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.

Nairbe,

The target is to reduce consumption to 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.

In this time the population will have grown 35%, and power demand by about 60%.

This will require a 40% cut in power usage for the same economic activity, and about the same per capita.

Wind and solar can take us only so far without base load. Otherwise we are going to reach 2020 with a positive emission growth.

Nuclear is the safest electricity generation source, and the cheapest low emission source by far.

We will , we must have Nuclear power.
AJ after Julia it may be introduced by Labor but it will come.
A GREAT MAN, has pointed out if this country got its power from Nuclear we would not only do much to reduce our own emissions, but play a very big roll in reducing the worlds.
True conservation, true emissions reductions, seem remote from greens thoughts.
And JG armed with her ex Latham close support in the team seems intent on not letting debate take place.
A note to my Labor mates, while I could refrain from saying what I think.
Doing so will not change the reality,Julia is not impressing middle Australia.
I under stand the alternative.
For that very reason,and fear I say again distance our selves from greens false conservation, Bob Carr gave this country more than the greens ever did, we can too.

Shadow Minister,
I reiterate what i said the first time. We will grow our population because we need the growth to drive an economy based in selfish indulgence. The way we go at it i would recon 60% is conservative.
Yes nuclear is during energy production clean and efficient, but what do you do with a waste product so toxic it will remain so longer than the history of modern society. We already don't have a clue about the stability of the environment. Also cost is way off the chart at this time so if we all must pay so much more then why not simply use less ask for what we need not what we want and forget 35% population growth as this is a sure fire way to put the coffin nails into this countries ecology.
AH? that's right, the right in this country could not care about that, it's all profit profit profit and when there is nothing left we will blame someone else. It was all an islamic conspiracy right, or was it those wacky Green communists. Most important is that we don't take responsibility ourselves.

We need nuclear power and we need to economise on our use of oil, gas
and coal. Now that the IEA has officially announced that peak oil is
in history, albeit recent history (2006), and that the true position of
coal is now known we should stop export of natural gas and coal.

The Chinese would not be happy, but tough, it will be everyone for themselves.
Nuclear will give us perhaps a 20 to 50 year period to make the change
over to whatever works out best before peak uranium.
Some time in the future will have to ban the export of uranium.

The complicating factor is population, we are in the position that we
simply cannot cope with a major increase in population and a
transition to some other energy source at the same time.
Increasing population means a large demand on energy because of
housing construction, work place construction, transport etc etc.
While all that goes on we would have to be economising on energy use.
The two requirements are incompatible.

Nairbe,

The issue of waste is a horse that the Greens flog continually based on technology from 60s and 70s systems.

The reality is that with modern reactors and reprocessing is that spent fuel can be cleaned up, re enriched and re used almost ad infinitum, leaving only a tiny fraction of the waste with a much lower level of radioactivity.

Compared to the vast quantities of ash (containing low level radioactivity, and heavy metals) this is a far lower environmental threat.

Even the government's productivity commission recognises that even with massive improvements in renewable technology, the per unit cost of wind (the lowest cost renewable) will be about the same as nuclear. Which does not include the cost of energy storage such as liquid salt.

Nuclear is the only viable low GHG base load.

Shadow Minister; I fear that nothing will happen until the lights go out.
Then they will want nuclear power the next day.

RM
There are issues with solar and wind and it may mean the approach include some reassessment of energy use even if it means a bit of inconvenience. Human beings are highly creative, some of these issues will be solved. All the more reason why population sustainability has to be included in any discussions. More people = higher energy needs.

Bazz there is more waste than just the size of a pool if you include tailings and soil contamination from uranium mining (which is a problem with export not only potential domestic nuclear power).

The waste issue is a real problem and we would be foolish to minimise the risk as SM has as some shadowy Green conspiracy. What purpose is such a conspiracy? Environmentalists have enough attending to real risks without having to make stuff up.

I suggest the conspiracies lie more with those with a financial interest in nuclear.

