As the effect on the cost of living of a carbon price necessary to reduce emissions is beginning to dawn on Labor, and the resultant voter backlash is becoming apparent, nuclear power is being raised by senior labor MPs.

However, as this is political kryptonite for any coalition with the Greens, Julia Gillard has vociferously denied any chance of Labor using Nuclear power.

However, with the cost of living starting to rapidly accelerate under Labor, voter indulgence with the green fringe is going to wane rapidly.

Yes, indeed it is interesting that the Labour Party is starting to take
an interest in nuclear power stations.
Some must be starting to face facts and are getting worried.
As I wrote elsewhere
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4148
it now looks as though we may not have to worry about global warming
but for the same reason it means we will have to do something in a
hurry about non fossil fuel energy.

The Chernobyl problem was known about decades ago, it was just that the
Russians thought they knew better. So that old chestnut should be
buried once and for all.

Frankly, I don't think we have a choice for the next say 50 years or so.
Peak uranium and reprocessing may keep us going a bit longer than that
but hopefully India's work on Thorium reactors will pay off.

It was worrying to read that Labor is going to consider nuclear power - or at least discuss it.

I don't know why this subject keeps coming up when the biggest concern remains around nuclear waste and the widespread damage that would be caused by a nuclear accident.

What is going to happen to the radioactive waste? Where will it be stored and at what cost? How secure will it be?

Too many risks for my liking when the sun and wind are readily available and not going anywhere.

The energy situation should IMO be approached from an environmental and human health POV as well as considerations around population sustainability.

Pelican,
I understand that the waste from reactors lifetime can be stored in a
space the size of a domestic simming pool. However since I had heard
that description I am told that reprocessing and reuse reduces the
radio activity many times what it used to be.
Doing that removes the proliferation problem permanently.

If many reactors are built in the world the known uranium may only
last less than 100 years, but it will buy time needed to move to the
next step which may or may not be fusion reactors.

True it would be easier, quicker and cheaper to move to solar instead
if only we could store the energy for up to 18 hours.
20 hours in high latitudes.
A world wide HV grid, now there is a challenge !
Crack that and you have a goer !

The problem with wind and solar Peli is they're intermittent which means we need some way of storing massive amounts of energy when either is not producing. There have been attempts at solving this issue, but none have really made the grade. Even one I had high hopes for seems to be extremely costly and problem prone and that is solar thermal storage tanks made up of molten salt. This is not new technology. California has had the system running for over 20 years. Spain have recently built a few similar plants, but both those places have destroyed their economies following the solar path.

It would seem nukes are the only way to reduce co2 output if you believe that co2 is causing a problem. I myself was pretty anti nuke there for a long time but the new generation reactors produce a fraction of the waste they once did and the half life of the waste has now been reduced down to 50 or so years and not thousands anymore. Also with more research into thorium as a fuel, we can power our societies for ever with no dangerous waste at all, it can even get rid of the waste we have now.

If we are to become an electric driven, non fossil fueled society, then some form of nuclear power is the only way at the moment.

Dont you mean Emission reduction not possible without nuclear as we are not prepared to make any sacrifices to our over indulgent consumer based selfish and destructive lifestyles.