Wind farms? During the Summer just gone, several thousand houses in South Australia were blacked out for days. Not because of the usual chaos a few hot days causes for the Chinese owned conventional power supply, but because of a cluster of windmills which were supposed to be supplementing the foreign owned power generator.

It was too hot for the windmills; they stopped working. They couldn't deliver the goods when they were most needed!

The only thing to be said about wind power is that its apparatus is an ugly blot on the skyline.

Anthony Albanese might be a zealot for opposing Uranium, but his election results show the real reason for his passion.

In his seat of Grayndler, the Greens polled 21%, just behind the Liberals at 24%. If Labor was to take a softer line on uranium, Albanese could expect a big swing to the Greens, putting them ahead of the Liberals. The seat would then be decided on Liberal preferences. There would be a good chance of Albanese losing his seat to the Greens.

Is Albanese a zealot or just desperate to stay in parliament? Grayndler has long been considered one of Labor’s safest seats. Losing Grayndler would be a massive blow to the Labor Party.

Dammed if you do - Dammed if you don't.

Just a quick note on solar panals. They require huge "farms" of arrayed panels to make them viable. They collect all of the sunlight leaving only shadows in their wake. Absolutely devistating for the ecosystems on which they are built.

How is wind power going to fly a jumbo from Sydney to Los Angeles?

Re solar panels. The beauty of solar panels is that you can install a small array on your own roof. A ten panel array produces about 1.5 Kw/hour. Ten hours of sunshine would produce 15 KwH of electricity (more than our house currently uses on average). Of course efficiency drops off dramatically on cloudy days. Demand peaks for electricity are now on summer days, when solar is at its best. If only you could get the spot price (up to $5/KwH) for electricity produced on peak days, rather than about 15 cents. Very little transmission losses in such a system as well.

The cost for such an array is about $15,000, which would pay itself off in about 20 years, when it would be due for replacement. For a private individual the economics don't stack up, but there are number of social benefits (reduction of greenhouse emissions etc). Government subsidies or no-interest loans could certainly kick this along. If more people were installing arrays prices would drop.

Re jet transport: obviously solar is not the answer, but wind power is no problem. We once had a wind-powered international transport system, it was called a sailing fleet. You could go overseas this way, you'd just have to be VERY VERY patient. Anyone know if you can run jet engines on methanol?

I find it curious that nuclear power is gaining traction given all the current paranoia about terrorism. Surely a nuclear power plant would be a prime candidate for a terrorist strike?

Johnj

Actually, if I were a terrorist a nuclear reactor would be the last place I'd attack. It's too predictable, probably too well guarded, and generally expected.

I would target things like schools, hospitals, water supplies, electicity. The objective being to cause as much "disruption, fear and terror" as possible with the least amount of risk of failure or capture.

A typical politicians statement, says nothing except promotion of self. Its very simple, nuclear power is old technology, if you haven't noticed the huge advance is solar and other alternative technologies, then you live somewhere in the dark past.

As a country, we could completely remove ourselves of the need for petro products, coal and nuclear within 5 years, reduce everyones power bill including industry. Communities can become energy autonomous and the economy would rapidly expand. Problem is, you voted for parties and idiots, not those that have a solutions and aren't controlled by vested interests.

Theres many people in this country that are virtually self sufficient in energy and probable just about everything else. What needs to happen is for the people to become self informed of whats really on offer instead of listening to these brain-dead morons they vote for. Their so incompetent, they have to sell all our assets to pay of the debts they created. Would you invest in a company whose executive sold of the assets to your competitors, so they could charge you more for less. Then you politicians demand (via taxes and charges) you give them more funds so they can live in luxury and do less and less, as we work longer and longer for less and less

Pretty rational way of going about your life isn't it. City dwellers can be almost as self-sufficient energy wise as those in the country. Check out the new solar cubes, and solar furnaces, biodiesel and methane, ethanol. No matter what the pollies tell you, its not hard to reduce you costs and help the planet. You can even grow seed oil crops in your back yard and reduce your reliance on petro diesel.

