I understand that C02 is carbondioxide. Yet greenhouse gases that cause global warming include more than just C02. I understand that even refridgeration needs to include better technology to reduce hydrofluorocabons. (did I spell that right, I'm no scientist)

Increased technology, as someone mentioned before, does not just include better ways to generate energy, but also more efficient ways that we use energy. For example, in NSW our trains use DC electricity for heavy inefficient rolling stock. If we used AC electricity like in QLD and WA, we would save up to 30% power in running our train network.

There are more efficient ways in lighting, heating, cooling, all appliances, and even in industry. This is ongoing, but should be more encouraged while this country works out this power thing. Westfield shopping centre car parks could have their rooftops covered by solar panel shades to help power their airconditioners. The cars won't get hot in the sun and the shade from the solar panels will mean happy customers. Solar panels on rooftops either boost power for the appliances or credit back to the power grid. This includes schools in the western suburbs that want to be airconditioned. It all adds up. We need lots of ideas, as little as they seem.

OK, so gas is just as bad as coal. Wind can't keep up with the demand. I hear you. I think before the majority of residents agree on a local level, there is going to be a long debate ahead. Opinion polls seem fine now for nuclear lobbyists. But once people know where the power station sites are planned, you will be waiting a long time to convince Australians to go nuclear. The opinion polls will swing back to the reserved position. No matter how safe you say they are, Australian people will never want one in their own back yard. There is always the question: what if?

We also need to encourage all alternative energies, as little and as trivial as this seems to some, it all adds up when you do your maths.

Until recently electricity generation in the UK was a state enterprise, so that the real costings were hidden in government statistics. When the nuclear sector was partially privatised as British Energy, it foundered and failed to pay its annual contribution to the decommissioning and waste treatment fund.

To keep it going the government brokered a financial package and passed the "clean-up" to a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which will pick up the tab. The £70 billion is just for starters as it only includes the shutdown Magnox stations, research reactors like Winfrith and Dounreay and the waste at Sellafield and Drigg. Still to be estimated is the decommissioning of the rest of the Magnox, the AGR's and Sizewell B stations.

The decommissioning and waste management costs are at least twice the original capital costs of the stations.If collected from a levy on the electricity revenue as proposed by the developers, any problems that cause the station to close will put the burden on the taxpayer once again. So as part of the financing, the developer should put up a bond as security for its eventual "clean-up", which will in effect double or triple the capital cost of the station.

By the time the UK's current fleet of nuclear stations is shut down (the last is Sizewell B in 2035) it will have generated around £50 billion of electricity, but if the "clean-up" costs are included, it will have cost the consumer £150 to £200 billion. The government Energy Review team have decided not to REVIEW the past performance of nuclear power, but to PREVIEW "the costs and economics of new build".

The British public expect the Energy Review to be published next month to be a Preview of Tony Blair's "nuclear option". His "dodgy dossier" led us into Iraq, so it is to be hoped that he will spare us another

Has any of you watched the Sunday Nuclear Power debate on chanel nine this morning? I missed it. Hopefully the transcript will be added to their site soon.

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_2007.asp

Correction: Further to my above post on the Author's dated costings. I neglected to point out that under all the peak oil scenarios the cost of conventional power will more than double from todays figures. So that makes his costings Bull$hit to the power of 4, not 3.

Anyone who doesn't or worse won't see the gradual destruction of this planet is a fool. It is obvious that the cleaner, greener, and more efficient we can produce power the better off Earth will be. People still trying to make a quid for themselves by going nuclear should stop and think. It will only be when the last tree disappears, the last crop fails that some people will discover that "you can't eat money."

I am undecided on whether Australia should use nucleur energy although I do have some major concerns.

That being; a) this is a non-renewable resource which is inefficient in needing too much to make too little and, b) governments continue to run down every bit of essential infrastructure including electricity.

What is to stop these bean counters from taking short cuts which would eventually create a major disaster?