Hi All

Here in recent days, in Down Under Land, the politicians have been discussing nuclear power seriously for the first time in a long time. The Australian nuclear lobby group just published a report which indicated nukes were cheaper than any other power source, which may or may not be true, but naturally enough the Aussie Green lobby (The Australian Conservation Foundation) and their pet senator have replied with the latest Green tactic - that nukes are more expensive in the long run than other power sources when the cost of disposal is factored in.

I don't know about that. Coal fired plants get a 'free' disposal service by dumping exhaust to the atmosphere (ash has to be captured here in Oz, unlike in China, for example) - factor in CO2 capture and their cost would roughly double say some. Solar and renewables have a lot of hidden disposal costs I suspect, but they're easy to make in small scale form and so are the darlings of "free market" energy gurus who think we should all be contributing power to the grid.

Personally I think the enriched uranium approach to nukes is short-sighted and stupid. More needs to go into alternative fuel cycles that use natural uranium and thorium - the waste produced is miniscule compared to the hot crap the current fuel cycles make. And 'waste' for one is fuel for some cycles, thus giving all that long-term waste a dollar value and easy disposal.

With fuel cycles using natural uranium it's possible to extract uranium from sea-water economically, and because it is continually leached from the land it's also totally renewable.

Any other Aussies with an opinion on this one? It's a real hot potato.

Adam