Julia fiddles while coal burns.

Nuclear power is the elephant in the climate change room. The liberals don't feel strong enough to want to introduce it and Julia Gillard is too dependent on the Greens to ever risk mentioning it. JG has also tasted the backlash from the higher cost of living that the renewable s means, so her solution is to put together a group of 150 citizens for a 2 year talkfest at the end of which there is still likely to be no action.

Consultation, discussion, review, etc are all methods for simply delaying actually having to do something unpopular.

The choices are:
1 - do nothing but seem concerned and "about" to do something ad infinitum,
2 - Spend hugely on renewables, drastically increase the cost of living, and cripple the economy,
3 - Take the unpopular choice of nuclear power, and actually reduce the CO2 output, with minimal impact on cost of living and the economy.

Don't know about your third option Shadow Minister...... "3 - Take the unpopular choice of nuclear power, and actually reduce the CO2 output, with minimal impact on cost of living and the economy."

Nuclear power plants are ridiculously expensive to build and impossibly expensive to de-commission at the end of their relatively short life span. Also, would I be right in saying that high grade ore to fuel them is becoming more and more scarce?

Add to that the cost of fighting to obtain a suitable location (not in my back yard minister), endless committees, plus the political backlash and the necessary advertising by the Government of the day required to justify their nuclear stance and it all adds up to a hell of a lot of money, money that will be a burden on the cost of living one way or another, since it's the ordinary citizen that eventually pays through the nose for everything the Government does.

Always good to read Phil Sawyer!
But Phil, Julia Gillard is a politician not a leader and so I doubt we will get such a sensible, if controversial initiative, from her.

Lets inject a few facts (as unpleasant as they are) into this theoretical debate.

1. Wind power systems create infrasound that can cause health effects to locals. These effects often culminate in there being a public backlash against their building in anything but remote areas. This then causes the issue of how to transport the power to built-up areas.

2. "Hot Rocks" systems are limited in their power generating capabilities. The heat in these rocks is caused by magma flowing close to these areas, but close may be several kilometres underneath. The flow of coolant needs to be carefully regulated so as to maintain heat levels at an operational level. Lower coolant flow equals lower power production. There is also the problem of possible ground water contamination.

3. Solar systems use high quantities of fossil fuels and energy to produce. The raw materials need to be mined, extensively refined and manufactured into the final product. A solar system may have to be in operation several years to recoup the CO2 emissions of its own creation.

4. A thermonuclear fusion reaction is unsustainable without the use of vast quantities of energy. While there have been leaps and bounds in the field a working model is still just a pipe dream.

5. While nuclear is dangerous and a PR nightmare, its input/output is the best of any of the non-renewable options. A reactor may only use tons of uranium while a coal plant will use thousands of tons.

6. If we keep on doing what we are doing we will get what we have always got.

Aime, that “Nuclear power plants are ridiculously expensive to build and impossibly expensive to de-commission at the end of their relatively short life span. Also, would I be right in saying that high grade ore to fuel them is becoming more and more scarce?”

These are all valid concerns but may be based upon “Myth conceptions”.

The best research I’ve found to address your points are in David Mackay’s book “Without Hot Air”. Google it and go to the “Nuclear?” chapter, pages 162-176. It’s free if you wish to download the whole book or just browse it.

Let us know if this answers your questions.

Aime,

I see your reading is mostly "green" based.

France without oil, gas or coal, was forced to follow the nuclear route, and brought the populace on board. Australia has generations worth of coal, and so can afford to endlessly debate, whilst continuing to pollute.

France with more than 80% nuclear electricity has one of the lowest costs of power in Europe and exports a significant amount to those that have chosen the "renewable" route such as Germany.

Nuclear plants are expensive to build, but the running costs are extremely low meaning that only coal, gas or hydro are cheaper than nuclear. If one chooses to completely re-mediate the site it is expensive, however, if one intends to continue generating power, an upgrade to a newer reactor is a fraction of the cost.

If you read the IAEA reports (not the green fiction) there is sufficient uranium for new generation reactors for millennia.

Nuclear is by far the safest generating method, suffering the lowest fatality rate per GWhr generated even including Chernobyl.