From the ARPANSA site:

"Amount of Radioactive Waste in Australia
Australia has about 3,500 m3 of low level and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste considered suitable for disposal in a near-surface repository. This includes some 2000 m3 of soil lightly contaminated with uranium mill tailings, laboratory waste from research, production of radiopharmaceuticals and research reactor operation, solid residues from the treatment of low level liquid waste, contaminated items such as paper, cardboard, plastic, rags, protective clothing, and some gauges and sealed sources. The low level and short-lived intermediate level waste is currently stored at over 100 locations around the country. The annual generation rate of low and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste suitable for disposal in a repository is about 40 m3 per year."

Note the fact that this is without nuclear power and already there are 100 locations around the nation storing radioactive waste. The waste problem will only increase. There should be honest discussion about waste.

It is interesting that large numbers of German protesters are also concerned about the risks of storage and contamination of radioactive waste (albeit reconditioned). This is a problem that is not going away.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11718098

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/factsheets/is_waste.cfm

http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/radioactive_waste/Pages/RadioactiveWasteManagement.aspx

Pelican,

This is low level waste you are talking about (mostly from medical treatment). The vast majority of which is material and clothing which came into close proximity with a radioactive source.

This low level waste which has almost unmeasurable low level of radioactivity is treated separately from other industrial waste as a precaution rather than as a real risk. One could spend a year immersed in this waste and pick up less radiation dosage than 10 minutes in the sun.

This is hardly a problem for future generations, and the fact that you are publishing it as "gasp horror" 45 cubic meters of waste a year shows that you are not past bending the truth.

Pelican,
People are always saying we can solve this or that problem
if we put our minds to it. Then why can't we do the same with nuclear waste ?
Once the lights go out solutions will be found very fast.
There is a lot of country out there that could hold the waste.
What do you think should be done with the ash heaps at the coal power
stations ? They have a radio active component.

The reprocessing will get rid of the really dangerous waste and the
carry on in Germany is political rather than safety, at least as far
as the organisers are concerned.

Methinks they protest too much.

SM
Where is the gasp horror in my post. I re-read it to check if it came across as alarmist and Nup...still can't see it. I did say quite clearly for those who have limited faculties that the current waste issues was 'without' nuclear power included. Add nuclear waste from power and the problem is much greater.

As for bending the truth that is a bit rich coming from you. This from the man who believes the Liberal Party can do no wrong and is uncorruptible painting only one side of the political landscape in Australia as either incompetent or unethical. Hardly someone to make judgements on another's integrity. Why would anyone bend the truth on nuclear waste? If it isn't a problem it isn't a problem - why create one where none exists? What is the point. You did not strike me as a conspiracy theorist, and I don't buy it one bit, just another twist of the truth to divert the issue from genuine and sincere debate.

Bazz
There may come a point where some creative soul will come up with a solution to deal with radioactive waste, but until that time, I for one would rather put nuclear on hold. It is about risk management for many people and weighing up whether the gains are worth the potential long term consequences.

SM,
You may be able to refer me to other information but from my understanding all the generation 111 reactors are still only theory or pilot plants. The most favorable is the pebble bed reactor of which China has the working pilot project. In the end it means these safer and more efficient reactors are still in development and are therefore 20 years away. This is not really any different to the renewable industry that are still 20 years off development of truly sustainable systems.
In the end we currently only produce small amounts of highly toxic radioactive waste from the worlds reactors but if the whole world moves to nuclear we will suddenly have vast amounts to deal with until the new fuel types are developed fully and the generation 1 -11 systems are replaced.
This leaves me with my initial problem, how to store this long half life waste safely when we have such a poor understanding of the longer term geological trends of the planet and even less understanding of the effects of long term waste storage on the environment around it. I did over do it initially the high risk life is about 5000 years but the low level risks last much longer.
I still believe it would be much better if we were to approach the issue by first considering ways to seriously reduce our energy consumption. This will require us to make some sacrifices but is not impossible. population control would be a good start and making real environmental consideration when approving development rather than profit first.

Pelican,

Considering that the average household creates about 10 cubic meters of waste per year (compacted) 40 cubic meters of gloves, etc are hardly a national crisis.

"Note the fact that this is without nuclear power and already there are 100 locations around the nation storing radioactive waste. The waste problem will only increase."

This really is a trivial issue, and your tone implies otherwise. That I believe that Labor is a blight on the country, does not mean that what I post is false. You can hardly claim to be impartial either.

