The reason that some nuclear power plants in Europe have had to be run at reduced capacity is that the ambient temperature is higher than they were designed for and/or rainfall lower than expected. Assuming that this is due to global warming, and that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions, it can be seen that had more nuclear power generators been built in the past, instead of coal fired generators, the problem would have been lessened. And where was the opposition to nuclear power coming from in the past? Oh, yes, I remember.

Sylvia.

Nuclear fuelled electricity generation is different from coal fuelled electricity generation in one important way. The cost of coal delivered to the power station has a major freight component - this is why in Australia the majority of our coal fired power stations are at the mine-mouth. In Queensland our coal is generally located well inland where there is very limited cooling water available - air cooling is possible, but the thermodynamics are aginst you and thermal efficiency is lower. Mine-mouth power stations may produce cheap electricity at the gate, but transmission costs to demand areas can be quite substantial.

By contrast the fuel delivered to a nuclear fuelled power station has very little freight cost. This means that the power station can be located whereever convenient - near to abundant cooling water, and near to power demand. Regional Queensland, presently power starved, could blossom with nuclear fuelled electricity available. And don't forget that the waste heat can be used for desalination as well. Suer nuclear generation has problems - let's get working on solving them!

While there is some carbon dioxide attributable to the mining and refining of uranium it is far less than that produced by burning coal. Carbon dioxide capture and storage, while theoretically possible, is yet to be demonstrated. This processing of large volumes of gas will increase the cost of coal fired electricity considerably - probably by a factor of three or four times, taking it well past the cost of nuclear fuelled electricity.

Wonder whether the powers that be (morons or not) will have sorted this out before we colonise Mars?

There is no shortage of water only of common sense. Why is there not a de-salination plant off every coastal city. Is it the bullplop of they cost to much of our taxes to run. If so why are we giving natural gas away to other countries (we as the people own it) at a low price but still make profit but cannot feed it to the de-salination plants.
The gas is already piped to the coasts so shall we use it to save ourselves from thirst or give it away at a small dollar value.
A few making money from the publics property or all of us being able to
drink water would be a lot more economically viable than it being transported to another country. And lets not give the rights away any longer to our natural resources to a private company for next to nothing then pay through the nose to get products that we already have and own.
The choice is to ,mostly ,give away our resources and pay more to get them back as something else or use them wisely ourselves to get what we need .As for nuclear power we should have four plants to start with at the four points of the compass around canberra so as to ensure total safety and then linked into the national grid . I can only guess most citizens would be happy the safety of these plants would be the first priority.

Well done Sue and Jim.

To the pro nuke fraternity the FACT is that a nuclear power plant will both use and consume, quote:
"per megawatt, 20 to 83% more (water) than for other power stations" (parliamentary research paper, 6/12/06).

And this excludes the up to 155,000,000 litres - per day - for the Olympic Dam mine alone (EIS Aug '06) in our driest state, PLUS a required 400 MW desal plant - equiv to the Hazelwood coal power plant expansion.

Don't kid ourselves or your children's future this election. Nuclear power CONTRIBUTES to greenhouse emissions, weapons, wastes and massive water use.

www.VoteNuclearFree.net

Sylvia ("had more nuclear power generators been built in the past, instead of coal fired generators, the problem would have been lessened") had more nuclear power generators been built in the past (say, by WW2) conventional bombing alone would have rendered Europe and the UK totally uninhabitable, essentially for ever.

http://www.VoteNuclearFree.net