Protagoras,
SM is using standard POLITICAL diversionary tactics,
> answering the question he want to answer
> dismiss anything he has issues with as irrelevant
> Ignore what is actually asked.
> Impugn the motives of the questioner.

NB I said >> By no mean am I wedded to a 'Not in my world' view. All I ask is less self serving spin and wiggle proof solutions to a few basic issues.<< he also ignore other clear statements, indirectly accusing me of obfuscation and fear....
I did question some statement he made, but ignore the request for clarification.

The next tactic is to huff it. watch.

Protagoras
“Uranium miners, in the 21st century cannot be trusted.”
“Regulators are incompetent.”
“I do not scare the people for I am merely the messenger.”

You sound more like a pocket Robespierre than any messenger
Which does not induce me to believe you

But even if you happened to be right

Maybe you will attempt to rectify all the ills of the world.

So I am sure you will be right up and on the front line -
when the cynical inherit the earth…

which will be after the meek have finished with it

and the meek are not going to be running anything any time soon.

In the mean time, real people dealing with the issues of their lives will decide –
through promoting a more libertarian government

than the current swill (unfortunately not before the socialists have run up a debt for our grandchildren to finish paying off)

Fact is we are mining more uranium.
And selling more to more country's.
Even if we do not use it more of the world will than will not.
No party, other than the greens, can forever say the rest of the world got it wrong we will not use it.
We will use it Rudd is the man who will introduce it, in his next term or the one after.
rechtub, regards bloke, in a friendly way not sneering at you just pulling your chain, your pain is not stopping Rudd's third term.
Still think Mrs Turnbull is a chance at leading your mob, her husband is not the one thats for sure.
Greens? well every day they make statements like todays about he 50 billion gas sales .
I just can not agree with the radical actions they put in front of nation.

Did you see lateline last night and the argument by Garrett?
He raised some valid points about gas and even alluded to the cost of support to set up Nuclear power. But he made a clear point about waste storage and the inherent danger of it.
Belly you might be wise to to research the 'hidden' costs and risks of Nuclear anything.
NB we don't have any effective method of cleaning up after a spill or the site. And we don't have a foolproof way of waste storage either high or low level waste. In short Nuclear is effectively for ever.
All other sources allow technical/chemical/mechanical solutions, for the inevitable Whoops some where in the chain, from the ground and back.
I'm not against just unconvinced. Risk management logic suggests that with 2 of the 3 elements currently unsolvable look for alternatives.
'she'll be right attitude' with permanent issues is simply one risk too many.

Examinator et al,

You have yet to answer or respond to the issues I raised. I have given answers to the issues you raised, probably not in the format you would have liked, as due to the word limits I can’t address everything you raised from past generations with 20/20 hindsight.

The topic is about whether Australia should proceed and build modern nuclear reactors and waste handling systems. The Gen III reactors resemble the Gen I (Chernobyl) reactors in the way that modern 747s resemble the Kitty Hawk.

Anyone familiar with process control understands the difference between passive safety and active safety, but for the layman I should give a brief description:

Actively safe requires action to be taken to render something safe.

Passively safe means that in the absence of any action, the system reverts to the safe state. This is the holy grail of safety engineering, and normally requires fundamental changes in design concepts.

Gen I and Gen II reactors are actively safe, but the new Gen III reactors are passively safe. This means that failure can only occur if deliberate action is taken to over ride the triple redundant controls and force the reactor into an unsafe state. In spite of that, the containment vessels are so strong that they could contain a massive blast with little to no leakage. Also the handling of the coolant is such that escape to the atmosphere or ground water is nearly impossible.

The next issue is that of waste handling, reduction and storage.

Reprocessing is performed safely in France and Japan and not only vastly reduces the quantity and radioactivity of waste, and extracts useable fuel (reducing the need for mining), but has been restricted in the US largely because of the extraction of weapons grade plutonium.

To this end, it is generally agreed that reprocessing and storage should be federally controlled and managed, and a tax of 0.2c a kWhr should be sufficient to cover the decommissioning, and waste handling for the life span of a reactor. This should cover the responsibility issue you raised earlier.

Shadow Minister,
Thank you for your response.
And yes I am aware of the differences between active and passive and that gen 3 is better than preceding generations etc. These were givens. Chernobyl and airlines are relevant only as examples of the human element in "mass" thinking.

What seems to have been misunderstood was the point of asking the questions I did was NOT so much to decry nuclear as a source of power generation. Rather to set the ground work for the NEED for an objective(as opposed to a balanced discussion [read polarised opposing ideological rants]) discussion on all the options.

To do this I needed to get past the notion that Nuclear option was infallible and therefore nothing else needs consideration.

re your tax solution. if the reactor has a finite life it therefore has a finite ability to raise the funds for remediation,the site, indefinite security for both the site and storage of waste without also mining the public purse.

Rationally when assessing the risk and cost of any solution potentially one with a indefinite period of risk, one objectively should cost and assess all associated risks from the ground to the ground.

It is now apparent that the problem with the Capitalist(corporate) model is that it doesn't cost or assess the associate cost inputs (magic pudding mentality). These unassessed/uncosted consequences are the primary reason for the need for this evaluation.

Therefore if we were to assess the costs/risks all the issues reflecting to AUSTRALIA for both Nuclear and (as I favour) a decentralised mix of gas and renewable then compare them without preconceptions I am currently unconvinced that the latter wouldn't be a better option...
Thus far costings tend to be non-specific and theoretical.

I think it's time we seriously and critically examine the C19 model that big/centralised is best , before we go down that route now!I point to the inflexibility of GM/Ford and as sites as points of catastrophic single point failure.
NB the IT industry and how decentralised processing has arisen. and the principals maybe apposite as a model for power generation.