Reading Ziggy Switkowski's bio
http://www.users.on.net/~markd/CEOs/Switkowski.htm
suggests he knows nuclear physics, high finance and pleasing government masters. Now he has left Telstra he could do a feasibility study on Australia's nuclear options. Before I moved to the Styx (literally and metaphorically)I worked for a while with advisors to a senior Canberra minister. Frankly I was appalled just how little they knew about the real world. Ditto the folks who give solar rebates; they can't or won't discuss cost effectiveness. Secondly what may seem obvious to a technocrat may not wash with the public. Remember a Queensland energy executive topped himself last year. Therefore we need 'switched on' energy advice, either Ziggy or an import perhaps.

We have had a rather hollow energy debate so far. A particular comment “ there is plenty of overseas expertise available on nuclear power plants ” followed by “open an immigration list for skilled nuclear power plant staff, and watch how quickly it fills up” shows a flippant disregard of a history of doing things our way. It could only come from someone outside the loop.

I ask, do we now expect to continue importing everything including our clothes from China?

The desire to build something as big and as controversial as a string of nuclear power plants here must come initially from those who probably can.

Let’s return to our industrial legacy. Here I can go back to that big lab in Ascot Vale where Bob Menzies opened the local technology contribution from ICI and so on.

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/598.html

On the same note; when Vestas came to us they sent our mate back to Europe for a quick brushing up. Most of his crew today are locals from our home town. It makes no sense to me if folk in this debate can’t make their own knives and forks or build a wheel.

Taz, I find your position on the issue of staffing to be inconsistent. Maybe I've miscontrued it, but it seems that on the one hand you're arguing that we have no experience of operating nuclear power plants, and on the other you don't like the idea of importing it.

The effect of your combined position is that we can't build and operate nuclear power plants, or at least not in the required time scale.

We are not going to develop this technology from scratch. No doubt we could do, but it would take time, be exceedingly costly, and above all is an absurd approach to solving our power problem.

The technology and experience already exists in the world. It makes no sense for us not to make use of that.

Sylvia.

Taking us all headlong into the nuclear power industry at this stage is a drastic step for some (read the debate) and it should not be left to the likes of this forum to educate our public or our politicians in the necessary steps on the way forward. That should come from what little of our power industry we still own or operate.

Sylvia: My position is more about us owning at least some part this process than it is about stirring for a particular direction in our need to expand our generating systems. Any new position must be sold to the public via a chain of trusted enterprises like those already in the electricity market. We have the engineering talent, or at least we had it to do that. We also have time. As I said before natural gas is everywhere.

The last thing we need now is our politicians or would be politicians rushing round looking for quick solutions to our power demands. My go slow is all about getting the right people into this debate, skilled technician rather than clever lobbyists.

We have another problem yet to be mentioned, we also have a history of state political parties offering large blocks of discount power to selected industries at election times. Let’s try dealing with that here

The G8 Summit has endorsed the Bush position that hydrogen and clean coal has the problem solved. I guess by year's end we will see the smokestacks at Eraring dismantled and hydrogen cars in local showrooms.

Good point Taz about electricity discounts. In the California crisis we saw aluminium smelters selling back their quota so households could run airconditioners. The theory had been that metal refining was an economic cornerstone that underpinned the whole economy. Seems like it was more about making money.

Hmmm

And current proven reserves of Uranium will probably last something like 100 years based on current demand. Any increase of uranium use for power generation will probably match new reserves that are economically feasible to extract so potentially meaning we have nuclear energy for 1 maybe 2 centuries (and yes I remember the cries of oil shortages in the 70-80’s with only 2-3 decades of reserves left). But then we are left with 30,000 years of waste management. Oh but Breeder reactors could be used but are still significant decades from full potential which could provide true long term energy. But great terrorists targets and management issues over their life(and waste ..again). I suppose breeders probably fall in same category with Fusion reactors in implementation time frame. But fusion waste management seems just a bit easier to handle and reserves are just a tad more long term. But lets not think outside the box too much....

Yes I know sarcasm gets me nowhere...but thought provoking I hope.
Lets not stick to only Fission....we may be blinkered from better LONG TERM solutions.