Articles that consist entirely of "No matter how reasonable and rational it is to consider all options for addressing what we both agree are two major issues, I simply refuse to allow that to happen" add nothing of value to the debate or to the outcome.

This author is seeking to prolong the already very long debates about nuclear waste management and action to limit climate change while at the same time seeking to leave dissenting voices unheard.

That is not the way to make decisions or to develop what is quaintly called "social licence", which in reality only exists when all voices have been heard and considered.

Without open and fair discussion, there can be no social licence.

Bullying, by whatever means, leads only to resentment, division and poor decisions.

Emissions are rising commensurate with food production and a corresponding increases in the biosphere worldwide.
Mean average global temperatures, measured by satellite data, have not risen for 20 years.

They say if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. More of what doesn't work is not going to help. SA is now looking at an $800m connector to NSW. When I looked at live data a minute ago
http://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/RenewEconomy/
NSW was getting 85% of its electricity from black coal. Out of sight out of mind I guess. What happens if NSW decides to follow SA and go for 40% intermittent generation? It will be like two people on crutches trying to support each other.

Apart from the industry exodus young people are also leaving SA. Nuclear is SA's best shot. It is not a nuclear virgin after 7 A-bomb tests at Maralinga and the world's biggest uranium deposit at Olympic Dam. If SA passes up on getting further into the nuclear fuel cycle I'm afraid there may be no more opportunities left.

There is only one issue at stake here - why on earth does the Conservation Council of WA think it needs a Nuclear Free Campaigner? Surely there is more potential for such efforts in areas where one or more of the world's 479 nuclear power stations are located. It's a pretty dry argument in WA, or anywhere in Australia for that matter.

I don't know if the writer has actually noticed but SA already has more renewable energy than it can handle - so much so that authorities have proposed a second interconnector with the horrible fossil fuel plants in Victoria that actually produce electricity when required. So why so many wind farms in SA? All I can think of is that the planning restrictions are tough in Vic and NSW and SA has a lot of empty space.

The other posters are right to point out that there is no real possibility of a nuclear plant in Australia, so why do we need an anti-nuclear campaigner.

There seems to be a reluctance to look the big problem square in the face.
Reliability !
The following is the current standard;
The reliability standard currently requires that no more than 0.002
per cent of customer demand within a region (11 minutes per year)
be unserved as a result of a shortage of generation capacity once
demand-side response and imports from other regions are taken into account.

Using solar & wind as you approach that standard the cost escalates
in what looks like an exponential curve and I suspect would reach
a cost of $infinity.

As that is an impossibility, some cost isolated base generation is
not just necessary, but must be the centre around which solar & wind
are just useful additions.

It is just the way it is, get used to it !