I often hear it said that Australia produces 1% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. This fact is cited as a blanket criticism for calls to reduce Australian emissions. Funnily enough, such a criticism has not been leveled against calls for nuclear power. Why not? Surely with vast coal reserves producing cheap electricity and responsible for only a small fraction of the world's ghgs, Australia could wait the twenty years to see whether the Generation IV reactors work as well as predicted? We might then choose to wait another twenty and see whether the Generation V designs turn out even better.

But why wait twenty years when solar thermal might offer cheaper power in less than ten years, perhaps less than five? It would be a shame to see Australia committed to an expensive technology while a golden opportunity to use her sun drenched interior goes begging. And solar thermal is but one of several technologies in it's infancy, developing rapidly, and with great potential.

Those who believe renewables are the energy source of the future are free to invest their superannuation accordingly - to 'put their money where their mouth is'.
For me, I'll stick with BHP and Rio Tinto.

I couldn't agree more Admiral, but it's the fate of taxes I pay that concern me. You can pipe water from the Kimberlies to Perth at north of $6 per kilolitre, but the pursuit of such a scheme would be economically catastrophic. Subsidies are great to get technologies with potential started, but the disastrous state subsidised industry experiments of last century are not worth repeating. If nuclear can deliver on a cost basis then it is worth consideration. From what I see, going nuclear involves huge government subsidies over a period of at least forty years. That is a big commitment in a fast changing world. In the meantime new technologies may come to the fore, leaving the taxpayers hamstrung by a hasty decision.

One example of carbon sequestration of late is the rediscovery of Agrichar, essentially the carbon produced from the pyrolysis of organic waste. This carbon improves soil fertility and water retention, and takes many centuries to break down. The economic benefit from such a technology could make it self sustaining, whereas the economics of nuclear power are still below par.

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1946410.htm?enviro

Sure, if someone wants go nuclear they should be free to put their money where there mouth is, not their hand in the taxpayers' pockets for the next few generations.

Thanks John Busby for showing that the Olympic Dam expansion will never happen. If uranium mining from the expansion will not happen before 2013 then we will be deep into a post-peak oil economic depression by then - there will be few remote communities (such as Roxby) left - provisioning them will be too expensive. And the cost of energy for the mining and processing of ore will defeat BHP on this one.

Since uranium produced from Olympic Dam cannot produce an ultimate energy profit, then exporting yellow cake to other countries for energy production is, basically, just a fancy way of exporting coal energy.

Sorry MichaelLK you post is indecipherable. (understandable)
I have no idea what you were trying to say.

The time to get nuclear up and running will probably mean it won't go ahead.
It is said that peak uranium will occur in 40 years if there is a large
increase in demand. Peak oil will increase the cost of mining.

It looks like solarthermal is going to work and it has the advantage
that it could be applied in steps to existing power stations.
Certainly we should know whether solarthermal will work before we commit
to nuclear.

I'm really getting tired of people using words like "less" rather than "complete;" like "cleaner" rather than "clean;" like "safer" rather than "safe;" like "reduce" rather than "eliminate." We have to start looking for "absolutes" when we discuss our environmental problems. "Reducing global warming" won't cut it." There's safer coal, but no such thing as safe coal. There's cleaner air, but no such thing as clean air. There is cleaner exhaust, but no such thing as clean exhaust.

Well, that is not exactly true. A few weeks ago, BMW invited me to visit their Engineering and Emission Test Center in Oxnard, California. While there they showed me their new "BMW Hydrogen7 Sedan." This was powered by a twelve cylinder internal combustion engine. Then they invited me to drive this marvelous car and it was the thrill of my life. Here I was driving a car that doesn't pollute at all because when hydrogen combusts it turns into pure water. So there is such a thing as clean exhaust ! ! Unfortunately this car is not yet ready for the U.S. yet because we don't have enough hydrogen gas stations to make the car practical. This is what Governor Whitman should be discussing on Washington Journal because when all our cars are running on hydrogen, internal combustion engine or fuel cells, all our other environmental problems will be solved. The reason for this is that hydrogen will only become practical when we have built at least 500 new nuclear power plants....because at that point the price of electricity (which is the only way to practically produce hydrogen) will have plummeted to the point that the cost to drive (all) our cars will be about the same as if gasoline were about 50 cents a gallon today.

NUCLEAR GREEN,

Ralph Andrews, President

If you would like pictures of the hydrogen BMW and/or Shell gas stations for hydrogen please email me at ralph@nucleargreen.org