Examinator,

The waste issue is not as indefinite as you imply.

The spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive to begin with, but as the worst isotopes decay this reduces radically. i.e. after 40 years, the levels are 1000th of those on removal.

If waste is reprocessed, the final product will reduce in radioactivity levels to the same orders of magnitude as the original uranium bearing rock within 1000 years.

Although these are long time periods, they are manageable.
This waste is usually glassified into a non soluable non reactive form (i.e. cannot affect ground water), and after 1000 years can be either be reused or disposed of in less high security areas.

Basic information can be found here:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

Likewise decommissioned reactors with no fuel have medium levels of radio activity, but due the shorter half life, reduces to safe levels within 100 years.

SM,
AS i understand the issues involved as at now synrock and glassification has both limitation and as yet it isn't perfected.
But that aside.
The real topic is an objective assessment of all options is what I am after.
So far all we've gotten is a corporate perspective which as you have pointed out serves their interests that is not necessarily in the best interests of Australia.
I have said already it seems based on my reading the best alternative may be decentralised, distributed power generation utillizing a range of actions and methodology, other that the big business model from the C19th.

Examinator,

Fair enough.

I strongly believe that action needs to be taken to reduce the GHG emissions and I have never claimed that nuclear is the only solution. Renewables can make a significant contribution, but this contribution will reach a ceiling of between 20% and 40% unless they can provide base load which presently neither wind nor solar can at anywhere near reasonable costs. (Molten salt is possible but presently prohibitively expensive)

The only renewable technology that can provide continuous power is the hot rocks being worked on in South Australia. However, even if a functioning plant can be built, there are several logistical issue that could render it still borne.

The highest on the list is its need for vast quantities of fresh water to make up the losses in the rock fractures of about 15% per cycle. The next is the small scale of the generation, presently 5MW per site, which means high capital costs per site and for reticulation.

These are not just "technical" problems that can be solved by a couple of brilliant engineers, but are inherent.

This means that we can meet the 20% 2020 targets with considerable effort and expenditure, but at that point will start hitting a glass ceiling.

Once we get past the "chicken little" approach of the anti nuke protesters, we could conceiveably reduce GHG emmissions by 90% by 2050 by using a combined approach.

Using renewables only, we are unlikely to pass 30%.

SM,
Thank you
I agree that the "chicken little approach" is less than helpful.
The problem as I see is two fold the discussions thus far are clearly two ideological groups firing artillery from their respective trenches.

Secondly the political PARTIES are adopting the easier political flawed route of allowing self serving corporations to dictate the terms. The result is a theoretical biased discussion. Disturbingly "he who has the clout does the planing and dominates" the discussion.
Regardless of the overall good this is the basis of the magic pudding syndrome.

In my mind I wonder if say the govt were to mandate/encourage alternative like they do with roof insulation smoke detectors etc whether that mightn't reduce the base load.

I am aware of what base load is etc. Blue sky with me for a moment: if we were to all or most of us to have vertical column wind turbines and solar panels. This would stimulate a huge market therefore manufacturing jobs and cheaper appliances. If we were to add to that A mix of all the other alternative methods of generation. I would suggest that with natural gas generation there would be less need for nuclear perhaps two maybe three would suffice.
Clearly there would be local variations to the mix of generation.

Ultimately I believe our governments needs to accept the responsibility of planning grid structures and the specific needs and then decide what parts go commercial what co-operative or govt owned.
Logically until the structure is defined how can one cost it?
Along with logical inanity "big is always better" mentality, "extreme generalities" (over (ab)use of statistics) and the irrationality of "corporate is always best" is their any wonder were in the mess we are.
If one ran/planed a company using the same criteria we would either go broke or be hounded out of office.

Examinator

SM claims: “Once we get past the "chicken little" approach of the anti nuke protesters, we could conceiveably (sic) reduce GHG emmissions (sic) by 90% by 2050 by using a combined approach. “

Meanwhile, Switkowski who headed the Uranium, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review claimed that “deployment of nuclear power could see 25 reactors producing about a third of the nation’s electricity by 2050.” Twenty five nuclear reactors operating by 2050? Ahem! (SM will be miffed to discover that I don’t have a need to “cut and paste” since I have the manual – all 288 pages.)

Dr Ben McNeil, a Lecturer and Research Fellow at the Climate & Environmental Dynamics Laboratory at the University of New South Wales has found several flaws in the Switkowski review:

“The EPRI also found that nuclear energy in Australia would be 10-15% higher than the US, given ‘Australia has no nuclear power experience, nor physical or regulatory infrastructure’.Despite these EPRI findings, the Switkowksi review reports costs for Australian nuclear energy to be 35-50% lower, concluding: ‘For settled down costs and moderate commercial risk akin to other baseload investment, nuclear power could fall within the cost range of A$40- 65/MWh.’

"These Switkowski review cost estimates were on the lower end of the spectrum, despite Australia having a non-existent nuclear industry and regulatory environment and no skilled experience in nuclear construction. Nor did the Switkowski review report on the recent experience of nuclear energy economics in similar markets to Australia. So it is important to question the viability of those particularly optimistic cost estimates:”

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/publications/McNeil.JAPE.pdf

Well worth the download here: "The Nuclear Illusion,” Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheik:

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf

In addition, SM’s glowing report on glassification (sic) does not apply to the vitrification process for immobilising hazardous waste, Synroc , invented in Australia in 1978, which until 2005, had not secured a commercial contract anywhere in the world.

In April 2005, Synroc was selected for a multi-million dollar "demonstration" contract to eliminate five tonnes of plutonium-contaminated waste at British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield plant, in the UK. I’m unaware of the outcome if any.

Well done Protagorass.

Once again your inability to read /understand what I wrote has got you tilting at windmills again. What does conceivable mean, or combined approach? I did not mean that it was in any way likely.

Considering that the French built nuclear reactors to supply 70% of their electrical generation in about 20 years, it is entirely possible. (total now is 58 reactors in about 30 years) so yes 25 reactors is more than possible in 40 years.

That they reduced the cost by building standardised plants was a huge improvement over the US model.

They are presently generating electricity in the region of A$50 per MWhr including all capital and waste handling costs and has nearly the lowest cost of electricity in Europe. The EPRI estimate would put the cost at $50 to $75 per MWhr

Considering that renewable presently is in the region of $130 -$200 this is not bad (about 1/3rd)

I am sure that Dr Ben McNeil, a Lecturer and Research Fellow at the Climate & Environmental Dynamics Laboratory is the correct person to comment on the nuclear energy report. Is it possible he might have his own agenda? Ya think?

The cookie cutter approach using French designed plants would rely on local expertise for the civil and piping contruction with French reactors installed. No one would seriously consider designing reactors here. Australia has as much nuclear experience as the Amish have electronic experience due to our heads in the sand policy.