How will the "foolproof" nuclear operations mitigate GHG's when the coal industry will continue to flourish for many decades? We know this from the many approvals granted for new coal fired plants.

Nuclear proponents continue to use the argument that coal mining emits uranium and thorium. That is a fact, however, they then insist on actually mining uranium or thorium to fuel 25 nuclear reactors and fulfill our export obligations.

The advent of "clean" coal may mitigate CO2 in stack emissions in the very distant future but the significant hazardous pollution and the release of dangerous carbon based and radioactive chemical emissions from the actual mining operations will continue.

Why do we wait for "clean" coal when pollution control technology is already available?

Posters fail to address the major obstacle to CO2 mitigation which is the uncontrolled, unregulated operations of the mining industry in Australia where companies are permitted to operate in a gung ho fashion.

SBS News advised last night that American Electric Power has now been forced to spend US$5 billion to clean up their operations and drastically mitigate their emissions by the installation of pollution control technology.

This company chose to settle out of court. Government health officials have advised that the clean-up will save US$32 billion in health costs.

The company has been ordered to contribute many millions of dollars in compensation for causing acid rain, destroying ecologies and damaging people's health. These health conditions include asthma, serious heart conditions and heart attacks (and no doubt cancers.)

This technology will not close down industries, as threatened by JH, however, the concept of the slightest reduction in profits, incurred by companies to fulfill their moral obligations, results in many paranoid outbursts from John Howard and the neo-cons in charge of this nation! And state governments are equally culpable!

Australian governments are NOT planning for a carbon-free economy!

The ignominious fact for Australia is that George Bush now appears more clean and green than Howard who continues on his maniacal path towards environmental genocide!

The item below, from Wikipedia, succinctly articulates the polarity implicit in the views expressed in the comments above:

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

"Soft vs Hard"
"As physicist/consultant/lobbyist Amory Lovins describes it, the "hard energy path" (with which the soft path contrasts) is based on the assumption that the more energy we use the better off we are. It involves inefficient liquid-fuel automotive transport, as well as giant, centralized electricity-generating facilities, often burning fossil fuels (e.g., coal or petroleum) or harnessing a nuclear fission reaction (see nuclear power). The hard path is not simply a matter of energy sources, though, because it is greatly augmented and complicated by wastage and loss of electricity and other common, directly usable forms of energy."

"The "soft energy path" assumes that energy is but a means to social ends, and is not an end in itself. Soft energy paths involve efficient use of energy, diversity of energy production methods (matched in scale and quality to end uses), and special reliance on co-generation and "soft technologies" (i.e., alternative technology) such as solar energy, wind energy, biofuels, geothermal energy, etc."

Links embedded in the above article are well worth following.

My own preference is clearly for "soft energy". This preference is based on a faith in the durability of energy strategies based on systems and sources which are on the balance, positive - in other words, which don't require more energy than they provide. In this regard, nuclear electricity is arguably an energy sink rather than an energy source.

Nuclear electricity cannot be argued as sustainable or environmentally friendly simply because operating reactors release negligible quantities of greenhouse gases. As a source of energy, The whole nuclear fuel cycle must be evaluated, on a cradle-to-grave basis for fuel and system components. Given its associated risks of radiation and proliferation, its vast complexity and exceptional requirements for expertise and security for acceptable operation, I wonder why the current government prefers to promote it over energy efficiency and sustainability.

Vivor,

The assumption that the more energy we use the better off we are is NOT an assumtion. Its the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states "If you add energy to any closed system, its order will increase".

Lovins is right, energy (soft or hard) is but a means to social ends or goals. But social goals can be soft or hard too. We know from human history that goals inexorably converge to hard strategies led by superiorly endowed races of people. Races who follow 'soft' options will soon be subsumed. Assuming otherwise is ignorant of both science and history. It smells of fear and clutching-at-straws that will soon have wolves at the door.

With a 40 year PBR nuclear strategy as a bridge over PEAKOIL Australia can skirt PEAKOIL and by 2047 eliminate nuclear to become fully reliant on 'Hot-Rocks' geothermal baseload power. Geothermal power is simply nuclear power with the Earth's crust as a reactor core, so one-way-or-another, civilisation must go nuclear or perish.

