Bazz said, " Think what that word everyone means."

Yes, not everyone will be able to afford nuclear power. It will further increase the social divide between the haves and have nots. Only those with money, whether inherited, earned or stolen, further entrenching the anti-life work ethic that has become the accepted norm.

One thing everyone can do Bazz, except those unfortunates who already have nothing to lose, is reduce their consumption.

In western society we walk around in shirt sleeves at home on freezing days and work in business suits, in freezing offices, on stifling hot days. We produce mountains of disposable junk, using massive amounts of power in the process.

It's not the crisis in power supply that we need to increase, it's the crisis in intelligence that we need to target first.

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Only if these three Rs fail do we need to contemplate radiation.

Nuclear power generation = huge increase in water use. What a jolly good idea!

Leigh; Not heard of condensors ?

Here goes Wayne again constantly ignorant of the insidious catastropic ramifications of all things nuclear. And seemingly no idea of the pollution the uranium/nuke cycle produces.

The USA have more nuclear reactors (103) than any other nation and are the biggest polluters per capita on the planet!

Back in your burrow, Wayne.

Here goes Accent misquoting me;
Bazz said, " Think what that word everyone means."

Yes, not everyone will be able to afford nuclear power.
It will further increase the social divide between the haves and have nots.

unquote

I have asked this question
"Is there enough raw material to make all the solar cells and wind
generators that would be needed if we were all to be self sustaining?"

"Is there likely to be enough manufacturing plant available ?"

"Are there enough technical people to install and maintain the
equipment and maintain the banks of batteries?"

Again think what the word everyone means in this context.
One suggestion is that energy from solar & wind could be stored for
use at night by melting salt.
Could it be done on a large enough scale ?
Has this been examined by someone expert enough to decide if
it is practical ?

Solar and Wind have a place but not as a base load unless plant with
about eight times the capacity of the existing generation stations and
has a suitable storage facility.
Wind and solar provide an average 25% of their peak capability.
So Base load X 4 X 2 X conversion losses both ways gives you an idea of how big
the storage facility has to be. x2 is not enough for winter or far northern hemisphere countries.
You can divide this figure by a factor depending on how much conservation can be coaxed out of the public.
Those of you have sailed will be well aware that wind speeds are
usually much lighter at night so don't expect much there.

So if sequestration doesn't work and nuclear is not to be used and
it is not practical to fit out everyone with solar, wind and batteries
what do you suggest ?

The odd thing about this issue is its divisiveness. It is unlikely Australia will ever develop a nuclear industry; by fifteen years it will be too obvious that the nuclear energy is a dinosaur. There simply is no energy quality uranium at sustainable quantity.

Why argue over nuclear nonsense? It is unwise to take anything Howard says seriously , this is the child overboard , brother bailing, WMD, AWB, no GST, no interest rate rise, no climate change, no worker will be worst off Prime Minister. Howard has been in a coma since the 1950’s a time when nuclear energy may have offered an opportunity for 40 years. Meanwhile in 2006 nuclear energy at best is nothing more than a very stupid idea.

Bazz your argument doesn’t make sense, go out to your nearest highway and count the cars that will give you a little insight into production capacity of the industrial world.

There is no such thing as safe nuclear energy. There is not one nuclear power station that has never had an accident. To argue nuclear energy is safe is to argue humans never make mistakes and structures and materials are static phenomena and that neither entropy nor change exists. Simply put pro nuclear boffins read too many superman comics.

Once a major accident occurs and the progression of time increases the risk of major accident then there is no material on earth that will contain the radiation. We have learnt that the hard way from Chernobyl.

Perhaps the focus should shift from the dinosaur to pressuring Howard to clean up Maralinga which continues to kill.

Another thing over zealous Superman fans have not taken into account is that the legacy of too much atmospheric nuclear testing is that background radiation in our atmosphere is at near dangerous levels. A few nuclear accidents could cause our extinction.

I suspect the report into nuclear energy in Australia is an advertising stunt the last message we want to relay to our customers is that we are selling them what is effectively a discontinued line