YeaH, but there is enough renewal bale energy being generated to meet those who claim they are using it! answer that!

No, there isn't. Or if there is roughly the right amount of money being paid for the same amount of renewable energy, it doesn't matter, as the electrons coming down our lines are a mix of mainly coal with a smattering of renewables and people are using mostly coal electrons with a few renewables slapped on top but at weird times when they're probably not relying on them that much.

In fact, it's exactly the sort of (perceptive, so I'll give you that) question that Dr James Hansen asks. He is *the* climatologist that diagnosed our climate problem — but no one believes him on the solution! He says believing in 100% renewables is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. http://tinyurl.com/yclaf2sn Instead he says the world should build 115 reactors a year! http://tinyurl.com/zp3552t

There! I answered you THAT! Happy?

But Online Opinion doesn't care about climate change.
I do. But it's not the sort of thing OLO's known for.

But here's a thing, we can address more than one problem at a time.

Get EV's happening here as that's a transport 'gateway drug' towards getting off oil. But the power's coal? Yup, but the emissions are at the coal stacks not in our cities, meaning at least there's less pollution in our cities. Also, as we green up the electricity system the transport system gets cleaner as well. So go EV's and hydrogen and whatever, because that at least prepares us for peak oil and having clean transport systems.

But ideally, WHILE we are doing that we should ALSO be fast-building reliable baseload safe modern nukes like the CAP1400. We should aim for around 2 a year on a production line basis, which would see us done in a few decades.

Oh, and desal? If your city is dying of thirst, you just build the thing ASAP, whatever the energy source. You fix that later.

Take a deep breath and think about what you wrote. All the claims of renewable energy desal plant energy offsets might not be delivered renewable energy, so it must come form coal, gas, oil... and that's the problem. every one claims to be Green carbon free and no one checks their claims.

Why don't you take a DEEPER breath and think about what I wrote.

I agree with you on renewables.

That's the problem with renewables, but not with nukes.

And not with desal, just the powering of desal.

Max green, glad you agree with renewables comment.

AND, I remain bemused at how Australia got hoodwinked into hating nuclear power to the extreme case where we are paying billion to have the French convert a Nuclear sub design to diesel!,

Thank goodness they didn't insist on a wind powered submarine! Think of it, they might have made is buy an oil tanker from Korea, ripped out the diesel engines, painted it stealthy black and created the world's first expensive sailing submarine.

Nuclear power and desal ( and potable recycled water go well together, and both need water for cooling and as a dirty water source.

Nuc power is fine, and ain't it ironic that we supply much of the world's uranium "don't ya tink"?

As I said, the world's most famous climatologist is pro nuclear.

Forgive my 7 point rave, but it takes 7 points to show how different Molten Salt reactors are.
+ It *cannot* melt down because the fuel is already a liquid.
+ It requires power to keep the fuel up in the core and reacting. In a power failure the hot liquid salt pours down to the drain tank and the moment it cools to 400 C the salt crystalises into a solid block that's not going anywhere.
+ The Molten Chloride Salt Fast Reactor eats uranium and thorium and nuclear waste and nuclear warheads!
+ It burns all the longer-lived 'waste' out of it, getting 90 times the energy out of the waste, turning a 100,000 year storage problem into today's energy solution.
+ The final wastes are fission products that you melt into ceramic blocks and bury under the reactor carpark for 300 years. Then they're safe! Your whole life would only result in 1 golf ball of waste. That volume for Australia would only come to 1.4 Sydney Olympic pools of nuclear waste after 70 years of abundant, reliable, carbon free electricity!
+ Uranium from seawater can run the world for billions of years. It's essentiall 'renewable' because geological activity and erosion tops up the oceans.
+ Dr James Hansen, the world's most famous climatologist, says we need nuclear power and we should look to the history of the French. They built out a mostly nuclear grid in just 15 years. It can be done, fast and cheap. The French electricity bill is about half Germany's, and Germany is only a third done with their unreliable wind and solar plan. According to Hansen the choice is nuclear power or climate change.