Since the entire premise of the article seems to be that we're headed for ruin WHEN Siberia's peat bogs melt, we should check to see if that indeed will occur. This article - http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605-print.html - gives a pretty good understanding of what a beat up the whole thing is.

Do these people never tire of coming up with the latest dooms-day event. At least it looks good on the CV.

By all means let's have an informed discussion on the nuclear option. But let's be informed not frightened.

Aust has a massive supply of uranium. It is the height of arrogance for us to tell the rest of the world how they should structure their power industry. We have a moral duty to sell this resource to those who want it, power being the path to prosperity.

My understanding of the melting tundra, is that it will release large amounts of methane, which will cause increased world wide temperatures. However this may be buffered somewhat, by an increase in algae growth in the oceans because of those hotter temperatures. The algae will chew up Co2, and help reduce or buffer the temperatures, but I wouldn’t like the job of doing the calculations, (or guesstimates), to see how much buffering will likely occur.

But this article introduces the monetary aspects of creating energy, and to continue in that line, perhaps energy production could be looked at in terms of potential employment of people as well.

Coal mining employs a large number of people, and provides export income. Nuclear power plants, (and associated uranium mines), would not employ so many employees one would think.

But looking through the many and varied list of possible ways to produce energy that are listed each fortnight at the Energy Bulletin web-site, http://energybulletin.net/8354.html, then many of those methods could be used to employ people, or individuals could set up small privately run farms to produce energy (eg from solar farms, to farms that grow seaweed for biomass fuels).

If Australia is about to move away from coal as a source of energy into something else, then perhaps employment can also be included in the equation to determine the best means of producing energy.

There is one aspect of the energy debate that does not receive enough mention. Sources such as solar and wind power are by their very nature intermittent, and require a reserve backup of hydro power if they are to be employed to any meaningful extent in our power grid. Even though the basslink project will shortly connect Tasmania to the south-east grid, and thus increase the amount of hydro power available, the south-east area is poorly served by hydro and our lack of mountains and rainfall rules out any possibility of improvement. Nuclear power, on the other hand, offers continuous power in the same way as coal fired power stations, and as far as I can see is the only possible alternative to them if CO2 sequestration is ruled out.

Looking at how the climate appears to be changing already,and India and China are just beginning to industrialise,we are headed for uncertain times.
If we reach a point of irreversible greenhouse heating,I don't want to be around for the ensueing chaos.

We humans still seem to have visions of a guardian angel looking over us in difficult times,who will right all the wrongs.The violent weather patterns,prolonged droughts are real and out of character.

Let's hope that an all powerful benevolent god does exist,since a miracle maybe our only reprieve.

Plerdusus,
Hydro power may not be energy efficient, because dams, pipelines, turbine, grids etc also require energy, fuels, and materials to build in the first place, and it may take many years to repay that back.

Similar, producing ethanol for a fuel is not very energy efficient, as it takes a lot of diesel and other forms of energy, to grow sugar cane, transport it to a sugar mill, and then process it to produce ethanol. In fact, some believe ethanol production produces a deficit of energy, not a gain.

There can be many ways of producing energy or different fuels. I am not an expert, but at a quick estimate, I would think the following criteria would be necessary to assess a method of energy or fuel production to see if it was suitable:-

#The materials necessary to produce the energy, and the availability of those materials.
#The amount of energy that is required within the energy production process, and the overall net gain that can be expected.
#The monetary costs involved in producing the energy, and the potential profits.
#The pollution or waste products that will be produced from the energy production process, and their likely effect on the environment.

Finally, because we are trying, (or should be trying), for a sustainable society, then society must begin to think about employment, as people have to be doing something, so employment within energy production should be a factor

#The number of people who can be employed within the energy production process, and their likely wages.

Nuclear energy may be the best choice ultimately, but I don’t think other forms of energy or fuel production should be ruled out without objective study and assessment.

If they can find away of recycling nuclear waste back into the energy production system,then the problem will be solved.I don't think we have tried hard enough since fossil fuels have been too abundant and oil companies just been too damn lazy, since it has been easy money requiring no expensive R&D.

Our Sun operates on nuclear fission and will burn they say for another 5 billion years.The energy in the nucleus of an atom is enormous.E=MCC or C squared,and good old Einstein gave us both the means of our destruction and the means to our future prosperity.It is up to us to choose.