The best insight into the feeble "greenpeace" collective whit is provided by the sentence;

"In the event of a nuclear accident the costs are usually borne by others, often individuals who lose their livelihood and or their health".

Note how it starts in the conditional sense, the (remote)possibility of a nuclear accident, shifts to a generalised statement of presumed fact like, "costs are usually borne by others", and finishes with implied specific facts like "individuals lose their livelihoods and their health", all within a single sentence.

Eco-bimbos have minds that routinely fuse hypothetical possibilities with actual recorded facts, treating them all as equally validated certainties. And the rest of the article is no exception.

The investment funds that might flow into "alternate energy", if the entire engineering/science community took a long Prozac holiday, morphs into an actual flow of investment that the nuclear industry will then capture.

The fact is, the investment sector has a long and justified distrust of people who merge imagined potential with recorded results. And they avoid them, as they have done to date with "blow job energy". There is, in contrast, an existing and potential supply of investment funds for nuclear energy. So the notion that this money would be switched from the alternate sector is pure fantasy.

Sylvia is spot on with her point about the discounted cost of storage. Even at 7% interest per annum, the net present value (NPV)of a dollar per year for 50 years is only $13.80 while the NPV over 60 years is still only $14.04. The extra decade of 1 dollar outlays can be paid for today with only 24 cents while the price for additional decades in perpetuity becomes infinitely smaller and smaller.

So any price charged for that service that is over and above that multiple is ALL PROFIT. And only greenfarce appears yet to learn that things rarely get done at all unless they can be done for a profit. Australia can manage this problem better than anyone else so our profit begins long before other nations costs are covered. Hello?

We will all grow rich as we sit on top of an ever growing pile of radioactive waste just waiting for the inevitable leak. Our descendents will not know how to thank us.

Frankly, Sarnian, the best place for a nuke dump would be smack in the middle of Sydney. Why not Homebush Bay? There is nothing left there to kill anyway. The only problem with that site is that half the population would move out and make complete jerks of themselves all over the rest of Australia.

And to seriously suggest that there will be some sort of "nuke change", where people move from the cities to retire to a townhouse overlooking the nuke dump in the central desert is testimony to your grasp of reality.

Get this clear, SOLIDS DON'T LEAK! If the stuff is down a shaft in solid rock and the annual rainfall is only 100mm then the incidence of percolation of even 1mm below a depth of 1 metre is effectively zero. And if the shaft is sealed then it will need someone to go right out of their way, with some very conspicuous, noisy and expensive equipment, to get radiated. Ditto for theft.

It is an absolute disgrace the way you and your kind seek to imply that nuclear waste storage would be similar to an urban rubbish tip located in the Great Artesian Basin.

“Abstractions

CONTEXT: ...an international team of researchers extracted 400 metres of sediment core from the Arctic sea floor. It was a technical achievement that many thought impossible. The team...
Nature 441, xi-xi (01 Jun 2006)
Full Text | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link “

According to researchers, about 55 million years ago the Earth did a gigantic fart – of greenhouse gases – into the atmosphere, pushing the planet’s temperature up by 5C.

Nature reports of excavating an Arctic core that one explained the Arctic transformation from greenhouse to ice house.

These conclusions support ideas of “The X-Challenge” and nukes as a reliable source of energy:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/302957/

Proponents of nuclear power say that the benefits of nuclear power are no production of Carbon dioxide. This is completely untrue, fossil fuels,oil in the form of gasoline and diesel, are essential to every stage of the nuclear cycle.
All of the material moved, is moved by truck. These trucks run on diesel.
increase the number of nuclear power stations, you need increases in the number of trucks. The tires on these trucks are energy-intensive.
Ore is trucked to a mill.
Ore is washed and neutralized,the slurry is pumped to the tailings ponds. With diesels powered machinery.
The yellowcake is roasted at 800°C in an oil-fired furnace.
next stage is dissolving the Uranium oxide in Hydrofluoric Acid to form Uranium hex fluoride gas:
The Uranium hex fluoride is then transported in cylinders to be enriched.
enriched Uranium hex fluoride gas is transported to the fuel fabrication plant.
gas is converted to Uranium dioxide powder, pressed into pellets, and baked in an oil-fired furnace to form a ceramic material, then loaded into a tube made of zirconium alloy. Zirconium is a metallic element derived from zircon, ore of Zirconium silicate, which is a by-product of rutile sand mining(energy intensive).Zirconium is always found with Hafnium, which has to be removed for nuclear uses.
For every ton of Uranium in the fuel, 2 tons of Zirconium alloy are needed.
fuel assemblies are then transported to the reactor by truck or train.
The reactor does not produce any CO2. But it does use electricity, and that electricity is largely produced by fossil fuels. It takes a lot of steel to build a nuclear power station.
Nuclear power stations use concrete, made from cement. Cement is CO2-intensive.
Reactor waste moved by road and rail.
Recovered Plutonium is sent by road.
Every step of nuclear power involves expenditure of energy from fossil fuels, which nuclear electricity cannot replace. Thus it is untrue to say that nuclear energy is greenhouse friendly.

The process of nuclear power produces greenhouse gasses. Currently, the generation of power with high grade uranium suppies produces negligable greenhouse gasses compared to coal power stations.

The other myth, however, is the abundance of high grade uranium. This is simply untrue. Once we run out, then we have to use low grade uranium, and that produces as much greenhouse emissions as coal does.

Using Finland and other countries not at war is irrelevant in context. Australia is offially at war in the alliance of the willing. So anything Australia does with nuclear power is internationally scrutinised closely by the United Nations, the same as other countries at war. Nuclear power stations are also a target.

The debate on uranium should continue. I hope I don't bore some of you by quoting Sir Mark Oliphant again: that we should not underestimate the "hot rocks" north of Port Augusta. Hot is good for energy. There are many kinds of power we could be generating in Australia. We could even enter an agreement to have thermal power imported from New Zealand, if we had our common market with them. Iceland has converted thermal power to hydrogen power. We are on the wrong continent to do this, but in the right region. Indonesia could have joint projects: better than nuclear power. Similarly we could generate thermal power in parts of New Guinea, but we would need a trade agreement. Then there is tidal power in WA.

One quick fix is not the answer. Nuclear trade with the US is not the answer either, as we always we end up with a lousy deal. They will send their waste, and their rubbish, for the priveledge of disappointing us. Canada tried to warn John Howard.

Will we learn with the savvy Canadians for fusion power? We could listen to their wisdom first, that would be a start. Fusion power will take time. But what do we do in the meantime?