It does seem to be a baseload race between coal and nuclear, assuming continuing uselessness from Canberra on solar thermal and hot rocks. If not for the unsolved waste problem, i'd shut my eyes to proliferation, EROEI (incl. decommissioning) and limited resource concerns on nuclear and go for that, but as it stands coal+geosequestration seem best. We're going to burn it all anyway, just have to do it in least possible impact way.

Peter Bradford may speak for a section of the anti-nuclear lobby. In my view the anti-nuclear people have lost the argument. How else to account for 440 power reactors operating in 31 countries? How else to account for a world total of 2.626TW/h of electricity generated in 2005?

About 30 reactors are under construction in 11 counties and according to the UIC Briefing paper No 19 of August 20006 it is anticipated that at least a further 60 plants will be built in next 15 years.

In Australia we have just received the draft report from the Government task force headed by Dr. Switkowski. The hard line anti-nuclear people may not admit the fact, but the committee members were practising experts in the field.

To day a positive House of Representative Report on the uranium industry has been tabled.

Yes, the anti-nuclear people have lost the argument. This does not mean they will just fold up and go away. No they will try to cause as much delays as possible. Continue to demonstrate and make as much anti-nuclear noise as possible. In the end the industry has the force of logic behind it and therefore it will prosper.

A good example of a battle lost by the anti groups is the fact that the new Lucas Height OPAL reactor is now operating at full power.

My own support for the nuclear industry is based on its demonstrated exemplary record in the field of worker health and safety. Compare this with the coal industry or the hydro industry and loss of life from dam failure. Even wind turbines are not fatality free see
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/
and then click on accidents.

Could our greenfarce mouthpiece please explain why they continue to describe the above market price of wind power as one that needs a carbon tax to make viable. Yet, the same sort of above market price of nuclear power is described as a subsidy.

Well then, if the (industry funded) Uranium Information Centre says its boom time, then how can anyone doubt them? I hear real estate agents are positive about the outlook for new housing starts too, go figure.

If "the industry has the force of logic behind it", does that mean they wont need to gouge the taxpayers for more handouts & insurance cover, and wont need planning edicts from federal ministers over-ruling the States (then why is Min.Campbell running an amendment thru putting such decisions under his discretion via the EPBC Act?)

The marketing is for nuclear power but the real goal is to have reprocessing and dumping in Australia.

Why else do people think that Howard suddenly changed his tune while being feted by Bush. It is the US State Department's plan for Australia, not Howard's. Immediately prior to the subject meeting with Bush, Howard was an outspoken opponent of nuclear power for Australia.

Immediately after being feted by Bush, Howard turned up in Canada suggesting a nuclear reprocessing industry for Australia. It was an odd public address and no-one at the time could work out why he was talking about nuclear issues at that time and in that place. It was apparently coming from left field and this was noted at the time by the Canadian news media.

Howard's unexpected backflip caught Costello and the remainder of the government front bench wrong-footed on nuclear energy and they were months trying to catch up with the new order. It was a real mess. This should be proof enough that government policy on nuclear energy was decided outside of Parliament and most likely, outside of Australia.

Bush's problem was the eternal one - that nuclear waste is piling up and there needs to be somewhere outside of the US to dump it. What better target than Howard to softsoap to volunteer the Oz backyard as the rubbish tip for the US and all comers? It appears that Howard is willing to bend both backwards and forwards to accommodate Bush.

I believe that Howard's stance on the nuclear option is just political posturing.

He's as much a captive of the coal lobby as any of his predecessors and this is just empty talk. There has been no committment made to actually do anything except to talk about it.

It will go the same way as Sydney's second airport - everybody seemed to agree that we needed it but now (especially since the original one has been privatised) nobody will ever be able to do anything about it.

In fact I'll be surprised if anything changes in the next five years.

I'll support a nuclear power industry if the waste could be stored somewhere inside Parliament House.