Of course the nuclear issue was kept hidden during the election, and now that Rudd has won the election it won't be mentioned for at least three years.

The dogmatic left is religious, and as such, criticises anybody mentioning nuclear power (the only real alternative at the moment) as immoral.

It is because such people are so irrational (think about it...how can one call themselves an environmentalist yet be religiously opposed, unwilling to even look at - nuclear power?) that we'll fall behind.

Much of the world has already moved to nuclear, yet we have the dogmatic, verbal diahorrea spewing left, are backward looking, not forward.

Also bizarre in all this is such people's desire to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which is now set to happen, letting China, India, and Brazil, the filthiest polluters on earth - off the hook.

Bravo for religiousity, for it has arrived in Government.

The nuclear power station proposal will come back onto the plan
the day after the first day long power blackout.

There is one thing that may make it unnecessary and that is the solar
thermal power station experiment as at Liddel power station.
If that can be made to work then all existing coal fired power stations
may be able to be retrofitted with solar thermal.
The overnight heat is supplied from molten salt stored during the day.
I don't think they have that working yet. I have read that there is
station in Spain that has successfully managed such a system.

Other wise nuclear is inevitable, so just live with it.

Yo Benjamin,

Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. Our recently-elected conservative Government negotiated a very cheap deal for Australia that would permit business to continue as usual, with an easily-met target and special concessions for reduced rates of land-clearing.

That same government would cheerfully have ratified the Kyoto Protocol on these hard-won generous terms, if the incoming US administration in 2000 had not decided to renege on the deal signed by the previous US government, and asked Australian leaders for support.

Brazil is not one of "the filthiest polluters on Earth". Brazil has some incredibly advantageous renewable energy supplies and it exploits them very productively. Fully 50% of the liquid fuel consumed in that country is domestically-produced ethanol from the sugar cane crop, and a very impressive 90% of Brazilian electricity is generated from renewable energy sources (principally large-dam hydroelectricity, which does admittedly have its environmental problems). Brazil has in the past been notorious for land-clearing, but in recent years conservation and reforestation have begun to see impressive results. Slash-and-burn, once a dominant technique for preparing cattle pasture and croplands, is becoming a thing of the past.

China *is* a filthy polluter due to its enormous coal consumption and poor enforcement of environmental standards, but in its defence it too has very impressive renewable energy commitments, with 128GW of installed hydroelectric capacity, fully 38GW of that in relatively less-harmful small-scale installations. China also has solid commitments to wind power and biomass power, and is dramatically improving the thermal efficiency of its coal-fired electricity and domestic heating sectors by wide adoption of small-scale urban cogeneration facilities using clean(er) fluid-bed furnaces.

KAEP,

I'm sure you said geothermal and nuclear energy were supposed to produce *liquid* fuel for use in our current stock of vehicles. How did that work again? Or do you propose to add to the cost of your water-cracking program, the replacement of every petrol tank in the country with a cryogenic liquid-hydrogen tank? How much energy exactly is discarded in the process of high-temperature electrolysis followed by liquifaction followed by internal combustion, as opposed to using a battery?

"I was going to stay out of any further debate, but the figure quotes by Dick Head need some explanation.

"That are not the area being mined, it is the area of the tenements over which the companies have leases to carry out exploration, a vast difference."

Errr....VK3AUU

Do you have a problem with English? The first part of your second paragraph indicates that you have or perhaps the "V" in your name stands for "vacuous?"

The majority of people would understand that I was referring to uranium rights and tenements and no-where have I stated that these tenements are being mined. Is the "D/Head" you refer to a Freudian slip?

Could you also advise how you managed to allude the "profanity" monitor or perhaps Graham will be kind enough to enlighten me?

My post, advising of the official, documented area size of those tenements was in reference to a previous statement I had made and also in response to Sylvia's post.

Rest assured, many of the tenements exhibit considerable uranium prospects while others have known reserves.

"Alliance said that the $4.4 billion in-ground value of initial resources estimate for Four Mile highlighted its significance as the "most substantive uranium discovery in Australia since 1985 (which was Olympic Dam, now 1.7 million tonnes)."

Then you have the mining entrepreneurs who abide by the adage:

"Never spoil a good exploration prospect by drilling a hole."

"If you want to see a big mine, go to Kalgorlie and have a look at the big pit there. Even that is is (sic)less than 100 square kilometres and believe me it is big." (VK3AUU)

That sure is one big "D/Head" statement, VK3AUU!

Wishful thinking or simply more misinformation?

The size of KCGM's (Barrick/Newmont) super pit, set for a moderate expansion in Kalgoorlie, is currently about 6 square kilometres.

There's no need to exaggerate VK. I'm sure you will be comforted to know that size does not always matter!

The two great falsehoods of the anti nuclear camp are:

1 - Nuclear energy is expensive.

True it is more expensive than coal, but not by much. When compared to other sources, it is starting to look cheaper all the time. It is still overwhelmingly cheaper than renewable energy.

The figures quoted by the anti nuke camp are almost always quoting 1970s /1980s design systems which are comparitively in the infancy of nuclear design.

2 - Renewable energy sources are still in their infancy and technological advances will make future installations comercially viable (ie without the huge direct and indirect subsidies they experience now).

There has been significant research in the subject for 40 years, and while there has been rapid progress over the last 10 years, the industry is becoming mature and the gains are harder to get. While we can still expect progress, the magnitude of the advances we need to stop emmissions growth, let alone reverse it, are probably well over the horizon.

Considering that the most cost effective sites are already being developed for wind farms, the law of diminishing returns will rapidly begin to apply to this technology too.

When 2010 design reactors and 2010 renewable sources are compared on a level playing field, there is no question that for the next 50 years or so meeting the Kyoto targets without nuclear is a pipe dream.

It is my belief that we should seriously consider enriching the uranium
to power station rod stage and then lease it to power stations.
If they do not return the rods they get no more fuel.

This implies we have to store the returning depleted fuel.
I have been told by someone who should know, and I have seen a
reference to it that there is a process that can reduce the half life very considerably to 300 years.

If this is so then I think as we have the space we owe it to everyone
to engage in this system and keep the fuel away from any chance of it
being used for weapons.