How about we ignore power infrastructure for 20+ yrs while spending money on, say, Olympic Stadiums, don't build any new dams for fear of upsetting the Greens and local electorates and then put power prices through the roof so only the rich can use power as much as they like. Wait a minute - we've already tried that.

There was never the need to have an Energy crisis. All this has been brought about by Govt failures and inaction and fear of upsetting the far Left.

France (and a couple of dozen other countries) proves nuclear works. While our current Govt is beholden to the Greens our economy and standard of living slide slowly downhill.

Because of cost, some will return to burning wood to keep warm this winter and we will have successfully returned to pre industrialisation living. Thanks Bob Brown.

< We can curb the growth in electricity demand through energy efficiency and conservation… >

Jim, what about population stabilisation, as opposed to the current ridiculously high growth rate with no end in sight?

You’ve just completely left this major factor out!

Dear oh dear, yet another analysis / viewpoint about our energy future… with one huge and vital factor just completely left out of the equation.

It must surely make a huge difference whether the demand for energy continues to rapidly increase for many years and ultimately becomes three or four times larger than it is now, or whether it is stabilised in the near future, or something in between.

And yet the population growth factor is just overlooked entirely by practically all researchers / commentators in this field.

The balance of different energy sources and the source that provides the lion’s share is likely to be very different for a stable population of around 25 million and for a continuation of a rapid growth regime for many years.

Of course, what we desperately need is to stabilise our population as quickly as we reasonably can, which is surely a vital factor in adapting our energy regime from cheap fossil fuels to a more expensive and difficult mix.

So, when I see an analysis with this in mind, instead of one that doesn’t mention the overall increase in or stabilisation of demand, and is thus by default designed to cater for a rapid continuous growth in demand, then I’ll sit up and take notice.

From the Green's point of view reducing consumption is the only acceptable solution.

Coal and gas produce CO2
Nuclear is Taboo,
Wind provides visual and noise pollution, and kills birds,
Etc.

Perhaps we should call Bob Brown the Prince of darkness.

This must be the crucial question; can wind and solar replace coal? I believe the answer is no not without considerable cost, intrusiveness and reliability issues. As it happens I'm already a long way down the path you seem to be prescribing. I have a good amount of PV, I cook and heat with wood and I make most of my own car fuel. Not only does this require more energy frugality than most can endure but it should be obvious that 99% of people in the suburbs aren't set up to do this easily.

By the way I do agree that we should be conserving natural gas which we seem to be squandering like Thatcher era Britain. If not coal, gas, wind or solar then what? If society is to function coherently with hospitals and night shift factories then we will need a round-the-clock weather impervious power source. We must apply equal yardsticks to that power source in terms of hazards, decommissioning of retired plant, future resource inputs and the need for subsidies and quotas. So the question is a good one and it must take an even handed approach to answer it.

Atman, that opening paragraph of yours is more left-wing than anything in Jim Green's article.

We will keep debating nuclear energy in Australia only because we have such an abundant supply of coal, which produces much cheaper energy. Had we been coal-poor as a nation, then we would already have had nuclear power - like France - for the past 50 years and - as in France - there would be no signficant opposition to it.

Communists and socialists always supported nuclear power - the 'peaceful atom' - but then with the decline of the Left and the rise of 'green environmentalism' left-wing support dissolved (like the left itself). The Green opposition to nuclear power is reactionary and, being based on a general antipathy toward modernity and affluence, and a commitment to harmonizing the relations between humans and the rest of Nature, belongs on the Right of the political-philosophical spectrum. That is, unless one is to regard Karl Marx as a Rightist rather than a Leftist. Marx waxed lyrical about Man's mastery over Nature and wanted to unleash the productive forces of society in ways that would render capitalism unsustainable

It appears to me that the population at large and forum members also are blissfully ignorant of the fact that new fourth generation nuclear reactors are on the near horizon, with China commissioning its first experimental reactor. These reactors are much more efficient and have the potential to reduce the amount of waste for disposal. Most of the commentary on nuclear reactors seems to be still of the opinion that the world still has the old Chenobyl type reactors. We have moved quite a long way since then. The nuclear industry does not stand still.

David