inspiring read. Grab a drink and give it a go.

I'd hate to see you drop out of this conversation, because if I'm wrong, I want to know it. But please prove that I'm wrong with data and facts, don't just assume that I'm wrong and then basically run Ad Homs against me.

The last link above does not work for some odd reason but this should:-

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwipwqTW7InHAhXB3aYKHe15B-0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psr.org%2Fenvironment-and-health%2Fenvironmental-health-policy-institute%2Fresponses%2Fcosts-and-consequences-of-fukushima.html&ei=IsO9VampLsG7mwXt853oDg&usg=AFQjCNGHiRJSz02WIstPQySpiiattbjj5w&bvm=bv.99261572,d.dGY

The original proposition in the article was that supplying 50% of Australia's electrical power by renewables was not practical. This I argue is entirely possible and further we could if wanted too supply a 100% of Australia's current electrical supply with renewables. On the other hand to generate enough renewable electricity for all transport and industry needs is I suspect impractical at this stage.

Sorry Robert we can not fix the population problem before 2050 by which time the population will have reached 9 billion, only war or a massive epidemic can change this.