It would appear that West and others are not aware that coal fired power
stations are more radio active than nuclear power stations.
Slag ash heaps are too radio active to allow people to spend much time
on them.
Yes nuclear power is safe despite the panic shown by many.
Storage is quite safe and it is not needed for the 100,000 years as
many people claim.

For everyone to be able to live without the grid is a pipe dream that
will never come to pass. There is just not enough materials and people
to do the job.
The alternative is to freeze in the dark.

There is no such thing as safe containment of nuclear waste and there is no such thing as a clean nuclear power station.It is a myth that nuclear energy is a clean energy. It is the very reason why nuclear power stations are placed in poor communinities because poor children are expendable.
I certainly would never invest in an insurance company which is incompetent enough to insure a nuclear reactor and obviously I would never vote for a government so gullible as to entertain such out dated nonesense as nuclear energy.
There is no such thing as efficient, safe or cheap nuclear energy. Since the early 1980's there is no such thing as resource sustainbability when it comes to nuclear energy.You will still need 20 years of coal burning to get the station running, by then there will be no uranium of usable quality.
Uranium gained its radioactivity from absorbing radiation from the sun. If a civilisation hasnt got what it takes to harness solar radiation it certainly is not capable of managing nuclear energy.
Atmospheric nuclear testing in the 50's and 60's has raised background levels of radiation to the brink of high risk. Can we as a species afford a few nuclear accidents to tip us over the edge?

Boring Bazz,

Reducing consumption might be the first thing to try before any expensive, risky and socially divisive mega-infracture.

We already have fantastic renewable technologies. We know how to insulate buildings and our energy storage capacity is outstanding already, and we haven't even really started trying.

We not put our brains to work on clean, safe and socially cohesive engineering strategies, or is that too pinko marxist for you neuclear boffins?

Thats right accent, whatever we do we need to reduce consumption.
A lot of people are totally unable to accept maybe after all this time
that nuclear power stations can be made safe. Just because the dopey
Russians were too pig headed to take advice we are paying the price now.

I wonder how many of you will start clamouring for electricity when the lights go out ?
Just understand this, it is not possible for everyone to have solar and wind mills for electricity.
Think what that word everyone means.

What is the worst thing that can possibly go wrong at a coal-fired power station? Compare that scenario with the worst possible accident at a nuclear power plant. They are not even in the same league.

While there have only been two major incidents, three mile island and chernobyl, I do not dbout that there have been many more minor incidents that have been covered up.

I understand that a reactor cannot explode in the same manner a a nuclear bomb and, on the surface at least, the safety record appears very good overall, but I have my concerns.

We cannot just put them out in the desert as they require both cooling water and reasonably close access to the grid. For this reason, they must be built close to populated areas. They may not release CO2 but the by product of fission is among the deadliest of substances, impossible to neutralise and great for making bombs.

India has expressed interest in sending it's nuclear waste to Australia for storage. If nuclear waste is so safe and non-prblematical, why is one of the worlds poorest countries prepared to part with what little money it has for us to take it away for them?

Surely there are better alternatives. Nuclear power is a bit too dodgey for my liking.

Government-paid nuclear physicists are paid from petroleum and
natural gas tax revenue and can't entirely avoid
having this colour their thinking. The idea of enriching Australia's
uranium in Australia before sending it abroad seems to excite them.

But Australia is free to choose power stations of types
that burn unenriched uranium, e.g. the CANDU type that is
providing half the power to my computer as I write this;
so the absence of a domestic enrichment industry is no obstacle
to Australia's going nuclear for its own power.

"Process returned rods to reuce radioactivity and volume" --
the bad news is, returned rods' radioactivity can't be reduced
by anything but time. In early decades there is always the chance
that spent nuclear fuel will harm someone in a way
analogous to how hydrocarbon burners' spent hydrocarbons,
aka carbon dioxide and monoxide, harm people.

The good news is, it doesn't appear ever to have happened.
Spent nuclear fuel doesn't seem ever to have hurt anyone.
On top of that, uranium costs one dollar for every
~100 dollars oil suppliers and government cheque-cashers --
remember, petroleum is heavily taxed -- would have got
if oil had been burned instead.

"It is true that there is only 40 years of uranium IF all power was
generated from uranium"-- it definitely is NOT true.
No-one who understands uranium geology and markets
believes that uranium will be a limiting factor
in nuclear power expansion in this millennium.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html :
Burn boron in pure oxygen for vehicle power</a>