http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/13/2712317.htm
http://tinyurl.com/yhtsmcb
http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/power-generation/i/2512/#
http://tinyurl.com/yh63dlr

Bob Carr says younger people are more open to the idea of nuclear power. (AFP: Torsten Blackwood). There needs to be a clear-headed debate in Australia about nuclear power.

A Herald/Nielsen poll published today claims one in two people would support the Federal Government considering nuclear power being used to reduce carbon emissions.

Mr Carr says those who came of age in the 1980s have closed their minds to the idea, but younger people are more open.

"There is a shift. People are more open to it again because they can see the damage that carbon dioxide is doing," he said.

"It is coal that's the poison and there's been impressive progress in the handling of nuclear waste and reactor safety."

With the ETS coming into play shortly, and the population steadily increasing, Australia rapidly needs to find alternatives to coal fired base load, and as yet renewables are not capable.

With nuclear expanding rapidly through the rest of the world and a 10 year lag from approval to generation are we on a Titanic accelerating towards an iceberg of our own making?

The twin Titanics of climate disaster and the inevitable nuclear meltdown. There are numerous examples of "foolproof" systems breaking down, either by neglect, cost savings, incompetence, bad design, unanticipated and out of the ordinary occurrences, malfeasance or just plain corporate evil.

The kids of today may not know about 5 mile island, Chernobyl, Bhopal etc but it only takes one and they will be as anti as any 80s Peter Garret.

The consequences of nuclear accidents are so severe that by any measure of cost/benefit they are not worth it.

We need nuclear power stations so those who want to make mega fortunes using Australia as the nuclear dump of the world have got a foot in the door.

For decades the nuclear industry has come up with promises that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely and that the nuclear industry can be trusted. Yet waste continues to piled up in all countries and decommissioned US nuclear warships are parked in places like Japan, too difficult and dangerous to demolish.

The rationalisation will be that because Australia supplies uranium it should remain ultimately responsible for the waste - 'from cradle to grave - and this means being the dumping ground. Clever rhetoric from the US State Department and had The Deputy John Howard still been PM the ships would already be unloading in South Australia (nice of Downer to volunteer South Oz!).

The answer shadow minister is no, not yet.
So we will use it must use it and we all need to understand just how much safer it now is.
That will not happen in this thread, it was no different in my thread some weeks ago.
But we will use it soon.

Shadow (obviously doesn't know what evil is in the mind of man)Minister.

Been there done that argument.It wasn't convincing then and still isn't. Replacing one sort of pollution with another, still doesn't strike me as solving the problem, merely delaying it (perhaps).

THE PROBLEM is what we have and continue to do to the earth....our life support system. Cut it anyway you want but we are using its finite resources at an unsustainable rate.

Quibbling about between untested technologies (remember our discussion about gen 3 & 4) is a bit like saying would you rather die of starvation or thirst?

Discussion pushing nuclear power is the least of our dramas.
The 35+ million in an already overburdened environment is more of an medium/long-term threat. Look about.

as I said then the solution will come from a SUITE not simply a mess of commercially run nuke plants. History shows that commercial drive can't be trusted with basic needs or resources.

But hey, the one true God, 'Feral Capitalism' will come to the rescue...and I'm the arch angel Gabriel and I did learn trumpet and
I have the sheet music for the 'last post' too.

The sky will only fall in if we put all our eggs in one solution either or mentality is big on dogma minuscule on smarts and a real solution.

Instead of discontinuing our baby bonus, changing our intake of refugees and unskilled immigrants (stricter character criteria being the fairest method), making abortions more acceptable and accessible to the public, NOT agreeing to an emissions-trading-scheme, and putting more effort incorporating renewable energy into our consumption, you mean?

And considering even if we DID go for nuclear, we'd STILL be way better off doing the above options anyway.

My answer- do the other things first- then check to see if we still need nuclear.

The obvious solution is that we don't need to overburden our environment by consistently bringing in record numbers of migrants.

