Dennis
>On the issue of explosions- which are designed in a way such that meltdown is impossible.

I totally agree safety from a modern well regulated plant should no be a concern. Who's backyard will still cause problems :)

>The simple fact is, the only genuine options at present in terms of baseload power supply are nuclear or fossil fuels. The so-called renewables have promised much, and delivered little.

With due respect
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Media/PR_NucPwr_05vi20.pdf
Nuclear Power's Scorned Small-Scale Competitors Are Walloping It in the Marketplace

-documented that worldwide, the decentralized, low- or no-carbon sources of electricity—cogeneration and renewables, all claimed by nuclear advocates to be too small and too slow to help much with climate change—are already bigger than nuclear power and are quickly leaving it in the dust

and as my earlie post indicated they should not be expected to replace everything all at once.

>In my view, the choice of power generation methods, based on economic, environmental and future resource cost projections should be left in the hands of those most expert-the power utilities.

Dennis they are only expert in the delivery of a service for profit, not the big picture which should involve all parties since this is a critical issue facing the nation. If we had left it to your experts the Franklin River would now be damned and all most if not all our native forests would be turned to plantation forests.

> If they deem nuclear unsuitable for their purposes, so be it. However, if they are being artificially constrained by legislation, then I think that this needs to change.

Are you truly a local or a visiting Republican on a goodwill visit?

It certainly looks like Mr Howard wants an American style working poor workforce, are we going to have the same loosening of environmental regulations that has happened under the Bush administration?

For the record I’m a swinging voter & agree some changes need to be made to unfair dismissal but not to this extent, so I don't make it my hobby bashing Liberals just for the fun of it.

Already we're seeing a number of agenda surfacing, complete with misinformation.

Martin, widespread wind farms cannot provide a reliable supply. Look at

http://www.vestas.com/pdf/produkter/AktuelleBrochurer/v100/V100%20UK.pdf

which is a wind generator designed for low wind areas. Its cut in speed is over 14km/h. To produce its nominal power output it requires about 50km/h.

Then look at the wind speeds across victoria at 9am on the 24th of June in

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW0300.shtml

There was almost nowhere in Victoria that could have allowed this wind generator to produce any power at all. The implication is that the entire baseload would have to be provided by some other capacity at that time on that day. That capacity has to be sitting there, built, and with a fuel supply, ready to run when its needed.

Neohuman, the reason combined heat and power systems can be efficient, is that they provide low grade heat as a by product of generating power. This can be a substitute for other sources of low grade heat. But it's only useful if that's what you need. If your problem is that the house is too hot, then CHP does nothing for you - you need an air conditioner.

The fact that these other methods of producing power have been taken up doesn't prove that they're a cost effective way of providing power to the majority of Australians who live in cities and towns.

I have the impression that perhaps even the problem to be addressed hasn't been stated. So I'll have a go:

a) The primary requirement is to provide power to Australian users of power at a level that matches the demand whenever it occurs.

b) No further increases of CO2 emissions are to be produced as a result of increasing power demand.

c) The cost of the power is to be minimised within the above constraints.

d ) A solution may (probably will) consist of a number of disperate parts, but a part is not a partial solution. Only when all the parts are brought together to form a complete solution is there a solution at all.

Sylvia.

Sylvia. If the use of alternative power sources is raising at the rate that neohuman's article is suggesting they probably are cost effective, given that it’s a competitive market (an assumption on my part). I realise that many new sources of power generation receive some subsidy, but they probably don’t come close to the subsidies, benefits and encouragement that coal, gas and oil companies receive ( I think there are plans for a new port up in NW WA).

It’s possible that I haven’t noticed, but I haven’t heard many screams of protest over the years that the government is keeping good ausie companies from the potential profits of local nuclear power generation (not just mining uranium to sell elsewhere). Could this be because it is not cost effective or that the profit margins are too small and the damage potential (environmental, economic and publicity) to survive in a privatised energy market?

I don’t know very much about the energy market so any input into the market viability of nuclear power would be welcome.

I wonder if maintaining such a centralised energy delivery system as large generation (by whichever means) will remain viable in the near future, im just playing Arthur C Clarke here but the trend with many renewable energy sources seems to be toward localised generation and distribution

The most obvious way to 'generate' energy is to save it. At some point we have to recognise we're a long way from sustainability. I can't see why any of the renewable options alone, let alone in combination, can't happen alongside non-replacement of coal stations as they get older, over the coming decades. The fact is, if coal and nuclear power stations had to pay the real costs (of carbon sequestration and waste disposal respectively), they would not be able to compete with renewables.

Sylvia,

I am not sure I understand your case that widespread wind farms cannot provide reliable supply.

If there is enough wind to justify many wind farms and winds are variable along a 2500km coast line, then a comprehensive array must be able to produce an average.

For your statement to be sound, the average, year round, 24h, wind speed off shore along the whole coast of Victoria must be less than 14km an hour. Is it? At many single places along coastal Victoria people have thought it a good idea to build wind farms. These generate power most of the time because there is wind in excess of 14km/h.

Presumably the wind is blowing enough at these many single places enough for them to be viable. – and these are not the more efficient larger scale towers way off shore, such as are being built in other places in the world.

I see the BOM’s site, I see the performance stats for turbines. Looks like 9am June 24th was a really calm morning in many coastal towns, yet at Gabo Island there was a 28km/h southerly, at Hogan Island (off Wilson’s Promontory) it was blowing at 19km/h, and the advisory for much of Bass Straight was for 10 knots or more (18km/h).

My agenda is to highlight the characteristics of the options we have available, several of which are burdened by old fashioned preconceptions. My belief is that renewables, especially wind and solar towers, are competitive options.

I'll start the ball rolling by suggesting a site for Australia's first nuclear power plant; either Woomera or Broken Hill. Neither place has much water or high amp power lines but they do have battle hardened residents. Woomera has a major uranium mine and a waste site close by but a State Premier who is or was anti-nuclear despite looming energy shortages in SA. Broken Hill in NSW has a premier who is pro-nuclear. Logically the plant should be of the fourth generation type funded by some private/public partnership. A decison needs to be made in the next few years as there will be calls for the 'environmental' pricing of coal and China's nuclear program leaves us far behind.