It may be of interest to know, that using biodiesel, or straight veggie oil means you aren't producing the micro particles that come from petro fuels and infiltrate the lungs and intestines. Politicians aren't interested, as it doesn't suit their vested interests agenda, anyone with half a brain can see that.

The largest nuclear power station is our own sun.Either we murder half the world's population and go back to the horse and buggy days or we have the courage to face a brave new world of nuclear energy.
Fossil fuels may well cook us alive as nuclear may also snuff out our consciousness.I don't think we have much choice.

They are working on a way of recycling nuclear waste,when it does eventuate nuclear will be more palitable.

Just the other day I was looking for a lucid definition of oxymoron.It suddenly dawned on me in the shower,IT HAS TO BE A LEFT WING THINK TANK,or on the other hand could it have a more surepticious and deeper meaning,ie GIVING OXYGEN TO MORONS.

You have to admit it,the left have an uncanny way of perverting logic and lack the courage to face life's challenges.

It seems that this debate conflates two separate issues; global warming and declining production of fossil fuels. Nuclear is relevant in Australia only in relation to global warming as 80% of our electricity comes from coal, of which we have abundant reserves. As I have posted above, I believe that some modest subsidies to existing technologies could reduce our dependence on coal-fired power, without the need for expensive nuclear stations with their attendant waste problems. We're having trouble finding storage for low-level waste. Imagine the damage to your property values if a reactor or waste storage site was located in your suburb. Not in my backyard thanks.

Arjay, I'd suggest you spell and grammar check your posts before calling other people morons.

Thanks, Barry, the Long View seems to be a little alien to post-boomers, but it does explain Abenese's strange limp. (Rob88's right, he's getting the sap hugged out of him.) This is a good thing. Before coal there were horses, after Nuclear . . .

"Either we murder half the world's population and go back to the horse and buggy days"

Onya rjay, You've seen through Preznit Shrub's little plan.

Now Johnj,is was not the moron on the missing "r" in my surrepetitious musings,but more on dismissing the logic that points to our survival.No individual people were the intended in my pun,but rather the flawed logic of our less courageous consciousness.In this respect,we are all guilty to some degree.The left whingers have been proven wrong too often and have held the lectern for far too long.

It is too easy to appeal to our weaker side in order to garner support and the left have made made this attribute their forte to the detriment of Australian society.The PC brigade have been wrong about serious afflictions in our society including immigration,economics and their perverted social engineering,yet still continue to push their insidious agendas on us all.They sing the praises of alternate energies that will never maintain the present world population and at the same time berate the West in not giving enough to the poor to imrove their living standards,yet ignore the necessity for birth control and good governance.

The world is in the over populated mess it in today because the West developed better food and medical technologies without insisting on responsible birth control measures such as China has implemented.That is the reality.As a result ,we will continue to fight over diminishing food,resources and energy.

There is hope that with the interdependance of globalisation that we won't be able to destroy each other,however the mix of superstitious religious ideolgy,poverty and the left ignoring reality does not auger well for our survival.

U RAN I AM - Downer

Fresh from the AWB scandal, fresh from the fallout from Jakarta, Indonesia, to the Fresh debate regarding Nuclear energy and waste, Downer tossed another poison laced bone to add to some morose agenda our leadership has for the Australian citizen.

According to his coalition partner and deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Mark Vaile, told media that it was inevitable that Australia should take responsibility of the spent nuclear fuel that Australian Uranium was made from to supply countries with cleaner ozone emissions.

The media attention was continued by Mundine from the Labor party, running with the foxes, to say that their policy is, "No new mines", to their Federal counterparts, chasing with the hounds, considering this could be the future of our technological efforts to create a cheaper source of energy.

This debate will now be discussed by Labor in the forth coming, Labor National Conference.

I guess they need a few freebies to get the motor running on ideas regarding the nuclear debate, we have obvious not paid them enough as opposition to have policy on a the subject of nuclear energy?

The Labor party should already have solid policy on Nuclear energy and up to date statistics and information for the people of Australia to make an informed opinion on the opposition of the nuclear energy debate.

The right reasons are that Australia cannot sustain the impact nor the environmental factors on an Industry where there has not been enough information gathered about the long term effects.

We have certainly seen the disaster and the controversy over those who wish to use this method to supply energy.