Years ago, Australians responded to demands to achieve zero population growth (ZPG) to protect the environment and ensure sustainability for forthcoming generations. ZPG was put forward as the only viable solution, or have things changed?

Other than it being beaut for the profits of big business and banks, what is the point of rushing towards peak population (a rubbery number) when it is obvious that we do not have the infrastructure and the environment is being trashed? What does the individual taxpayer get out of what is probably the world's highest immigration except high taxes, loss of quality of life, loss of culture and loss of job?

Even one death due to a nuclear accident is one too many of course, But it has already been proved that it is the safest form of consistent energy for base load yet devised. Coal ? well look at the statistics. Thousands killed in coal mines every year in China, and hundreds in the USA alone. Would you ban the motor car because it has cost the lives of literally millions over the life of this mode of transport ? 100,000 are killed in India each year. As I have said in these columns before, nuclear has an emotional connotation because of its connection to bombs and and cancer and people cannot divorce the spectre of an uncontrollable disaster in their minds. Australia could make a lot of money by processing spent fuel and burying it in one of the most stable geological formations on this planet. We are missing the boat on this form of energy when the rest of the world is adopting it efficiently and safely. Technology has moved on a long way from Five Mile Island and Chernobel. At the risk of repeating myself, I would rather live close to a nuclear reactor than a coal fired polluting power station if I had to make a choice. Nuclear should be used in a basket of alternatives including solar, wind and geothermal.

With nothing but true respect for some greens who post here I am afraid, of the greens.
I am without reserve a conservationist.
Want us to plant two trees for every one we cut down.
Recycle all water, no not drink ex sewage, we could ,do, but would have no need to.
I want no demand water tanks on every home, every block of units or flats every factory in our country.
That this water is used for gardens, washing cars trucks and buildings.
But I fear the greens.
A refusal to see such as Nuclear power can be part of a cleaner environment, to even talk about 22 country's in the EU who use it now.
A demand we stop using coal, do you understand they mean now? right now?
I understand Bob Brown has done many good things, equally bad things.
I will not condemn him because he is homosexual, nore will I lionize him because of it.
Because I am conservationist, because they say the greens will win ten senate seats I fear the greens.
Do we want them controlling our country's climate change policy's?
Nuclear kills less than petroleum and coal, less than construction workplace deaths.

Belly,
Catalyst the other night ran a program on coal gasification that allegedly reduces emissions by startling results but it too has problems. salt water on one hand and subsidence on the other. Both of which are technically possible to fix but is it economical? An there in lies one of the flaws in our reasoning. "Is it economical" rather than "Is it sustainable?" profit will be a moot point if we continue to live in our unsustainable fashion.

I note the mental midgets from "Refugee Rangers"& "Migrant Militia" are at it again. Even if successful their limited reasoning wouldn't make a stone in gibber desert of difference.

35 million in Australia is only sustainable if we and the major polluter nations' people change 'lifestyle' (god I hate that word a coverall for ultra extravagance)dramatically. Something approaching 30% reduction world wide makes more sense.

That means ALL of us must sacrifice our excesses. No that doesn't mean primitive living either. It means substantially re-adjusting the fact that 20% consumes 70% of the resources. If we don't we'll al be in boats eventually but going where?

Or better yet, how about BOTH- people should learn to live more responsibly (a standard that merely cuts out excess), WITHOUT having to accommodate the crowding hordes?

To accommodate more people, EVERYONE has to live in a manner outright worse than what they presently have- regardless if they were living sustainably.

Seeing as destruction, clearing and development of new housing estates on natural land (and farmland) is already a big problem- population is an issue that we WILL still have to address (and no, NOT with eugenics).

But for some (I imagine many- including more environmentally sensible people), making these sacrifices for the purpose of ACCOMMODATING MORE PEOPLE is NOT an option.

snake, "Australia could make a lot of money by processing spent fuel and burying it in one of the most stable geological formations on this planet."

