Antonios, I disagree
"Of cause there are some risks, we try to minimize them but we can not return to stone age, because greens are against nuclear energy."
If we continue to rely on and use up all our non renewable resources, a return to the stone age will be almost inevitable.
Is that all right with you, just because it won't happen in your lifetime?

There is a highly emotional reaction to nuclear which is out of all proportion to the hazards.

This is similar to the visceral fear of sharks in the water, whereas drowning kills countless multitudes more.

Most of this has been dealt with in a parallel thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9290

What I see again in this thread are the same tired old myths being perpetuated:

1 - Future reactors will be built like the 1950s design chernobyl and have the same risks,
2 - Due to civil fuel rods having plutonium, reprocessing to yield weopons grade material is extremely politically sensitive. Reprocessing would reduce the volume of the high level waste by 25% and the radioactivity by up to 90%.
3 - Known reserves of low cost uranium in Gen I and II reactors would only be able to generate 100% of the world's electricity for 30 years, but existing Gen III reactors and slightly higher cost uranium would extend this to 2500 years. Gen IV and thorium would extend this to > 100 000 years.
4 - Compared to the No of people killed in the coal and gas generating cycle, nuclear has only a tiny fraction of the fatalities.
5 - Nuclear reactors take decades to build, of which most is getting political approval. Construction from start to generation is less than 5 years. Construction costs for large plants are about 60% more than for coal fired plants.
6 - Nuclear power presently costs about 2c /kWhr to generate, which while more expensive than coal is cheaper than gas and significantly cheaper than wind or solar.

Relevant reading:

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

If the existing government had the cajones to allow nuclear, the target of 30% reduction of GHG emission could be met easily without crippling the economy.

The ETS and renewable legislation is estimated to double the wholesale cost of electricity in real terms by 2015 based on the present No Nuke policy.

Grim “We need existing power supplies to create alternatives. If we wait until existing power supplies run out...
Our grandchildren are screwed.”

And

“If we continue to rely on and use up all our non renewable resources, a return to the stone age will be almost inevitable.
Is that all right with you, just because it won't happen in your lifetime?”

Ah the same economic assessment as promoted by Thomas Malthus ….

The exact same thinking which ignored the inventiveness of the individuals who developed the systems and processes which we use today….

Grim, I suggest. For the sake of your grandchildren and assuming you presently do not have children, you have an immediate vasectomy…

Speaking personally, I have every faith in the ability my children and grandchildren or their peers, to find a solution.

That solution will be sourced from the collective knowledge of humanity, which has expanded geometrically since the beginning of time.

“Optimism”: that quality which see opportunities, makes things happen and is the opposite of pessimism and “Grim”-ness.

However, in the meantime, I feel some constraint should be placed on people who recklessly breed -

So, Grim, make that "vasectomy": for the sake of your grandchildren and everyone else..

Shadow Minister,
I agree that a Chernobyl style bang is extremely unlikely however, it is over simplification of the problem to dump it all on design flaws. Incidents are inevitably comprised of the confluence of several causes. However
All the whoops generally have a common element ..the human factor. Management , Maintenance and Motivations.
whoops' can't be ruled out of any gen reactor ....good planning should acknowledge this and plan for minimisation and remediation.

From there we face two issues of data the first is the lack of "credible" in depth long term studies of the cumulative effect of the serial "low level" whoops'. Neither are there as defined epidemiological studies of the the human effect on nuclear and or the coal impact.

Management...lack of training, safety gear or on site remediation facilities etc.
maintenance … frequency , depth and availability of parts at appropriate times
Motivation … commercial imperatives to increase profits. History shows commercial imperatives are base on increasing risks..cutting costs(corners)

And there lies the crux of the issue :-
There issue is not if but when and how big the whoops will be. Given there is no remediation for radioactive pollution ground water or land. The question is location. Given our population is situated around our limited water sources, and reactors need to be close the to both (?) certainly population. The question is can we afford the risk?
Two other factors are alternatives and cost

Cost: What is not discussed are the hidden costs to commercial nuclear generation. These are usually born by the public. The necessity for these extra costs indicate that the venture isn't a stand alone economic proposition.
These costs are covered in my previous posts.

The only debatable issue is alternatives . There is clear evidence that the final solution will be in a mix of generation methods.

Thus far it is those with vested mindsets, potential and existing pecuniary interests that are arguing the case . What is needed is an objective evaluation in the long term interest of the people not businesses.

So why do we continue to mine and export urainium if nuclear power is so bad.

On the one hand we don't want to toxicate our world, but on the other hand we are happy for someone elso to do it as long as they pay us for the urainum.

I tend to agree with belly. We realy have little alternative than to go nuclear, at least until some affordable alternative is found.

Remember, we would all be burning oil on a stick for light and feeding carrier pigions so we could communicate if not for inventions in the past.

Bring it on I say. I have a large block out bush, perhaps they can lease that from me for a dump hey!

I'd say there is less uranium in the ground then there is coal.Coal/Oil are easier made by planet earth if we keep our forests.Lets get our smaller farmers back on the main river systems and produce some good organic food instead of present depleted food whilst burning coal for co2 production to feed the plants and any other life form.As far as powerstations are concerned,algae has some great benefits when it is grown near a station using its affluent/cooling water.