The cost has been a factor in not developing nuclear power in Australia. Nothing hysterical about that point ... economics 101.

Nuclearphobes”. Another category of people, and another name-calling opportunity for the bozos for whom abuse replaces knowledge and logical argument. We pay this bloke to coin new epithets?

I support nuclear power, even though it has been left too long to stop the wheels falling off Australia quite soon. You don't suddenly have nuclear plants. They will take many years to implement when, and if, our apologies for politicians come to terms with reality.

What needs to happen immediately is for people to be educated about the modern possibilities and safety of nuclear rather than calling them names because they have fears. This politician is incapable of that, and is probably doing more harm than good with his I-know-best attitude to everything.

Of course, if governments can introduce something which has proven to be bad for Australia without our permission - multiculturalism - it should be able to introduce something that would be good for Australia without our permission - nuclear power.

Right on, Ttbn.

Modern nuclear power stations seem to be quite safe in France and Finland. France provides much cheaper electricity to Germany (when its wind fails on foggy days) than Germany's renewables can provide, at least for now.

Yes, there have been nuclear accidents, so I would strongly advise any planners, from my Olympian throne, not to use sixty-year-old technology like Chernobyl's, or build old-technology reactors in earthquake and tsunami zones or fifty metres from a beach, like Fukushima.

And just by the way, when that tsunami struck Japan and Fukushima, twenty thousand people were killed. Not one of them from any leakage at Fukushima.

So how are France and Finland doing it ? Have there been technological advances since their reactors were built, making them even safer ?

Of course, Ttbn, as South Australians, you and I have no particular interest in the development of Australia's uranium deposits for the next thousand years, we're just trying to make constructive comments ;)

Cheers,

Joe

Spot on David! No question! Nor in the minds of those who dare to challenge conventional wisdom and look at the actual facts rather than the results of propagandized hysteria! For mine that nuclear power is thorium given the extreme difficulty of weaponizing it. And the fact if burnt in a properly designed MSR, it not only creates little comparative far less toxic waste but that waste may have a half-life of around 300 years. Moreover, this type of reactor cannot melt down nor can it repeat the problems of Chernobyl. Furthermore, it can be used to reprocess then burn other folks nuclear waste. Until every last erg of available energy has been squeezed from what really is unspent fuel. Finally, these reactors can burn weapons-grade plutonium, and can be modulized inside shipping container sized spaces then trucked where we want! Given they don't need water as a coolant nor as steam for the turbines. The only thing really preventing essential R+D is government rules and regulations, without which we could start a modest but important research facility. And with ready willing and able, private non-government money. Ministers and the PM say they're technology agnostic but do nothing to remove the considerable government created/imposed restraints on still forbidden research! Alan B. P.S. There were paragraphs in the completed comment before I hit the post comment button!

When it comes to nuclear power we should opt for thorium for several important reasons. One of which is the sale of for peaceful purpose nuclear power to countries with existing nuclear power stations and the fact we own so much of the world's reserves. Another is the annual billions we can make using MSR's to reprocess and burn then burn again, other folks nuclear waste and in complete safety! N0 QUESTION! As others have noted, there are hundreds of conventional waste creating nuclear reactors in use around the world and all of them creating significant levels of waste. Why? because they rely on fuel fabrication as solid fuel pellets. And the shortcomings of the dated and found wanting technology is the waste and weapons-grade plutonium it creates! Whereas the MSR thorium reactor can and should burn this waste, where inside said MSR, it is just unspent fuel we could burn for up to 400 years as free fuel others pay us annual billions to safely dispose of! AND YES WE CAN! Alan B.

Burn waste for 400 years? Well, not inside a single reactor but at least a dozen and then their at least 8 generations of replacements. Given fluoride is an extremely poor absorber of donated neutrons! Decommissioning a properly drained MSR does not present any real challenges. And can be safely confined inside solid concrete and deep underground in say, any disused, elevated hard rock mine or purpose-built tunnel! And just as safe as the dead sea scrolls of antiquity! Alan B.