I doubt that is physically or politically possible to run more than a fraction of Australia's bountiful economy on wind and solar. The investment would run to trillions and would still require additional sacrifice in the form of energy rationing. Coal and gas provide power night and day whether the wind is blowing or not. They pick up the slack when the current token amounts of wind and solar lapse into the doldrums, often when they are most needed such as late afternoon heatwaves.

If you accept that we should greatly reduce carbon emissions and that massive energy reductions will cause hardship that leaves few options. For Australia that could initially include third generation nuclear, notably prefabricated modular reactors, followed by fourth generation such as the IFR. Several of Australia's coal fired baseload power stations will soon need replacement and we should consider nuclear. Later IFRs can eat the waste of those early nuclear plants.

As to the molten sodium bogey I could point out that the solar charged battery on Adelaide's Tindo bus contains it. That might be released in a collision yet we accept the risk.

Thanks Noel for an informative article on the little-known technology of Integral Fast Reactors.

Increases my opposition to nuclear power generation of any sort. The idea of many small reactors on mines or for that matter anywhere is horrific and bizzare.

You mentioned 'The Australian' giving this professor a credible run on this obscure and dangerous technology when they haven't done the same for the many safe and currently economic or soon to be economic renewable, smart grid and energy efficiency technologies (indeed they regularly 'bag' wind and solar). This rag is increasingly being seen as a reckless conduit for the interests of the big fossil / nuclear resource corporations who are plundering our country and have no regard for the future.

Increasingly, people are moving to expert investigative journalism websites such as 'Climate Spectator' and 'Renew Economy' for true information on energy.

"The nuclear industry has a world-wide problem in that it can get private investment only where the government subsidises it."

The same comment might also be applied to the renewable energy industry as well, so what is your problem.

David

If Germany can survive and I use the term survive deliberately, on solar and wind, then Australia most definitely can also.
There are no safeguards that can guarantee the safe operation of a nuclear plant.
It is just not worth the risk to install and run them.
The waste disposal is a nightmare.
Sorry Barry but this hobbyhorse of yours is dead in the water. Especially if there is another big tremor off the coast of Japan, where the No 4 plant at Fujkishima is poised ready to collapse and cause a cloud of radiation to go around the Northern hemisphere, which will cause large scale death.
The Japanese Government is in consultation with Russia to take the population of Tokyo and surrounds in this event.
Australia is lucky that it is ideally suited to solar and of course wind and wave could also play a part.
We will have to reduce our consumption but there is plenty of possibilities there.
You only have to look at the waste of power at night with cities lit up like Christmas trees.

This article is misinformed and simply repetition of the tired old anti-nuclear talking points which have been refuted repeatedly.

Nuclear is about the safest of all electricity generation technologies. http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/ This has been demonstrated over nearly 60 years, and 15,000 reactor years of service, only three severe accidents and only one has caused fatalities (about 60 confirmed attributable to the Chernobyl accident).

The weapons proliferation argument is a furphy that has been put to bed repeatedly.

Regarding emissions reductions, the author says:

<blockquote> Given that climate scientists are warning that climate change is near to becoming irreversible, one might well ask - will all the nuclear reactors be built in time to prevent this, even if they are not greenhouse gas producers? </blockquote>

If nuclear cannot be implemented fast enough, then nothing else can. http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/lang_2010_emissions_cuts_realities_v1.pdf Renewables cannot provide our energy, are hugely expensive, require fossil fuel back up and therefore do not cut emission by much http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ . They are little more than an ideological symbol.

‘Propagandists’. ‘Acolyte’. This nurse lays out her position at the outset. She doesn’t like nuclear energy, presumably of any description. So she doesn’t like the idea that 400 and something nuclear power stations are already running in 30 or so countries (the shutdowns in Japan make the numbers a bit less certain than they were). She doesn’t seem to believe that engineers can improve nuclear technology so she presumably doesn’t believe that they improve the designs and performance of other industrial plants, or bridges, or cars, or dialysis units and hip replacements for that matter. And clearly nothing is going to change her view. So I shall not try.

But it might be worthwhile addressing the very first ‘fact’ in her piece, that “in the total cycle from uranium mining to waste disposal, nuclear power IS a greenhouse gas producer”. Well, all energy conversion systems cause greenhouse emissions over their full life cycles. This is a much studied subject. A statement like Wauchope’s means nothing unless accompanied by the numbers. There is a wide range of emission estimates for nuclear power depending on the particular energy requirements of mining and processing uranium ore and enriching the product to make nuclear fuel. Per unit of electrical energy generated, the estimates lie between 0.2% and 9% of emissions from coal-fired power. Appropriate ore and processing choices would keep that number well below 5%. Most solar, wind and hydroelectric plants do better, according to these studies. That’s one thing in their favour.

Maybe looking at all the facts, all the ‘fors’ and ‘againsts’, with an open mind, is the way to go.