Should Australia go nuclear?

11 Sep 2009
55 Comments
Share This
+ Comment
55
A 2007 Newspoll commissioned by The Australia Institute found 46 per cent of people were against nuclear power, compared with 36 per cent for it. (File: AAP)

A 2007 Newspoll commissioned by The Australia Institute found 46 per cent of people were against nuclear power, compared with 36 per cent for it. (File: AAP)

Opinion polls show that many more Australians oppose the establishment of a nuclear power industry than support it, though the gap is closing slightly. What's your view? Do you support nuclear power in Australia?

RELATED

  • Follow us: 
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Youtube

Join the Discussion

Name
City / Suburb E.g. Artarmon, Sydney
Title
Comment
You have characters remaining.
Validation
What's this?
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.
All submitted comments become the property of SBS. They are moderated, so we reserve the right to edit comments and remove HTML tags. Not all submitted comments will be published. Publication does not mean we endorse the opinions expressed. Please read our terms and conditions for more information.

Your Comments

Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next 10

tax procrastination & fund millions of light bulbs

jed - from wollongong, 12 months ago

Govt wont try to pick a new tech. 'winner' and is leaving it to industry to sort out the best future technology. .. and that will take a lot of time which we are being told is not an option. The "new tech nuclear" exists now. Either we live with a lousy climate due to no action now or live with long term waste storage, with clean energy (no CO2 or nuclear) eventually taking over 100%.. probably at least one generation away. I say a 1 lifespan nuclear is worth it.

Nuclear power

john manera - from perth, 1 year

If fossil fuel which includes natural gas is environmentally bad because CO2 is the by product, then the only realistic alternative is nuclear power. Of course if any combination of wind, solar, geothermal or hydroelectric could produce sufficient energy for Australia's needs then the nuclear option would not need to be considered. But with 40% of the world's uranium then I think it is time to consider nuclear power in the mix of alternatives to fossil fuels.

Coal is Dangerous

Siruke - from Ulmarra, 2 years ago

Nuclear Power It's much safer than coal. 9000 people on average are killed in the coal industry every year and that dose not take into account the damage done through pollution. 37 people were killed at Chernobyl.

high energy solar

william millett - from newborough viictoria, 2 years ago

a review of possibilities puts high energy solar as possible .reread what we know and we have simple access no residue ..review much of what we have been told and much is revealed

nuclear will never be safe

Chantelle Prince - from Geraldton, 2 years ago

Nuclear waste lasts millions of years, there is no way we can be sure it wont enter waters and air, as it often has around the world. Nuclear is no solution, it is crazy. We need to use less energy, there are many simple and easy ways to achieve this. Personally, my baby and I use only 7 units of energy in the home per day, and its easy!

mr

andy - from melbourne, 2 years ago

Apart from the waste issues, economic issues also weigh heavily against nuclear power. Who is going to front up with the $6billion dollars required , knowing that it could take 30yrs to get a plant up and running? Who is going to go guarantor for the project? Where is the project to be sighted? How are you going to overcome the mass demonstrations against any government decision to locate in someone's backyard? It would be political suicide on a mass scale! Solar looks pretty easy to me

Mr

Ronald Martens - from Morley Perth, 2 years ago

The use of nuclear energy is an option that should not be considered. With water shortages, a lot of water needs to be used for cooling purposes. Although nuclear is a clean energy, the emissions used to firstly mining then to dig a mine in itself 500metres deep for disposal. The materials used to contain the highly active spent rods. All these materials needs to be prepared then a suitable site under some mountain for burial purposes. Instead if every building was energy independent.

Olkiluoto EPR is a finacial disaster

Vlad - from Melbourne, 2 years ago

Look no farther then Olkiluoto 3 for an example of the costs involved in building nuclear power and the associated costs, very expensive, at around 6 billion AUS for 1 X 1600 MWe nuclear reactor, how many faults so far in the construction of this reactor, so far ? The pouring of the concrete, welding of the liner, this list goes on and on and on ...

MR.

Vlad - from Melbourne, 2 years ago

Chernobyl cost $200 billion + In a worst case scenario a land mass the size of Victoria may need to be evacuated for several years if there was a major meltdown a breach of containment, which cannot be ruled out. There is no long term solution for the disposal of high level nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain - NO, Onkalo - not yet ( and now they are saying a migrating ice shelf may be a problem ?) One EPR 1600 MWe nulcear reactor (around) $6 billion AUS. Too dangerous, too expensive ...

Mr.

Jim Campbell - from glen Iris Melbourne, 2 years ago

Of course we should go nuclear, there are over 430 nuclear power stations in the world today with another 50 under construction.Go to nuclear on the website and you will find the list of accidents and the last one was in1999 and of those there are only two really serious ones. The waste question has been adequately dealt with by Sweden so what are we waiting for--a Politician with guts---could be waiting a long time!!

Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next 10