Not quite, Seeker.

Electricity generation from nuclear fusion has been only 20 years away from commerialisation for the last 40 years and may remain so indefinitely.

It is possible that, sooner or later, a tokamac design will be developed that generates more energy than it consumes. However according to an assessment that appeared in March in the prestigious journal, Science, reported at http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/nuclear/dn8827-no-future-for-fusion-power-says-top-scientist.html "Even nuclear fusion’s staunchest advocates admit a power-producing fusion plant is still decades away at best, despite forty years of hard work and well over $20 billion spent on the research".

The report adds that Miklos Porkolab, director of the Plasma Fusion Center at MIT, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, "concedes that a functioning power-producing fusion reactor is probably 50 years off, and that is too far in the future for any reasonable conclusions to be drawn on its economic viability. 'It depends on what the price of oil is going to be 50 years from now,' he says."

I am less pessimistic than ChrisC about solving the engineering problems of disposing of nuclear waste, but political problems are another matter entirely. Preliminary work began on the Yucca Mountain waste facility in Nevada 28 years ago and it is still not functional (current target date is now 2020).

In a new twist introduced by the War on Terror, activists opposed to Yucca Mountain are fanning concerns that trains carrying waste to the site may be attacked by terrorists and the nuclear material stolen or released.

Meanwhile America's existing reactors are producing 2,000 tons a year of waste, stored in dozens of sites all over the US. Ironically, China is perhaps the only nuclear power with capability to get a secure waste storage facility operating quickly PROVIDED it chooses to do so. The government has capability to quell popular dissent and bypass the political problems that democratic countries face.

There has been a belief well back in history, that there is an advanced guard, earlier more spiritual, but in our modern times, much more intellectual. These individuals are never very popular with the ruling caste, especially a conservative government which abhors any notion that such a government is doing the wrong thing, especially if they are likely to lose votes through it.

A serious problem with the Avant Garde getting a message to the public, is that in today's Avant Garde there are so many who are over reckless, in other words looking like the typical hangers-on, only in it for the excitement, or just getting a kick out of changing the world.

Unfortunately, as we even note from our more conservative Onliners, how they are now adding cheer to a government that
is now virtually accepting the Kyoto backed argument about global warming. etc, but entering the fray with fanciful modications, which though getting an already dumbed down public in, the argument from whom we might call the ever-couragous Avant Garde, is still there, honest, truthful and all.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Last Update: Saturday, April 8, 2006. 10:44am (AEST)
Private sector considers building SA nuclear plant
As the debate over uranium exports continues, plans have been floated for the development of a nuclear power plant in South Australia.

[see ABC site local news section]

The report that aggie refers to is at http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1611696.htm

Nobody has expressed serious interest in progressing this. According to a separate report at http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/olympic-gold-silver-copper-and-uranium/2006/04/07/1143916716521.html the Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine now owned by BHP consumes 10% of South Australia's entire base load electricity production. There are expansion plans that would quadruple that consumption, so before it even leaves the mine, uranium is responsible for squirting a hefty dose of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (not to mention the mine's appetite for diesel fuel for trucks and mobile machinery).

The additional electricity required by mine expansion could be perhaps met by a nuclear plant. There is another consideration as well. There is insufficient water available at Olympic Dam to support planned mine expansion. A $700 million desalination plant is being discussed. This will also require a large supply of electricity.

Even if a nuclear plant were to prove economically feasible, whether the political problems can be overcome is another story.

Incidentally anyone who thinks that nuclear power is pollution-free, has failed to account for energy used to construct mines and power plants, extract and refine uranium, dispose of nuclear waste securely and eventually dismantle and dispose of the plants themselves.

Since we have yet to see this life cycle completed anywhere in the world, we have yet to know how polluting nuclear energy really is.

Technology is always evolving: As you can see here: http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=2116
It would be better to be well informed of the benefits and in the longer term, drastic reductions in fuel burning. The waste generated is over a period of time, and it is not that great in volume.
I would not think it is the be all and end all, but until future break through in the Plasma fusion reactors, and the harnessing and development of electro magnetic technologies, until then, there is no point in peddling backwards.

The simples and easiest way to understand the disposal method is here:
http://www.nei.org/documents/Safely_Managing_Used_Nuclear_Fuel_Part1.pdf
http://www.nei.org/documents/Safely_Managing_Used_Nuclear_Fuel_Part2.pdf

Sorry the Greens are near pathetic Luddites on a mission only they could describe, encased in Pseudo science and babble.
Having a degree in Physics , you would well be aware of that already Chris.

Gusi speaks the truth on this. Where is the hurry?

The uranium will go up in value after all, and Australians are relatively well off at the moment. It seems the equivalent of selling stocks just as they begin to rise in value.

Moving from the financial side of it - to the global politics. Is this truly the best time to sell, or be seen selling uranium? With a breakdown of the non-proliferation regime occuring in India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and (possibly) with the US-India deal. Why pour oil on the fire?