I’d be very reluctant to support nuclear energy in Australia for all the reasons that have been discussed over and over on this forum and many others.

However, the situation with the conversion to an energy regime that is dominated by renewable energy sources is likely to be very ugly. The enormous changes, increases in costs, reductions in quality of life, very uneven effects on different people, etc, threatens to cause massive social upheaval.

If the development of a large-scale nuclear energy regime could be shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of this social fracturing, then it might just be the way to go.

Social cohesion is all-important. We want to make sure that the rule of law stays intact and that the government stays in control.

If however we decide to start building nuclear power plants only after we have become really stressed by rising oil prices or the effects of climate change, then I’d say that we should forego it and just battle through a very difficult transition period without nuclear energy.

The development of a nuclear energy regime is something that we need to do when we have the time, resources and safeguards well and truly in place to do it properly. It is certainly not something to be done when we are stressed and rushed, when there are other huge areas crying out for emergency funding and when our government is very likely to cut a lot of corners.

Good article Martin.

Even if you don't believe in AGW or think we have an obligation to act, it still makes good sense to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. It appears that global liquid fuel production peaked in 2008. It is thought that China's domestic coal production will peak by 2015 and will almost certainly drive up the world price of coal. As Australia's ageing coal fired power stations are retired many are suggested they be replaced with gas fired generators. That will only reduce CO2 around 40-50% and will be more expensive than nuclear power, even without carbon taxes. However the upfront capital cost is lot lower than nuclear. Additionally gas fired power stations can use air cooling and don't need to be on the coastline like nuclear plants. If we replace Australia's oil demand (now mostly imported) with gas that could add 50% to domestic gas demand on an equivalent energy basis.

Therefore while gas fired generation is cheaper upfront and can be tucked away it is still relatively high emitting and will be a lot more expensive in the long run. I doubt that aluminium smelters will be prepared to pay the full price for gas fired electricity. The decision should be made now to replace coal fired power stations with nuclear baseload plants. They can be co-located with desalination plants on the coastline perhaps using waste heat. We're kidding ourselves if we think wind and solar can replace coal. We also have no plan for oil depletion. The rush to gas will make power bills very expensive and still won't make big enough cuts to emissions.

With much of Western Australia having its biggest freeze on record many pensioners struggling to stay warm due to high heating costs must be relieved that the Rudd/Gillard/Turnbull team did not get their way with the ets. Many would in fact be praying that more emissions might be pumped in the atmosphere in order for them to get warm. Gillard is trying hard now to pretend she welcomes open debate on illegal immigrants. Hopefully she will also be shamed into facing the known fact that much of the man made gw pseudo science has been and is one big joke with many like Flannery and Gore making a good quid out of distortions, false prophecies and straight out lies.

Runner,

It is indeed very cold in Western Australia at the moment and has been now for weeks - but it's because right into the dead of winter we've had day after day of glorious sunshine, hence the freezing night time temperatures. It's looking like another sunshiny day today after a very cold night - strangely, we haven't had any wintry weather this winter.

Martin - I'm glad to see that you have a realistic idea of the costs and difficulties of switching to renewable energy but I think you could have gone further. There is no evidence that renewables do, in fact, reduce emissions. Reductions have been assumed but never actually calculated for a working system. One possibly exception is Denmark where there are a lot of dams to store power in the Swedish and Norwegian systems just across the Baltic.
The problem is that the network has to be completely re-engineered to accommodate renewables, the choice of generators is different (they are not chosen to minimise emissions and costs, but to accommodate renewables) and the spinning reserve requirements are different. By the time all that is taken into account the saving from wind energy in particular looks very sorry indeed.
As for solar thermal, there have been claims it can substitute for base load power but I have yet to see any proof - in any case, as you note, there is still the problem of cloudiness.
Renewables are simply too costly and difficult to use to be taken seriously.

A little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down but the sugar cannot mask the vast amount of nuclear waste (including uranium waste) stored around the planet. Nor can it mask the reality that as of 2006, the decommissioning costs for aged nuclear reactors and contaminated sites in the UK was £70 billion, according to the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, with a significant shortfall in funding.

And so we're to believe that GenIV reactors will gobble up the waste. When? Even the latest reactor design from French nuclear power company Areva has significant flaws according to nuclear regulators in France, Finland, and the United Kingdom all alluding to "a significant and fundamental nuclear safety problem. You can just go down the list, and they've got problems — safety design problems and concealment of actual price tag."

Regional projects of solar energy or other renewable energies are supplying small villages with all their electricity needs in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria Uganda, Malawi, Northern Tanzania, Ghana, Italy, Austria etc.

“Beyond Zero Emissions” reports that the rapid uptake of wind power in other countries is in stark contrast to Australia. Denmark, for example, with 5.4 million inhabitants crammed into an area twenty times smaller than New South Wales is supplied with 24.1% windpower capacity and is aiming for 50% of its power to come from wind by 2025. The US took over 50 years to install their nuclear fleet (just 19% of energy requirements), but 90% of global wind capacity has been installed in just the last 10 years.

My local Council recently installed underground power to all its many suburbs with a cost of nearly $4,000 to each ratepayer – like it or not and objections were in the minority so what are the obstacles preventing Councils implementing mandatory projects for solar power?

Society is sick of the hubris from duplicitous governments and greed merchants.

Thirty nuclear reactors for Australia by the year 2050 to supply a mere one third of our energy requirements? I don’t think so unless one is delusional!