Mr Downer suggested that it was up for debate whether we just dug it up and processed it as well.

Where is the Greens Party and their ability to get their point of policy through relating to the mining and processing of Uranium? Slurp.

The World needs some better ideas than nuclear material that can be use to make weapons against us.

As federal shadow minister for the environment (1977-80) Barry Cohen would be aware that the Whitlam Government had rubbved a judge, a chemist, and an engineer together to generate the three commissioners for the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry; that it produced a first report in 1976, and a second in 1977.
The reports hardly presented a lilly-white cover for the uranium scene. Rather they gave a bundle of ifs-ors, and suggestions for caution-if-she-goes. If Barry had delved deeper, he might have found some of the expert witness' offerings of interest. While one of them stated that a nuclear bomb could never be made from power-reactor grade material, he clarified that under questioning. Apparently, no-one in their right mind would use it to make a bomb: it is insufficiently stable; and there is no certainty that any resulting explosion would yield "just" 2,000 tones TNT equivalent - or 20,000.
Just great that such fuel is hardly the stuff for regular armies - pity it is hunky-dory for terrorists having suicidal tendencies. Now, is it just coincidence that we have been seeing more terrorists, as human beings struggle ever harder for a fair share of diminishing prospects in an ever-crowded world - increasing from 4.7 to 6.5 billion from 1977 to 2006, and now chugging on at 1.3% per year?
Barry is also in a position to know that it was the zealotry of Bob Hawke which brought on the "three mine" uranium policy: his last act as ACTU leader, at the Adelaide congress, before entering parliament. Bob white-anted the no-mines policy already put in place by ordinary members. Persuasive power and zealotry won the day.
Uranium is today's Magdala fortress for nuclear zealots who won't face up to ecological limits; or the deficiencies of what they propose.

"The left whingers have been proven wrong too often and have held the lectern for far too long."

OK, I admit, the left have gone on a bit about global warming . . . and we were so wrong about that!

ajay, face the fact that this is way more than a simple left/right blame-game.That aside, everything else you say makes perfect sense. I wasn't kidding about Shrub, et al.

Labor Right has no answer to this, even after all these years - they never did and likely never will. (Barry's post makes that clear.)

One for the pro-nukes fraternity: Are you proposing a Single Desk for uranium marketing? Does The Prime Minister still claim he had no knowledge about, nor control of of, that other great Single Desk, the AWB? That's a hell of a Bump in the Road when you think about it.
A Horse and Cart future? Not if we kill the horse to build the Cart.

I guess it is inevitable (orchestrated) that the ‘robust’ debate so quickly degenerates into emotive name calling. Intelligent and productive as shown by the war with Iraq debate, the Global Climate Coalition, the economics used to justify apposing Kyoto to name three of the more recent all resulting in misapplied effort rewarding few and penalising many.
So lets debate facts. On the subject of alternative energy and Nuclear Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute says at
www.ccnr.org/ampory.html
and on the use of energy efficiency and nega watts on
www.rmi.org/siterpages/pid171php#EO4-O2
The ACF site at
www.acfonline.org.au/news asp?
Should lead you to an address by Ian Lowe on October 2005. Here he also argues against nuclear and pushes Amory Lovins’ ideas.
These are the alternate views and theories. Lovins and Lowe are each trained in analysing data and each has a world wide reputation for integrity.
The nuclear argument is more aggressively promoted on many sites found by nuclear using most search engines.
The big questions to my mind is still safety and waste disposal and in each case who will benefit (profit) should the approach be chosen. The soft energy path of Lovins is of course widely used though asking Greenhouse Australia for concrete data, for example how many houses have solar panels is unproductive. According to Lowe if half were so fitted some seven percent of our electricity needs would be met.
It should be remembered that nuclear only supplies electricity representing only 35% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Unless or until we have a Hydrogen economy and nuclear electricity is used to make H from H2O.) The rest is transport land fill clearing and similar.
It is interesting how rapidly those who desire it can turn an argument on facts into an emotive diversion in which “facts” become the coinage of deceit. As interesting is the public susceptibility to such, fear often a part of it but advertising and hype like the current frenzy (useful to those who sell) relating to the world cup.

