Aa particularly balanced and informative submission, devoid of emotive pleadings and pie in the sky idealism. Commentary in the forum is lively interesting, on topic and informative. A most enjoyable and interesting read folks. Must admit I fall directly in line with Leo Lane's comment.

Saltpetre,

You said:
- “The error in your nuclear vs airline regulatory comparison”
- “many more Chernobyl and Fukushima events, with far more devastating consequences”
- “But nuclear is inherently extremely dangerous”

No, the only “error” is that you have succumbed to radiation phobia and anti-nuclear scaremongering.

You reiterated many of the common talking points of the anti-nuclear groups. These groups are responsible for global emissions being 10% to 20% higher now than they would have been if not for their 50 years of anti-nuclear advocacy. Their strident anti-nuclear advocacy has caused the irrational radiation phobia you have provided examples of in your comment.

Aircraft have accidents that kill hundreds at a time. But we keep flying because of the benefits. We recognise the risk is vey low. We’ve had only three serious accidents in nuclear power plants in 56 years and 15,000 reactors-years of operation. Only one accident has caused fatalities, and less fatalities than a plane crash. Let’s get some perspective. Sure there are predictions of some latent fatalities, but the amount is miniscule compared with the alternatives.

It is estimated nuclear regulation increased the cost of nuclear energy by a factor of four to 1990. It’s probably doubled again since. The excessive cost is preventing us having electricity generation that is 10 to 100 times safer than what we accept as standard practice now. Is that rational?

The other alternatives you refer to, like solar and wind, are totally uneconomic and never likely to be economic. http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

The choice is simple. It’s either the world burns fossil fuels for energy, or the so called ‘Progressives’ in the developed countries unblock cheap nuclear power. The ‘Progressives’ are preventing progress and have been for 50 years.

You are correct that new technology is the future. But the main low-emission energy technology has to be nuclear. We need to remove the impediments to cost-competitive nuclear, not build in more artificially imposed impediments on low cost energy.

There are a lot of people in the US navy, who are not particularly bright, but have successfully run small nuclear power plants in subs & aircraft carriers, for quite a few years.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I can't recall an accident with any of these, they must be damn near fool proof.

Those who are advocating a Nuclear solution seem to have the same blind spot as those who see renewables and energy efficiency as our saviour. The obstacles to Nuclear are even greater than for renewables. Firstly there is a global shortage of nuclear engineers and firms that can design plants that are safe - this is not a quick fix - that will take at least 20 - 50 years to turn around. Secondly if we look closely at what happened in Japan we can see that the disaster was a product of corporate greed rather than a failure of the safety features. If someone knows a way of fixing corporate greed so that they do not play Russian Roulette with safety then get ready to become rich. Finally Gen IV nuclear power plants although they have been around for a long time have yet to demonstrate that they are commercial.
So nuclear too is not an easy substitute for fossil fuels.

Curmudgeon; I do understand the vast scale that would be needed to grow enough algae to produce enough fuel to replace what we use now, that's why I propose it.
Unlike most alternatives, it doesn't require arable land, or food production conscripted for fuel.
You are absolutely correct, most alternative bio-fuels create an energy debt.
Not so algae, which is composed of up to 60% oil and can actually double its mass every 24 hours.
The very large scale requirement is exactly what the declining Murray/Darling basin needs, to not just survive but prosper.
Yes I do understand the lead time required to grow enough algae to replace fossil fuels, very little of which could be produced for many years; given the first stage, would be tied up just increasing the tonnages we could grow.
The billions set aside to rescue the Murray, should be used to achieve this; given, that by itself and the very low water use required for that purpose, would rescue the Murray and all who rely on it!
I also prefer it because it requires only 1-2% of the water requirement of traditional irrigation assisted farming.
It seems to me, it would be vastly more practical to transfer our food farming, to where there is hardly ever any water shortages.
North where rainfall is measured in metres; and to tiny Tassie, which has plenty of unused reliable water assisted production capacity; and, an economy in dire straights, simply because the rescuing tourism was more green figment than fact.
Ditto northern Q'ld!
Other crops with promise include native wisteria.
Native wisteria are salt, drought and frost resistant, and being a legume, improve the soil.
They produce a seed that has enough oil content to be commercially viable.
They thrive on land usually thought to be merely marginal, and would transfer to and assist many starving African nations.
The ex-crush seed material is an excellent source of high protein and almost alone, could sustain fish farming or feed lots.
Gatton Uni have developed a diesel tree, which produces 5 tons annually?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Au contraire, we don't need to impose higher taxes or energy costs, to make carbon free energy alternatives much more desirable. We just need to put all of them and recent innovation on the table.
We also need to reform the tax act, so that all inland revenue is collected via an entirely unavoidable expenditure tax. The resultant savings, would prosper us all.
No more compliance to pay for, which currently rips around and averaged 7% from the bottom line. Moreover, the repeal of all the other then unnecessary taxes, would return up to 30% to profitability, and as much as 25% to household disposables!
Why do we reject that?
This would also deal with the destiny of demography; given the GNP, would pay all tax, rather than individual taxpayers! And revenue would rise with economic growth, rather than decline with an aging population!
The best forms of new or carbon free alternatives, will be the ones that walk out the door and be affordable for, and preferred by very disadvantaged third world countries.
[Many of the latter are already converting biological waste to very affordable carbon neutral energy!]
An expenditure tax can be set as low as 5%, yet collect more revenue than the total current complexity.
Given our expenditure, individual or corporate, very accurately measures or reflects our carbon footprints! An expenditure tax is the very fairest way, to ask us all to pay for our own carbon output/pollution!
There isn't any impediment to include inside the proposed 5% expenditure tax, a carbon component, or a states' share.
We should however, finally rationalise and resolve who does what; and, who pays for or assumes responsibly for it?
Real reform should also finally eliminate the blame game/shifting, and seriously downsize/eliminate duplication, and the agencies who practise or participate in it?
Rhrosty.