So Sam, lets build a nuclear power plant somewhere.... where do you suggest? I bet Merewether is the last place on your list. You say: "the sure knowledge that wind and solar will not replace coal-fired power stations" says you? or who? why think like that? And I suggest you provide proof with such statements as: "whereas the average Greens voter, again in my opinion, is fanatical." Remember Chernobyl... lest we forget. And no matter how safe you try and make something, in the words of Elvis Costello "accidents will happen"

It's not the the potential accident that makes me against it. The waste is the real issue I don't believe we have the right to leave such a legacy for our grand childrens grand children for what? apparently Nuclear is only cleaner than coal (ignoring the waste issue) while Uranium is easy to mine apparently if we swapped all our coal to nuclear their is only 10 years before we use up all the easy to get to stuff. Awfully expensive Bandaid shouldn't we use that money to find a real solution.

Uranium is in abundance in the NW of this continent. Let it stay there. And Sam, what did the Liberal party do about changing our ways in the use of coal based power during their record breaking stint in parliment. To me both parties are as good or as bad as each other.

Why harp about Nuclear waste? The experts have told us what CO2 will do. As to the location: put it at Bayswater where all the infrastructure exists. As to the waste, put it back precisely where the Uranium ore came from: in the same hole.

Fanatical Greens? Switched on more likely. These are people who are concerned -and rightly so- for the future of generations to come and not consumed by the greed that accompanies short term, short sighted economic rationalist thinking. Radioactive waste is the responsibility of the generation that produce it. We do not have the right to handball the problem onto generations that follow. I am astonished by the hypocracy of the pro nuclear conservitive right. They carped on endlessly about the burdensome cost of borrowed money used to stimulate Australia's economy in the wake of the greedy US induced world financial meltdown. A debt they claim that will be handed on, by Labour, to the next generation. But the same said people have no problem whatsoever with bequething, for 20,000 years minimum, the cost -and it going to cost plenty- of maintaining facilities to store ours and even other countries, nuclear waste. Shame on them all!

Dodge- Nuclear waste is the only issue preventing the building of nuclear power generation plants. And has been for years. Otherwise they would be a familiar sight all over our landscape. If science can come up with solution to nutralize the radioactive component, other than housing it in bunkers (bunker bombs?) then you have my blessing, build as many as you like. Is it morally acceptable to pass on our nuclear waste problems to the generations that follow? The longevity of radioactive waste and our inability to solve that problem prevents right minded people from agreeing with this as a solution to our energy problems. In Europe they have and are still spending hundreds of millions of euros to store their waste. This is an ongoing cost that they and future generations will have to bear until the radioactive component becomes inert, something like 20,000 plus years. Sticking it back down the hole from where came is useless for a hole raft of reasons. If just one canister or drum fractures and the contents leaches into the water table the result would, not could, but would be horrendous. Nuclear, no way! Expensive, dangerous unnessessary.