If you want to argue about WHETHER Australia should use nuclear power you have the right to your opinion, and to express it in some other thread. In this thread it is off-thread. This is a thread about HOW we might go nuclear. It is to solicit comments on ideas I've had. I'd appreciate expert, intelligent and constructive comments.

The (current) conservative federal government wants to override state Labor governments bans on nuclear plants being built in their states. The idea I had was that nuclear plants wouldn't be built in each/any state. They'd be built in ships that'd steam to wherever they were required, moor offshore outside the state-controlled 3 NM limit, say 10 kms, and deliver their power onto shore via undersea cable of the sort that connects Tasmania to the rest of Australia. When they needed refueling - every 2 years - another power ship would be sent, they'd swap the cable from one to the other, and the one that needed refueling would sail back to a base that did all the refining, enriching, refueling, maintenance and decommissioning for the two weeks it takes to do maintenance and refuel, then be available to replace the next one that needs refueling. Centralising all that in one base in a relatively remote location - Whyalla is good because its near the uranium and has a harbor and is remote - would reduce risk and quantity of nuclear skills required. Putting the reactors on ships that moor 10 km out at sea would get around state laws, reduce the NIMBY effect of no-one wanting one built near them, improve flexibility in that they could be located and relocated as needed, eliminate the transportation of either fuel or waste through cities and towns and states, and cut the decommissioning costs. And if a disaster did occur the ship could steam or be towed out to sea for repairs, and if it couldn't be it'd be scuttled in deep ocean, which may not be ideal but it beats the heck out of having it next door until it cools down.

there are several good reasons no one has proposed this idea:

vulnerability to attack,

vulnerability to weather,

catastrophic failure at sea is much worse than on land,

and expense.

Sorry GordonD. This thread is not off-limits. I am formally registered as a participant on OLO, therefore I am entitled to respond to any thread which appeals to me.

Typical of the pro-nukes, you have completely ignored the entire process for nuclear which includes uranium mining! This process is a dirty, dangerous and eco-destructive operation where massive amounts of water are required to extract uranium from the ore. In fact, one mine is currently extracting 33,000,000 litres of ground-water per day with a three fold expansion proposed for the operation.

Do your sums and work out the amount of eco-degradation that will occur when perhaps some additional 80 uranium mines commence operations in the near future, creating an ideal prognosis for a greatly increased radioactive environment.

You may not be too concerned about our oceans becoming contaminated if the nuclear unit had to be abandoned at sea, but most of us are.

And many of us are well aware of the insidious radioactive contamination of the oceans near the British and French nuclear land units - a result of using those oceans as liquid waste disposal facilities!

Gordon D. That sounds like a great idea, indeed. But how to get everybody on board? Especially, everybody who matters. And there are a lot of those people. You'd have to persuade the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - which of course, includes George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, and soon, our own Prime Minister John Howard. You'd have to persuade BHPBilliton, Rio Tinto,also Australian Nuclear Fuel Leasing, (John White), Ziggy Switkowski, and Ron Walker & co.

After that, there'd be the need to convince the Australian public, which would require an expensive advertising campaign.

No, I really think that the present way is the best. Fortunately the Howard government has large financial resources. Persuasion and the promise of profit is the way to go - win over the state governments, and the federal ALP, and then the public, with a whole-hearted promotional campaign, based on the existing plans for the nuclear industry in Australia

Thank you, Dickie, for reminding us of our rights in these threads!

There always seems to be so much emotion when nuclear power is ever discussed. I suppose people always equate it with bombs and radio active pollution. People seem to forget that many more people have been killed in coal mines than a lot of other industrial activities. Since the year 2000 over 40,000 coal miners have been killed in China and even in the good ol' USA over 800 since 1980. Australia has a better record but many have lost their lives and that only accounts for just three countries world wide. I hesitate to make the comparison with road deaths which run into several millions world wide since the motor car was introduced. We now produce more pollution from coal and all the things that produce CO2. No one wants to live next to a power station but given the choice I would certainly plump for a nuclear one