Ther are some points that will remove some objections to nuclaear power.

If Australia set up an enrichment plant to process Australian yellow
cake then the uraniun rods for power reactors could be leased instead of being sold.
You don't get more rods unless you return the depleted ones.
That prevents customers using Australian uranium for weapons.

A friend of mine spent almost all his life in the nuclear industry.
He was at a conference at the International Atomic Energy Commission in
Vienna in 1956 when the Russians described their new power reactors.

It was pointed out to the Russians that there was a flaw in the design
that could lead to a meltdown. That flaw was exactly what happened at Chernobyl.

My friend tells me that there are processes that will extend the life
of uranium far beyond what is generally accepted.
He was not talking about breeder reactors. His explanation was over
my head.

I am fully in agreement with Haydon Manning the times is about right for the commencement of a nuclear power generation industry in Australia. Indeed looking at developments world wide it can be claimed that Australia is lagging behind about thirty other countries in this area.

The recent report by Dr. Switkowski is one among several documents that describes the health and safety record of the nuclear industry. Table 6.1 states the number of accidents and direct fatalities in several industries. Results are expressed as fatalities per GWe/y.

Wind farms are quoted as having an accident and fatality rate. I wonder if Dr. Diesendorf could help in expressing wind fatalities in terms of GWe/y.

Health and safety is clearly a potent argument in favour of the nuclear power industry. The nuclear opponents are challenged to make it clear why they are at variance with the bulk of medical and scientific literature on this subject?

I will just say a few words about weapon proliferation. Much of the details on weapons are of course not in the public domain. However, a useful source of public information is:

http://www.milnet.com/nuclear.htm

It seems that weapons grade plutonium is best obtained from a dedicated military or research reactor.

Press reports indicate that Iran is going down the enrichment path. Iran is always a few years off a bomb from an ever advancing start time. It can not be easy to run 3000 centrifuges continuously in a dust free vacuum environment. The rate of production of bomb grade U-235 is slow and quantities small.

Technically a U-235 bomb appears to be easier to assemble then a Pu-239 weapon.

My own view is that this subject is for specialists. Proliferation is controlled by International agreement and overseen by the IAEA. A civil Australian nuclear industry will have no relevance to undesirable military activities in other countries.

No mention of nuclear waste, or that the biggest impediment of nuclear power is money. Its just not economic, not unless the government intervenes and guarantees electricity price AND accepts insurance liability, cos no insurer with a clue will insure nuclear reactors, thats how bad their safety record is.

Never mind, I'm sure Liberal Party will offer up taxpayers money to support his mining-share-owning mates/supporters, ala "clean coal" subsidies, the special status of aluminium smelters for carbon trading, & BHPs free millions litres water/day from artesian basin.

Even assuming we're willing to take the nuke industries renewed but oh so familiar "safe as houses" promises, theres still no solutions to waste or economic problems, or weapons proliferation issues other refer to.

The current situation in regard to uranium mining in Australia is that production in 2006 was 20% down on that in 2005. This is because the Ranger mine, due to close anyway in 2008 and process the ore stocks and tailings, was flooded. But more significantly, due to lowering ore grades, the Olympic Dam underground mine production is tailing off and fell around 23% over a 12 month period. This can be confirmed by reference to the BHP Billiton quarterly reports and UIC's Australia page (www.uic.com.au/emine.htm).

University of New South Wales ISA group has shown that the average uranium ore in Australia is 0.045% and the open question is whether mining this ore grade is economic if it is not associated with co-products. BHP Billiton's Roger Higgins thinks not and reckons that without the copper and other products "there wouldn't be a mine here" at Olympic Dam as reported by Hayden Cooper on ABC Online in November 2005 as the feasibility into an expansion as an open pit was launched (ODX).

Since then due to a global shortage, the price of uranium has soared to US$ 350/kg allowing the economic "head" ore grade cut-off at the mill to be lowered. However, in the meantime the price of net imported diesel has also risen, so that it remains to be seen whether the Australian deposits averaging 0.045% will be mined or left in the ground if there are no compensating co-products as at Olympic Dam.

Even so the ODX feasibility study will not be completed until 2009, after which there will be four years of excavation before the first kilogram of uranium is reached. BHP have other options for their capital, such as shares buy-back or investment in Alcoa. So it is somewhat premature to assume that ODX will go ahead. If in spite of the co-existence of the co-products it is dropped or postponed, it can be assumed that Australia's claim to hold 30% of the world's uranium will be invalid as with or without co-products the rising cost of imported diesel will have brought an industry to an end.

i just wish this talk would have some consequence. but it's just chatter. we won't be initiating a referendum.

power industry executives, and/or labor union officers, will have a quiet word with the pm, and the 'prudent course' will be followed. the result will be that germany of all places leads in leads in renewable technology, and oz will wait for the tooth fairy to tell it when to stop poisoning the planet on behalf of mining shareholders..

neither will this talk lead to voting for green policy. labor or liberal will harvest the vote cascade, and neither can oppose mining interests.

stalin is reputed to have said: "you can have all the elections you want, as long as i choose the candidates."

oz is not much better off. here the politician's guild chooses the candidates, and off-stage corporations choose the policies.

Engineering is an activity sustained with natural abilities and on personal technical merits mostly, of which problem solving by playing English with even demonstrated superiority in mastering senseless but grammatically correct writing helps a little.

That is why “environmentalism” is such popular among retired politicians and their junior offspring round a globe, as nuclear engineering so hostilely considered by local occupants of well paid, nothing to be responsible for positions at the universities, media and “think tanks” etc. existing to a great extent on tax payer expense heavily.

Is it in plain Aussie-English?