Why nuclear? There are proven solutions to energy production without using nuclear or fossil fuels...Why are we as a people not looking at alternatives...We cannot dismiss solar thermal but we do...Photovoltaics maybe expensive but is fine for small installations...Hydro is suitable in the areas where we have already dammed the rivers...geothermal is suitable in certain areas...a few i have comne up with and i'm no energy engineer...
and back to solar thermal, well 24/7 power is possible using this method over photovoltaics, but alas the money makers have huge investments in depleting fuel sources and solar thermal is impossible to claim "we are running out of fuel and need to charge more"...

I am not sure why we are chossing to debate over antiquated technology that provided the world with nuclear bombs, and economic woes, cyclotron's can produce all the medical isotopes needed and 3billion dollars can be used to research other safer means (ie. cancer prevention). lethal waste, highly subsidised energy verses clean renewables that are economic windfalls (eg. vester wind power). this nuclear makes no money, more waste, no sense, but more death.

after reading the above comments, it is obvious that the voting public have become very cynical of the motives behind any decision made by government regardless of political persuasion.
Unless someone can come up with the means of ending the dominance of fuel corporations we really have no choice but to go nuclear. Who do you think blocks bio fuels and research into other energy sources?

Perhaps those who are terrified of the uranium industry should consider the fact that the coal industry is far more dangerous. In China, there are 6000 coal mining fatalities each year. Even in the US, where standards are much higher, coal kills over 90 each year - all without taking into account environmental health considerations.

I daresay that in the course of the 20th century, coal has killed more people than uranium, even when you include Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I do not trust The Prime Minister, on any of his statements. He has successfully endochrinated, seemingly, a substantial number of the citizens to his way of thinking. He has done this over a number of years by spending taxpayers money to flood them with his untruthful messages.
He has successfully used fear directed at his "aspirationals" who have very big mortgages and are bound by uncertainity and now have the added fear about job security.
The Prime Minister lacks courage in doing the right thing by the Australian people, in not addressing alternate energy, as his corporate mates would not be happy with him.

For a quick but thorough appraisal of nuclear power as a 'g;obal warming strategy' please read FEASTA's excellent document at www.feasta.org. Nuclear power cannot be a solution to climate change or energy depletion simply because there is not enough nuclear fuel to go around to meet either of these challenges. If the world swapped over to nuclear power, affordable uranium (that which actually ended up with a positive energy yield) would last about 6 years! At the current tiny rate of use they will only last about 75 years anyway! We need to get real about this and think about future generations!

can some please tell me how we are going to keep supplying to the growing population if we dont move forward with nuclear power.coal is running out ,we have taken years to develop solar and wind energy with very low results,how much longer can we wait?

A survey like this is bound to attract passionate and biased responses - in short, an unbalanced view of community sentiment is the result. As such, I put little value in this methodology. It would be far better to go by the Morgan Gallup survey which is a random selection of people in the community, not those with the inclination and passion to respond to on-line surveys.

For my money - nuclear is the way of the future. Nuclear fusion that is, not fission. In the interim, why is there no push by State or Federal governments to encourage people to utilize solar cells on the roofs of houses? If every house had one panel of solar cells on the roof, feeding electricity back into the power grid and giving credit for the back-flow to the householder, we should (in theory) be able to boost energy production, reduce greenhouse emissions from coal-fired power generation, and avoid the unsightliness of wind turbines.

The current Federal government caucus seems to believe that uranium mining and processing is somehow a positive contribution toward a sustainable built environment, both locally and globally.

I am informed by the conclusion of the Ranger Uranium Inquiry, which stated that uranium mining (and the nuclear fuel cycle) adds to the risk of nuclear war. Nothing has changed in the past 30 years to lessen this threat. Current events in Iran underscore the fact that enrichment technology is dual use, and that nuclear electricity feedstocks and waste products are dual use.

Here in Australia, we have a real opportunity to contribute to safe solutions to the global energy crisis.

The attached papers show a method of analysis which promises a more rational debate on needs and consequences.

