If low carbon is really what it's all about then nuclear should get the feed-in tariff as well. In cloudy Tasmania my net meeting tariff is 18.6c per kwh, but I need to 'donate' about 5 kwh a day to cover the 90c daily connection fee. Even 20c would be a bonanza. As often pointed out the middle class with spare cash get the bling bling panels but battlers end up paying for it via the FiT.

We need a way of pumping cheap enough power into the grid 24/7 to benefit everybody. Near 50C summer temperatures can't be far away and the frail and elderly will need air conditioning to stay alive. A few solar panels in the upmarket suburbs won't help. The solar FiT costs too much for too little benefit. We need a large scale value-for-money solution.

Ged - fellow posters have said most things but a couple of points.

You mention spending on the infrastructure. Electricity prices have been on the up of late because the networks have to be upgraded and expanded, due to extra population and changing requirements. Also, the power providers have to take into account continuing increases in peak demand - more people with air conditioners, basically.

This has nothing to do with green versus renewables as such, but the advent of serious amounts of wind power means considerably more money will have to be spent on the network. It is not nearly as simple, as green proponents hope, as hooking up a few wind farms and counting the carbon savings.

Thanks to overseas experience we can now discount PVs as a substantial source of green power. Germany has a vast number of PV panels because of very favourable government subsidies, but the actual amount of power supplied has proved trivial.

My last post was not meant to denigrate solar, but to try to put some perspective and proportion on the issue by providing some relevant facts and numbers- in the (perhaps forlorn) hope that other OLO-ers might also justify their opinions with facts and numbers.

Despite Hasbeen's cynicism, there is ample evidence that PVs are tracking towards grid parity (try the respected Solarbuzz.com). This does not mean that PVs will be the total solution, but will be a viable part of the solution. Subsidising the first few percent of a new market is common- nuclear has received at least $100billion of subsidies globally over 40 years and France's 70% nuclear contribution would never have happened without significant subsidies.

The point that I am making is that we need to be clear as to what we are trying to achieve with any particular subsidy and that we don't confuse the short-term economics of subsidy with long-term sustainability economics.

Even if an economic case for nuclear could be made for Australia, most of the technology would be imported- quite possibly from China. The fact that Australia has 40% of the world's uranium is no more relevant to eventual construction costs than us having boundless areas of bright sunshine.

Anyone want to comment on the desirability of a $1 billion subsidy for coal in NSW alone? All those complaining about subsidising renewables ought to be complaining more about subsidising coal, raising the price to the economy and locking us into a dinosaur technology.

The reason, of course, is that mainstream politicians will do nothing that actually reduces coal emissions, because that would reduce coal profits, and they're too gutless to take the industry on.

Get with the motion and install solar, for the good of the country and this will shut down coal fired boilers. My savings / yr are 60% with solar. You can't say the system don't work. Whinge about the initial cost , everything costs.
Start with a kw then build on it one panell at a time.
A couple of batteries in the garage, to cover the nite time power, you are on easy street.

geoff davies "The reason, of course, is that mainstream politicians will do nothing that actually reduces coal emissions, because that would reduce coal profits, and they're too gutless to take the industry on."

no that's not why, it's because their constituents still believe it is the state's duty to supply them with the benefits of a modern society and economy.

To decide to reduce emissions, and shut down coal fired power, is not just taking on the coal or power industry - it is taking on THEIR CUSTOMERS!

Us!

We want and need that power, stop making dumb excuses about the coal industry being a political obstacle, it's entirely simplistic but I guess suits the purpose of providing a scapegoat and a "bad guy" to blame. Mind you, usually the focus is skeptics, or "deniers", isn't it - that are the focus of your angst.

You just have to have target don't you?