SM

From one extreme to the other, that is your response?
This isn't some ivy league school debate 'rah the team' and win at all costs meaningless debating competition.(a'la politics)

It is about level thinking and an acceptance that things need to change.
Simplistic 'socialist' chain rattling just declares the above.

Examinator,

Mikk never fails to beat the socialist drum especially when it has nothing to do with the topic. Though I agree that if a strong economy is the problem socialism is the solution, even though the greatest environmental catastrophes originated from "socialist" countries.

There is no secret that power consumption is directly related to the economy and where coal is the major source of power, to emissions.

While there may be some advances in renewable energy, the cost is prohibative, and there are limits without a baseload alternative. So the developing countries are unlikely to agree to emissions cuts without substantial funding from the developed countries. Similarily the developed countries are not likely to provide more than token aid as their economies will already be suffering from the emissions cuts.

As the developing world (if India and China are included) emit nearly 50% of all emissions and have the highest growth in emissions, the US and EU recognise that any agreement from Copenhagen without a binding limit on the developing world is worthless.

Unless a lower cost, plentiful base load electrical supply is forthcoming, no politician is going to get the support he needs.

The reason I keep pushing nuclear is that in spite of many people misgivings, little or nothing is going to happen without it. Whilst it is more expensive than coal, it is still a fraction of the cost of any renewable power source.

The limits of growth are presently constrained by restriction of debate and development of knowledge. For example major media is boycotting news about natural world food supply devastation and where viable and sustainable alternative supply will come from. Without halting present natural food devastation and loss of breedingh numbers the situation and impact is worsening unchecked. Economic impact involving increased demand and reduced supply is already forcing higher prices and inflation, yet response has been to remove fish from the CPI.

With water there is no effective debate or action to overcome waste of so many litres to flush a pee down the loo several times a day. Measure the quantity of one pee, about half a coffee cup, yet so much water is flushed to chase it away. No wonder the increased population is short of water.

And why is wet season northerly rain not being harvested and sent to the northern Darling River to feed the Murray and populations of the south?

Some of us are being hamstrung. Humans have ability to develop solutions but innovation is being given the tall poppy slasher treatment. Productive policy and able management is being gagged. The limiting factor to growth in Australia is major media politics.

Shadow Minister
Please tell me when we could at the earliest get a nuclear power plant operational in Australia and how many do we need?

20 years, 30 years and one a year for how long?
Can we wait that long?
NIMBY is a big problem.

How many renewable power plants can be built in that time?

China, alone, is proposing over 300 nuclear power plants using existing designs, how much uranium is their left!!

Do not mention Candu, not many working or proposed, or new designs they either have been dropped or in very early prototype, not commercial for far to long to be considered perhaps in 30 years they maybe.

What if PV's drop in price, as they are doing with new technology, we could have many nuclear power plants idle as they can only be used for base load.

Perhaps that is why NSW wants to sell of the coal plants as they know they could be a white elephant.

PeterA,

Obviously you didn't bother to look up CANDU as Today there are 29 CANDU reactors in use around the world, and a further 13 "CANDU-derivatives" in use in India and a further 10 to 20 planned from next year mostly in china and India.

Of the old type reactors none of the planned reactors are of that design, so even with 300 reactors in China, the fuel will last hundreds of years.

As for contruction, the average time from approval to commissioning is about 5 years. If these were built in the Latrobe valley to replace the brown coal plants, they would come with most of the infrastructure in place and as most of the valley is almost a moonscape from coal mining there would be little valid environmental protest, as the environment would be much cleaner.

You might find in 5-10 years when power costs rocket that resistance to nuclear will dissolve in all but the most radical.

The installation of renewable power on anywhere near would also need major infrastructure and would be no faster.