Shadow Minister

I have given an alternative to control burgeoning energy demand - roll back the record levels of immigration, which would also reduce pressure on water, the environment and infrastructure. Again, we are only in the early stages of becoming more frugal in using available energy supplies and in developing alternative power.

Plainly it suits some to create a sense of urgency - the sky is falling - to encourage people to suspend their judgement and accept nuclear power as the inevitable solution, however the problems of dealing with nuclear waste and decommissioning nuclear power plants (a long and enormously expensive process) have never been solved, other than dumping it at sea or in someone's backyard.

Maybe if the Liberals ever get back into government the Bush/Howard sly plan for Australia to become the nuclear dump for the US and others will again become a reality and who knows, we may never again need more energy because the whole continent will glow like a beacon at night. Just roll the drums off the railway trucks in the general areas where the Brits left the nuclear bomb waste they promised to clean up, but didn't.

SM
Perhaps I need apologise for my tone consider it so. But not the substance.
I said >The prime purpose of opposition is to return to power<.
Isn't that the purpose of any organisation ? I suggest you consider Organisation practice and theory.

No party is formed to be in opposition/cross benches although that is seemingly the fate of 3rd parties anyway.

You said >"It (sic) focus is primarily to clearly show the VALUES IT STANDS for and to demonstrate that the ruling parties policies are failing." < . Note the words ' values (?) IT stands for'. Doesn't that imply regardless of what the MAJORITY voted for, even paternalistic? does to me.
Values? Sound very subjective hardly the basis of objectivity
BTW remember RU486? Individual member conscience what about representation?
How does using prefabricated fact prove the government's *policy* is failing?

How does dwelling on the negative encourage the best for the people?

Since when has any party been the sole repository of good ideas ?

Word Look Up http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=cabal
“Noun: cabal ku'bal or ku'baal
1. A clique (OFTEN secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue, faction, junto, camarilla” [my emphasis]
Sounds like political parties including the opposition to me?

Are you also telling us that political parties don't plot and plan in secret?
Are you saying that a lot of political time isn't spent on internecine plots?

Are you now saying that the conservative member ignores what he/she or the party stands for to represent the public as an honest broker?
Are you telling us that in practice an opposition back bencher has the same impact on voter issues as a government BB, Minister?

I've gotten better attention and result from writing to the ministers office my self. Local (BB) members are often preoccupied with their own futures and will only take on issues that will
a. help them or
b. help their party and therefore a.

SM my criticism is also of the (party) system not yours specifically.

Cornflower,

With zero immigration the population will still swell to >29m, however, with the need to accomodate skills shortages in particular areas, it is unlikely that even with strict controls that it could be reduced by further than 40% to 33m in 2050.

Even then the carbon footprint per person needs to be reduced by 50%.

Renewable generation and efficiency improvements both have diminishing returns for investment.

By 2050 an efficiency drive can save about 25% before there is a large need for renewal of old buildings for new.

Likewise renewables can supply about 20% of grid load before the huge cost of storage is required. Even with 20% renewable, the average cost of generation is likely to double.

At this point we have plucked all the low hanging fruit we still haven't met our targets.

Generation of 25% of the electricity with nuclear as suggested in the Switowski report, would enable us to meet all our targets without starving industry of skill and generally ravaging the economy with sky rocketing energy costs.

With proper reprocessing and Gen III reactors, not only can the existing waste be greatly reduced both in volume and radioactivity, but with the future Gen IV they can use even most of the remnants of the old fuel rods. So dumping is not as much of a future problem as simply extrapolating 70s technology into the future.

"Renewable generation and efficiency improvements both have diminishing returns for investment"
You do realize that it is consumers who are PAYING for these "returns"- similarly, all "profit" and "jobs" eat into our monthly electricity bills?

No thanks- I'm installing Solar panels onto my house and all of the economic beneficiaries can go and suck it.

The only economic consideration would be if the cost (to me) of purchase and installation would outweigh the monthly bill I would otherwise be paying for through a (non-free) provider.

But this whole topic is ridiculous- it goes on the tangent of if we HAVE to do all of the other things to bring Australia into an adverse situation, and we're NOT considering any alternatives, THEN should we consider Nuclear?

It's like saying if we were to hypothetically run into a dark cave that we know we shouldn't walk into- shouldn't we do so with a flashlight? As opposed to NOT run into the cave?

And I don't see how our standard of living will magically go up in an overpopulated country just because we're using nuclear instead of coal. You know, crowds tend to stay the same no matter what power they use.

If you ask me it almost seems like an endorsement of all of the above SOLELY to force the Nuclear issue back into discussion.

Seems we just do not get our teeth into this subject.
2 threads faded away without true discussion.
It costs about two billion dollars to build a Nuclear plant, a lot of money.
We could have built 25 with the stimulus money.
And cut world, yes world green house gases not just our own.
We could have just maybe done more for the climate change debate by selling our uranium and building our own Nuclear power stations.
We still fall for radical conservationist claims that are untrue.
We hear about the dangers in coal use but are warned not to use the only current alternative?
We must and will use Nuclear , Rudd must and will Be the leader to first start us on that path.
I await to see how he managers the reversal of current policy but know it will be done.

King Hazza and others,

Of course I am trying to force discussion on the issue of nuclear power. What I was trying to show was that even if Australia pushes the boat out a long way with efficiency and renewables, while per capita emissions will drop, we will be a long way from where we need to be, and will have substantially increased the cost of living.

All the evidence is that nuclear is the safest energy source with the lowest environmental impact per kWhr.

In the next few decades, the rest of the world will be using it and we will still be burning carbon.