I now understand why there are so many demanding a price on Carbon. Its not because of emissions so much, as it will make little difference to energy usage. Its to make currently uncompetitive Solar and Wind etc artificially more competitive. I'm not sure that this is economically a wise way to go.

A price on Carbon will push the world to use inefficient, expensive though less polluting energies. Developing countries cannot afford such expensive energy and will have to remain with oil and coal for some time. These countries will dominate global emissions for some time to come.

I agree the only current feasible answer for Australia is nuclear particularly with our uranium reserves. Hopefully, people can get over their fear, much of which is unwarranted.

Also, it is wrong to suggest we are "addicted" to fossil fuels. Its just that our cars don't go far on anything else and bicycles are relatively useless for interstate haulage or picking up your 3 kids from school in the rain. I'm afraid the author is giving the impression it is some kind of moral malaise that makes us use fossil fuels, which is incorrect. There is no reasonable alternative at present. Don't blame Joe Average,he has no choice in the matter.

I just wanted to give some facts about nuclear energy.

Electricity carbon footprint:
- in environmently friendly Denmark: 314g/kW
- in environmently friendly Germany: 412g/kW
- in not so environmently friendly France: 90g/kw

France has a very low electricity production cost (including nuclear waste recycling, stockpilling and plant dismantling).

Sodium cooled fast neutron reactors built in France (Phenix/Super Phenix) and Russia (BN-600) have proved for years that it's technically faisable to generate electricity from nuclear waste materials. Of course, both countries will need between 15 and 30 years to develop industrial-scale reactors compatible with new very high security standards.

As for stockpilling high grade nuclear waste, it's not that simple but it's feasable short term and long term. Finland, France and Sweden have done thorough studies on this subject.

Today, we know for a fact that there is an answer to the nuclear waste problem. Australia could build third generation reactors today and fourth generation reactors, when they will be ready, to recycle the nuclear waste and generate more electricity.

Of course nuclear energy development implies a strong industrial base and political courage.

It is disappointing to see a well-proven technique for cost-effective renewable energy collection AND storage being overlooked in this discussion. I refer to that of solar pondage, where solar radiation is trapped in a dense layer of brine insulated by a covering blanket of less saline or fresh water separated from it by a membrane which prevents convection losses of the trapped heat.

The heat stored is recovered through what is essentially refrigeration machinery, organic Rankine cycle technology, a technology that is already very mature. Solar pondage substantially overcomes the problem of cloudy weather, with trial ponds having been able to deliver what amounts to base load power for up to a fortnight in such conditions.

It would also seem that solar ponds and organic Rankine cycle technology could be made to dovetail well with the relatively low temperature steam to be obtained in hot dry rock projects, using the low grade heat left over from that process.

To top it all off, solar pondage is capable of providing a disposal solution for the relatively more concentrated brines that are a by-product of desalination operations, a by-product claimed by many to be effectively a marine pollutant.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5616#75632

Prospects for all of these technologies being scaled up and coming together in the Central Coast and Hunter regions of NSW all under one ownership (that of the existing NSW public), and right on the existing electricity grid, seem to have been so far completely overlooked. What is it with our politicians that the best they seem to be able to do is perhaps run off and get invested in (taxpayer subsidised) wind farms for their retirement?

Refocussing upon the liquid fuels aspect of this addiction, a gradual shift from coal-fired electricity generation achieved in this way in this region would free up coal reserves for Fischer-Tropsch style coal-to-liquids conversion, moving towards an onshore solution to peak oil for Australia, maybe even putting Australia in the position of being a refined liquid fuels exporter in a seller's market.

All with Big Oil locked out!

TBC

During the heat wave of 2003, 17 French reactors were forced to power down or shut down completely as river water temperatures rose. France had no option but to import costly electricity from abroad. France discharged hot water to rivers during the 2006 heatwave, indifferent to the potential damage to the surrounding aquatic environment.

In May 2007, technical problems with steam generators at a number of French nuclear plants caused the country to import record levels of electricity.

Again, with temperatures across much of France surging above 30C in 2009, Électricité de France’s reactors were generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.

As a nuclear power, no clear accounting of the real cost of nuclear power is available in France. The uranium enrichment budget is not transparent.

One nuclear plant in France is operating while the concrete floor layer is of only 0.5 metres. It is well known that for safety matters in the case of a major accident, at least 3 metres of concrete are required.

Nuke’s pin-up girl, France has remained incapable of upgrading its nuclear reactors and have been surreptitiously dumping radioactive waste in Russia. "Ten to 20 percent of the uranium comes back to France to be used in French power plants," an EDF spokeswoman said. So 80 to 90 percent of the RA waste is being dumped on another nation:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4786672,00.html

Despite the glowing reports by the nuclear industry (and its duplicitous cheerleader - the IAEA), on the U beaut new technology, no nation on the planet is even capable of building a waste repository for high level radioactive waste.

Meanwhile nuclear waste is currently languishing in the US at more than 121 temporary locations in 39 states across the country. All for 104 nuclear reactors providing a paltry 19% of energy needs?

But course all this (and much more) is a mere peccadillo if you’ve already decided to swallow the exorbitant costs, lengthy delays, safety, terrorism, cover-ups, proliferation, waste problems and a thoroughly disgraceful, atomic history:

http://www.ib.cnea.gov.ar/~protrad/biblioteca/3Accidentes.pd

Mikk

'runner
You are a fool if you think a few weeks of cold, in the middle of winter, confirms your denialist propaganda and lies.'

Which lies Mikk? or are you just venting your hatred.