I used to be dead against nuclear power but that was in the cold war era. Climate change together with LFTR and also the newer 4th generation reactors have given a new perspective on nuclear power.

There are few technical unknowns in LFTR, 4th gen still needs some prototyping but most issues have been solved.

Nuclear also fits in with the "dig and burn" economics we are all so comfortable with.

Of course I would prefer all renewables but I just don't think that will happen soon enough.

Short post between other stuff - equipment troubles and hangovers have slowed response.

I'll concede my claim about US subsidies or otherwise.

Argh, hit submit before brain kicked over. Conceding the bit about a majority of subsidies being for military and other defense-related uses (such as US-UK co-operation).

>"The technology exists to decentralise power generation using a mixture of solar and wind. (Since the publication of that book there has been a successful trial in Germany where a community sourced all of its energy needs from a combination of solar, wind and methane"

There's a widespread misunderstanding that decentralized power can supply a populace with enough electricity in a secure and economical fashion. Notice how even the trial community required an additional power source - methane - to supply them with power when solar and wind weren't available. Using solar and wind requires either an additional conventional energy supply or massive quantities of extra solar and wind arrays and power storage. Energy security is also an issue - is is possible for overcast skies or still winds to last for days at a time. Thus, even with a distributed electrical generation system, a more robust power distribution network would be required to share power between communities.

All of this is perfectly feasible from a technical standpoint, but using 'renewable's such as solar and wind requires much more in the way of resources than most people realize. As such, the only real way to roll out enough 'renewable' power to satisfy a power-hungry populace, even one making massive efforts to conserve energy use, will absolutely require the development of centralized power production facilities in areas where power is most available - deep deserts and windy hillsides.

Using solar and wind is really a combination of 3 different projects - building massive arrays of power generators, constructing huge batteries and pumped energy storage systems, and rebuilding the national electrical network.

If some form of advanced nuclear power were to be used instead, far less development would be required.

Alex, it's all very well to claim that particular solutions are the best or only options but whilst these arguments go on the use of fossil fuels goes on unchecked. Actually they go on being expanded, fully supported and encouraged by our state and federal governments. The focus ought to be a strong price incentive that makes the externalised future costs, including the cost of conversion to low-emissions part of the price structure now and letting those real costs determine where investment in new energy infrastructure goes.

You should be strongly advocating a strong carbon price and good carbon accounting first and foremost; that will make the choices clearer.

With dirty power made seriously expensive, much of the habitual opposition to nuclear will fade - as will the reluctance to invest in renewables of course. The pretence that future costs don't exist or should be put off rather than brought forward, backed by a dirty energy sector flush with money and strongly motivated to use any PR tricks, including the maligning of low emissions alternatives of all types, will probably prevail until real world consequences are already costly an irreversible.

The biggest argument for inaction will still be "too expensive" except that, with greater need and urgency, it may even become true. And the argument for inaction will gradually transmute into "too late".

My latest electric bill came with a big tick and noted good work, we had used 33% less electricty than the average household. I am not sure why, what are people doing? We have all the basic everyday appliances. If it is so easy to live on 33% less electricity then that should be the first objective.

If business could make a cut of 15% and households cut 20% then at least would buy time.

I am simply shocked that we use so much less and does make me think there is a lot of waste going on.

How to motivate people is the hard part but why we need to keep appeasing such waste by thinking of new ways to meet demand is worrying.