Hi Adam, sorry no strong opinions here, as I'm ignorant of the details & am not really following the debate. Maybe your idea of alternate fuel cycles for uranium is a good one. My own interests are in efficiency breakthroughs in engines & industrial processes generally. I really believe we are still in tech infancy and socially we have barelled ahead with what is still basically primitive, polluting & noisy tech - understandably enough because it does work, just not very well.

BTW wouldn't large-scale solar 'farming' be a financial risk, given the low efficiency of solar cells? (15 percent or so). How difficult would it be to re-engineer the whole system if there were some breakthrough in solar efficiency? Would the existing infrastructure have to be replaced?

Anyway large scale and bold solutions just ain't going to happen here (stop press), meanwhile all poitical parties will push their own line for their own political reasons: Howard wants nukes as the easiest option, Beazley plays to what passes for a 'Labor-voting consituency' and the Greens I suppose would like to send bikes to Palestine or something like that. I always tune out (can't stand listening to either Howard, Beazley or smarmy Bob Brown) but I'm sure whatever the solution turns out to be, will be forced onto our passive society in the spirit of the times.