To paraphrase another saying;
Its the Storage Stupid !

Why is it that anyone who proposes solar and wind power never address the problem of storage ?
The sun does go down and the wind does drop, usually at sundown !
I know, I know, it is quite practical to operate normal domestic premises from solar and wind without any outside electrical supply.

HOWEVER do you really think it is possible to supply every house, office, factory, hospital with enough storage batteries and solar cells and wind generators and keep them serviced and replaced ?
There are nowhere enough electrical technicians to do the work !
How much greenhouse gas would be generated by their manufacture assuming the raw materials are avilable in such ginormous quantities.

Anyway you have a much bigger problem looming than global warming and it is almost upon us. I speak of course of Peak OIl.
Don't worry about international travel, unless of course you want to fly in a coal powered aircraft !
If you don't have a clue about what I am talking about goto
www.peakoil.net where you will be educated in a real worry.
Lots of links available on that premium site.
Bazz

Re: Leigh's comment on the blackouts in SA.
Well it is not usually understood by proponents that you can only have about 10 to 20% of solar or wind power on a network before instability of the network arises. This subject was addressed by a German study of the SA network and warned of just these problems if unreliable generators are fed into the network.
Solar & Wind are unreliable generators and are unable to be base load generators.

Bazz

The article concludes:

"As a last resort I could sell the car, stop flying, freeze in winter and fry in summer. On balance, I think I'll go with the wind farm."

This sort of misleading simplification was used to make people buy snakeoil. Thank God some of us are not that gullible, and with Internet we have access to information that the press fails to publish. Such as this for instance:

Windfarms do NOT deliver the goods. Their erratic production during days with wind, and their absence of production when there is no wind, makes it necessary to keep building fossil-fuel power stations AS IF WINDFARMS DID NOT EXIST. And fossil fuel is burnt for nothing during the 24-hour, 365-days-a-year backup operation.

Dr. Etherington published a remarkably well documented article on this: http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=2950

Mark Duchamp
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

In countries with little hydro power (such as Australia), once wind power reaches about 10% of peak hour supply every extra megawatt has to be backed up with a power plant which can be turned on and off, or up and down, as required. (Hydro dams are a form of "storage battery" and hence in NZ that figure may be as high as 15%).
Windpower also increases the demand for transmission systems to enable the windpower to be moved around as required.
Anyhow, once that back up point is reached, the cost of the back up supplies creates a huge "price mountain" against further generation. Typically, governments subdisise the wind power so that the consumer is unaware of how much that "fee wind" is actually costing.
I have nothing against wind power or solar power. I have a windmill on my small farm to irrigate my gardens and have a solar water heater on my roof.
But actually using these systems makes you realise how frequently the energy is not there when you most need it.

Mark Duchamp is right.

The intermittent output of wind generators has to be backed up by other generators in the system which means that "megawatt hour for megawatt hour" wind does not displace other generation. The coal saved is 40% or less of the amount consumed by a coal fired power station to generate 1 MWh.

The wind industry and its often uninformed but well-meaning environmentalist supporters, often claim that wind does not need this backup. State politicians make extravagant claims for CO2 savings that are often based on 100% displacement of coal. Either they are poorly advised, or they know the facts, but will not let them get in the way of the naive green vote.

In the future, large capacity battery and other technologies might overcome the intermittent problem with wind but they will probably be expensive and not competitive with emerging low emissions coal generation.

Wind generation would not be viable without the consumer subsidies provided by the MRET and proposed similar state schemes. Under MRET the electricity distribution companies have to accept wind output, despite its high cost and variability, or pay a substantial penalty.

Renewable energy systems such as direct solar hot water, hydro, tidal impoundment and geothermal, include energy storage and in some cases may be far more environmentally friendly and cost-effective for consumers than wind. Pity we did not get a proper debate about it, before being lumbered with wind "because it is a mature technology".

Hopefully, the forthcoming debate on nuclear electricity generation will be focused on facts and warts and not corporate PR and uninformed overstatement. At least we will get an informed debate before the event, which we did not get with wind

The Howard Governemt are environmental joke.
They would rather spent 500+ million on screwing Australian workers.
A real leader would spend this money on renewable energy and skills shortage, chilcare etc etc. Now they want to sell Snowy Hydro. Wake up Howard voters, its time to rise.

