Peter,
As for dot points that would persuade me nuclear is an option for the future:
- Weapons proliferation problems removed (this would probably entail binding international agreements which would appear to be as difficult as doing this for carbon pricing).
-'Fail safe' reactor design in which leaks and melt downs could not happen e.g the exclusion zones of both Fukushima and Chernobyl are each larger in area than the land required to provide 30% dispatchable solar thermal/ salt storage backup for the whole of Australia.
- Fuel supply for the world for say a thousand years. Nuclear fission fuels will run out. 'Fast breeders' can extend fuel many-fold but (to my limited knowledge of the subject) entail production of Plutonium, which is highly radioactive, toxic and has a very long half life. so I'm not convinced breeder reactors it will have an acceptable level of safety when done large scale.

Nuclear fusion is another matter. If they can do it safely and economically I'm for it, but I am skeptical of it ever being possible.

For me, I’d need to be convinced that:

1. Renewables can meet the key requirements of electricity consumers as well as reduce the cost of electricity, and

2. Renewables can supply a large proportion of the world’s electricity requirements forever.

3. Nuclear is not capable of doing all of the above.

Peter Lang and Roses1

There's a site called debate.org which being set up for exactly this kind of issue, is more suitable than this forum, plus your pearls are not lost to the world, but others can look on and even vote. You could adjourn to there and even invite us if you get set up.

I would be interested in attending though you might not be interested in having me in attendance.

Roses1, you're not comparing apples with apples because you're applying a double standard of no risks and perpetuality to nuclear that you're not applying to so-called renewables, therefore failing to meet the basic standard of rationality - again.

Also, what if the people you're trying to force into submission and obedience with your proposed policy don't accept your pretensions to speak for "the world" for "say a thousand years"?

Do you accept the authority of governments of even only 40 years ago to decide energy policy for you now?

Peter, I'll address your conditions, admitting any worries I have; I hope you'll do the same for mine:

Renewables can meet the key requirements of electricity consumers as well as reduce the cost of electricity........ RE can supply reliable electricity with proper planning and smart electricity grids (see SEN and BZE plans). Back-up will include storage - mainly pumped hydro but also batteries, compressed air, flywheels. Also some biomass. All this will entail bipartisan agreement on national plans - the only obstacles are political and people power can overcome that. CST causes bird kills but I think it cam be overcome. Wind and solar farms have only aesthetic problems in some peoples eyes and it will a matter of location and getting used to them.
I do see difficulties in getting sufficient dispatchable renewable energy backup in densely populated areas such as India and China; nuclear could do this but there are the impediments I've listed.

2. Renewables can supply a large proportion of the world’s electricity forever......... Once the infrastructure is in place there will be no problem renewing / replacing it; this will take much less energy input than the initial construction and will be ongoing. There are no fuel costs so as long as the sun shines and wind blows.... The energy supply will be electrical, which together with some cellulosic biofuels and bio-oils can also fuel most of road, rail, agriculture and all of the materials recycling industries. Some, such as cement will need new electric arc technologies to replace gas lances etc. Construction will have to become more wood-based (as it already is in most US suburbs). Agricultural inputs would have to become more organic

3. Nuclear is not capable of doing all of the above....... Nuclear fission could meet consumers' needs and a large part of electricity requirements. But I think that politically,it would only be possible as an alternative path if the problems I highlighted can be overcome. Also fission wouldn't be forever, even if breeders could be made safe.

Energy efficiency is the first imperative whatever the energy technologies

Jardine: Thanks for your suggestion re debate.org. I'll look at it but would need to be convinced it has broad Australian readership at least equal to OLO.
I think you and all of us can have valuable input but we all have to:
- Try to couch even negative comments in positive language
- Don't assume negative motives to those of different views.

e.g. your comment .....'what if the people you're trying to force into submission and obedience with your proposed policy....' I'd have no intention of ever doing that and I don't like the inference. I'm trying to participate in civilized, informed public debate to catalyse change I see as much needed. In a real democracy we are persuaded by logical arguments, not coerced or bullied.

Ben Rose,

“Peter: OK so your main criterion is to find the alternative(s) to coal that are least cost? Are you also looking to maximize replacement of all fossil fuels including gas? If so we are in agreement on those criteria.”

No! That’s not a correct summary of what I said. My criterion is least cost energy that meets user requirements: for electricity the most important requirements are energy security, reliability of supply, and power quality. There are other requirements for energy for other uses such as transport fuels; these include energy security, reliability of supply, fuel quality and consistency. Lowest cost is an important requirement for all energy.

You asked for clarification of what I meant by this statement: “we should not (and will not) replace fossil fuels unless doing so improves the well begin of humanity”
Yes. I mean what I said. That applies to the short term, and long term. I’d add, if we remove the impediments to nuclear power we’ll get to what you say you want much faster than if we keep retarding progress by opposing nuclear power.

“To achieve that we need to reduce, not increase, the cost of energy..... disagree,”

Your response demonstrates such a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and its effect on human well-being, I doubt there is any point continuing this discussion.

The three concerns you listed about nuclear are easily refuted. But, if you've been researching (objectively) already, you’d already know the answers. So I suspect you don’t want to know. That makes progress on a rational discussion impossible. However, I will address them in a later post.

Regarding your three responses in your latest comment:

1. Disagree - Demonstrate it with actuals. BZE is nonsense: http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

2. Disagree – unsubstantiated assertion. EROEI precludes it: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

3. Nuclear – disagree (uranium alone sufficient for 10 billion people for a million years at US per capita consumption).

I don’t think we have a basis for a rational debate. We can’t even agree the key issues.