Losses

Transmitting electricity at high voltage reduces the fraction of energy lost to Joule heating. For a given amount of power, a higher voltage reduces the current and thus the resistive losses in the conductor. For example, raising the voltage by a factor of 10 reduces the current by a corresponding factor of 10 and therefore the  losses by a factor of 100, provided the same sized conductors are used in both cases. Even if the conductor size is reduced x10 to match the lower current the  losses are still reduced x10. Long distance transmission is typically done with overhead lines at voltages of 115 to 1,200 kV. At extremely high voltages, more than 2,000 kV between conductor and ground, corona discharge losses are so large that they can offset the lower resistance loss in the line conductors.

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [2], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998. [3]

As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for electricity was 4,000 miles (7,000 km), although all present transmission lines are considerably shorter. (see Present Limits of High-Voltage Transmission)

In an alternating current circuit, the inductance and capacitance of the phase conductors can be significant. The currents that flow in these components of the circuit impedance constitute reactive power, which transmits no energy to the load. Reactive current flow causes extra losses in the transmission circuit. The ratio of real power (transmitted to the load) to apparent power is the power factor. As reactive current increases, the reactive power increases and the power factor decreases. For systems with low power factors, losses are higher than for systems with high power factors. Utilities add capacitor banks and other components throughout the system — such as phase-shifting transformers, static VAR compensators, physical transposition of the phase conductors, and flexible AC transmission systems (FACTS) — to control reactive power flow for reduction of losses and stabilization of system voltage.

http://www.aussiesolar.com.au/html/grid_feed_systems.php

Have a look at this product. You buy solar panels, and you sell electricity onto the grid that you don't use. That is if you generate more than you need, it goes onto the grid and discounts your bill.

As for nuclear power being safe, it absolutely is. What isnt safe is the waste, but they can be stored safely.

What happened in Chernobyl was appalling negligence, it is not an example of nuclear power being unsafe, no more than someone driving a truck into a crowded shopping centre would be an example of trucks being inherently unsafe.

Terrorism is also a worry with nuclear power, in that perhaps a group of Aloha Snackbar people take over a reactor, and tell the scientists to make it go critical at gunpoint. Or they learn how to do so themselves after taking it over.  Flying a plane into a nuclear power station would do nothng however.

Nuclear power makes no sense for Australia, not now, not ever. Solar is the way for us to go.

Well I am with you Mantra, I have never heard of a nuclear facility that runs as a viable, cost effective energy producing system.
I have been told that all of them in commercial use, rely on government subsidies to make them viable.

ELEANOR HALL: The most comprehensive review ever carried out on the financial cost of global warming has found that climate change could not only devastate the environment and cause mass migration but could cut the world's annual economic growth by 20 per cent.

The report by UK economist, Sir Nicholas Stern, and commissioned by the British Government is to be released in London tonight.

It calculates that the total global cost of climate change could run to $9 trillion and it warns there is only a small window of 10 to 15 years to address the problem, as Environment Reporter Sarah Clarke reports.

Each Unit of electricity generated by PV Solar panel costs about 5 times as much as a unit generated by a large centralised solar thermal power station.