And so the Government appointed review panel is stacked in favour of the cost effectiveness of the Nuclear debate.

Figures are now being release that the uranium resources would be used up in 24 years.

This suggests that a review should be done on our current methods of energy supply and alternatives, such as solar, which is abundance in Australia because these resources will out last 24 years.

Current technologies with our current energies such as coal are now available to curb green house omissions.

A popular radio identity brings up consistently in his review the use of ethanol blends.

It seems America is going into full swing with production of this alternative fuel.

Australia plans to have just a few by 2015.

Does this suggest that America will be the major distributor and controller of production?

Forget about self sufficiency or the ability to sustains our own Nations efficiency.

The government could install grid connected solar power on all suitable homes across Australia and it would most likely be cheaper than building 5 nuclear power stations. The benefitt would be very little maintenance and no dangerous waste.

Well Sly, a good idea but not very practicle.
It means banks of batteries at every home, business premises, hospitals, workplaces, shops etc etc etc.
I have my doubts on whether the raw materials are available to produce this massive amount of batteries, solar cells, switchgear needed and where are the electrical workers that would be needed to install and maintain such a system ?

An enormous factory would be needed just to manufacture replacement batteries. We do it now for cars, but this suggestion is a multi scale up compared to cars.

These reasons are why we have central generating stations now.
The maintenance work does not go up linearly with the power rating.

Baz

Whoops, sorry, not Sly but Suebdootoo is where my reply should have been addressed.
Bazz

Bazz, are you against new industry, more jobs and skills training, reduction in energy costs for households and business, reduction in high carrying detrimental power lines. No power failures when you supplement the system with small wind generators.

Sure it would be a major task but we have all the resources and materials to do it. The new solar cube technology and massive advance in ceramic fuel cells, vanadium bromide redox flow batteries, that have tens of thousands of charge cycles and available in the next two years. They would be available now but the federal government only give token grants for alternative energy, whilst it give hundreds of millions to fossil and nuclear fuel companies.

Presently we have gel batteries available which last more than 25 years, considerable time to establish better technology. If you add small biodiesel powered generators (24v) as backup to supply business. You would create more small business and add other forms of cropping for farmers, that only require low input costs.

Training to install these low voltage systems would be easy,

Whats stopping changes is the ignorance and closed minds of many people who constantly repeat the unsustainable rhetoric put out by the political slaves of the corporate monopolies.

What makes me laugh is people knock renewable energy, yet have no experience or useful knowledge about it. I can assure you it works wonderfully well, it not only makes you independent, but gives you security against losing your ability to function as a business or household. It would also allow a very quick recovery time for natural disaster, as power would be still available to most premises via their own systems.

There are many time when inclement weather knocks out power in the area. Our premises continues without interruption, unlike others who have to close, losing custom and their frozen goods.

Grid connected solar power does not have battries. The excess power generated through out the day is returned to the grid so that businesses etc can withdraw it. At night the household draws it's
power back from the grid.. This is what is needed on a large scale. Also all houses and businesses should have water tanks.

The generation requirement is set by peak hour demand.
The problem with unreliable renewable resources is that they are not reliable and hence cannot be depended on to meet peak hour demand.
Wind and solar power can charge the "hydro" battery up to about 10%-15% but beyond that all such renewables must be backed up by some generating source which has an on and off switch and control knob.

Or they must store power in some form on site.

Fact is we are going to require all forms of available energy be it renewable or nuclear.

If we have to compromise on the side of nuclear why isn't Thorium being promoted over uranium?

It is a safer option and doesn't pose the risk of providing materials for weapons.

Please check out the following:

"Thorium oxide, which is three times more abundant than uranium, is also a radioactive material.

But senior research scientist Dr Hashemi-Nezhad, from Sydney University, says it is safe to hold in your hand.

"This is the future of the energy in the world - energy without green, without greenhouse gas production," he said.

