We do need a rational discussion of nuclear energy. The USA has well over 100 reactors. They also have research reactors on most major university campuses. Has there been any issue regarding safety excepting 5 mile island?

The point that intrigues me is the proposal that providers of nuclear fuel are responsible for its safe storage (IE If Australia sells uranium it should take it back). This is why John Howard was in the US and Canada, he wants to move responsibilty for storage of waste to the uranium enrichment industry not the uranium mining industry.

It is also a fact that Australia's vast coal reserves will be used whether we have nuclear power or not. The economics unfortunately over ride any global warming fears.

ANSTO commissioned a report which it handed to federal Science Minister Julie Bishop. The report found that atomic energy was economically viable. Well, as they say in the classics, D'OH! That's not news, it's PR spin.

A report, that's not going to be released to the public, commissioned by the nation's leading pro-nuclear lobby, was always going to find nuclear power was AOK. If Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth released a pro-nuclear report THEN it would be news.

Sounds great, lets have nuclear power in Australia. Considering theres a construction time of more than 10 years, plus the associated studies and we have 15-20 years. Then the full discussion we have to have,will take a few more years. I'm surprised the slaves to anything but change, still fail to see how they're again being conned by the emperor and his new clothes.

Haven't you worked it out yet, didn't you listen to Howard say it. Alternate technologies and fuels aren't viable, because the worlds cartels can't control the economics of alternative energy, it becomes to wide spread and de-centralised.

Whilst we gain our energy from facilities that are single point controlled, oil, coal and nuclear, there will be little support for any alternative approach. Just as the elite have done in the past, they're lying again and we'll see the results in the next few years.

Supporters of nuclear, and those against alternative energies, what do you suggest we do for the next 20 years whilst they are building a nuclear power station And petro fuels continue to increase in price and scarcity.

Just like the national grid, another ploy to centralise and control energy into multinational corporate hands. Take Tasmania, the fools down their listened to the political and economic drones, now Tas has payed thousands of times more for power to be brought to the state, than it costs to produce there. Excellent logic

But I'm sure you'll only worry when the grid collapses, your lights go out and your latte goes cold. After all, they didn't lie about privatisation reducing costs to us did they, look how much charges go down after an asset is privatised.

Hey Alchy

Don't worry we have at least 100 years worth of coal, the Govt. is spending most research on coal sequestration. Nuclear is a political stunt, don't quite know why yet but Howard's a sneeky bugger.

I'm back after treatment. You ready for a debate (Grin).

And Australian taxpayers spend more money on Pen pushers and the gravy train that follows this whole debate.

Although it would provide, "Jobs for the boys".

Nuclear spent fuel in the USA languishes in over 70 stirred ponds awaiting a decision as to what to do with it finally. Recent arrivals have to be carefully placed so as not to be adjacent to the previous arrivals to avoid neutron exchange. Some of the longer term resident fuel elements are put in dry containers, adequately spaced internally so as to avoid interaction. The ponds have to be constantly stirred and cooled, so if they lose their electricity supply for a protracted period, the spent fuel elements might melt down and catch fire, contaminating the internal space inside the containment shield or the surrounding area if they are outside. It would be possible to send the dry containers to Australia in return for the earned revenue from past uranium exports.

The procrastination experienced in finding a final solution is to be deprecated. In the UK's Sellafield the external ponds are full of sludge and guano from seagulls and poor records mean that the exact contents are unknown. Tenders are out to private contractors invited to quote to clear up the mess. The first tranche of taxpayers' money to clean up the closed Magnox and research stations and the processing plant at Sellafield totals £70 billion. The sums needed to clean up the working reactors at the end of their lives is yet to be calculated, but the total bill exceeds the revenue from the generated electricity by a factor of 3 or 4.

Are the Australians really wanting to join the nuclear generation club?