That is what the big push is all about isn't it, burying Uncle Sam's waste in our backyard under the rationalisation that the producer should be responsible from cradle to grave? Great spin, but entirely unconvincing.

It was nothing short of amazing how Howard, after being feted by the US State Department and was suddenly lecturing the Canadians (his next stop) on the benefits of nuclear energy. The change was so sudden it wrong-footed his closest cabinet buddies back home. George Bush's 'man of steel' was putty in the hands of the US State Department.

What about all of the scientific B.S. that places like Arizona are the 'solution' to long term 'storage' (read as dumping) of the most poisonous and long-lasting waste on Earth? What is going wrong with that?

The inescapable truth is that no government has come up with a safe way of dumping nuclear waste and the sly State Department realised a heaven-sent opportunity to take advantage of the fawning, ingratiating John Howard. That is one of the features of the (miss-named) Liberal Party, that they would sell the future of our children for a dollar in the here and now and it is a prime reason why the libs (what a joke) will remain in opposition - no-one can trust them with the household silver nor with the deeds of the farm.

Those are strong reasons to support the initiative taken by the NSW government in establishing the Game Council of NSW:

http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/

The Game Council licences conservation shooters who are required to pass theoretical and practical examination. Arguably, they are the real wildlife warriors, unlike the Qld variety that is busily making a profit out of a cattle station bought with our taxes (with thanks to John Howard for buying support for election purposes.

It is a very great pity that other States are slow to follow NSW's example.

I thought so.

Apart from those urging us to consume less, and those calling for a limit to population, no one has claimed that renewable technology or energy efficiency is going to be able to deliver.

Emotive comments have posted, such as Cornflower claiming that nuclear waste is the most poisonous and long lasting. Besides being factually incorrect are irrelevant to the topic.

The question in this post was that if nuclear was not to be used, what was the alternative.

So far none has been offered. I wait with bated breath.

I have to say that research does show the safest energy source that can currently be provided that does not cause Global Warming is Nuclear energy.

Yes the word Nuclear is associated with mass destruction but the safe guards built in to the new type of reactor proposed to be built are the safest way forwards for the planet.

The sooner this clean energy is embraced by the Australian public the faster you can secure a future for your children and your grandchildren in a world that is changing, and if action is not taken now on energy, then there will be no future for our children.

Chernobyl the disaster was a tragedy in Russia that could have been avoided. The new reactors have many more fail safes built in.

Do it for your children go Nuclear a clean energy that if in the right hands is the safest way to go for the planet.

SM,

What part of FINITE (resources, land,environment, water et al) don't you understand? What part of the world is in a bad shape has missed you attention? The unsustainable pollution levels, the changes in the seas,water quality, reduction in arable land,water availability etc.

The problem with the AGW is that it it represented as simplistic either or scenarios.
In reality it isn't that simple.
consequently the negative argument allows for extremes to be solely reliant on CO2 levels.
Therefore throw doubt on THAT and it all goes away.
This in turn allows the topic to be corralled to obvious CO2 sources cut them (electricity generation) or off set them (for big business polluters) and 'problem solvered ' ( paint over the problems). This appeals because the minimum change to business and the consumption magic pudding.
Apart from which it'll all go away once the publics got something else to worry about. This is the conservatives approach.

Nuke power still has an enormous on going foot print if considered on the whole industry analysis. In short it's long-term contribution to the real problem is nil in fact encourages more consumption- pollution etc.
It's contribution to CO2 reduction will be to limited merely amortised over a longer period.

The above approach ignores the reality of my opening parra.
The conservative approach is more one of economics ( a soft discipline at best) ideology driven by advantage of a powerful minority rather than real long-term considerations.

Centring on Nuke or renewable is in the real context a waste of time. As previously stated the real long-term solutions ( A suite that may or may not include nuke power generation) require a major paradigm shift in thinking is needed if we as a species are going to survive.
Or keep bailing while we teach our antecedents 'Nearer my God to Thee'.

Those opposed to Nuclear are quite possibly ok with hot rock power in western states.
It is from a natural Nuclear power station under ground.
We will have Nuclear power stations, with 20 years, we may even find use for waste other than burying it.

