Right - let's cut to tin tacks here.
The climate changers tell us we must make radical changes. This means one of a few options, we either:
1. Massively reduce our requirements for energy, meaning a significant change in our standard of living, and/or
2. Suck up the resulting significant costs of preventing our use of dirty power, and/or
3. We find and use alternative energy sources that are as efficient and cost-effective.
Much as we might like to think the position is changing wind/solar/geothermal/tidal is not at the stage yet to provide baseload power as cheaply and reliably as dirtier options.
There is one other option - nuclear. Say what you want about it - the state of the industry at the moment is safe, reliable and not crazy expensive. No one wants to have nuclear power, no one wants a nuclear power plant next door, no one wants to have to deal with the waste. But until renewables catch up, if you accept the need for major and immediate action on emmissions - I can't see any other clear option.
And that's the way I see it at the moment.

What about the forgotten option of cutting the outrageously high migrant program. It is not just energy infrastructure that cannot keep up with the outdated growth-ism of the federal government.

Energy costs, housing costs and water costs are going through the roof because supply cannot keep up with the demand caused by population growth through immigration.

The federal government's own reports show that Australian couples are deferring fertility and sometimes not having the children they would like because of rising taxes and costs, especially housing costs.

What sort of a crazy upside down policy prevents our own people from having children to support an over-the-top immigration program driven by the big end of town in the interests of short term profits? Since when were banks concerned about sustainability?

The federal government must take its big hoof off the immigration gas pedal and give Australians and Australia a chance.

Nuclear Power to Replace Coal?

Everybody is exposed to some level of natural or background radiation and the degree depends on where we live. Different radioactive elements consumed in food and drinking water migrate to specific body tissues depending how the body metabolises them. For instance, radium which chemically acts much like calcium. tracks to bone, iodine to the thyroid ( iodised salt to treat thyrotoxicosis), uranium to the kidneys and cobalt to the lower intestine and is credited with the onset of some colon and rectal cancers.

The most serious consequences of high levels of radiation are birth defects and cancerous growths where the direct ionising effects on DNA are thought to be the chief mechanisms of cell damage and I believe this comment to be up to date.

I hope that gives a brief understanding of why we need to be alert to secure plans for radio active waste. Waste that is indeed beyond recovery. At present in Adelaide there are 30 to 40 locations storing low level waste from the cleaning processes and/of medical and metallurgical diagnostics that ideally should be removed from places similar to the elevator shafts of the RAH. to a well secure facility.

...which then become a prelude to continuing the debate for the safe use of nuclear power. Having visited the main street of Hiroshima, over the range from Kure in 1952, barely 6 years after the blast and as a Risk Engineer, propelled into examining insurers risks for the privatisation of the East Sector of Metro Manila Water District serving 5 million residents I remain sensitive to patently false and misleading objections to the replacement of coal by nuclear energy or geothermal 24/7 and receptive to practical debate from documented proof in this rapidly changing energy environment

Jim Green (his real name?!) reports the following from University of New South Wales academic Dr Mark Diesendorf: "The two biggest threats facing human civilisation in the 21st century are climate change and nuclear war. It would be absurd to respond to one by increasing the risks of the other. Yet that is what nuclear power does."

Perhaps he would like to explain why Iran, the newest nuclear threat has no Nuclear Power Stations for electricity generation while the major users of Nuclear Power, France, Belgium, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine pose no nuclear threat. It seems that power generation and weapon generation are unrelated.

Examinator,

Your comment was a little rich considering that wandering off topic is a hallmark of your posts:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3315

As labor has so fiercely opposed nuclear, and as it would appear that it is rapidly becoming acceptable throughout the rest of the world, it is only a matter of time before the liberals can use it as a wedge, and Abbot is positioning the party for 5-10 years down the line.

I find it fascinating that articles such as this point us directly to those issues that the author sees as a threat.

The superficial context is the potential for the Liberals to implode over Nuclear Power. IMHO the author is actually telegraphing that Nuclear Power represents a threat to Labor.

Liberals have already demonstrated that they will risk political oblivion to take a stand. They did this because they can. The government has painted itself into a corner with absolutely no room for any sort of maneuver due to their ideological straightjacket and centralized policy compliance.

There are two related debates we have yet to have. One is the scientific reality behind the AGW phenomena and the second is what should be in the solution mix. So far both these debates have been denied to the Australian public. Jim Green’s article clearly tells us that the prospect of these debates is what stops him sleeping at night