It's deeply disappointing that mainstream politics has completely failed on this issue and only by going to a fringe party can we get policy that recognises the reality that human induced climate change demands real commitment.

The Greens actually have a policy; that it's likely to go over budget is less worrying than facing this with no policy. Behind closed doors it seems this industry has made it clear they won't act and, hoping to avoid the political fallout of forcing them, mainstream politics has caved in. Two full decades after knowing that emissions reductions were coming energy planning is firmly rooted in building more coal plants. No CCS of course. That the costs of power stations being forced to close well ahead of the end of their working life is pure waste of the worst kind will, of course, become yet another reason to not close them, irrespective of the climate consequences. But apparently it's not good enough reason to stop building them.

Martin, there are worse things than the extravagant wastefulness we currently view as a right being curtailed - such as the loss of SE Australian agriculture, the loss of the Great Barrier Reef, heatwaves that make the one preceding the Victorian Bushfires look like an average summer (Barry Brooks wrote on that). As long as this issue isn't faced up to it won't be solved, even by nuclear.

Martin, the greatest block to nuclear for Australia is not the Greens, it's the fossil fuel generation sector and as long as you, Barry Brooks and others spend most of your efforts fighting against renewable solutions there will be none. Go all out to get a serious carbon price that makes coal - and gas as well - too costly and nuclear will indeed look more attractive. But I recall you oppose making the current costs of fossil fuels reflect the unbearable burden of future costs they will heap on us and have advocated increasing their use for as long as Australia doesn't go nuclear. Not a solution at all.

So well said Martin, there really are worse things!

Also, as peak oil hits, we'll need all the cheap abundant electricity we can get to help some of our transport, construction and agriculture move to electricity, or fuels derived from cheap abundant electricity.

And that means nuclear power, which can make jet fuel from air and water.

I can't wait for more details on the costs of this fuel, as it is truly renewable fuel and, with the majority of us getting around on electric transport, sounds like the easiest way to scale up fuel for airlines.

http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554

Mark Duffett's response viz. '@Malthus "I have yet to see any refutation...of the arguments put forward...in The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy", I don't think you can have looked too hard. One place these arguments (which seem to mainly boil down to uranium scarcity and greenhouse gas emissions incurred in nuclear power production) have been comprehensively shown to be false is here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/25/take-real-cc-action-p2/#q15'
is not helpful. Just referring to a website that blandly states the opposite of the case being made is hardly showing the case to 'have been comprehensively ... false'. To characterise Fleming's position as boiling down to 'uranium scarcity and greenhouse gas emissions incurred in nuclear power production' suggests a shallow acknowledgement of the problems with nuclear energy production.

Malthus, I read the summary page of your link and when someone else replied didn't bother to debunk it, because that is *exactly* what that argument boiled down to. If not, please don't do the posting equivalent of saying:

"I didn't like your response"

... and do what you suggest, which is being more specific.

*Which* arguments do you think were *substantially* different to the way Mark summarised them? What did Mark miss?

The Green's plans will all come to naught.
They will not survive the onset of energy depletion resulting from
peak everything. It is not just peak oil but peak coal, peak phosphorous, etc etc.

We are facing not just the depletion of energy but the depletion of
capital availability to fund the construction of the zero CO2 economy.
Zero growth will ensure that we build as little as possible and make do
with as much existing systems as we possibly can.
To enable us to build the new energy regime we should immediately stop
the export of natural gas and coal.
The gas will give us a transition fuel for cars and trucks while we
build an electric transport system.
It will give us the energy to build electrified railways, nuclear
power stations, reopen closed rail lines which will be needed to get
grain to the millers and flour to the bakeries.
It is that fundamental.

All these projects will require capital and energy. If it is not done
there will be chaos, no ifs no buts.

Did you say what about aviation ?
Do you mean those metal things that used to fly like a bird ?