R Rands
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


[PDF] April 2000 Emergy Accounting Howard T. Odum Environmental ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
April 2000. Emergy Accounting. Howard T. Odum. Environmental Engineering Sciences. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ...
dieoff.org/page232.pdf - Similar pages


[PDF] Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: Evaluation of the State of ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia. ix. LIST OF TABLES. Table 1. Tabular Format for an Emergy Evaluation . ...
www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/ files/wvevaluationposted.pdf - Similar pages


[PDF] Microsoft PowerPoint - SF05_ORDWestVirginia.ppt File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
The Solution: Environmental. Accounting Using Emergy ... emergy analysis of West Virginia was performed as a part of. this research. ...
www.epa.gov/scienceforum/ 2005/pdfs/ordposter/Campbell_ORD27.pdf - Similar pages


Keeping the books for environmental systems: an emergy analysis of ... Emergy provides a general accounting mechanism that allows us to view ... Keeping the books for environmental systems: an emergy analysis of West Virginia. ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve& db=PubMed&list_uids=15141457&dopt=Abstract - Similar pages


[PDF] CENTER REPORT Center for Environmental Policy Department of ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Emergy and environmental accounting. In C. Cleveland. (ed) Encyclopedia of Energy. Elsevier. ... evaluation of watersheds and mining in West Virginia. ...
www.ees.ufl.edu/cep/CEP_REPORT_(1999-05).pdf - Similar pages

There is not enough uranium in the world for nuclear power to be a long tern alternative to gas and coal. In fact, if nuclear power did replace gas and coal as the world's primary energy source we would run out of high grade uranium by 2016.

Apparently nuclear power is being looked at as a possible solution to climate change. Please explain to me the logic behind this? Although it is true that nuclear power plants have low emissions, the nuclear fuel cycle and processes of mining, milling, decommissioning and waste management are heavy greenhouse polluters. In fact, after we use the high grade uranium ore deposits, if we were to use the remaining low grade ore to fuel nuclear power stations they would consume more energy than they produce.

Furthermore, the nuclear fuel cycle comes with an unreasonable degree of health, safety and environmental risks. For example Sellafield, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, have left thousands of hectares of farmland useless for food production, and indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of people. Even in the last few years there has been a fire at Roxby Downs, leaks at Ranger and explosions at Tokaimura in Japan.

May I suggest that the cabinet's time would be better spent looking into energy efficiency and gas and coal alternatives such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and hydrogen fuel cell technology.

How much uranium is left..plenty.. for now BUT only a small proportion is hi grade. When that has been used radioactive rocks will have to be transported, pulverised and the residue dumped (where?). More mess, more sick people. For 10,000 tonnes of rock only 1 tonne of uranium oxide is extracted. We are on the verge of opening pandoras box...very few people comprehend what we are unleashing just to have a reactor for a safe 20 years that will take billions of dollars to decommission if it doesnt blow, like Chernoble or melt down like Three Mile Island. As Monmica Jackson says...we do not need nuke for medical purposes either. Cyclotrones can produce the isotopes far more safely. Nuke power is dirty, dangerous and VERY expensive Leave uranium in the ground UNMINED. .

btw, I feel I need to respond to Betty Daly-King. Take it from someone who spent a year working and living at Roxby Downs, and pursued an interest in the local wildlife. The environmental problems there do not relate to uranium, but to the cyanide and sulphur spills and emissions of the of the onsite gold and copper processing plants. The radiation level from the uranium there is considerably less than what you receive by sitting in front of your TV.

Should we ban gold and copper mining and exports too?

On such a huge issue, there shouldn't just be parliamentary committees, there should be a measure of community consultation. By that, I don't mean public meetings - those would just end up being a 'slanging match' between the Fors and Againsts, but there should be some way of allowing the public to vote on it, something organised along the lines of a referendum, perhaps? (I know a referendum is only for constitutional issues, but there must be some mechanism for allowing a public poll on questions of such national importance.) The people should decide this issue - not the 'pollies'.

