Bob,
I LOVE your response! Seriously!
I'm no pawn of the Nuclear Industry, more of a pawn of the Gas fired method.
I have considered the things you mentioned LONG ago. I have always felt that our energy needs (which will only ever increase) should be met by all technologies available.
Lets have a look what is available today:-
1. Ocean Wave
2. Solar
3. Wind
4. Gas
5. Coal Seam Gas (fracking)
6. Coal
7. Hydro
8. Nuclear
Ocean Wave. A technology in its infancy. Should be able to provide baseload power unless the seas are calm. Chances the Guvmint will provide research dollars from our carbon tax for development of the technology? Chances some greenie will oppose it to save a sea grass.
Solar and Wind. Again, the sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow. Cannot provide baseload power. Again the greenies get involved.
Gas. Produces CO2 so going to be taxed to hell and back. The greenies hate em wherever you put em.
Coal Seam Gas. I'm with the greenies on this one. Not enough is known about its effects. Actually banned in a few countries. We have enough other resources to use. Remember this technology only came about in the late 1940's but was never commercially applied until around 1996 (?) We know less about it than we do wave tech.
Coal. As for Gas, added to both, we're happy to ship millions of tonnes to non environmentally countries every year.
Hydro. Another one the greenies hate, as it usually involves damming a river. The snowy project is probably hydro's golden child. Never looked at it? It is worth the read.
Nuclear. Next time you are getting a CT scan or similar, remember that without a nuclear power station, they wouldn't have the material that this and other technologies rely on.
There is not ONE power source that does not have an associated environmental risk. Every time you try to show me one, I'll show you the impact.
As for Nuclear Power in Australia.
You've listed but 1 of the three Nuclear disasters that have affected humans directly (short of listing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, as they were man made and planned events).
1. Three Mile Island. The investigation clearly points to Human error via lack of training as being the major contributor. Sure they had some equipment failures, but they were all exacerbated the lack of training. How and why nuclear power works is totally understood. With todays computing power, it isn't hard to produce a simulator for crew training. If you think a simulator isn't good enough, remember that when you begin your next sim session.
2. Chernobyl. A VERY badly managed experiment. Today, much of the experiment they were conducting can actually be acheived by computer modelling. The remainder can be left to smaller reactors, where the operators are heavily trained for 'events' and said reactor exists only for research. READ Lucas Heights in NSW.
3. Fukushima. I agree with you. This plant is a clear demonstration of stupidity, on a design that requires the highest level of maintenance. Why would anyone group the backup pumps in the same location as the primaries? Tho i doubt it would have helped too much. At least it needed a connection to the primary water supply so that they had something to use for cooling whilst they attempted a safe shutdown. Have you read the 726 page analysis on this? Probably not...must admit i skipped a page or two.
The biggest problem for nuclear power is the VAST amount of water they need to operate safely. Sticking them on the coast solves this in the short term, but ramps up the maintenance cost and overall output. The salinity of the water is harsh on all the equipment, and is the driving denominator in the maintenance.
The problem with nuclear power here in australia, is providing that water source without resorting to salt water. Our inland supplies cannot be guaranteed. Coastally, for a salt cooled plant, we have quite a few locations that are not Tsunami vulnerable (Unlike Fukushima living on the Ring of Fire)
To my mind, we have 2 locations very suitable to Freshwater cooled Nuclear Plants. 1. At the bottom of the snowy river scheme. It'd probably need a cooling pond built to go with it, as am unsure of the physics of pumping hot water back to the top. 2. Right bloody next to the Desal Plant in Wonthaggi, Vic. It is coastal, but its land locked coastal providing solid protection against a Tsunami event. You have the Desal plant next door which needs vast amounts of energy. The Nuclear plant needs huge amounts of fresh water. Looks mutually beneficial to me. Current forecasts, are that it is going to be 10 years now before victoria needs our desal plant to produce any fresh water, so a 20 odd billion dollar project is going to sit there unneeded. If you stick a nuclear next to it and force it to make water, you can bet your A that the guvmint will start buying water from the plant to supplant its OPEN evaporative water storages, and we'd get something for our money.
Countries like japan went nuts building nuclear power, as they don't have the coal reserves. Clearly its efficient power.
Would I live near a nuke plant? Got no problem with that. Heck if i wind up glowing in the dark, it'd save me a tonnage on lighting costs
As you can see, I have considered this in some depth. My comment of being a fan of Nuclear power isn't something I threw in the air lightly, it has been thought about in depth.
As for being old and not caring about what the next generation has to contend with.......... I am under 40.
Cheers
Jas