Trying to postpone nuke energy utilization in Australia is similar to propaganda of job places / social status inherited as the best choice for a world.

Surprisingly, a national-liberal monarchist, Mr. J.Howard, has aired a really innovative vital to this stacked in the time sleepy place option – potential development of nuclear industry, but public bumbles (oooops, deliberates)again something of green gases, greenhouse effect and renewable energies.

A respectable science magazine Nature on 01 June 2006 provides a strong data from Antarctic that is strong evidence to a global warming occurred 55 ml. years ago when a temperature had risen by five degrees because of a natural planetary reason.

All the energy from renewable resources hardly powers shaving if in Australia simultaneously all males to do. And to generate it a special equipment should be provided-that should also be counted in a grand effect of energy consumption at the end.

World Energy Council, 2004 Survey of Energy Resources (http://www.worldenergy.org):

"the annual solar radiation which reaches the earth and its atmosphere is 2 895 000 EJ, compared to the total non-renewable energy resources of 325 300 EJ (oil, 8 690 EJ; gas, 17 280 EJ; uranium, 114 000 EJ; coal, 185 330 EJ"

So what more needs to be said? If we take a strategic view of energy supply then the answer is obvious, isn't it?

But just how much is 325 000 EJ, sounds like a lot?

So just how much is 325 000 EJ of non-renewable energy (the total estimated world supply remaining)?

- look at the Peak Oil estimates from the optimists - US EIA, OECD IEA, OPEC - they say we probably have about 30 or so years "at current consumption rates"

- look at the Peak Oil estimates from the credible realists - e.g. Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (http://www.peakoil.net/) - they say 7 to 10 years to peak.

- look at the "Years of Supply" graph in the Howard Governments 2004 Energy White Paper (page 5). Australia's oil is finished within 10 years.

- look at the International Atomic Energy Agency's 2 June 2006 press release on Uranium Resources (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/), they are thrilled to tell us that the world has about 85 years "at current consumption rates" of reasonably priced ore. So what happens if use doubles? Something for the mathematicians to go figure out!

- look at the Australian Coal Association's website (http://www.australiancoal.com.au), who will tell you that "the future is a renewable one" (but I'm sure they have about a 200-300 year timespan in their minds till we get there)

If you put aside the emotions around the complex and vast environmental, security and economic issues for a moment. Close your eyes and think about the future for your family, friends, neighbours, fellow citizens, fellow humans ... and their life asirations and consequent needs ...

... It's simple, there is only one answer ... Renewables. It's the logic of the numbers and prudent risk management.

Energy is going to be more expensive. Get used to it. But renewables won't run out, won't pollute (beyond the earth's waste processing capacity), won't be proliferated or a target (By the way does anyone know what it costs to have a 24hour aircraft exclusion zone around reactors?)

If you think that putting all your faith in fusion, fast breeder reactors and geosequestration is the way to go then tell your kids and grand kids NOW to go solve their own problems after your gone (kids are so selfish now days).

"If you think that putting all your faith in fusion, fast breeder reactors and geosequestration is the way to go .."

Its not about faith. We will feel PEAK oil in 5 years. We are feeling it already and that is why this debate will escalate from here. Without a replacement for oil, 2/3 of the worlds people will be getting their pink slip one way or another as thermodynamic forces (war, disease, famine and climate change) equalise world energy flows. This is why there is an imperative to gap-fill with coal and Uranium solutions. I don't think world leaders are AFRAID to let the worst happen but they have enough humanity in them to TRY to prevent it as best they can. People like Artur are unwise to stand in their way!

As for Uranium, its PRACTICAL to value add our uranium to PBR (pebble bed) fuels such that WE control the security and the waste disposal issues and not our customers (China, India etc).
When the cost equations are right we WILL build PBRs here. I estimate we need 20 years of big PBR pebble shipments to afford to build the number of reactors required for our secure mid term (50-100 years only) energy future. This is why debating positioning of reactors at this point in time is so inane.

Additionally, there are interesting new ways to experiment with fusion. Australia and Canada OUGHT to be putting future uranium export profits, from the get-go, into specialised-fusion-research. There is a reason why Australia was first in the world to separate U235 using laser-activation. I cannot say what it is in this forum but I can tell you that it opens up the possibility of new avenues of fusion research that don't cost CERN style $trillions. However it will need some $billions and access to U235 in a variety of expermental forms. A solid NUCLEAR-PROCESSING-industry in Australia will facilitate this new avenue-of-research. This kind of nuclear industry adjunct-research is critical if we are to solve our LONG TERM energy requirements and those of an energy-hungry-planet as well.

continuing ..

Continued ..

Our longest term energy source is coal and it will only last about 1000 years. Thus we have an obligation to be thinking of fusion NOW if the ball comes into our court. I assure you that nuclear ball IS in our court.

As for solar energy. The environmental cost of producing photovoltaics and the inabiliy of solar to meet rising world energy usage patterns (low density eneergy) makes it imperative that Australia also develop an unmanned space program with the main objective of transmitting power form as far as Merury orbit back to Earth. Australia has the potential to fit such a space program into a uranium-export-based-budget if it has the wisdom to try.

As they say, fusion is 40 years away and it always will be. Curious that this debate is now so urgent when the problems have been forseen for years. I would like posters to define what the problem is they are addressing as there is not and never will be a shortage of energy. as everyone on this forum points out in their own way, just the form it comes in . There is oodles of wind coal sun geothermal tidal even uranium thorium etc. Oil seems a special case as it is its convenience for transport that sets it apart. It is the convenience of oil that must be replaced and it is not obvious what alternative can do it. But most would say that nuclear has an insignificant part to play in that

The urgency must be CO2 if it is not what is?. If you accept this to address this problem not only has much of the future needs for energy be addressed by an alternative low CO2 to coal and possibly oil, but not only the expansion but much of the present energy sources have either to be replaced or rendered less obnoxious. I am not sure whether nuclear, given all the constraints, any sort of pancea given that the expansion of energy wants seems to be remorseless (China India etc). Does not bear to think about forest clearing and other possiblities such as of anerobic production of methane from melting thermafrost bog.