Aussies approve of nuke power: Poll

ALMOST half of Australians have given nuclear power plants the thumbs up as a replacement for coal, oil and gas power plants, a poll shows.
A Morgan Poll has revealed that 49 per cent of Australians approve of nuclear power plants, while 37 per cent disapprove of their use to help cut greenhouse gas emissions. The remaining 14 per cent are undecided.

But the poll shows 87 per cent of Australians are concerned about the disposal of nuclear waste if plants are introduced here.

Twelve per cent of people say they are not concerned about the waste while one per cent are undecided.

Morgan research surveyed 594 Australian men and women aged 14 and over on June 7 and 8.

The poll reported 54 per cent of respondents agreed Australia should continue developing and exporting uranium for peaceful purposes.

But 36 per cent said we should not produce uranium.

Pollster Gary Morgan said after much debate on the nuclear industry, more Australians approved than disapproved of the introduction of nuclear power plants to replace coal, oil, and gas plants to stop greenhouse gas emissions.

"However, with 87 per cent of Australians concerned about the disposal of nuclear waste the government needs to assure Australians that there will be no adverse effects if nuclear energy is introduced," Mr Morgan said.

The release of the poll comes after Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry, to be headed by nuclear physicist and former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, would investigate Australia's nuclear options.

https://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19423437-1702,00.html

Sweet. I'm all for nuclear power. Too bad our president can't say nuclear right.

Hmm, out of how many voters?

I am undecided on this issue. What I have not heard raised, is that considering how the governments here have deliberately allowed our schools, schools, road, electricity stations, etc become run down to appauling standards, what is to stop them from neglecting nucleur power stations?

the stations should make the Gov money so I doubt they will let them run down.

Pffffft....so does electricity yet they are run down like mad.

When Sir Joh ran Queensland, he built the place from swamp into the economic powerhouse it is today...well, was until this gov't started screwing it. Now everything is being run down.

As for the money thing, it is to be built by private companies which means companies will own and run it

Nobody should own essential industries but the people!

wats the difference between nuclear power and what we have right now..??

I'm dead set against it I mean seriously where does howard get of introducing this - and yes I know cobber that the labor party once wanted to introduce it but at least it didn't happen and I just hope that it doesn't happen now.I mean really why pollute the world/earth some more why not put the money that was going into the nuclear power and try and come up with some other solution or stick with the coal and try and work out how it can be effective with out it pollutin the earth more so.

Are you in high school yet? If so, it is probably best to ask your science teacher for a better explanation. Geology teachers should be up for it as well.

Most power these days still comes from burning coal. It's very dirty and releases gobs and gobs of filth into the air.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, is exceptionally clean. The only byproduct is a very small amount of solid radioactive waste that needs to be periodically emptied from the plant. We are still trying to figure out the best way to handle this radioactive waste, because it stays radioactive for hundreds of years and can contaminate soil and water for a long time if it's released.

We have some pretty good methods right now, but these methods of containment don't have the long-term reliability to last as long as the waste is radioactive. There are solutions coming, and the vast majority of people knowledgable in the issue recognize that nuclear power is much, much better for the environment than burning fossil fuels.

The biggest problem with nuclear power is people who don't know much about it. They associate nuclear power plants with catastrophic accidents like Chernobyl, which was a power plant in the Soviet Union that blew up. However, Chernobyl had a huge number of design flaws and the very very poor government of the Soviet Union neglected the poor thing until it was destroyed. Modern power plants are basically incapable of having this kind of accident.

Do you really think that burning coal is preferable to nuclear power, which is basically pollution-free?

Yeah right sounds like you work at the nuclear power plant how can you sit there and say that its "basically pollution free"pull the other leg,what a joke,and where are we going to get the nuclear ....... ah yes good old america who else.

We would not get the nucleur energy from America. We would get it from ourselves. Australia has majority of this resource.

Yeah thats all very well and fine but wouldn't we be polluting the world quicker than what we already are doing?I go back to my original statement which is instead of wasting money on this killer why not put it towards the coal and try and find a efficent ways reducing the pollution!I'm no expert or professional in this area but I know that Nuclear Power is just not a good idea - just have a look at the 3 mile island and chernobyo Islands.