There is molten salt technology currently being used in the USA and Spain (commercially I believe) that stores energy from solar thermal power stations and provides baseload electricity. This is cheaper than building nuclear power plants and dealing with the spent fuel rods. If we can't make this work in Australia with all our hours of sun, then we have a serious problem with our thinking.

Phil Matimein

.... and furthermore we will have a surplus of salt from desalination plants. Not that I am entirely happy with desal-plants when we are not doing enough initial catchment of water, but since governments are going ahead with them anyway, at least the by-product could be put to good use.

Of course, I am displaying common-sense here to an issue that is frequently devoid of such thinking.

Rstuart,

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
It is commonly asserted that because "the resources of the earth are finite", therefore we must face some day of reckoning, and will need to plan for "negative growth". All this, it is pointed out, is because these resources are being consumed at an increasing rate to support our western lifestyle and to cater for the increasing demands of developing nations. The assertion that we are likely to run out of resources is a re-run of the "Limits to Growth" argument (Club of Rome 1972 popularised by Meadows et al in Limits of Growth at that time. (A useful counter to it is W Berckerman, In Defence of Economic Growth, also Singer, M, Passage to a Human World, Hudson Inst. 1987). In the decade following its publication world bauxite reserves increased 35%, copper 25%, nickel 25%, uranium and coal doubled, gas increased 70% and even oil increased 6%.) fashionable in the early 1970s, which was substantially disowned by its originators, the Club of Rome, and shown up as nonsense with the passing of time. It also echoes similar concerns raised by economists in the 1930s, and by Malthus at the end of the 18th Century.

Don't make the same mistakes that everyone has in the past.

No one says that nuclear is the only solution, but it is the best alternative to coal we have now.

Shadow Minister: "Don't make the same mistakes that everyone has in the past."

I wasn't aware I had made a mistake, or that the Club or Rome had made one. Perhaps you could point it out?

When you do try to avoid statements like one in the link you gave: "But this is the Limits to Growth fallacy, a major intellectual blunder recycled from the 1970s". Saying something like that makes them look like idiots. It also makes them look like industry spin doctors - but I repeat myself.

The Hubert Peak, and the Club of Rome all made their predictions in the 1970's. These predictions proved depressing accurate. In particular The Club of Rome predicted a business as usual approach meant would be hitting resource limits around 2030..2050. Since business did continue how accurate that was. They were a little out as it appears we will start hitting limits in the next decade. But it was an impressive effort nonetheless.

Shadow Minister: "No one says that nuclear is the only solution"

Eh? Did anyone claim otherwise? What I did say is nuclear in its current commercial form isn't a solution at all. But then since we don't have a solution right now I am not holding that against it. Well, no more than I would hold it against hot rocks, solar, wind or any other technology.

You seem think the nuclear technology we use now is a long term solution. It simply isn't. Here, I'll do the figures for you. According to your link, there is 10.5 M tonne of Uranium in the ground. World Energy production is 20 T watts per year. It takes 200 tonnes of U to produce 1 GW year of electricity. So we have (10.5 M / 200) / (20 T / 1G) = 26.6 years of Uranium reserves if we swapped over to pure nuclear now.

Electricity use: http://www.indexmundi.com/world/electricity_production.html
Uranium used: http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/expansion-at-olympic-dam-means-increased-energy-inputs-of-course/

Fractelle: "surplus of salt from desalination plants"

Desalination plants don't produce salt. They produce sea water slightly more salty than normal.

The only reason there are no HDR Geothermal plants successfully operating in the world is COMPETITION for DRILLING RIGS.

In a bun fight between the oil companies and HDR startups the OIL companies win every time & no holds are barred.

Geothermal is Australia's best answer for clean future energy and if Australians have the right stuff they will stick it up the oil companies and get the rigs and get cracking.

The Flinders ranges area in Sth Australia has the thinnest crust on the continent and is an important area to begin. In Sydney, Machin's crater at Glenbrook in the Blue Mnts and the ancient Caldera at Engadine in Sydney's South are excellent sites that could power Sydney for generations to come.

Meanwhile, the Russians are making squillions selling ship based nuclear reactors and this is where Australia should enter the nuclear market. At least, all our naval vessels and coastal merchantmen should be nuclear powered. As time passes and oil fades nuclear power will proliferate across the planet with or without us. Better that we are a guiding hand in safe Pebble Bed reactors, starting with small units and working our way up to the big stuff as expertise grows over decades

GET EM' REX!

Rstuart

<< Desalination plants don't produce salt. They produce sea water slightly more salty than normal.>>

"SLIGHTLY MORE SALTY THAN NORMAL"?

For your edification:

"Desalination is a separation process used to reduce the dissolved salt content of saline water to a usable level. All desalination processes involve three liquid streams: the saline feedwater (brackish water or seawater), low-salinity product water, and very saline concentrate (brine or reject water).

The saline feedwater is drawn from oceanic or underground sources. It is separated by the desalination process into the two output streams: the low-salinity product water and very saline concentrate streams. The use of desalination overcomes the paradox faced by many coastal communities, that of having access to a practically inexhaustible supply of saline water but having no way to use it. Although some substances dissolved in water, such as calcium carbonate, can be removed by chemical treatment, other common constituents, like sodium chloride, require more technically sophisticated methods, collectively known as desalination. In the past, the difficulty and expense of removing various dissolved salts from water made saline waters an impractical source of potable water. However, starting in the 1950s, desalination began to appear to be economically practical for ordinary use, under certain circumstances.

The product water of the desalination process is generally water with less than 500 mg/1 dissolved solids, which is suitable for most domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses.

A by-product of desalination is brine. Brine is a concentrated salt solution (with more than 35 000 mg/1 dissolved solids) that must be disposed of, generally by discharge into deep saline aquifers or surface waters with a higher salt content. Brine can also be diluted with treated effluent and disposed of by spraying on golf courses and/or other open space areas."

Brine - just maybe be a significant ingredient in molten salt for thermal energy storage.