We should be having an open and public debate on Nuclear Power generation, without all the alarmist bullying you get when the N word is mentioned. The ALP also needs to get off the populism bandwagon as well and face the reality that if they want to do away with Coal, then Nuclear is all we have, wind and solar are not there by any means nor will they ever be able to handle 100% of the community's needs - they are a curiosity at best.

davey - you say disaster after disaster, but there are only 2 aren't there? (I could be wrong, often happens) Harrisburg and Chernobyl, Chernobyl only killed 30 odd people and Harrisburg I'm not sure - there was a lot more spin and bad publicity than substance in both of those. Yes, environmental damage, but that heals, even the reefs in the Bikini atoll used for A and H bomb tests has revived, the planet adapts, amazingly enough (we should too).

Nuclear power has come a long way, Gen III reactors operate in Japan (for instance) and produce power at around US$0.07 per KWh.

I believe the author is talking about Gen IV reactors, which are even better, they could reprocess all the existing waste from older reactors as fuel. Can existing plants be upgraded, not as far as I understand, but then for important things like infrastructure we should be doing first class and building new, not trying to upgrade older facilities built under different safety and building codes.

Don't take my word for it, go look it up "4th generation nuclear power", there's probably even a Wiki entry, for what that's worth.

What James Hansen really said to Barack and Michelle?
I agree with Hansen that a cap and trade is hopeless and we need to introduce a carbon tax as quickly and progressively as possible. I think the only reason I can see for a cap and trade is that it will not work. Where I disagree with Hansen is proposal that “the revenue raised by the carbon tax to the populace on a per capita basis”. Considering the mass unemployment we are starting to encounter, I think we should reduce all expenses on labour such as taxes on employees and compensation expenses, payroll tax on employers. This would help businesses to employ people and reduce pollution and carbon emissions also improving services especially in the health care, education and public transport. Many other fields that can be worked on would reduce emissions and improve our quality of life such as eliminating waste that is deliberately produced to increase consumption and increase profit for the wealthy. Those measures would be better and quicker than building nuclear power stations that still are using non-renewable fuels.
Tena

I've much respect for Hansen and I endorse the principle that "the polluter pays." The PP principle you will find in the preamble of every state EPA legislation in this nation. Alas it has never been enforced. That's why it's kept in the preamble which is unenforceable.

The EPA's refer to polluters as their clients. The only client the EPA's are entitled to is the environment which has been trashed by the EPA's "clients."

I too have read that some 4th generation reactors can utilise much of the radioactive waste and these may be feasible for other countries. I do not recommend them for any nation which is a large uranium miner:

http://www.jimletourneau.com/2009/01/top-uranium-producing-countries/

In fact I reiterate from another thread - uranium mining uses unacceptably large volumes of water. One mine alone, Olympic Dam, takes from the Great Artesian Basin, 35 million litres a day, free of charge for the next 70 years. Olympic Dam is the largest private user of electricity in the state of SA and that is only one miner.

Uranium mining is a large polluter in terms of radioactive emissions, water, transport, energy, leaks, spills and cover-ups.

WA and Qld are peppered with uranium tenements awaiting the green light. It was reported this week that a large Canadian consortium has their eyes on WA's uranium tenements. Unfortunately, Canadian miners are the largest polluters on the planet - not least their plundering of other nation's resources where they make a big mess and walk away.

The Howard government's Uranium and Nuclear Review's estimates for the construction of nuclear reactors in this country appear extremely dodgy if the following assessment is anywhere near accurate:

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/opeds/nuclear.costs.new.matilda.pdf

Australia has a shabby record in the history of uranium mining and additional large tracts of land will be tied up for perpetuity with tailings dams - areas which are unfit for human or animal habitation.

Some 60% of Australia's land mass is already occupied by alien livestock and the crops which feed them.

How much more of this arid and drought riddled land can we afford to donate to the big polluters?

Hansen will not be the last AGW theorist to consider Nuclear power as an option. The objections to Nuclear energy are 1960's and 1970's based. If you happen to share that perspective it is too easy to refer to commentary that supports your perspective.

This is sad because it's just as easy to obtain current "actuals" rather than dated and myth based commentary. The nuclear power industry has changed dramatically in the past 60 years, so why have the objections not changed?.

In real life as opposed to "objection land" this is what is happening.

China has ordered 100 Nuclear Power Stations from Westinghouse
415 of the 440 NPS's operating today are Gen. II or later.
Time to build is now down to 4-6 years.
It is the cheapest amortised power source
It can not only generate carbon free power, it can create a hydrogen economy to power transport free of carbon.
No spent fuel has been permanently burried, two reasons, the volume is so low after 60 years it is not an imperrative and two, Gen IV reactors are likely to re-use upto 92% of previous spent fuel.

rpg is right about a public and informed debate but given the shear volume of ancient rehtoric, maybe we have to wait until more Hansens step up to the mark?

spindoc:
You cannot say it is the cheapest. They haven't fixed the waste problems! They haven't paid for the cleanup of the mines and reactors yet, so how do you amortise the (unknown but high) cost?
Fact is, so far its like the banks: their profits are propped up by public funding, usually secret or hidden.

The new reactors show promise, but we need to see demonstrated performance in a transparent country and then get the *real* cost.
I agree we need informed decisions here. Fanboys on both sides add nothing to the debate.

Ozandy, The European, International and US Energy Commissions have 12,350 reactor years of experience and 60 years of actual energy production to come up with their figures, including decommissioning and storeage of high grade waste. Not my figures, theirs.

As I said, the objections are 60 years old. You are right to say that "fanboys" on both sides add nothing to the debate. If the debate is to progress we each might have to stop visiting sites that support our pro/against stances and start looking for the real information not someone elses article/comment.

I promise, the raw data is out there.