The War-of-the-Worlds-artilleryman rantings of 'soft' energy optionists and hiding from the bloody-awful-truth of human nature will, POST-PEAKOIL, yield a few meek survivors suffering insanity and other deiseases. It will take generations and severe 'social-goal' readjustment to throw off.

Given PBR's minimal associated risks of radiation and proliferation, its reduced complexity and exceptional requirements for minimal expertise and security, its no wonder why current governments of Russia, India and China, with over 70% of the world's population, are going nuclear.

That Australia with 40% of the world's Uranium ore should stand back and adopt a pi$$weak soft energy strategy, that will starve of oil based energy and material feedstocks well before PEAKOIL, is inviting an invasion that NO alliance with America is likely to withstand.

The future, our future, will be unpredictable and uncertain. For the last 20 years it was not a linear proposition and for the next 20 years it will be even less so as the magic $10-per-litre-petrol wedges in on us.

Only a 'hard' energy option, with a temporary nuclear component can meet our social goals or ends given those parameters.

Nuclear Power’s New Dawn
Caylan Ford and Matthew Little
Epoch Times Staff Oct 13, 2007

Nuclear power’s rise to popularity hasn’t been a smooth ride. For countries that supply the world’s uranium, heightened demand has stirred up old battles over land and environment. (Photos.com)
Once synonymous with cash pits, bureaucratic incompetence and environmental disasters, nuclear is now experiencing a resurgence in popularity around the world, sending demand for uranium sky-high.

That’s big news for uranium-rich countries like Canada, which produces 28 percent of the world’s uranium supply. But the heightened demand has also stirred up controversies in Canada, where some are still nervous about the environmental and political implications.

In total 13 countries are in the process of building new nuclear reactors. According to the World Nuclear Association, more than 34 reactors are currently under construction, 81 are planned, and over 223 more are being proposed.

For the first time since 1978, the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission is receiving applications for new plants, and a flood of them, at that. The commission expects to receive five applications in 2007 and 14 more in 2008. [...]

Full story:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-13/60715.html

KAEP, re:
"If you add energy to any closed system, its order will increase".

The quotation marks suggest that you have a source for this idea. Do you mind sharing it with us?

Of course it is not the second law of thermodynamics, it is someone's inference based on the second law.

The quote leaves me puzzled. If you have a closed system, then by definition, nothing can leave or enter: not matter, not energy.

So how do you add energy to a closed system?

This is what I mean Vivor.

You flaunt your ignorance of science AND of the basics of human history and human nature itself. Yet you expect people to take your anti nuclear views seriously. The stakes are too high to allow people like you to continue misinforming other people who need to know what they and their families can expect when petrol prices hit $10-per-litre.

Its impossible to justify the statistical mechanics interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics on a forum allowing 350 words a post.

You should look-up:

Statistical Thermodynamics: http://ece.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/chapter1/ch1_4.htm

The second law can be stated either (a) in its classical form or (b) in its statistical form
(a)Heat can only flow from a higher temperature to a lower temperature.
(b)The entropy of a closed system (i.e. a system of particles which does not exchange heat, work or particles with its surroundings) tends to remain constant or increases monotonically over time.

Both forms of the second law could not seem more different. A more rigorous treatment (look it up!) is required to prove the equivalence of both.

AND

Information Entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy

which links Entropy to the amount of information or ORDER in a system. In classical terms it amounts to the more information or order or intelligence a system has, the lower its entropy and the longer it takes that system to decay into cold(definition(a) or chaos(definition(b) by the second law. IE the more information content, the longer the system lasts and prospers.

And the best way to lower entropy and increase the longevity of any system or society is to add more heat at an optimal level that won't harm the system integrity.

When you do the work and lower your personal entropy with the correct information you will discover I am right. Then you you are obliged to tell everyone on this forum and work through the other points I make till you can finally get it that Australia has just two options: Nuclear or PERISH.