BOAZ_David:
I absolutely agree with what you say about energy saving. Conventional wisdom says: conserve energy. If you are stupid you waste energy. The other day I saw in someone's kitchen they had installed new lights above the benches. They used the new LED's that often get used in torches now. 1 Watt. Good to see these are starting to be used in conventional lighting as well.

Over in California the solar power industry is making some great advances. Within 5 years it will be affordable to cover your entire roof with a solar panel array - an especially good thing for factories that often have very large roof areas.

The thing I like about Christians like yourself, David is that their Lord - Jesus - lived a frugal life. It would be great if more Christians actually followed his example.

Sorry, I meant to say it will be possible to have your entire roof made from a solar array, removing the expense of aluminium/tile/colourbond roofing underneath. The money saved from this will greatly subsidise the cost of the array. From what I understand solar panels are currently just mounted onto/above the existing tiles or sheeting. Combining the two will be a massive leap forward.

I would wait just a couple of years before buying solar panels though. The new designs coming through seem a lot more efficient and cost effective in the long run.

Also on the energy topic - have a look at the US Energy Department's conclusions regarding the replacement of oil with hydrogen:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/fuels/

Solar will be widely used to power hydrolysis.

Here's the website for Origin power company, who manufacture solar panels in South Australia:

http://www.originenergy.com.au/home/home_subnav.php?pageid=174

I find the original article, while thought provoking, to be somewhat deficient. Crib's reference to
"any amount of wind, sunlight, hot rocks, uranium, thorium, ... "
gives a misleading impression of an endless supply of nuclear fuel.

On the contrary, whereas wind and sunlight represent truly renewable sources, our reserves of uranium, while rich and large, are obviously finite. Even just at current global levels of consumption, they will be exhausted within a few decades. Lower grade deposits do exist, but are unviable for exploitation as fuel, due to the costs (financial, energy and chemical inputs) demanded for their extraction, milling, refinement and enrichment.
and while the comment about the backward glancing nuclear 'debate' is valid, fantasising about thorium and fusion won't help us make the immediate deep cuts to our carbon emissions that the current global meltdown demands.

KAEP,
I can't share your enthusiasm for an Australian nuclear fuel enrichment industry. Whereas you plan for your grandchildren to live in space, mine will be born here in the NT, where the feds are planning to dump the world's unwanted nuclear waste.
You say Australians can excell at storing nuclear waste just as we do at sport, but they have described their management regime as just a shed with a periodic security patrol : hardly a domain of excellence.

We recently had resources minister ian macfarlane visit darwin, telling us he wants to strengthen the national electricity grid infrastructure so that NT power consumers can choose to buy their electricity from polluting southern coal-fired power stations. The poor fella couldn’t offer any support for calls to build a national gas network, that would allow more sane southern consumers to choose our (relatively) cleaner gas for their own energy needs.

Ev you are quite right there.. about Jesus living a frugal life.

Regarding Christians who don't, I can assure you it is not for lack of example and Biblical teaching. We live still in our shed, 7m x 9m 3 grown up kids, swap bottles of ice between our crappy non working fridge and the freezer, we fight our way through piles of clothes everywhere, but all that may change soon due to some financially beneficial realization of an investment (our land). The thought of a 'normal' life of sufficient is kinda scary :)

If I may, I'd like to emphasize that he also denied himself many of the fleshly rewards which most men crave. (i.e. you mob :) women) yet, Jesus and the disciples were looked after, supported and cared for by a number of dedicated women, yet in all purity.

Jesus told a parable about a rich man who said to himself "Soul, you have so many crops, but not enough barns to hold them, I must build more barns to hold this abundance",(He was a capitalist).
but God said "Fool, tonight your soul is required of you".
The mans focus was cock-eyed, selfish and greedy, we never know when our lives or businesses will all fall apart.

With todays environmental and resource challenges, the worst enemies are unfettered capitalism and socialism,- 'Stewardship' should be our guide.

A bit of common sense goes well also, my neighbour has 10 solar panels and solar hot water, but.... electic hot water also, and electric cooking. Hence his solar saves him only about 10% off his bill instead of more like 50%.

Pebble bed Reactors and the Solar Roof replacement sound encouraging.
Electric Cars for short range travel, and a really good public transport system (Like Singapore's MRT) would also help.

Justin,

You and about 3 billion other people want to have grandkids to leave the Earth to. Some of us have done the sums. It ain't gonna happen. With current oil supply fixed forever it will be around 20-40 years before your grandkids all start killing each other. Given a PEAK-oil scenario in 5-10 years it may be we who start the violence. To assume you are special over those other rapidly sophisticating 3-billion-world-souls is a kind of selfishness and arrogance that can hardly be excused even by ignorance.

You must understand that when Thermodynamic forces come into play in social contexts, no matter how religious you are, you will have to kill or be killed. To interpret past world wars in any other light and with any expectation that things will now, forever be civilised and different is utter folly.

We do have the possibility of a VALUE-ADDED-NUCLEAR-PROCESSING bridge-to-the-future here in Australia and I have outlined that.

Its up to all Australians to think HARDER if they want any future at all for their grandchildren or even for themselves if global-oil-supplies dry up faster than expected.

ReCap: In 1900 the World had 2 billion people. Without oil this would have corrected itself through many more wars than WWI/WWII and grown to around 2 billion today. Only minimal-technological-improvements available WITHOUT a petrochemical-industry would have been available.

That means that if we lose current levels of our oil supply the world must drop back to about 2 billion people to enable a reasonable quality of life without war-and-disease. Australia will not escape the rout. We do not and will not have defences against a world gone mad.

We can however use our Uranium ores to cut back Chinese and Indian dependence on oil and coal and thus give ourselves the time, capital and international goodwill needed to research and develop Geothermal, Fusion and SPACE-Generator power supplies. Supplies that are infinite.

The wind, earth/roof solar, biofuel, tidal and other sources are-like-trying-to-fill-Sydney-Harbour-with-a-garden-hose-as-the-tide-goes-out. Folks proposing such solutions have not-thought-the-problem-through! They may feel like heroes NOW but at CRUNCH-time they will be ANATHEMA.

so, KAEP;
you diagnose a 'world gone mad',
predict inevitable wars,
and then prescribe uranium?
to China and India no less??

China hasn't signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and has a bad track record of exporting WMD technologies (to Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and Lybia). Just last year, a delegation of federal government representatives from Australia's Department of Industry Transport and Resources to Beijing were embarassed by naked enquiries from the Chinese about how to circumvent non-proliferation mechanisms.
India is one of only 3 nations not to ratify the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, with a stockpile of nuclear weapons developed covertly out of their civilian nuclear power program.

I don't recognise enrichment as 'VALUE ADDING'. Global uranium consumers don't need us to enrich their fuel, but they do need somewhere to dump their waste. An enrichment facility would set us up for Uranium Leasing, which would see Australia required to take back the waste from any enriched fuel we export.

Within the paradigm of uncontrolled growth, our uranium would add to, rather than replace, fossil fuel consumption.
Folks who ignore the imperative to reduce demand and institute efficiency in energy production, distribution and consumption have not-thought-the-problem-through!