None of the political bodies( individuals), will ever worry like we the public , the majority here do,'They have the money the means to move to better places, better cleaner places at the drop of the preverbial hat.
How many of these pollies take realistic care of enviroment daily. Unles s of course by way of solar powered things etc, that the every day family cannot afford, same with tanks etc,i would love a solar powered water supply, a new car( energy efficient) , ducted heating from solar, Pool etc. I would love to even purchase them, witht the rebate, no good having a rebate when you don,t have the cash to purchase first.
We, in my family only flush the loo if its a must( during the night), we shower every 2 nnd day, we got a water saver shower head 8 yrs ago, we turn what powered items off daiy, and reset every night, when home, we cannot afford heating, or electric blankets ets.
We always do car, dog, patio etc with bucket, where do we get a bit of reward, too late for rewarding us.
Ok so buy us a water tank to say thanks, well i don,t think so, they don,t care,
How many pollies turn all the electrical things off during the day, remote controls etc to everything gee, wake up Aust.
I just spent 3 days in public hospital had small heart attack, kicked out of my public bed in CCU, for a private patient, who,s private doc was on call at the public hospital, he didn,t want to have to travel to his private hospital 20 mins away to do procedure,( 20 min procedure).
I and another public heart patient had to go home, still no idea when we will be seen again, no idea whats wrong yet either.Politics.
We have the rich and poor in Australia, who would believed that 40 yrs ago, we had 3 classes, now the richer getting richer and more privelaged, and us poor getting poorer and sicker every day.
And now the worry of nuclear crap.
What about helping us porr to health.
I have waited 8 yrs for a top set of teeth, I work voluntary in our hospitals in my community, cos I am disabled, I run a group, a rehab . recovery group for people at risk of suicide, people, with mental health worries/ illness etc, I run this 2 days a week for round 40 adults, yet the govt are making me quit my volunteer work running this community service where I also have 4 volunteers, and they want to send me to work voluntary somewhere else for my disability pension, thei will mean i have to closse my group, up to 40 disabled people will have no help, be at risk of death suicide, be without at least 2 good meals a week, cos the govt are going to send me to volunteers somewhere they chose, maybe licking envelopes in their office.
I pay for my own training to upskill to keep being able to nurse, nurture the ill, legally, Can only use my head as the body wracked with pain and ill health.
My group has been running 13 years, 6 with me at the realm,over 4000 peole been through our doors.
in last 4 yrs.
And people voted these idiots in.
I,m no bludger, I,m not wroughting system, I work to help those who ned help, plus keep myself alive, would die if I had to stop caring for others, but the government and the people who vote them in, have no idea what they are doing.
Volunteer week, oh yes, to those who gloat, to those who seem to be seen.
We cannot get our bills paid cos we cannot make decision between bills paid or health scripts etc.
All crap.
Sorry,
Nuclear is just money grabbing bbbsss.
They can afforrd the nuclear medicines we cannot. will die before any of that, we need to be clean air, less worry on PEOPLE.

A proper inquiry needs to look at all forms of power generation, not just nuclear energy. Australia needs to set an example to the world by advancing the research and production of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy, which I believe we are poised to take advantage of with our abundance of sunlight and strong onshore winds. Why is John Howard biased towards nuclear energy I wonder? It seems he is more interested in short term financial gain than long term consequences for the environment. Doen't he think about what the future may hold if Australia goes down the nuclear path and that future generations may have to pick up the pieces if something goes wrong?

Yes, I wondered who owned shares in what, too. There's lots of mention of solar, but little of micro hydro. I guess that isn't as big an option here as in Germany.

People associate nuclear with weapons because sometimes they are nuclear weapons.

The Howard Liberal Government has proven to be completely untrustworthy, this discussion is clarifying that. Now that Murdoch has begun to withdraw support for the lying scumbag, will Australians get permission to think about alternatives? Let's see.

Now PM Blair is looking towards nuclear power,all countries should consider where they will store their waste.We don't want it in our backyard I don't care how much the government would make.Premier Carpenter is right in saying uranium wont be mined in WA,there are other alternatives.

Having read the notes contained above, one can only come to 2 conclusions:
(1). Political bias is behind the majority of comments, not rational sientific evaluation.
(2). Constant reference to "dangerious" results have most people against what is an everyday operation in most European countries.
also 99% of neuclear power stations have been operating for years without any problems. These are ran by extremely dedicated engineers, and professionals, who know their work, not hotheads with an axe to grind.
What will generate the power required when the sun goes down, and when the wind is not blowing strongly enough to turn the generators at the speed required to produce power? (answer: only coal, gas or neuclear powered stations eh!!)