"Only politicians could think it’s a good idea to spend billions of dollars pumping water uphill to generate electricity in a land with enough coal to last 1,000 years. Yet that is exactly what the federal government is doing" (Daniel Wild,researcher, CIS).

//I have listened to, and read, many comments on how the ice and glaciers will be the biggest contributors to this assumption.
I have had to refute such claims as,'the oceans will rise to heights of 6 or 7 metres'.
I have explained why this is not possible and yet we still get these outrageous numbers.//

You have explained sweet FA, ALTRAV. Remember the last time we danced this little waltz, and you ended up admitting:

//Look I accept that your math's seem to corroborate your position.
I cannot and therefore will not attempt to justify my mine.//

and

//I suppose it ultimately, (I know you will scoff), comes down to it simply being my opinion based loosely on very 'loose' information.//

Because I do. Look, here's the link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8299#259618

Toni just because I don't have actual knowledge of the ocean levels in the future, does not mean I am wrong.
I've said previously, that I choose not to believe the science.
You can do all the numbers you want and in the end they could turn out wrong, as has always been the case.
Science is not a real and actual proof of anything, until it is proven.
Now as you fail to subscribe to the OLO mantra, which is 'On Line OPINIONS', I stand by my opinions and refute YOUR alleged facts.
Apparently you are on the wrong forum.
Until ALL the experts agree, there is no way I'm going to jump off the cliff because some un-informed, mis-informed people think I should.
No I need consensus.
Toni, surely even you must have some reservations about all this.
There is just too much money being bandied around for it to be a 'done deal'.
But anyway carry on and time is slowly debunking various CC claims.
While we are trying to mitigate CC we just might see things are not as bad as they are being promoted.
Here's hoping.

Luciferase,
Yes, you're no hero. But you assume SMRs to be heroic. It's possible everything could go your way and SMRs could come as soon, and be as cheap and reliable as you expect. But nuclear power has a long history of overpraising and underdelivering, so it makes sense to be skeptical of proponents' claims. FWIW I'd like to see them succeed; there is a great need for them, particularly in Europe.

>Where is the great storage hope?
Kidston (Queensland) will probably be the next significant one, but there are several others planned.

>You've got nothing,
Shouldn't you wait for answers before making that accusation?

>and there is nothing in the wind that's viable in the timeframe we have to mitigate AGW.
And what do you think the timeframe is? I ask because you seem to think failing to take action before 2030 is acceptable!

__________________________________________________________________________________

ALTRAV,
If you ignore the science, and instead base your opinions on what you would like to be true, your opinions are worthless.

Aidan, I can't remember but their has been enough debunking of past theories that should make people question the science.
Vested interests have made a living out of scaremongering and they do it well.
They know the public's weaknesses and so they prey on them to their advantage and profit.
The Y2000 bug, to name one.
It's a shame there is not a department that comes back after something has been debunked and punishes those who have pushed a false agenda, and profited from it.
As for nuclear, I have no memory of overpricing and under delivering.
It must have been while I was away, on a parallel universe.
Now I've left the best till last.
As it appears I am not as smart as I believe I am, I would like someone to explain to me why it's not a moronic idea to use power to pump water up a hill, just so it can be allowed to flow down and power a turbine.
I'm only employing basic technology, but as I remember you cannot get more power out of something than you put in, if not just through friction and other losses.
So spending money to supply the power to pump water up a hill just so it can flow down through a water/turbine powered generator.
It's ridiculous.
The reason Snowy I turbines are so successful is that nature puts the water in the reservoir and therefore it costs nothing, gravity or nature, again does the rest.
All for free, and that's why it's viable and Snowy II is not.

dear dear Belly feeling a little delicate