Dr Hashemi-Nezhad says thorium has all of the benefits of uranium as a nuclear fuel but none of the drawbacks. "

read on at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200604/s1616391.htm

No single energy source should be favoured other the others.

Howard is once again limiting options with his 'nuclear debate'. I really have to wonder why. The only conclusion I can reach is his affliation with business interests in uranium and of course, Bush.

We need an energy debate, not a nuclear debate.

We may need an "energy debate". but in a world of specialisation we should not be surprised if nuclear engineers focus on nuclear power and wind turbine engineers focus on wind energy and tidal power experts focus on the tides.

The only 'generalist' debate can come from the economists and others who understand pricing and the design of markets within a sector in which it is so easy to create pseudo markets.

And plenty of people are promoting the thorium technology just as many are promoting fusion technology. The reason why we hear most about current uranium fission is that it in operation and provides a huge percentage of the world's energy. It has been tried and tested. Pebble bed is another option.

There are also problems in chasing "dual solutions". Present fission technology requires large units running at near capacity to be economic. If you develop an energy economy half dependent on windmills and half on nuclear fission then you run the risk of both being business disasters. If the windmills are allowed to survive then you have to subsidise the reactors. If the reactors run full tilt you have to subisidise the windmills.
These are real choices which must be made.

It's like rail vs buses. Those US cities which have invested in both rail and buses have seen the overall market share of public transport decline because the inefficient trains are propped up by draining the bus systems. The "balanced" approach proves to be unbalanced.

Thorium - "safe to hold in your hand" - maybe.
That did not stop the locals at Byron Bay from getting excited some years back when they found that they had been living, vacationing, relaxing among radioactivity resulting from the concentrated dregs of beach-sand mining.
Rutile, Ilmenite, Zircon, and Monazite are common beach-sand minerals. Of these, Monazite is a variable source of radioactive Thorium: some Monazite is hot, some is not. Travencore, India, has a resource renowned for being rich in Thorium (up to 14%) - no wonder the Indians are investigating nuclear reactors based upon it.
The Boys from Brazil could very likely get in on that act, having plenty of such beach-sands at about 5%.
Australia has great wallops of beach sands - Queensland, NSW, WA, and the venerable Murray River. These have been mined to provide enormous quantities of the economically useful Titanium-bearing minerals Rutile and Ilmenite. Monazite was a waste-product, as Byron Bay denizens found out.
Thorium-chasing could re-start the communtty aggravation which was associated with the "regeneration to better-than-original" of mined beaches.
The fixes for the energy needs of ever-increasing populations are irritatingly complex.

Owen, lets not exaggerate to much. Nuclear doesn't provide a “huge percentage of the worlds energy”, its only 23.5%. Theres only 4 countries providing 50% or more of their energy requirements with nuclear. For the USA, its only 20% and the united kingdom, 20.4%.

The USA has 104 nuclear power plants, to produce more than 50%, they need to build at least 200 more. To provide more than 50% of the worlds energy from nuclear, would require the construction and future decommissioning of about 1000 more nuclear plants. http://www.nea.fr/html/general/facts.html

As start up times range from 10-20 years, we'd be building them for the next 100 years and still not achieving 50% of our energy requirements during that time. The only reason this debate is going on is to move peoples consciousness away from the reality we are facing, in energy and environment collapse.

Its painfully obvious this planet can't support the current population. Those with intelligence and not commercial or economic vested interests, see the direction the elite are forcing us, leaving no options at all.
Sadly those living in populated areas only want someone else to do it for them, or take the responsibility. As has happened in the past, the first to suffer, will be those reliant on the whims of their political masters and enslaved in urban jungles.

The present political approach to all infrastructure is totally negative. Nothing will change, as it means removing control of energy from the current cartels and diversifying energy production and distribution. As long as people stick with the status quo, change will never happen.

For anything to change, would require a completely new political system, designed towards sustainable technological growth and not economic growth. In the meantime, (never), those living in illusion and support the present two faction regimes currently controlling the world, enjoy the ride down the drain

Most posts on this subject are predicated on an assumrtion that our current energy consumption should continue at current levels.

Eg It is our god given right to operate an air conditioner, where and when we choose to do so.

