Because people fear what they don't understand spindoc.

Welcome to OLO!

Of course, there are issues ... and IMO, Oz probably doesn't need nuclear power - yet (because of these other issues). Other countries do.

As for the older style nuke sites, yes - Foxy is right. However, 4th generation nuclear power is one solution (out of a mix) that must be considered.

The price of electricity will rise until we accept the nuclear alternative IMHO.

That a given StG.

Cost of nuclear is not cheap either - people are doing the maths on all the alternatives.

Good points Q&A, As to cost of Nuclear v.s. others, the recent European costing done by the Internation Energy Commission shows that Gas is the cheapest (but still a fossil fuel), Nuclear comes out way ahead as cheaper than all the rest when everything is factored in. Also, if we are thinking of saving carbon emissions, only 35 to 40 of carbon emissions are related to power generation the rest is mobile transport fuel emissions. It seems that only nuclear can generate hydrogen in commercial quantities to eliminate the other emissions. It Seems that much of the info. is not getting to the public, hence my original query as to where the public opinion debate is at.

It appears that several nations regard nuke reactors as the clean energy of the future. That may be so for the countries which do not mine uranium and therein lies the difference.

Should Australia go down that path, significant uranium tenements in WA and Queensland would commence operations. The industry is peppered with serious leaks, spills, accidents and cover-ups not least in 2007 where workers at ERA were supplied with drinking and bathing water, 400 times in excess of the “safe” limit.

The lag time between exposure to uranium and the relevant health symptoms is lengthy, therefore difficult to prove - fortunately for the uranium operators!

Tailings dams must be monitored for perpetuity which hasn’t always happened in Australia where the Yeleerie project in WA was abandoned and left accessible to wildlife and bush walkers. I’m reminded of a friend who advised me that he had swum in an on-site pond there though sadly he is no longer here to elaborate.

One of the globe's biggest polluters and wasters of water, BHP Billiton, has been exempted from legislative and environmental responsibility (Indenture Act 1982), This single company takes 35 million litres a day from the fragile Great Artesian Basin – free of charge for 70 years.

As for the rumour that reactors are cheap spare a thought for the Brits and their aging reactors. These reactors currently supply only 20 percent of Britain's electricity. But as they age, all but one of the country's 19 reactors will have to be taken out of commission by 2023.

The cost of decommissioning ageing UK nuclear plants has risen by £12 billion to £73 billion since 2005 according to their National Audit Office.

The wind energy generation capacity in the US is now 16818 MW and is generating an estimated 48 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of wind energy, powering the equivalent of over 4.5 million homes.

This is not significant for the American population, however, it would be significant for the Australian population.

Alas not if the AGW sceptics aka our nuclear proponents have their way.

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

I don't think the International Energy Commission would take kindly to their comprehensive report on energy costings being described at "rumour" Dickie. And yes the UK Gov. are decommissioning some of their generation one reactors and yes, some of their generation two reactor are scheduled for decom, by 2020 something, and yes the decom costs have blown out however, even with all those costs factored in the IEC still shows nuclear as cheaper than both coal and renewables.

Perhaps you could suggest how we might remove the carbon costs of transport (60%-65% of current emissions) without the commercial quantities of hydrogen that nuclear energy can also provide?