“The invention and then improvement of the steam engine, and the subsequent increase in demand for coal changed all that.”

Sure did. As did every time man harnessed fuels with greater energy density. So, why would anyone – other thon those who long for a return to simple times – advocate returning to low energy density?

• Nuclear fuel is 20,000 to 2 million times more energy dense than coal. This offers huge potential advantages.

• Virtually unlimited energy supply for the world

• Easy to store and requires small area and volume to store years of a whole country’s energy needs – this provides much greater energy security than with fossil fuels

• 20,000 to 2 million times less mass to be shipped.

• Reduced fatalities per TWh of electricity provided

• Provides a reliable power supply. Can be load following if necessary.

• Each time man has moved to higher energy density fuels in the past, it has made possible huge improvements in human wellbeing. This potential is probably the greatest advantage of nuclear power.

Without trying to be offensive this is absolute mindless crap.

Obviously the author has never thought her ideas through. Two hundred years ago life was a nightmarish existence with no anti-biotics, no painkillers where unemployment, poverty, illness and painful death was the norm. Mildly deviant behaviour could result in life term prison sentences. Animals were for eating or the purposes of replacing manual labour only.

People went to bed at sunset because there was no electric lighting. They used wood burning stoves to cook and suffered due to lack of smoke extraction. Children were often smaller, less healthy, uneducated and abused without protection. Food shortages were commonplace and corporal punishment for children was the norm. Shoes were a luxury item.

The only reason the author can live her idyllic existence is due to the advent of technology and industrialisation which created the wealth to fund massive medical and scientific advances from which she so obviously benefits today.

Quote 1: "The Industrial Revolution was driven by a monied few excited by the linings of their own pockets, while the Renewable Revolution is being stymied by the same monied minority scared of what the future holds if we cease to be reliant on their coal and oil."

Absolute RUBBISH. Its scary that people actually believe this. Perhaps the billions of dollars backing the Green revolution has escaped her notice.

Quote 2: "Communities were self-sustaining and interlaced". Not sure what she means by interlaced and I bet she isn't either. Self-sustaining?? really no-one traded??. Guess Lancashire was growing their own bananas back then. The fact that communities were isolated meant they were LESS able to sustain themselves.

An 19th Century life is what the great Green monster wants for us all. Slaving away all day for a centralised Global government who knows whats best for us. The fact that many can fall for the false and dangerous romantic belief that 'it was better in the old days' and that solar panels and windmills are the answer shows that Green funded lunacy is attempting to dominate the political agenda and succeeding.

Romanticized, emotive, simplistic drivel!?
Yes, would that we could return to a simpler life?
So, let's see what that would entail?
Every family, [2+2,] would require at least 5 acres of hand hoed arable land, to supply enough food for them.
A few pigs and chickens, would help to keep the land tilled, fertilized and free of pests?
And assist with waste recycling, supply some vital protein, feathers for beds and pillows; and pigskin for essential leather products?
Then there'd be a minimum of around forty acres, for a permanent wood-lot, and twice that if blacksmithing or potting, were included?
Increased by 50% as family's age and extend.
Several goats, would keep the wood-lot weed free and supply milk.
A couple of horses, needed to keep the land tilled, haul logs, dead animals, and any surplus stock to market, or exchanged for artisan crafted essential goods, nails, needles, picks, axes, hoes, saws, chisels, hammers and so on.
Hand-crafted steel, would likely be worth more than gold; and see service through several generations.
Each horse would need at least eight acres of self sustaining, sustenance graze, and eighty acres of land set aside for rotational grain and legume production.
And five plus acres, would need to be set aside for wetland water supply, storage and cleaning!
Yabbies and ducks would help with that and extend the food variety/availability!
Every man would need to be able to build a barn or a log cabin!
There's not enough space, to enumerate the dawn to dark duties, that would accrue to the Wife and Mother.
None could any manage on less, than two hundred acres?
You'd only need multiply that, by around two billion families, to understand, we simply don't have enough arable land, to return to a lifestyle, that is par for the course, in drought and famine ravaged Ethiopia!
Rhrosty.

But that's OK, Rhosty, because under those conditions about 70% of the population would already have dropped off the perch due to chronic diseases, infant mortality, violent invasions and seizure of scarce resources, hypothermia, hyperthermia, parasites and wild beasts, and within a generation or two we would be back to a sustainable population of a billion or so, an infant morality rate of 50% and an average lifespan of about forty-five. See? No problems!

Sophie Love - where did you get the idea that alternative energy is being blocked by faceless energy industry interests? You did know that there were substantial alternate energy targets and a carbon tax, or did that slip your mind?

Without that support and various state programs, alternate energy would be largely ignored as both ineffective and uneconomic. As the targets stand, and as I have pointed out on this forum "Wind power running out of puff" http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14297 it is difficult to see how those targets can be met, but that problem has nothing to do with energy company interests.

One major barrier is the strict planning guidelines for wind farms, but those were brought in as a result of complaints over noise. They have nothing to do with the energy industry, which could not care less about renewables and have not said a word about them one way or another. Time to adjust your world view..

@Taswegian
You and ot hers might be interested in the following story from villangs in the state of New York.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175618/tomgram%3A_ellen_cantarow%2C_%22little_revolution%2C%22_big_fracking_consequences/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=f262c90b90-TD_Cantarow11_18_2012&utm_medium=email#more