It is obvious to me that it is the demand side which should be addressed, as a priority.

At some time we must reduce our collective consumption , and I think this could easily be done now through a combination of price increases, education and technology such that in 5 years a reduction of demand of at least 30% would be possible; and 50% in 10 years.

It will mean that, for example in a domestic situation, we use the microwave instead of an oven, boil only the water we need, turn off lights and appliances when not needed, and wear warmer clothes in winter.

None of this will happen for as long as most people view electrical power almost as free; which it almost is. (avg. 11 cents /kw hr, or $1.60 per day in my case)

There would not be any major hardship resulting from this, and an equivalent reduction in GHG as a major bonus.

In my case I have reduced my annual consumption by 16% by very simple measures, and I was not previously a profligate user by Australian standards; the effects on my life style have been minimal.

A responsible government would address consumption demand reduction, before looking at nuclear or renewables.

In fact a responsible government would have started this process 10 years ago.

It is clear that there will be a re-arrangemnt of our energy sources.
However it does not seem to be acceptable to some that this change will result in higher electricity demand, not lower.

Many of the advocates of wind and solar have never been in a power station and so have only a vague glimpse of the magnitude of the problem. The wind & solar mantra is technically flawed.

The distributed supply, battery backed, has been talked about for at least 30 years that I can remember but suffers from the same random variations even if it is battery backed due to cloud banks passing by, sudden failures in the wind etc. Do this over a large populated area and the removal and re-connection of all those distributed systems has the same effect; instability = oscillation.

Hot Rocks, as suggested by a Queensland company could be a possibility. Very deep drilling for oil has been a Russian project and to go a little further might be a real solution. Pump water down and get steam back.

The thermal chimney for South Australia is another scheme that should have some government money. It might produce less at night but it would be predicable and that is the crux of the matter.
You simply cannot have generators ramp up and down at random and still have a reliable supply.
The nuclear solution is a long term solution, but then our energy problem is long term as coal will keep our electricity supply on line.
If the peak oil pessimists are correct then we can expect an increasing electricity demand as oil gets more expensive.
All the pontification in the world will not stop people requiring electrical power. Price control is one solution but after operating costs are covered the price over that becomes an unfair tax on those with lower incomes.
I know, I know, CO2 and everything. Interesting bit of info, the oil companies have been pumping CO2 underground for years to increase oil flow. There must be some very big space available in all those depleted oil fields.

Windpower is the fastest growing energy industry in Europe. Just have a gander at the German programme. And why not? While there are limitations on wind power at present it would certainly go a long way to reducing greenhouse gases. And what about the current high emissions of dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc, which are not being capped by our regulators. Some of these chemicals are Category 1 carcinogens spewed out at alarming rates, and are responsible for many deaths in all species. Readers can obtain any licence for any pollutant industry (they are public documents) and realise that there are few regulations to curb pollution. Pollutant industries are also remiss in upgrading pollution prevention control thanks to the pathetic and irresponsible operations of our regulators, which reminds me now of the contamination by dioxins in our magnificent Sydney Harbour and surrounding waters!! Australia now has the ignominious title of the highest polluter per capita on the planet, thanks to governments of all persuasions who share their bed with pollutant industries and their lust for profits! Most Ministers for the Environment would not know a V.O.C from a sock! We should immediately embrace wind power as a complementary energy source, whilst in the meantime, pursue technologies which are able to produce cleaner coal.

Proponents of nuclear power need to return to the drawing board. Roxby (Olympic Dam) in SA is the largest user of electricity in that state. They have applied for a massive 5 fold increase water extraction from the Great Artesian Basin and have applied to take (or already do) 150 million litres per day, free of charge, for the next 70 years and this company is already the biggest industrial user of underground water in the southern hemisphere.(www.bigscrub.org.au/uranium). To envisage the amount of radioactive tailings from this process simply boggles the mind!!

Solar Power is the only way forward. There is great advances being made. The Howard government has done nothing in there ten years in office and now they want nuclear reactors down the east coast. I cant stand this government that spends its time trying to screw workers instead of fixing this country future.

It is sad that interest rates have to go up to wake the Howard voters up. Brainwashed idiots.