The only reason we are talking about this damn issue is because Johnny H was feeling the heat a touch in relation to IR and decided to throw something up to take some of our attention. Mission accomplished.

After years of ignoring Kyoto and barely forcing any industry restructuring or wholescale development of the nations public transport, we are to believe that now Johnny cares about the fact that the world is melting? Please. Or perhaps it could be that we have one of the worlds largest natural supply of the stuff these nuclear plants use - and who cares about the implications, as long as we have a coalition government running our deceivingly 'strong' economy.

Hi all
First post here I need help from you on this Could all of you in this thread that have posted views on Nuc power click on the link below and provide some feedback, WHO has got this thing and why have we not read anything about it at least myself including my circle have not
Regards
Chris
Here is the link http://www.savoiapower.com/nuclear.html

Small PWRs have a long history powering submarines. If concrete is the shielding material, inevitably thousands of tonnes of it are used, so small power output doesn't mean small size. I suspect in submarines more expensive materials that allow thinner, still effective shields, and reactor masses on the order of 400 tonnes, are used.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

CHRISTO,
I see your point mate, the major problem for Australia that I see is this WATER needed, on the dryest continent on Earth.

Hi Shonga
Besides the water issue the more burning question is WHERE is this thing going The interested public in Australia are aware of the Lucas Heights facility But no where else Furthermore I understood that we had a NO nuclear reactors position in this country therefore the debate I have yet to find out where is this reactor is going to go and be installed I am not giving up until I do so any help on that would be welcome
Cheers
Christo

Christo,
The main factor is that the globe has 25 years of uranium left, which means to me, that the cost of building nuclear power stations, which would take at least two years to construct would mean 20 years of power for the huge expense of construction, plus the risk of another Chernobly. In my humble opinion solar, hydro, wind and other sustainable power is the best option, not only for safety, but for renewable energy, details already available on the C.S.I.R.O. website.

To me it just makes sense to have water, sunlight, and wind power which won't polute the asmosphere produce the electricity we need, it may not suit the people who want to make money from the exercise, however in my view it is the most practical option for the continuation of humanity.