Every source of energy should be exploited depending on particular circumstances in different areas including nuclear power. We have a solar advantage so perhaps we should look at that more here, or perhaps geothermal, but that doesn't mean we should discount nuclear.

Thermo nuclear power is being used world wide and I believe there are over 200 plants producing electricity now. Because "nuclear" is associated with bombs and nuclear waste, there is such an emotional prejudice against it that is illogical. Coal mining has killed literally thousand of people world wide in its extraction, never mind the pollution and ill health it has caused in burning it. The old story of Chenobyl and Three Mile Island is always raised, but this was a Russian plant, cheaply built and well below the standard regarding safe guards now employed. We should also bring it into context with millions killed on roads around the globe. I am not necessarily saying that should be accepted without question, it just brings into focus the comparison that we accept far more dangerous things quite easily.

Nuclear power is as clean or cleaner than most conventional power sources with the exception of perhaps hydro, but as I said, no one source is perfect. Now we have the means of storing and disposal of waste we should come into line with the rest of the world.

No one wants to live next to a power station with all the high tension wires etc., but given the choice between coal and nuclear I would choose nuclear every time.

With reprocessing the amounts of waste will be much smaller and lower risk. This is still much less than the contaminants from coal fired power stations.

The alternate sources of energy do not generate power reliably enough or when needed enough to replace coal or gas. And even then, the power they generate is many times more expensive.

Without nuclear, the carbon price would have to be massive to make a difference. And then only by making electricity too expensive, and Australian goods uncompetitive.

For all those worried about nukes, have you seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE_qpx5Dxyo&feature

Would it really matter if we had a few in Oz?

They're blowing us up bit by bit anyway. Is it any wonder cancer is on the rise?

A modern day reactor is never going to achieve this kind of destruction on planet earth. I was against nukes myself for a while there, but really it's kind of a moot point if you watch the video.

To be honest, I wonder how these government types think they have the right to do this and then have the gall to tax us on CO2 pollution.

We will get Nuclear power, it may even come under a Labor government.
It is the right thing to do.
Each of us should not be afraid to put the same effort in to selling it as the PC mob put into telling us lies about it.

Some on here seem to think that renewables are the way to go.
The problem with wind especially is its monumental inefficiency.
The construction of them uses a lot of resources for little output.
They almost never over a period of say a few days achieve better than 15% of
their nameplate rating.
Nameplate refers to the manufacturers plate on the m/c that states
what the maximum output is at maximum design wind speed.
Also the wind does stop over a whole continent at the same time.

They burn up a lot of coal with standby plants trying to keep track of
their output and reduces the efficiency of the coal fired plant.
So to say they do not generate CO2 is simply not true.
If natural gas burning plants are used as wind followers they are more
efficient at that job as they can be rampted up and down more easily.

Solar is more predictable in that you can be certain that there will
be no output between sunset and sunrise.

The real problem is that there is not the unlimited supply of coal
that many believe will keep us burning it for hundreds of years.
If we cannot get geothermal going then we are in real trouble.
Even nuclear has a problem in that the diesel used in mining uranium
will increase as the ore body deteriorates and the cost of the diesel
will make the ore too costly.

Thorium reactors might well be our saviour and we must probably wait
until India completes its thorium reactor.
However storage I am told is not the problem that it used to be.
Reprocessing of the waste in a multiple reprocessing cycle reduces
the radiation level very significantly.

I believe that it is possible that we face a choice, nuclear or starvation.

Let me first state my preferences, and then offer a recommendation. You'll find acres of Internet information today about 'over-unity devices', magnetic machines, Tesla generators, cold fusion and the like. If any of these had ever demonstrated a chance of delivering on their promises, I'd be marching down the street with a placard. Unfortunately, none have; and my training in the physical sciences allows me useful insights into their theoretical bases. I don't say something like this can never happen, but we'd be foolish to rely on pie-in-the-sky.

Much as I'd love to champion photovoltaics, my experience in electronic design convinces me that it will only ever be a backup without an unforeseen technological miracle. As an ordinary, unqualified enthusiast, I'd like to believe in wind or wave power, biofuels, captured emissions from cattle breaking wind, or the flight of the fairies, but I can't.

I really don't like nuclear power. From the standpoint of Physics, using all of that complex, expensive technology just to boil water (a nuclear reactor is just a giant steam kettle) is downright embarrasing; if we truly UNDERSTOOD nuclear energy, we'd convert it directly into electricity. At present, we're at the stage of cavemen, who knew that rubbing two sticks together makes fire. We know that confining enriched uranium under specific conditions cracks apart their atomic nuclei, but not much more. And when it comes to disposing of the waste products, we can only cross our fingers, dig a hole to bury it, and hope that we die before the consequences become manifest.

BUT ... there have been some major breakthroughs in emerging technology that could allow us to use thorium instead of uranium for power generation, and with waste products that decay much more quickly. I believe that the following deserve serious consideration:

http://energyfromthorium.com/
http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

We can't solve such complex problems in a single step. We needed a staged approach across a century or two that safeguards our biological environmenmt and artesian water reserves, but makes the best possible use of presently available technology until something better comes along. And it will.