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.