No Problem shadow;

The advantages of current solar panels and (vertical-axis) Wind turbines is that both can be attached to an ordinary house or apartment, and according to said homeowners, both easily exceed the power drainage of the house each day- and the only costs incurred by the homeowner is the initial purchase and installation, provided the climate is right- and gain independence from electricity providers and free (sometimes profitable) energy.

Each person who converts their house into one with renewable means eventually mostly industrial facilities and skyscrapers are the only thing remaining to need power- and the calculated cost of energy would solely be based on what any panels and turbines installed onto them may fall short of providing (and remember, skyscrapers have a LOT of surface area to put BOTH on (although the turbines would be more cost-effective).

In the end, the additional power requirements may not be very much- and possibly fulfilled by another renewable energy plant (tidal, geothermal) alone.

Shadow Minister

I have given an alternative to control burgeoning energy demand - roll back the record levels of immigration, which would also reduce pressure on water, the environment and infrastructure. Again, we are only in the early stages of becoming more frugal in using available energy supplies and in developing alternative power.

Plainly it suits some to create a sense of urgency - the sky is falling - to encourage people to suspend their judgement and accept nuclear power as the inevitable solution, however the problems of dealing with nuclear waste and decommissioning nuclear power plants (a long and enormously expensive process) have never been solved, other than dumping it at sea or in someone's backyard.

Maybe if the Liberals ever get back into government the Bush/Howard sly plan for Australia to become the nuclear dump for the US and others will again become a reality and who knows, we may never again need more energy because the whole continent will glow like a beacon at night. Just roll the drums off the railway trucks in the general areas where the Brits left the nuclear bomb waste they promised to clean up, but didn't.

SM
Perhaps I need apologise for my tone consider it so. But not the substance.
I said >The prime purpose of opposition is to return to power<.
Isn't that the purpose of any organisation ? I suggest you consider Organisation practice and theory.

No party is formed to be in opposition/cross benches although that is seemingly the fate of 3rd parties anyway.

You said >"It (sic) focus is primarily to clearly show the VALUES IT STANDS for and to demonstrate that the ruling parties policies are failing." < . Note the words ' values (?) IT stands for'. Doesn't that imply regardless of what the MAJORITY voted for, even paternalistic? does to me.
Values? Sound very subjective hardly the basis of objectivity
BTW remember RU486? Individual member conscience what about representation?
How does using prefabricated fact prove the government's *policy* is failing?

How does dwelling on the negative encourage the best for the people?

Since when has any party been the sole repository of good ideas ?

Word Look Up http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=cabal
“Noun: cabal ku'bal or ku'baal
1. A clique (OFTEN secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue, faction, junto, camarilla” [my emphasis]
Sounds like political parties including the opposition to me?

Are you also telling us that political parties don't plot and plan in secret?
Are you saying that a lot of political time isn't spent on internecine plots?

Are you now saying that the conservative member ignores what he/she or the party stands for to represent the public as an honest broker?
Are you telling us that in practice an opposition back bencher has the same impact on voter issues as a government BB, Minister?

I've gotten better attention and result from writing to the ministers office my self. Local (BB) members are often preoccupied with their own futures and will only take on issues that will
a. help them or
b. help their party and therefore a.

SM my criticism is also of the (party) system not yours specifically.

Cornflower,

With zero immigration the population will still swell to >29m, however, with the need to accomodate skills shortages in particular areas, it is unlikely that even with strict controls that it could be reduced by further than 40% to 33m in 2050.

Even then the carbon footprint per person needs to be reduced by 50%.

Renewable generation and efficiency improvements both have diminishing returns for investment.

By 2050 an efficiency drive can save about 25% before there is a large need for renewal of old buildings for new.

Likewise renewables can supply about 20% of grid load before the huge cost of storage is required. Even with 20% renewable, the average cost of generation is likely to double.

