For me, I'd first insist we try to maximize our use of renewables first, and ask the nuclear question when it is absolutely clear that there are gaps renewables just aren't filling.

Renewables are actually cheaper and just as predictable as Nuclear power, and with a much simpler process of construction and deconstruction of various processes.

Nuclear Power is considered 'Green' simply because the fuel can be mined at a slower rate than other fuel-dependent power sources, and the power generation itself only emits steam from water tanks (thus cutting carbon emissions partly out of the mining process, and entirely out of the power-generation phase.

The problem with safe Nuclear power is that it is much more expensive and difficult to designate locations for the processes, construct, maintain and eventually deconstruct.
Every plant requires the constructions of its own custom parts, and when complete, needs constant human management.

Compared to portable mass-produced stand-alone and automated renewable power units with near or complete absence of moving parts and requiring minimal assembly costs, there simply isn't a contest in terms of cost-efficiency and money saving.

The only absolute advantage is that a single nuclear plant can fully substantiate base-load requirements (so long as a good supply of isotopes are handy).
Solar, on the other hand, would need to collect additional power and store it to live off at night, and similar for wind when its not windy.

In short, we would simply outfit any structure that does not have a critical need of full time power input and can operate on renewable reserves (houses, offices, almost every commercial facility, schools, and do some gauge work and feasibility studies on substantiating the rest of the power (which is really, only hospitals, emergency-response, and vital communications, and some labs- things where a power failure would actually be dangerous- with anyone else having the option to pay).

Dear Hasbeen,

It is because I am a researcher that I'm
for alternative sources of energy. May I
humbly suggest that you have a read of the
following website:

http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-energy/

As the article states, "There is only a finite
amount of uranium on this planet and nuclear
reactors also produce a by-product other than
the power they generate, toxic harmful waste that
must be stored indefinitely..."

Miracles don't happen over night - but with enough
persistence - countries will eventually get things
right. Science and innovation is about trial and error.

Other power may be used even new ones found but we will join a great deal of the world in using it.
I am not impressed with the attempt to link ETS or such to nuclear it is a dead end road and highlights throwing mud has become a fashion.
No way western nuclear power stations can be compared to that Russian one , 4 mile Island or any such nightmare.
Our very sun is nuclear powered and we have more to fear from our inability to live with one another than modern nuclear stations

Gillard cannot possibly be serious about meaningful emissions reductions while she continues to pander to rapid population growth and an economic system based on continuous growth.

She has talked a down a big Australia, but by all indications she’s going to allow us to keep growing rapidly until we have a much bigger population anyway, just perhaps not quite as big as Rudd would have liked….although she’s done nothing yet to steer us away from Rudd’s big Australia, and there is no sign of her doing anything meaningful in the near future or at any point in the future.

Of course, continuous rapid population growth makes it a whole lot harder to wean ourselves off of our dependency on oil and to reduce emissions, no matter which alternative energy source or combination of sources we might use.

When Gillard starts seriously talking about winding back immigration to a much lower level and heading for a stable population that is not too much higher than the current level, then we will be able to take her seriously when she talks about emission reductions.

But until then, any rhetoric from her or her government about climate change or alternative energy sources amounts to nothing more than silly-bugger politics!

I was taught many years ago that forests were causing a cooling effect, and was an important vehicle for causing rain, unfortunately no government has thought enought to ban the destruction of clearing our forests, instead of building in areas which are sparce of vegetation. Developers choose a well vegetated area, then clear it and build or the buy an area that has been cleared for cultivation, and when the owner is old and wants to retire, it is grabbed for housing. The Government should put a stop to this. There is no reason - if we want regular rainfall and presumably cooler weather, stop the clearing. There must be thousands of hectares of forest cleared every month, probably unnecessarly. I would want to know more about the long time effects of nuclear power and the residue, how long is it in a dangerous condition?

You have to remember that our state governments are exporting our coal hand over fist, and think it's a wonderful thing. They are giving the other countries of the world the power to cause all that smog and other ill effects of polution. Also remember that our government is exporting not only uranium, but all the other resources that we have and destroying our own manufacturing industries with all those manufactured goods we get with the required reciprocal trade which has been the goods we had been manufacturing before those exports began. WE would probably be better using the uranium ourselves if it is really safe to do so, because it seems to be part of our government (by past history), to demand a value of any thing from 10% to less than 30% for our exports.