http://www.fin24.com/Business/Six-nuclear-power-stations-planned-20100908

South Africa, the country most similar to Australia in having vast cheap coal reserves and uranium, has opted for the more expensive nuclear generation in order to meet its emission targets.

By building 6 near identical plants it dramatically reduces the cost per plant, and gets zero emission power at a fraction of the cost of "renewables" such as solar and wind.

The question is when will Australia dig its head out of the sand and follow the other major economies and install the safest and cheapest emission free technology available to Australia.

Don't hold your breath.

>>The question is when will Australia dig its head out of the sand and follow the other major economies and install the safest and cheapest emission free technology available to Australia<<

Nuclear power has become a "cause".

A cause that has its roots in the cold war, and its social history in bearded weirdies in duffel coats on the Aldermaston March.

Links to emotions of comradeship and smelly socks in the cause of freedom? Plenty.

Links to the real world of energy production: none.

It is the same cause as climate change.

Shadow Minister, please answer in full the following questions.

1) Is nuclear waste "safe"?

2) How much nuclear waste will be produced from these 6 nuclear plants?

3) Where will the waste be stored?

4) How will the waste be stored?

Zero emissions hey?

So you find an outcrop of uranium-bearing minerals out in the sticks (how do you get there? what fuel does your machine use?).

You decide to drill it and see if it is viable (once again, how did you get there and what fuel does the drill rig use?).

You fly and drive executives and company people all over the place doing a feasability study, and use electricity for computer modelling etc.

Mines often are located away from the electricity grid, so you have to either run a wire or use a generator.

Then you need those big trucks and excavators to dig the stuff, and prilled amonia to blow holes in the ground.

Of course, you would need a lot of steel and concrete to create a working mine, and fly hundreds of workers in and out, not to mention the energy uses of the camp.

Then there's the energy used to process the minerals, and the energy to transport them.

OK, maybe you could argue that at that point you may start using the "emission free" electricity to try and deal with the waste, although nobody has worked out how to do this safely yet.

You get the picture.

With around 40% of the worlds uranium, and around 30% of the worlds economically viable uranium reserves (similar amount to Canada), if it was a goer we would already be doing it. Dont kid yourself, they would have tried to link it to the cold war,ozone hole, and millenium bug and any other trendy issue. Jarvis bay was the chosen site historically, but nowadays it is considered so safe you might as well put the reactors in Townsville or Darwin.

You can not have it both ways.
We are told coal is not safe, in fact it does do more damage than Nuclear wast.
Then the Bogey man is let loose, the half life of waste is, who cares?
Nuclear reaction is taking place beneath our feet now naturally.
Some of the silly anti Nuclear stuff, some real fear ,is because it may very well harm our exports of? coal.
Enough waste is to be generated by country's using it to destroy us if it is miss used right now.
No one intends to leaving it laying in school yards.
We WILL go nuclear, sooner the better.