Paul L.

The new designs might be good, but that will depend on how the construction materials stand up to higher temperatures and higher neutron flux. Hence a long wait to find out if they live up to the claims. In contrast, you can evaluate solat thermal technology at much lower cost and in a shorter time frame. I agree though that it is silly to ignore a technology for unscientific reasons.

You might also like to know that heat storage systems, like the nuclear reactors you hold so much hope for, are also at an advanced design stage.

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pubs_thermal_storage.html#adv_heat

The main challenge for solar thermal at present is cost reduction. This could happen in a few years, then there might be justification for developing thermal storage systems. With nuclear you wait about twenty years for a new generation of reactor. In the same time you could see ten generations of solar thermal technology.

Paul.L.

I can assure you that I am NOT a "Brainwashed, Hysterical Greenie!" far from it! I have spent 50 years of my life representing the battlers views, BUT I must admit that I am very concerned about YOUR future, and the future of this planet,....sorry about that, but that is the way I was made!

For your information the Coal Industry has NEVER looked better, with sales to China increasing daily!.....( I don`t think that too many jobs are at risk in the Coal Mining Industry in the forseeable future!)

I was an Aircraft Engineer who resigned after 21 years dedicated service, to became a Cattle Producer, until John Howard introduced his GST ...."The Tax that everyone would fairly pay!" His resultant Tax Department`s ruling was that "unfortunately you are NOT entitled to an ABN unless you are turning over $50,000 of Cattle per year!" which meant the ultimate demise of my business and many other "small" producers who had played a prominent part in the Agricultural success of the Rural Industry across Australia!.....you may understand PAUL.L. why I DO NOT have a framed photograph of John Howard on my Lounge room wall!.....( nor will I have a photo of Kevin Rudd either!)

Regardless of the assertions that you or any other of the protagonists of Nuclear Power may give, I for one will NEVER condone the use of this "Doomsday" material, regardless of whether it is to be used for weaponry or for domestic purposes, .....the risks are just too great, and after all, it is rather cavalier to be pontificating about our current situation, but we ALL have the responsibility of ensuring our families futures and the futures of generations to come!

TREC is inspiring. It's reasonable to imagine an Australia-wide network of Solar and wind generation which, with the different time zones, would just about obviate the need for huge storage facilities.
25 years ago I visited friends on Isle du Levant. they had a small solar power collecter at the gate and it powered their fridge, lights, radio, tv... the storage batteries were compact and trouble free. Germany has embraced solar! there are more solar units in Britain than Australia! We are the dumb country without parallel!
Australia wants coal and nuclear because of the mines and their export earnings. without coal Queensland would be bankrupt. Our degraded form of democracy puts demagogues in power, not clever thinkers, so don't be surprised when dreadfully stupid and wrong decisions are made. When the sole criterion for a political decision is, "Will it get me re-elected?" then of course bad decisions are made. A reform of the political system, by outlawing political parties and introducing proportional representation would be a start. Dumb politicians make dumb decisions -- its as simple as that.
The true costs of Nuclear, if you consider the extraction, construction of reactors, continuous mining and transport, preparation of the ore for use, huge ongoing expenditure on security and police, transport of waste and storage and its ongoing policing and security for hundreds of years -- with no certainty it will ever become safe... the possibility of accidents and leakages......... no one in their right mind would ever consider such potentially lethal technology when free wind and sun are there for the taking... especially as there is only about fifty years of uranium supply in the ground!
If a quarter of the funds made acvailable to research into carbon sequestration and nuclear were made available to the solar industry, we'd be using it now, cheaply. What our inglorious leaders fail to understand is that costs include everything, environmantal impact, emotional concerns, fear factor, the works... not just dollars.

Fester,

I would be happy with current generation nuclear plants. Nearly 20% of the world’s electricity is currently produced by nuclear power.

CupHandle

You well and truly missed the point of my capitalized statement. I was reacting to your rather extreme quote that no intelligent person wants nuclear power. It is certainly not true.

You have also missed the point I made about coal. If we go nuclear we will no longer use coal powered stations. Therefore coal producers will receive less income. This shortfall will not be made up by producing uranium, as far less uranium is needed to produce the equivalent amount of electricity. So to pretend that we would replace coal powered stations with nuclear powered stations because it benefits the mining industry is rubbish.

I don’t care whether you like John Howard or not, it has nothing to do with this debate. I don’t like him either if it makes you feel any better.

It does not surprise me that a greenie would say they don’t care what the evidence is; you will never support nuclear power. Just don’t bother to use reason to defend your point of view, since it is clear a point of faith for you.

Ybgirp,

There is no question that we can use renewables like wind and solar for SOME of our electricity needs. But it is simply impossible to run our base load power requirements off wind and solar etc alone. Lighting a persons home is one thing, powering a commercial production line is something else entirely.

The true cost of nuclear is always included in the cost of the power sold, including decommissioning the plant and storing the waste.

As for 50 years of uranium supplies, that is absolute rubbish, uranium is one of the most abundant resources on the planet. Fast breeder reactors coming online will use 1/60th of the uranium of current reactors and so will tolerate a 6000% increase in the cost of fuel without increasing the cost of electricity. This makes extracting uranium cost-effective from a host of sources which were previously too expensive.

Cuphandle, you lost your argument in your first sentence. The use of 'cronies' indicates that you are not a Howard supporter and therefore are not trying to be objective.

Your assertion that nuclear is a dangerous form of energy is just plain wrong. It is one of the safest forms of energy production. When I was a student in the sixties we were taught that the use of fossil fuels caused the direct death of about 277 Australians a year!

Ill-informed people like you have supervised the deaths of thousands of Australians during my lifetime by their insistence that we should not consider the safest of all, nuclear.

Forget the politics mate and do the science. If you argue facts and not fiction we might take your opinions seriously.

Paul L and geoffreykelley,
What about nuclear waste? Yes, I realise it is small in quantity, but it can pack a punch and lasts a very long time and there's no way to safely dispose of it. And do you deny there is a chance of catastrophic accident causing far more harm in one go than fossil fuels have over centuries? Do you not wonder what would happen if someone dropped a bomb on a reactor? Are you blithely unconcerned about a serious earthquake as happened recently in Japan? i wonder if you have been slightly brainwashed. Perfectly safe? I dont think so.