Noel,

Nothing is as irritating as someone that doesn't bother to read my post then writes complete rubbish in rebuttal.

There are more than 60 reactors in the world physically being built now, with 5 of them (not one or two) in the USA. While there are more reactors being closed in the short term, these are very old and typically very small reactors whereas the new reactors are more than 2x the size. The number of reactors planned for about 2030 is close to 200. Add to this the reactors that Japan is restarting and, by 2020 there will be more power generated by nuclear plants than ever before.

Given the dismal failure and cost of renewable power as demonstrated in South Australia, there will come a point when further reduction in the use of fossil fuels will require reliable base load generation of which only nuclear power is GHG free.

Nuclear waste is *not* the problem, it's the *solution!* If we just built breeder reactors like Russia is doing, America has enough nuclear waste to run her for 1000 years and the UK has enough for 500 years! Russia just opened their BN-800 breeder, and are building 2 really large BN-1200's soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

BN1200 = 1.2GW = as large as many coal power plants.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Russia-to-build-11-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2030-10081602.html

Breeders can burn bomb grade plutonium and today's stores of nuclear 'waste'. It’s all in the book Dr Hansen recommends, “Prescription for the planet!” (Download it FREE here from Dr Hansen's Science Council website).
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf

WHAT ABOUT THE FINAL WASTE?
Easy! Once we've burned all the transuranics away, we finally get down to the real nuclear waste called fission products. This stuff is so 'hot' it only stays dangerous for 300 years! That's great news, and if we just vitrify it (melt it down into glass-like ceramics) it is really easy to deal with by burial under the reactor-park. If the entire world was run on clean, emission free nuclear power, the whole world's waste would only fill one barge every 2 years. Spread over the planet's nuclear energy parks, you can see that higher level waste can be stored in very small bunkers under the reactor park.

Nuclear Citizens' Jury: an ethical case for importing nuclear wastes
Noel Wauchope, published 25/10/2016

I would like to make something clear that is not immediately apparent.

I am not in opposition to nuclear generators or nuclear power.

I do vehemently oppose the nuclear industry's attitude that someone else provide a solution to a problem for which they alone are responsible and the deception they use to sell the idea. When has dangling the prospect of vast riches before a politician not succeeded in garnering his attention and subsequent loyalty?

One or two questions I have asked here and in the August topic were also raised by Dr Denniss in his address. None has been responded to.

The most obvious conclusion to draw is that if honest answers were provided they would be inimical to the nuclear industry's case.

Plantagenet has questioned the portrayal of the nuclear industry as desperate for new business. If this minor contretemps is indicative of anything it demonstrates that in this issue at least nothing is as simple as it seems. Scratching the surface to see where the truth resides in opposition to implacable self-interest is never a simple nor easy exercise.

The seeking of unfair and inequitable influence should always be opposed. If in doing so resort is made to the same tactics as one's opponent then their protests should fall on deaf ears.

My deepest apologies go to Plantagenet for naming him as an opponent when in truth it is Shadow Minister whom I should have identified.
At my age I should be allowed a senior moment but not if it impinges on such an important issue.
Again, my apologies Plantagenet.

I don't care much whether or not South Australians decide to take nuclear material from around the world. However, if it's deemed safe enough to do so in principle, and is much more profitable than any other investment, why not?. The principle needs to be dealt with before the economics, which are a matter for parliament to decide. Economics should not be argued as a point for or against the principle by the jury.

The status quo argument that if your unsure don't vote for it, will win the day, IMO, as many people are incapable of coming to a personal decision over serious matters, whatever the evidence is before them.(I was once chairman of a jury where two of the jurors said they could not decide as they were not present when the alleged offence was committed. Geez!)

If Victoria went nuclear and provided SA with essential baseload (as now) it could expect SA to accept waste. I would enjoy seeing a "Hypotheticals" episode on this. It's also ridiculous to think that, on "principle", SA would happily waste more money on renewables while interconnected to as much emission-free Victorian nuclear electricity as it wants.

The "not in my backyard principle" stands in the way of the one true national solution to emissions. To that end I believe the principle of safe waste storage in all states, not just SA.

Hi Pogi

No worries mate.

Having written 3,295 OLO comments over 11 years http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=18967&show=history
I've seen much more sin.

Regards

Pete