“COURAGE!” he said, and pointed toward the land,
“This mounting wave will roll us shoreward soon.”
In the afternoon they came unto a land
In which it seemed always afternoon.
All round the coast the languid air did swoon,
Breathing like one that hath a weary dream.
Full-faced above the valley stood the moon;
And, like a downward smoke, the slender stream
Along the cliff to fall and pause and fall did seem.

A land of streams! some, like a downward smoke,
Slow-dropping veils of thinnest lawn, did go;
And some thro’ wavering lights and shadows broke,
Rolling a slumbrous sheet of foam below.
They saw the gleaming river seaward flow
From the inner land; far off, three mountain-tops,
Three silent pinnacles of aged snow,
Stood sunset-flush’d; and, dew’d with showery drops,
Up-clomb the shadowy pine above the woven copse.

The charmed sunset linger’d low adown
In the red West; thro’ mountain clefts the dale
Was seen far inland, and the yellow down
Border’d with palm, and many a winding vale
And meadow, set with slender galingale;
A land where all things always seem’d the same!
And round about the keel with faces pale,
Dark faces pale against that rosy flame,
The mild-eyed melancholy Lotos-eaters came.

Why are we weigh’d upon with heaviness,
And utterly consumed with sharp distress,
While all things else have rest from weariness?
All things have rest: why should we toil alone,
We only toil, who are the first of things,
And make perpetual moan,
Still from one sorrow to another thrown;
Nor ever fold our wings,
And cease from wanderings,
Nor steep our brows in slumber’s holy balm;
Nor harken what the inner spirit sings,
“There is no joy but calm!”—
Why should we only toil, the roof and crown of things?

"If as predicted by the greens the new renewable technologies are developed, then in 50 years when the nuclear plants are coming to the end of life this new source will be large enough to take over."

Shadow Minister. When do you predict Australia's reactors attaining the age of 50? In the year 2060 or 2070....? And how many? Will it only be one or two?

Have you considered the environmental devastation in the meantime if we continue with our "fossil fuel" mentality until then, bearing in mind that today's emissions of CO2 will not reveal its destructive forces for a century? Therefore what we do today, we will pay for tomorrow - reactors or not!

So what are you suggesting for Australia for at least the next 50 years or so? Australia will not have sufficient reactors before then to make any difference, particularly when the biggest polluters, and shamefully, western countries, are full steam ahead commissioning new coal fired plants! And soon, Australia will resemble a moon crater by the time the "big boys" dig up our uranium!

"Countries such as France and Finland due to a lack of other fuels generate about 70% of their power from nuclear sources, and intend to expand even this. Using existing technology we can reduce green house gases by 40% by 2050 if we start now."

Shadow. Finland's nuclear reactors supply approximately 27% of energy needs - not 70% as you claim above. In addition, Finland only has a population of 5,000,000. What is the "existing technology" you refer to?

Finland's fifth reactor has had considerable delay. Seems this prototype has not been tested anywhere else and there have been many problems - even with the basic construction. Good luck Fins!

During summer, France, Spain and Germany were forced to take several reactors offline due to overheated water, resulting in reduced operations and supplies to consumers. Seems they didn't account for global warming!

As well, Sweden shut down 4 of its 10 reactors after a design flaw created a short circuit releasing overheated water into the environment.

Shadow Minister says:
“Advocating neuclear power is political suicide in this country, the fact that it is occuring is not because it is wanted, but because it is needed.”

Because it is needed? A reckless assumption. How do you distinguish between wants and needs here? Can you do that for all of us here? Brave indeed - or just feckless?

Then there’s your opinion of the Oxford Research Group study.
Let’s look at some boring detail:

“The results of the study of Storm van Leeuwen & Smith(44) and confirmed by a recent study of Integrated Sustainability Analysis (ISA) of The University of Sydney(45) indicate specific emissions in the range of: 84-122 gCO2/kWh (assumed [reactor]lifetime 35 years at an average load factor of 85%). The ISA study found a range of 10-130 gCO2/kWh (assumed lifetime 35 years at an average load factor of 85%).”

and

“Conclusions
“New nuclear build is not possible without an extensive set of subsidies and loan guarantees. One way to generate subsidies is selling carbon emission rights. The lower the accepted value of the nuclear greenhouse gas emission per kilowatt-hour, the more emission rights can be sold.”

