Foxy,

The link you provided is so generalised that it is of little value. Secondly some of the statements are misleading such as "Developing such an industry, and the professionals needed to run it, would take decades" which would be true if we were building reprocessing plants, but not operating reactors, as we already have trained professionals from Lucas Heights.

A prime example of what can reasonably be done is in the UAE:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-arab-emirates.aspx

2009 went out on tender
2010 tender awarded
2012 permits issued and construction started
2017 construction completed and reactors started

Life expectancy 60yrs
Peak generation 5.6 GW
Avg generation 5.0 GW
Cost US$25bn
Operating cost 60yrs +/- $20bn
LCOE is about AU$30 / MWhr. (far cheaper than wind or solar)

So for AU$70bn, Aus could replicate this x2, reduce electrical related emissions by a further 35% by 2030, reduce power prices, and improve reliability.

Foxy, that there are a variety of energy sources is undisputable, but which are dispatchable 24/7/365 at the rate required by modern society, and at what cost?

Nuclear energy is cheap and proven. The only issue is the fear and mythology surrounding it and failed leadership in its promotion. There can be no sensible discussion about our energy future, and hence the future of mankind, until this is addressed. The UN should lead but is wracked with politics and inertia. Read as much as you can of the last link I provided to understand this.

Some are working at things independently http://radiationeffects.org/

The renewables pathway, with the dogmatic belief in the future arrival of scalable, affordable storage, will lead us nowhere in averting CAGW.

Nuclear technology is tried, tested and capable of great further development if we can turn the funding and the brains currently wasted on renewables in its direction

Dear SM,

The link I provided although rather simplistic I
thought would be a good summation for the energy choices
available. I actually have a family member who worked
at Lucas Heights for many years - he went on to lecture
at Sydney University.

Regarding a "nuclear renaissance?"
I think that the principal public fear is that a "meltdown"
at a nuclear reactor could release a plume of deadly
radiation into the atmosphere, before people in surrounding
communities could be warned and evacuated. Despite constant
assurances from the industry that nuclear reactors are safe,
opinion polls show that the public is unconvinced,
especially since the serious nuclear accidents we've had.

Nuclear reactors produce notoriously hazardous waste.
What is needed is a place that will safely contain the
waste for at least 10,000 years, which is long enough for
most of it to decay. The location of such a site is a
ticklish political problem for the obvious reason that people
are generally unenthused about the prospect of having a
radioactive dump in their own neighbourhood.

To me the disposal problem seems to be the one that so far
has no acceptable technological fix.

Still we do have to look at what needs to be done.
There's no question about that. Few people will deny that
the planet has a finite amount of resources or that it
can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution. Therefore
if world population continues to grow rapidly, if
industrialisation spreads around the world, and if
pollution and resource depletion continue at an increasing
rate - where is human society headed? The most optimistic
answer to these questions would be that, one way or
another sweeping social changes await us.

I'll get in first and mention Chernobyl: a reactor built in the 1950s, about to be de-commissioned in 1986, thirty one years ago, running on a model that no country in its right mind would have even thought to copy back in 1970.

We are now in, what ? the sixth or seventh generation of nuclear power stations ? France, Finland, Sweden etc. derive a high proportion of their energy needs through nuclear power - do they have any accidents ? And we haven't even looked very deeply into thorium reactors yet.

Of all States, SA is well-placed to build nuclear power stations, especially in the north and west. And the east too - well, the entire area north of the Goyder Line, say north of Port Augusta. As for any dangers, how far is Lucas Heights from the Sydney CBD ?

SA's future energy needs will differentiate into urban needs in the south, and mining and processing needs in the north. A string of nuclear power stations, distant from towns roughly as far as Lucas Heights is from Sydney's urban areas, built just north of Ceduna and Port Augusta, at Leigh Creek and Roxby Downs, could transform SA's economy and demography. Perhaps a couple out in the Mallee east of Adelaide too.

Just suggesting.

Joe

Dear Joe,

The following link discloses the uncertain future
of nuclear power plants in Europe and the reasons
for it:

http://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-power-faces-uncertain-future-in-europe/a-19215273

Foxy, firstly may I suggest you go to Tinyurl.com and place the
link from that site on your browsers task bar and when you want to
place long url into a post open the page click on the tinyurl link
and copy the tinyurl into your post. Simplifies it for everyone.

Basically I agree with SM on nuclear power.
I had a friend who was the boss at Lucas Heights and who worked at the
nuclear power stations in the UK. I also suspect he might have worked
at Los Alomos.
He attended in 1956 an engineering meeting at the Vienna Nuclear Centre.
The Russians described their new power reactor design but it drew
crticism from western engineers because of its carbon moderators.
They said there was a risk of a steam explosion of coolant.
Precisely what happened at Chernobyl.

As my friend, since then design has improved out of sight.
The Fukishima event would not have happened if it had been built on
the west coast instead.

My main concern is can Australia afford to build a fleet of nuclear power stations ?
The days of massive public works is coming to an end together with
the end of happy motoring.
The mad idea of using battery backup for the power grid is nothing
short of Alice's Wonderland.

We are in significant trouble with net energy or ERoEI if you like.
There is doubt if we can avoid Trainter's Collapse of Complex Systems.
Here is a read for you which is intended to worry you about the near
future economy. It refers particually to the US but as we saw in 2008
we are indeed all in the one boat.

http://tinyurl.com/juv85ax

Just like that Foxy, as pessimistic as I am about the economy I do
not think we have much alternative as solar & wind cannot do the job.
For those following the Trump phenomena you will find the above link
has some interest as the writer thinks Trump is being setup to fail.

Let me know what you think of Kunstler's forecast fo 2017.