At this point we have plucked all the low hanging fruit we still haven't met our targets.

Generation of 25% of the electricity with nuclear as suggested in the Switowski report, would enable us to meet all our targets without starving industry of skill and generally ravaging the economy with sky rocketing energy costs.

With proper reprocessing and Gen III reactors, not only can the existing waste be greatly reduced both in volume and radioactivity, but with the future Gen IV they can use even most of the remnants of the old fuel rods. So dumping is not as much of a future problem as simply extrapolating 70s technology into the future.

"Renewable generation and efficiency improvements both have diminishing returns for investment"
You do realize that it is consumers who are PAYING for these "returns"- similarly, all "profit" and "jobs" eat into our monthly electricity bills?

No thanks- I'm installing Solar panels onto my house and all of the economic beneficiaries can go and suck it.

The only economic consideration would be if the cost (to me) of purchase and installation would outweigh the monthly bill I would otherwise be paying for through a (non-free) provider.

But this whole topic is ridiculous- it goes on the tangent of if we HAVE to do all of the other things to bring Australia into an adverse situation, and we're NOT considering any alternatives, THEN should we consider Nuclear?

It's like saying if we were to hypothetically run into a dark cave that we know we shouldn't walk into- shouldn't we do so with a flashlight? As opposed to NOT run into the cave?

And I don't see how our standard of living will magically go up in an overpopulated country just because we're using nuclear instead of coal. You know, crowds tend to stay the same no matter what power they use.

If you ask me it almost seems like an endorsement of all of the above SOLELY to force the Nuclear issue back into discussion.

Seems we just do not get our teeth into this subject.
2 threads faded away without true discussion.
It costs about two billion dollars to build a Nuclear plant, a lot of money.
We could have built 25 with the stimulus money.
And cut world, yes world green house gases not just our own.
We could have just maybe done more for the climate change debate by selling our uranium and building our own Nuclear power stations.
We still fall for radical conservationist claims that are untrue.
We hear about the dangers in coal use but are warned not to use the only current alternative?
We must and will use Nuclear , Rudd must and will Be the leader to first start us on that path.
I await to see how he managers the reversal of current policy but know it will be done.

King Hazza and others,

Of course I am trying to force discussion on the issue of nuclear power. What I was trying to show was that even if Australia pushes the boat out a long way with efficiency and renewables, while per capita emissions will drop, we will be a long way from where we need to be, and will have substantially increased the cost of living.

All the evidence is that nuclear is the safest energy source with the lowest environmental impact per kWhr.

In the next few decades, the rest of the world will be using it and we will still be burning carbon.

Shadow Minister

There is absolutely nothing to be gained from rushing into it and buying obsolete technology from the US and the Brits. If as some say there is much more efficient technology on the way then it makes sense to wait for it.

You consistently refused to talk about the disposal of nuclear waste other than to say that with future technology there should be less of it (but more potent one would surmise).

You also refused to state your position on the willing acceptance by John Howard that Australia's outback (especially South Australia according to the ever-ingratiating Alexander Downer) should become the dumping ground for the US and other countries.

Typical Liberals, why not 'exploit' the outback if there is a dollar in it in the here and now for the few and bugger the costs to the millions of future generations who will breathe the toxic dust over thousands of years. Same as after the British nuclear tests and under the watch of (no guessing needed), the Liberals.

Cornflower,

In previous posts I have dealt with these issues at length.

The reactors in the US and Britian presently running are designs from the 70s, but there are more designs running in Canada, France and Japan. Of special interest to me are the CANDU reactors in Canada of which 6 have been running for about a decade. These reactors require only lightly enriched uranium to run (producing 3x as much fuel from the natural uranium) and thus requiring far less mining.

The reprocessing is not popular presently mostly due to it producing large quantities of fissile material as a by product, however, for every 10 tonnes of spent fuel it produces about 3 tonnes of re useable uranium, some plutonium, and some other isotopes which can be used for various industrial and medical purposes.

