Notwithstanding all of the above and the article itself, there still remains a huge problem. Conventional oil has peaked globally; the era of cheap oil in any form is over.

90% of goods transported to and within Australia require cheap oil for our economy to work and function at any level of acceptable stability.

If you look at the true statistics, Europe, the US and most of the remaining western world is in recession. To boot, China's economy is braking hard, India is still growing somewhat, Japan is a basket case and the remaining BRIC have anaemic growth. Notwithstanding this fact, the price of oil (petrol and diesel) is at almost historic highs generally across the globe. Central banks are straining to produce inflation, and developments in emerging markets (Brazil, China etc) suggest a deflationary shock is now highly likely.

What happens when you get some real (not fait credit derived) growth, well I will tell you: you will see a crash of the global economy.

The price of oil, already well above median norms will skyrocket, then crash as it did in 2008, the next big crash is bound to happen in 2013, all the indicators are there to be seen if you look hard enough, this time Australia will not be immune and our economy will be hammered.

You can have all the coal, hydro, solar, nuclear, geothermal energy mix you like, if you can’t move your goods and get things to market, people to work, goods and services traded, the economy contracts and eventually the whole existing economic ponzi scheme falls apart.

Economics is not about money (cash or credit) it is about the exchange of goods and services using cheap transportation fuels, in other words, growth at prices higher than existing is unrealistic.

Unfortunately most economists miss this crucial link and static energy generation (electricity supply) will help little if people can’t get about and goods can’t be transported cheaply.

Our lesson has yet to be learned, we are in for an awful shock.

@Julian: "If that had crossed a uranium mine on the way, and scooped up uranium ore mobilised by mining..."

Unrefined uranium ore is barely more radioactive than ordinary dust, and several times heavier. Any wind powerful enough to pick up a significant quantity and carry it very far would have to be a full-on hurricane, and much more damage would be done by the wind force than by the relatively small amount of uranium ore it could carry. As for the refined product, that's extremely dense and cast into metal blocks; not even Hurricane Sandy could carry that very far.

You'll have to go back to the Big Green Book of Imaginary Disasters and come up with something better than that, I'm afraid.

Re Jon J

If you're right and the ore won't travel that's a few dollars off the insurance premium then. In contrast to the hyped-up AGW, the nuclear industry has done plenty of real damage already, and the insurance companies are cautious about covering it. Google <household insurance nuclear exclusion australia> and think about why.

Don Aitkin should be commended. He is one of the few academics capable of rigorously analysing, thinking about, and speaking independently on the misinformation regarding climate change and renewables .

@ Foyle – you may have got it wrong. Interesting article in Nature this week titled: “Thorium fuel has risks”.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v492/n7427/full/492031a.html

Agree with Foyle:
Yes everything has risks, even coal-fired power, which can and does produce smoke stack emission, that includes uranium, arsenic, mercury, cadmium and lead, just to mention elements already on the public record. Some of which reportedly turned up in Sydney's water supply?
Thorium reactors are relatively safe, produce little if any emission, use/burn/consume very nearly all their fuel, and produce a very small amount of waste, which is far less toxic, than that produced by oxide reactors; and indeed, eminently suitable for very long life space batteries.
Sand storms whipping through the desert, and picking up lumps of uranium?
Have you ever tried to pick up a lump of gold/copper/uranium ore?
It is HEAVY!
The chance of a sand storm picking/hoovering some up, are almost as remote, as a whirlwind whipping through a junk-yard, and assembling a fully functional and flyable 747?
[The wind power required, would leave only rubble in its wake!?]
I'm not influenced by green ideology, usually just the opposite. But the nightly news has been full recently, of images of melting tundra!
One also notes that none of the detractors or spokespersons for the current status quo, knocked the idea of micro power plants or a national gas grid?
Or biogas production?
We won't ever run out of oil!
Long before we run out of oil, the price to the average consumer will become prohibitive!
And governments who wish to retain power, will have no other option than to proceed apace with viable alternatives. Better every which way for us, if they start now!
Alternatives which will include, large scale farming of very low water use, carbon absorbing algae, some of which are up to 60% oil!
And the production of very low cost hydrogen, utilising the catalytic cracking of the water molecule, solar thermal heat, and endlessly available sea water.
The real problem here, I believe, are various state govt's multi billion dollar electricity generation and transmission holdings, and a reluctance to let go of all the annual millions in revenue, these generate for them, from a captive market!?
Rhrosty.