Continued ..

After a world collapse, coal will be the main energy source again. The world will take a-long-while-to-recover-before-other-alternative-energy-formats-are-viable-again after a spate of violent destruction. Coal could then support a population of around 2.5 billion for-over-a-thousand-years, provided the lesson of unwarranted-population-growth is learned. However 30-40% of coal output would need to be diverted to research into the high density alternative energy formats of Geothermal, Fission, Fusion and unmanned space-generator programs to-ensure-long-term-viability.

Additionally an unmanned space network for 'packetised' materials will be a priority. It will be roughly based on the internet and provide a safety valve so future populations do not have to inhumanely collapse in the event of world extinction events. At some point such a SWW or space-net would be able to take up millions of people for permanent or semi permanent space residence.

Of course a world collapse does not have to happen. A big component in averting it is to maximise Pebble Bed nuclear reactors NOW, in countries that can afford them like India and China. It is up to Australia to do its part and PROCESS uranium to PBR formats that are safe, non-polluting and unable to be used in bombs. This will give Australia enormous profit streams and a heavy nuclear industry that could support the Fusion and Space-based solar-generator programs above. These are are the real benefits to Australia of a going nuclear. At our current population level we don't need nuclear power stations. Maybe never, provided short sighted sartorial polititians do not bully, immigrate and high-rise us into needing them. We CAN be playing a BIG part in averting a currently inevitable world collapse.

An onshore heavy nuclear industry may even enable us to participate in a rudimentary SWW or Space-Net off-planet-population safety valve system if international support is forthcoming. Australia can and must be a major player in future world space programs with the profits from a value-added-Uranium-export-industry.

Its not only sport that Australian's can excel at. Provided there is honesty, safe waste disposal and fiscal equity in a local uranium enrichment industry its something we can all-get-excited-about.

Come-on-Aussie-come-on!

a number of contributors have indicated the apparent benefits and advantages of geothermal power.

I have been interested in this and followed the progress of the various commercial companies. However the system is never seriously considered or reviewed by government.

Can anyone explain why this is so?

Is it for example because of remoteness of supply, or high capital costs or transmission losses over the large distances.

Surely there must be valid reasons for ignoring what on the face of it seems to be the perfect system?

Last Word,

Here is a 1999 link on HDR (Hot Dry Rock) Geothermal energy in Australia and its future Challenges.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s18546.htm

Mind you, given the potential cost savings of laser drilling I still don't know why more progress has not been made since 1999.

Perhaps the oil industry has found it a threat and they are the guardians of global laser drilling capacity. I cannot say but it doesn't make sense.

Also I find it hard to understand how John Howard expects a rational debate on Australia's nuclear future if PBR (Pebble Bed Reactor) basics and advantages over past nuclear reactor designds are not fully circulated and discussed.

Without PBR technology and our role in being a major world value added PBR supplier, there is no debate because it is 100% certain in that case that we should not be expanding our nuclear export potential. It would just be like selling pig-iron to the Japanese before WWII all over again, but with the potential for far more sophisticated and dangerous enemies.

The following link is a good basic appreciation of PBR and why it is in our interests to embrace it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

I am asserting that the problem is greenhouse and not the lack of energy so pebble reactors or any other nuclear system - and seeing that pbr are experimental - will be implemented much too slowly to make the slightest difference. In general, they are not replacing coal but supplementing it as coal consumption (and all other carbon energy forms) is increasing and will continue to increase. Also there is a initial energy debt for any power system and particulary nuclear so in the short term make matters worse. What about the long term? In the longterm to quote Keynes we are all dead.
If we want to decrease greenhouse then direct restriction of greenhouse gases is the simplest and most direct action required. Alternative will spring from that action not vice versa. There must be a pithy way of expressing the folly of seeking circuitous solutions to simple problems. Simple in this contenxt does not mean painless

Problem with nuclear power is rather mental than technical/environmental.

Richard,

There is no such thing as greenhouse warming. It is THERMODYNAMICALLY impossible in our biosphere at this time in Geological history. Read this and you'll see what REAL scientists are saying:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

PS I will make you a bet that in 5 years there will be NO greenhouse warming scientists keft. It may be a lot sooner if there are NO major landfall hurricanes in the US this year. Last I looked at the Satellite maps, that was a distinct possibility