Those quotes are from
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/secureenergy.pdf

So maybe, the Nuclear Renaissance" is all about selling emission rights AND nuclear electricity? Maybe one of the boys from Boise would come clean on this? And while your asking, ask him about the (US)Price-Anderson Act.

And hey, Paul L, if nuclear industry promoters provide skewed greenhouse emissions estimates of their product, what then about your opinion that:

“The question the rest of us ask is should we trust the economic vandals who want to destroy our economies so they can satisfy their religious like faith in renewables for all occasions.”

Is that the only question?

My vested interested is in my childrens’ and grandchildrens’ future. Where does yours lie?

Paul, I think you and Shad ought to read Barnaby and Kemp’s work very carefully, maybe drill down into van Leeuwen’s papers, and consider again who might be called “economic vandals”. Myself, I include speculators who promote nuclear electricity for financial gain.

That's an interesting insight Sir Viv into how the Sydney Uni group thinks. As we speak the concrete cooling towers at Sellafield UK are being demolished and re-used as builders rubble. Will that earn a credit for CO2 saved? Ask this question; can a coal station that spews out thousands of tonnes of CO2 every day for decades somehow generate less direct or indirect greenhouse emissions?

Their other mistake is a misunderstanding of how carbon trade works. It is geared to current emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity, not how much diesel or concrete was used outside of electrical generation. There is no carbon credit as they claim for nuclear electricity, only a price advantage compared to coal fired under a carbon cap. The subsidy argument may have some merit (they have both physicists and economists?) but I think some digging in the paperwork will unearth considerable assistance to the coal industry.

Unless there really are no significant improvements in the ability to provide reliable renewable power (solar, wind, and geothermal) at a reasonable cost in the next decade, I can't see nuclear being viable for Australia. We're a big country with a small population, meaning there's a massive area per capita that we can capture renewable energy from (in fact, Australia captures enough solar irradiation to supply the entire world with its current energy demands). In countries where this isn't the case, nuclear makes perfect sense. It irks me that many oppose nuclear power on irrational and/or emotional grounds, ignoring the basic statistics behind its safety, but it would be truly remarkable if within 10 years, renewable energy did not turn out to be vastly cheaper than current nuclear technology (in fact, I'm prepare to wager that it will be cheaper than natural gas, without CCS). If Australia does go nuclear, it will be almost purely because it has a more powerful business lobby behind it.

As for ad hominums suggesting I'm a raving left-wing greenie nutcase, if so, I would be unlikely to support the work of Amory Lovins. Even though he is antinuclear, he is very much “free market”.

For example, sample:

"Global Warming: A Real Solution”

Rolling Stone, June 2007

“The Transition From Oil

“What would happen if we [the USA population] created a truly free market, one in which alternative energy could compete on an equal footing with oil and coal? In 2004, physicist Amory Lovins answered that question. In a study co-funded by the Defense Department, Lovins and his colleagues at the Rocky Mountain Institute detailed how the United States can completely wean itself off all oil — and create a much stronger economy — by 2050.

“The transition from oil outlined by Lovins would occur in two stages. First, half of our current demand for oil can be eliminated simply by using oil twice as efficiently. We've already done this once — doubling our efficiency since 1975 — and we can do it again simply by encouraging the adoption of existing technologies. Then, the remaining half of our oil demand can be replaced with a combination of natural gas and advanced biofuels. The result would not only end our oil addiction completely, it would also lower our energy costs to the equivalent of $15 a barrel — a quarter of what we currently pay.

“ … with a one-time investment of $180 billion — we can completely retool the automobile and aviation industries, create greener and more energy-efficient buildings and foster a modern biofuels industry. Even assuming that the price of oil drops by more than half by 2025, Lovins shows that going oil-free would net Americans $70 billion a year — an impressive return on our initial $180 billion investment! At the same time, we would not only reduce the threat posed by global warming, we would also generate a million new jobs — three-quarters of them in rural and small-town America.”

For complete article, see: www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15051506/global_warming_a_real_solution/1

Energy efficiency is my underlying concern, and nuclear electricity is inefficient.