Those are strong reasons to support the initiative taken by the NSW government in establishing the Game Council of NSW:

http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/

The Game Council licences conservation shooters who are required to pass theoretical and practical examination. Arguably, they are the real wildlife warriors, unlike the Qld variety that is busily making a profit out of a cattle station bought with our taxes (with thanks to John Howard for buying support for election purposes.

It is a very great pity that other States are slow to follow NSW's example.

I thought so.

Apart from those urging us to consume less, and those calling for a limit to population, no one has claimed that renewable technology or energy efficiency is going to be able to deliver.

Emotive comments have posted, such as Cornflower claiming that nuclear waste is the most poisonous and long lasting. Besides being factually incorrect are irrelevant to the topic.

The question in this post was that if nuclear was not to be used, what was the alternative.

So far none has been offered. I wait with bated breath.

I have to say that research does show the safest energy source that can currently be provided that does not cause Global Warming is Nuclear energy.

Yes the word Nuclear is associated with mass destruction but the safe guards built in to the new type of reactor proposed to be built are the safest way forwards for the planet.

The sooner this clean energy is embraced by the Australian public the faster you can secure a future for your children and your grandchildren in a world that is changing, and if action is not taken now on energy, then there will be no future for our children.

Chernobyl the disaster was a tragedy in Russia that could have been avoided. The new reactors have many more fail safes built in.

Do it for your children go Nuclear a clean energy that if in the right hands is the safest way to go for the planet.

SM,

What part of FINITE (resources, land,environment, water et al) don't you understand? What part of the world is in a bad shape has missed you attention? The unsustainable pollution levels, the changes in the seas,water quality, reduction in arable land,water availability etc.

The problem with the AGW is that it it represented as simplistic either or scenarios.
In reality it isn't that simple.
consequently the negative argument allows for extremes to be solely reliant on CO2 levels.
Therefore throw doubt on THAT and it all goes away.
This in turn allows the topic to be corralled to obvious CO2 sources cut them (electricity generation) or off set them (for big business polluters) and 'problem solvered ' ( paint over the problems). This appeals because the minimum change to business and the consumption magic pudding.
Apart from which it'll all go away once the publics got something else to worry about. This is the conservatives approach.

Nuke power still has an enormous on going foot print if considered on the whole industry analysis. In short it's long-term contribution to the real problem is nil in fact encourages more consumption- pollution etc.
It's contribution to CO2 reduction will be to limited merely amortised over a longer period.

The above approach ignores the reality of my opening parra.
The conservative approach is more one of economics ( a soft discipline at best) ideology driven by advantage of a powerful minority rather than real long-term considerations.

Centring on Nuke or renewable is in the real context a waste of time. As previously stated the real long-term solutions ( A suite that may or may not include nuke power generation) require a major paradigm shift in thinking is needed if we as a species are going to survive.
Or keep bailing while we teach our antecedents 'Nearer my God to Thee'.

Those opposed to Nuclear are quite possibly ok with hot rock power in western states.
It is from a natural Nuclear power station under ground.
We will have Nuclear power stations, with 20 years, we may even find use for waste other than burying it.

No Problem shadow;

The advantages of current solar panels and (vertical-axis) Wind turbines is that both can be attached to an ordinary house or apartment, and according to said homeowners, both easily exceed the power drainage of the house each day- and the only costs incurred by the homeowner is the initial purchase and installation, provided the climate is right- and gain independence from electricity providers and free (sometimes profitable) energy.

Each person who converts their house into one with renewable means eventually mostly industrial facilities and skyscrapers are the only thing remaining to need power- and the calculated cost of energy would solely be based on what any panels and turbines installed onto them may fall short of providing (and remember, skyscrapers have a LOT of surface area to put BOTH on (although the turbines would be more cost-effective).

In the end, the additional power requirements may not be very much- and possibly fulfilled by another renewable energy plant (tidal, geothermal) alone.