It is interesting how emotional people get over nuclear energy and how dangerous they think it is, yet accept the thousands of miners, particularly in China that are killed every year in their coal mines. Even in the United States after WW 2, coal mining deaths could be numbered in hundreds although in recent years it has dropped to the several tens. We also discount the hundreds of annual deaths from Black Lung Disease, a direct result from getting coal out of the ground.

If we could get nuclear energy into a bit of perspective and realise that it could solve a lot of problems in the area of increased energy demand without the misinformation on safety when compared to current systems, we might go a long way towards solving climate change.

We rightly question new developments but tend to ignore existing practices. It's rather like road deaths which amount to over one million a year world wide, but we have tended to ignore statistics like that. Can you just imagine the dissent if we ever suggested banning the motor car ?

In spite of all the nuclear plants world wide, the amount of deaths resulting from this form of energy are only a small fraction of some of the alternatives, and getting smaller.

Another one wanting to “solve climate change” and telling us that we “…have to stop using coal, oil and gas.”

Mere humans cannot ‘solve’ nature, no matter how much taxpayers’ money panic-stricken politicians put into pathetic attempts to do so.

Naturally occurring climate change of the kind we are now experiencing has been a boon for the rent-seekers in the scientific community and in the so-called alternative energy industry. All of these ‘alternatives’ need full time back up from conventional power sources; and even then, all they are doing is lining the pockets of rent-seeking opportunists and not making a damn of difference to anything.

As for nuclear power: how many times does the current government have to tell these rubes that they will not even entertain the idea of nuclear power before they get the message?

The safety or lack thereof of nuclear power doesn't come into it. The decision not to have it is a political one. The climate change frenzy is also political, and the sooner people get over it and get on with their lives, the better off we will be.

Of course we must have nuclear power but one thing that was forgotten in the original article is who is going to run an maintain it.
.... Inadequate attention by a succession of governments to the manufacturing industry and the engineering education that supports it.....

These governments and their bureaucrats could not see past 'service industries' thus leaving us high and dry and dependent on selling the farm to survive when the service industries, like the emperor, were seen to have no clothes.

No amount of arts graduates, economists or commerce graduates can ever make or maintain anything. The reliance of 'service industries' started in the 1970's and it is going to take as many years to reverse the tend once it is realised that ... 'we have a problem, Canberra'

I don't know who is responsible for the sub-head, but the author tells us that climate is always changing, so solving it is, it seems to me, not on the cards. Similarly, as so many apparently want to engage in, 'fighting' it, or stopping it. Adapting to it, yes.

On the evidence available, whatever warming has occurred through the burning of fossil fuels has had little effect (and it has occurred already). CO2 additions continue happily, but warming has not followed suit for the last ten years.

But what is the evidence for CO2 staying around for a thousand years? The argument and evidence about this is completely unsettled, and on the face of it, much of the additional CO2 has already been absorbed in extra vegetation.

Fascinating to see nuclear power becoming a possibility. I am old enough to have the shivers about that, though when I am in France I don't think that most of the electricity I use has been created that way.

Most people seem to think that Al Gore had a good business idea with
the climate change model, and he certainly makes a lot of money.

However, another possibility is certainly that the nuclear power
industry, which has suffered from bad reputation for decades, came up
with the climate change stuff to create a situation where we MUST go
nuclear to save us from a climate catastrophe.

And maybe after years of brain washing us to believe we would cause
changes to the climate and telling us we are evil even as we breathe
out, they come out now with articles like the above and offering us a
solution.

Australia - and the world - does not need nuclear power.

While I lived in Europe I have done some work for Desertec and
learned there how much energy we could get from just a small part of
the Sahara desert.

Just have a look at the picture on their website. I takes only 10
seconds to understand.

http://www.desertec.org/

I am glad to see they have extended their activities to Australia in
the mean time (which I actually suggested years ago to them) and from
looking at their Australian website you can see clearly that
Australia can not only get all its energy from renewable sources but
even export some to other countries.

http://www.desertec-australia.org/

Australia could well be the new "Saudi Arabia" of renewable energy.

Instead of building huge nuclear power plants near big cities and
close to cooling water like at Jervis Bay, Brisbane Waters, Lake
Macquarie, Port Stephens and so on it would be much better to start
now and do something, and save our environment and future.

Today is a very cold but sunny day in Sydney. Ask yourself how many
electric heaters will be used, and how much electricity could be
saved by using solar supported heating.

It is simple, does not cost much and can be set up very quickly, and
once in place, would run forever without cost and maintenance.

Who needs nuclear power in such a lucky country with an abundance of
renewable energy.

Well then you get yourself into parliament, choose a site for your nuke plant and then Ill watch and laugh as the locals tear you to shreds and destroy your parliamentary career.

No one believes a word that comes from you nuke supporters mouths. Didnt they also say that gen I reactors were safe and the chance of an accident was miniscule? Still happened but didnt it.

Your argument that we need to leave a toxic and dangerous legacy to our children from nuke plants to avoid leaving them a toxic and dangerous legacy from grenhouse is facile and self serving.

Distributed power systems like wind power and solar panels on house roofs would go a long way towards reducing emissions. But then the power companies and the capitalist parasites cant control and gouge their customers. They dont like the idea of us plebs usurping their power over us.