The final product is about 7 tonnes of spent material, which has had nearly all the dangerous isotopes removed and has a level of radioactivity of about 1/1000 of the original spent rods. So much so, that it is almost safe enough to handle.

The gen IV reactors being planned will eventually (in a few decades) even be able to use that waste as fuel.

The technical solutions to most of the anti nuke concerns exist, but seldom are published as frequently as the scare stories based on technology from decades ago.

The reason to start looking now is that it will probably take a good few years to formulate a secure plan for nuclear power in the country that addresses the entire fuel cycle, and a further decade to design and build the plants so if there is any serious intention to reduce CO2 emissions, the sooner the planning is started the better.

Um, how exactly does our cost of living go UP if we install solar panels? Usually what tends to happen is people start MAKING money from their power bills via the excess electricity generated by their panels.

So by installing solar into houses, homeowners save a LOT of money- hell, every panel installed onto business will save them so much on their electricity bills too.
Assuming we do NOT privatize electricity, there is no reason the price would go up due to lowering demand.
Therefore, everyone SAVES money, no longer worries about electricity bills or paying wages- thus getting a higher and cheaper standard of living.

Nuclear on the other hand would be much MORE expensive because on top of the various employment, maintenance, ore purchasing and logistical costs, are the costs of installing and implementing the various safety and quarantine measures. Not to mention it needs a LOT of water (which, last time I checked, we were running short on).

King Hazza,

How wonderfully naive you are.

At $15 000 for a 1kW unit that will generate about 6 kWhrs per day if the sun shines.

Assuming that you get 250 days of power this equals 1500kWhrs at 25c which equals a saving of $375 p.a. or a payback of 40 years. This is assuming that there is no cost of replacement of inverters etc.

Now considering that municipalities size their infrastructure according the maximum demand which makes up the majority of the charge of 25c to the customer, of which only about 5c is actually for the power, if done on a mase scale, will have to be made up for elsewhere.

The actual cost of generation is closer to 2.5c kWhr at the station which gives a real payback of 400 years.

The subsidy was to subsidise the solar industry, but was cut because it actually made very little difference to the carbon foot print of Aus.

If you actually paid to have one installed, my only comment is that "there's one born every minute."

Nice Shadow Minister- you totally dodged the entire home-installation option with a lame joke and absolutely NO explanation.

"if you WERE talking about home installation"
No really? I only mentioned it in my first sentence, second sentence and every sentence in my last post except the costs of running a nuclear station- you had to have known that is obviously what I talked about.

Considering power bills average a few hundred bucks a month, even if you barely generated enough power to sustain yourself, it still means every couple of months each commercially-purchased higher-output meter-square solar panel effectively pays for itself.

Now, these bills are being covered by existing energy producers, I don't see how nuclear saves cost, other than the present fact that it is regarded as carbon neutral by the carbon industry. All of the other existing costs of running coal or gas are still there- with additional costs (which I already mentioned and you also completely ignored)

And this ignores possible government-owned manufacturers and providers, making quite possibly the simplest, most easy-to-assemble and cheap-to-make devices on the planet possibly being created. All other power sources require more complicated and customized mechanisms which are much less capable of being mass-produced.

Naivety indeed.

How many solar panels to run a smelter?
A water desalinater?
We are bound to use Nuclear power is it understood we are already behind 22 country's in doing so?

King Hazza,

I was specifically talking about home installations.

A 1 sqm 130W panel is about $1000 excl delivery, installation, inverters, etc. For 1kW you need 8 plus the grid connection inverter which will take you to $11 000 before you even start to install.

My costing still stands. By the rubbish you post, I would guess that either you have not installed solar power, or have no idea how little it contributes.

Do a cost benefit analysis, you might surprise yourself.

My family are actually in the process of doing a cost-benefit analysis for solar installation. Our electricity bill is over a thousand bucks every couple of months and rising- despite our rather modest (and shrinking) use of electricity. Initial estimates suggest we may pay off the cost of energy in only a couple of years in cut bills.

But I will get back to you on that, all the same.