A lot has been witten in recent weeks about Nuclear v other alternative future energy sources. As a country and even the world, we need to buy about 20 plus years before the real alternative, Solar, or even hydrogen becomes truly viable for the mases. We need to stretch our existing resources to buy time. We need a clear, low cost fuel to fill the petro-gap. Given this countries huge natural reserves why are we not driving on Natural Gas? Fillable from the house supply at a small fraction of the cost of petrol. I would assume we could also use this abundant and clear resource to generate electricity at the odd power station, I for one would prefer a Natural Gas fired power station over a Nuclear power station any day.
The resource and the technology is available now, so why do we not exploit it?
Does anyone have any information on the true viability of Natural Gas for such uses?
How clean is Natural Gas compared to Coal for the environment?

We really only use the very cleanest coal in our power stations here in Oz. All the dirty stuff (coking coal) which has loads of sulfur is sent over seas for making steel. We've actually made huge advances in cleaning up the emissions from coal fired power stations in this country.

Gas is much cleaner than coal as it has lower levels of pollutants such as sulfur. It doesn't produce smog the way coal emissions can. Gas however does not address the issue of global warming. By burning gas we are still releasing carbon dioxide, so in that respect it achieves nothing.

The biggest push for gas seems to be into peoples homes for heating and cooking. I really don't see that we need to use gas for water heating here in Queensland when we have the luxury of solar. I guess solar water heating is unpalatable for government and business because it makes us as consumers a bit more self sufficient. And so gas is being forced upon the customer at the expense of solar. I know that the later saves me almost 40% of what I used to spend on electricity. The issue for government and business is to maintain a healthy customer base for base load power generation and then to be able to efficiently meet those supply needs.

IMHO the issue of energy needs should not be focused on energy sources but more upon energy efficiency. We can achieve this by scutinising our own energy uses. An example is the rise in the use of these stupid leaf blowers. I got one for Christmas and immediately chucked it out. For a start, just because they can be recharged by plugging into the wall does not make them "environmentally friendly" as one good-hearted if gullible relative informed me. It still uses electricity that is derived from burning a fossil fuel. Secondly, whatever happened to sweeping the driveway with a broom? Instead I see people get out their blowers and afterwards, they're off to the gym to pay a personal instructor to show them how to exercise.

Hi thebull,

I have to disagree about nuclear. We should be looking into Thorium nuclear energy.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

I'll start by pointing out that I am more than happy for anyone to "have a go" at the statements that I am going to make - all for good discussion!

Firstly, I really cant remember who it was, but a few months back there was a poster who seemed to know what they were talking about when it came to solar energy. The point made by this person was that solar energy is actually extremely inefficient, as the energy required to manufacture the solar cells is higher than the energy that they are able to capture in their lifetime. Point being that if they never wore out, then they would be environmentally friendly, but they do wear out and far too soon to have a good environmental impact.

Second, I have issue with the impact that humans have on CO2 emmissions. For example, the stated output of coal-fired power stations in 2000 was 186Mt (megatonnes). Research estimates that the co2 emmissions from bushfires in Australia is around 400Mt annually (I got interested in this when I heard a stat that the recent fires in Victoria produced more pollution than 1000 coal power stations would produce in a year - we have 24 power stations, so thats 41 years of pollution from electricity in a mere 2 weeks). Just think how much pollution there would have been from the Victorian (and other) fires if we hadnt been able to slow its progress.

Here I go again with the same old rant. But jees it needs to be said…..

One of the biggest factors of all that we need to consider here is the rapidly increasing rate of demand for energy in this country. It is so rapid that it will overwhelm even the most optimistic improvements in per-capita energy consumption.

Soooooooo….

The issue of never-ending rapid growth simply MUST be addressed by each and every person that cares enough to put any effort into reducing per-capita energy use or finding alternative energy sources. They need to put at least 50% of their effort into getting our grossly irresponsible government to gear down immigration forthwith and abolish pro-natalist polices such as the baby bonus, so that we can achieve a stable number of energy consumers as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Ludwig, I hear you. That was exactly the point I was trying to make - we need to reduce the amount of energy we use rather than finding new sources. We actually think about the things we do, alot of it is really pointless. Electric leaf blowers, car trips to the gym and that constant battle to maintain the perfect green lawn are just a few starters. We can use coal fired power stations to provide base load power from now until eternity. We can even have a few nuclear power stations if we want. But if we don't cut back on what we use, nothing will ever be enough.