"Opposition to nuclear is support for coal either directly or indirectly."
No, it is not and that is an insult to those of us working on a sustainable and safer future. A combination of
1. energy conservation
2. energy efficiency (domestic and industry)
3. decentralised renewables
4. larger scale renewables (eg solar thermal & sustainable biomass)
5. natural gas as a bridging technology
6. emerging technologies (eg solar sliver cells, quantum dots)
... all the while addressing transport and deforestation, would be more than adequate to achieve necessary emissions reductions.

And a phasing out of the nuclear industry, its inherent fueling of many covert operations, and the decommissioning of weapons fuel to run existing reactors (as partially in Russia) will help minimise the risk of a most sudden future climate change due to nuclear winter.

http://www.icanw.org

In the cellar was a set of solar panels scarcely ten feet long, that had taken him a week to prepare. I could have done that much in a day, and I suddenly had my first inkling of the gulf between his dreams and his powers.

ARTILLERYMAN: It's doing the workin' and the thinkin' that wears a feller out. I'm ready for a bit of a rest. How about a drink eh? Nothing but champagne, now I'm the boss.

Here's why Australia WILL go NUCLEAR despite all the ranting and raving of the mentally bereft anti-nukies.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/population-tops-21-million/2007/12/04/1196530651951.html

I take this article to mean that the Labour Party has decided to GO 4GROWTH like Howard. And like Howard they will be kicked out in 3 years.

The drought, bushfire, gridlock and ENERGY SHORTAGE damage they are going to do to this nation with unsustainable immigration and population growth over the next 3 years! It will negate any silly little KYOTO signature and put this nation at the forefront of the worst polluting nations on the planet. Shame!

Labor's finished! Brendan Nelson WILL, if he survives, have no alternative but to go nuclear to clean up the bloody mess!

And as all the anti-nukes whinge, I'm going to laugh all the way to the bank.

You can't bloody immigrate 160,000 energy drunk sluts into drought,
energy and soon to be fuel shortages. And for what? Increased GST and bloody captive votes. Some democracy Labor is espousing.

And I especially feel sorry for aborigines. The more immigrant people coming to Australia the more aborigines and their culture will be devalued. How do you say sorry for that?

Wait & see .... ITS ALL THERMODYNAMICS.

2nd Law: Increase the size of the system, decrease the energy input and WHAM -- violent Dec..aaaa..y commences to propagate!

Atom1,

I am sorry that reality offends you.

Just to replace the existing coal generated electricity consumption you would need 200 000 odd 1-2MW wind turbines by 2050. or roughly 5000 p.a. The present construction rate is not even 10% of that.

Natural gas halves the CO2 and is insufficient to replace the coal.

The other technologies are still on the drawing board or limited to close to present capacities.

This does not even cater for the increased demand from the growth of the economy.

Just because you say it again and again does not make it true. Show me that I am wrong and I will become a believer.

KAEP ("And as all the anti-nukes whinge..") it is you doing the winging here.

Those opposed to the nuclear industry are actually, in the words of a colleague, "pro-DNA", not necessarily pro-coal, and for the time being, compared with the previous government, able now to focus primarily on the valid and unresolved proliferation and waste concerns regarding Australia's uranium exports.

SM, yes it's disingenuous to state that anti-nuke = pro coal. Are all anti-coal'ers pro-nuke? Of course not.

Yes, natural gas is half the CO2 emissions of coal, per MW as I understand it. And nuclear is three times the GHG of wind and up to 83% more water than for other power stations - ignoring mining/milling and the cooling of spent reactor fuel.

Energy efficiency and conservation: nil of the above.

As I've pointed out, the COMBINATION of existing technologies
+ decentralised generating capacity
+ emerging technologies (currently receiving the fraction of the investment of fossil fuels or nuclear globally)
+ addressing the 64% of GHG that do NOT come from generating electricity will see us through.

Existing energy efficiency measures could cut energy use in the manufacturing, residential and commercial sectors by up to 30%, reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 15% and it would pay for itself in just four years. This report (by the Australian Ministerial Council on Energy) was signed off by every State environment minister.

Australia ALREADY generates an equivalent amount of electricity from bio-energy to supply all homes in Tas. By 2020 bio-energy could supply a third of Australia's electricity if it expands at the current 3% average for industrialised countries, generating an estimated 250,000 jobs.

Australia could supply nearly 10% of its electricity demand from solar by 2020 simply by installing 3kW solar PV systems (ie, solar photo voltaic alone, excluding solar thermal or gas boosted solar) on a third of Australian households (Business Council on Sustainable Energy).

Wind power, while not being a single solution in itself, has an important role to play. It's had an average annual growth of about 25% over the past 20 years, while in recent years grid connected solar power has grown annually by 60%. Renewable energy is now the fastest growing of all energy industries and is worth $54 billion annually. More: http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/clean-energy