The Greenpeace mantra is being chanted throughout this dribble.

Suggesting nuclear energy is “not affordable”, how about presenting some numbers.

Suggesting Wind farms and Solar energy is “viable” – how about presenting some numbers?

What are the energy costs consumed in constructing and producing the infrastructure which produces the energy (viz, cost of big pylons for wind and cost of the cells for solar) and not forgetting, electricity is a JIT industry, what happens when the wind does not blow and it is overcast or at night? So include the cost of producing and disposing of the batteries (used to balance the supply and demand equation) too.

Lets look at ALL the numbers, interpret the consequences, financial, social and environmental before we discard the idea for another generation.

Beazley's hissing fit about liberals being obsessed with nuclear power is just another knee-jerk from a jerk who is, patently, without a clue on what to do about anything.

Steve Shallhorn is thick on the “scare tactics” rhetoric and short on numbers. No wonder the Federal government want a committee to review Australia’s strategy. All credit to the PM for using those with some knowledge of the risks and benefits

I guess Steve Shallhorn and the Greenpeace “rent a mob” will not be a part of it, It is tough to present cohesive argument when all you can do is blubber (something not limited to whales).

Ultimately “Power supply” strategies are long term, by virtue of the lead time needed to build and commission infrastructure. They are not impulse buys and should not be limited by the knee-jerk attitudes of a group of tree huggers who are happier existing on welfare than working like the rest of us.

Regarding solar - a drastic reduction in production costs is taking place right now:
http://solar.anu.edu.au/level_1/pubs/sliver.php

Regarding geothermal - abundant, and not radioactive. New Zealand already produces about 7% of its power from geothermal sources. Here is a pertinent piece from the Energy & Geoscience Institute, University of Utah:
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull19-2/art65.htm

Regarding tidal - 'predictable, invisible and economic' is the slogan of Lunar Energy:
http://www.lunarenergy.co.uk/environment-benefits.htm

Making someother foolish more then ones are is a very
common trend in Australia, Artur: if solar energy even reached the Earth, it does not mean it can a l l be used on producing the energy for/by mankind.

The current push is amusing. Both Howard and Bush claim there's no warming, no warming, no warming... Then BANG. We should go nuclear. Well sure enough - since the politicians were right about the warming thing, and since they've been highly successful in the middle east (driving the oil prices) I guess I'd better trust them in relation to nuclear also.

At the same time though, the side effects of nuclear power are being misrepresented or misunderstood. I have two points there.

My first point is that although there is no 'safe' level of radioactivity, the natural world is radioactive. So in fact there is definitely a point where the danger of a given radiation source falls (or can fall) significantly below that of our normal surroundings.

My second point is that a long half life is not necessarily bad. From memory, the longer the half-life of a substance, the less radioactive it is (in terms of emissions per second). This is potentially a good thing - although plutonium complicates this as it is a conventional poison also.

Why has this debate come to a head now?

Because the world has been run by oil companies since WWII. ENERGY is the Number one driving force on the Planet in every aspect of maths, science, social dynamics and politics.

Oil giants have never wanted the general masses to know the truth as it takes the heat off them. But since 9/11 and more recently with extraordinary petrol price rises, both of which reflect the true cost and availability of oil, cracks have opened up in the oil companies' facade of lies. The cracks are wide enough that after a recent visit to George Bush, our own PM has seen the light and gone red hot nuclear. What was said between them we will never know, but we do know that GWBush is on the inside of the greatest oil monopoly in the world and that our PM looked like a stunned mullet after leaving the White House. If GWB is telling our PM to diversify energy stocks you can bet your life its time to diversify energy options.

Seeing through the cracks, the bottom line is that all the published estimates of available oil are overinflated to prevent global panic.

So maybe we should all keep a cool head, not panic and calmly discuss the most positive way to move forward on nuclear. This is likely to be value-adding Uranium exports to Pebble Bed Reactor form and maximising our Uranium profits to pay for research into better alternative options like fusion or an unmanned space generator option rather than building nuclear reactors.

To all the dissenters: we can't go back and we can't stay the same. The World's population is too big, growing rapidly and too energy hungry for delaying action. We really need to take this nuclear BRIDGE to our future or watch a collapse of human civilasations that will rival the extinction of the dinosaurs.

I repeat that low energy density sources like wind, tide and local-solar will not satify burgeoning world energy hunger no matter how much money we invest in them.

You're not looking hard enough. These new technologies are moving forward in leaps and bounds.

Nuclear power is unnecessary in Australia. We have plenty of other options staring us right in the face.

Nuclear power is too much of a liability at every stage.