The modern methods of treating waste are perfectly capable of reducing the volume and radioactivity by orders of magnitude, but every time I see something published by an anti nuke activist, figures and techniques from the 50s and 60s are referred to.

Nairbe,

The CANDU reactors of which there are about 6 operational and 20 coming on line are capable of using the stored spent fuel rods as primary fuel. However, the preference is to clean up the rods first.

Did anyone see the Doha debate on BBC World last night ?
Kevin Rudd was on it with the ambassador for China plus three NGOs representatives.
The subject was world resources depletion.
They discussed food a lot and rare earths but oil got no more than a
mention in a list of other things early on.
After that it was never mentioned.

Seems rather odd considering that the OECDs IEA World Outlook 2010 has
said that crude oil peaked in 2006.
It is no wonder that conspiracy theories get traction.

Kevin Rudd waffled a bit but otherwise showed up well.
He ran his global warming hobby horse a bit but studiously avoided oil.

SM
My first post clearly outlines concerns with the ALP's decision to revisit the nuclear option. Read carefully...A..L..P...

No, I don't claim to be impartial about nuclear power as an alternative. I think nairbe is right in suggesting part of the solution has to be reducing energy consumption as well as using what we can of renewables in the long term. No solution will be perfect but for many people nuclear waste is a legitimate and genuine concern.

It is foolish to pretend that nuclear waste is a non-issue in this debate. It is too important just to be used as a political football and I oppose it no matter which party proposes nuclear as a solution.

nairbe says,

<< we are not prepared to make any sacrifices to our over indulgent consumer based selfish and destructive lifestyles.>>

<< We will grow our population because we need the growth to drive an economy based in selfish indulgence. >>

<< to approach the issue by first considering ways to seriously reduce our energy consumption.>>

<< This will require us to make some sacrifices but is not impossible. Population control would be a good start.>>

<< and making real environmental consideration when approving development rather than profit first.>>

For many it seems that on the one hand it is critical to leave a clean green planet as legacy to our grandchildren. Whilst on the other hand we and our grandchildren will have to endure a crippled economy, limited consumer choices, profitless businesses, shrinking energy production and population control, leaving a future generation restricted to the very bottom levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Before wishing a pox on your ideology, your grandchildren will have every right to ask,

Is that really the best you could come up with, sacrifices?

For all those who suffer the terror of Nuclear Power Generation, I guess you would all reject a free holiday in France?

Pelican,

For many people climate change is a serious concern.

Instead of simply talking about "risks" and "concerns" perhaps you could try and quantify the "risks" or storing waste, or the risks of a nuclear accident in a modern reactor.

When you do so you will find the risks much lower than those of the present energy industry of coal, gas and even wind.

The real problem that no party is addressing is the impact of population growth on energy demands. There are risk factors associated with most forms of energy and you are right that one has to weigh up those risks - for many nuclear is a bridge too far.

Coal burning is only a problem because our populations have grown (local and export demand) and until there is greater security in the developing world ie. access to education and stable employment, unchecked population growth will affect everyone.

The effect of a nuclear accident and potential for 'dirty' bombs would be catastrophic compared to the effects of even coal based power. The same ingenuity that MIGHT reduce the nuclear waste problem might also increase the effectiveness of renewable energy.

Making fun of people's 'concerns' about nuclear, just because they don't marry with yours is not the way good debates should be structured and is typical of inter-party dialogue. We should at least aim to be better than that for which we are mightily fed up.

Pelican,

Again, what would happen in a modern plant if there was an accident? Certainly not anything like Chernobyl. The containment vessel would prevent this. (Which the 1950s designed Chernobyl lacked)

Probably no where near as serious as the recent NZ coal mine disaster.

No one talks of the Bhopal gas disaster that killed nearly 5 times as many people as Chernobyl and whose legacy lingers on for far longer. Or the thousands that die each year in coal mining.

The annual road toll in Aus is half the total Chernobyl disaster.

One can make a far cheaper and more effective dirty bomb with Anthrax than with spent fuel rods, and how would anyone get hold of them from Australian plants?

There might be risks with nuclear, but the alternatives are far worse.