Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but why can't nuclear plants be set up in western qld, away from prime farming areas, where there is an abundance of water being produced from the CSG industry.

Apart from large volumes of water, what else is needed for nuclear generation and, could this power be simply fed into the existing grids.

I am sure there are areas in other states like this, known here as, light Forrest country.

As I have said, I am all over the shop on this one.
I know Germany is saying it is fazing out its Nuclear power.
Yet that France has massive numbers of them.
I agree with Labors retracting its head out of the sand, selling India the needed Uranium.
We must not forget they will get and have it already.
And also will have as many plants as France half way through this century.
Floating on a lake,no way!
We have to admit it, no way around building these things here would drop world wide carbon and other gasses more than any known action we ever could take.
IF power stations could be placed away from populations, far away,and be much much safer than some.
We may yet get Nuclear power stations in Australia, while still concerned I am prepared to go back to my first position.
A well worth while subject extension could be,how do we change if not Nuclear.
I am not saying the government tax is wrong.
In fact, in time it may well Drive/give birth to,the answer to my question.

SM
No delicate flower here, just pulling you up on your consistently partisan modus operandi as your latest post illustrates with the use of emotive terms like 'blustering'.

If planning to locate nuclear plants along the Eastern seaboard in high population areas prone to disasters does not meet your criteria for incompetence that only proves our criteria for incompetence to be set at a different standard.

Nuclear is always a divisive issue but why don't humans learn from history? Human error and incompetence and the rush for profit over safety will always be an issue with nuclear as with any other business. Add to that some developing nations are going nuclear with little deference to governance or accountability and a degree of corruption and you have a recipe for disaster.

IMO it is too risky to contemplate. Nuclear is also a risk for contamination of ground water and that will have wide effects.

The real problem is the elephant in the room - overpopulation and the pressures on resources. Better to improve renewables with some back up from coal fire power. Minimising dependence on coal is a good move but going nuclear just brings a new set of problems. The truth of the matter is if population growth is going to explode all of us will have to reduce our power consumption no matter what the energy type. Nuclear is only a short term stop gap in any case, so why not start with something more sustainable.

Pelican,

Take the plank out of your eye before telling me to remove the speck. Using the term incompetent to label those that disagree with your extreme viewpoint is generously described as bluster and a more correct term would violate OLO's rules.

An earthquake and Tsunami of the nature that destroyed the Fukushima plant would obliterate Australia's eastern seaboard, as it did much of Japan's. Even then, no one is seriously contemplating building reactors to 1970's standards, just as 1970's cars and planes would no longer be in acceptable if brought to production today. The modern reactors would most probably be able to shut down through a cataclysm that would obliterate the city it feeds, even though the Australian eastern seaboard is nowhere near fault lines as is Japan.

Perhaps instead of banging on about the "dangers" of nuclear power, perhaps you can suggest an alternative?

China has said it will burn all our coal. So why don't we stop export
of coal and we burn it instead over the next few hundred years ?

That will make the greens happy as the co2 rate will be reduced.
The greens will be happy as no nuclear power.
The miners will be happy.

So we would then have more time to get the geothermal going.

Re Nuclear cooling, is there a practical reason air cooling cannot be
used for nuclear power stations ?
It would need lots of air flow of course but wind tunnel sized blowers
might do the job.

You can attack me all you like SM but while it might make you feel might, it does not change the facts around nuclear. I am less confident that human beings are able to navigate the risks inherent in nuclear power? (Not to mention the risks around nuclear warfare but that is another story)

I have already suggested the alternative - renewables with coal power as the back up until renewable technology advances to where fossil fuel power is reduced sufficiently to reverse any global warming impact that might be caused by human activity. Even if you don't subscribe to man-induced global warming, anything that produces less pollution is surely a positive result. (Something the Carbon Tax won't do just as an aside)

I hold more faith in the creativity of human endeavour to improve on renewables than to navigate the political, scientific and human fallibilities influencing nuclear power.

Even advocates of nuclear understand the finite resource of uranium would mean only (9-30 years depending on who you believe) of power (excluding the even more difficult extraction from less concentrated ore veins which requires vast amounts of fossil fuels).

The amount of fossil fuel power required to extract uranium, transport it and in waste disposal makes a mockery of it as an 'alternative' to fossil fuels.

Nuclear power stations already emit radioactive gases and elements into the environment, all approved by governments under 'regulatory' regimes.

The long term consequences of nuclear power in the event of an accident means irreversible long term impacts. Renewables are not perfect and there is much to be improved incuding minimising the use of fossil fuel power to construct renewabe infrastructure even in the short term, but the arguments for and against nuclear need to be closely examined before rushing to it as the solution to climate change.

From my own research and readings the argument falls clearly on the anti-nuclear stance.

Australia is looking to increase uranium exports after pressure from the US. We really are destined to follow rather than lead on this issue.