Its simple. If there were efficient and cheap alternative energy systems they would be marketed now. As there are none, the Carbon Tax has to be introduced to make alternative energy artificially cheaper and coal and oil artificially more expensive. Subsidising expensive energy and taxing cheap energy is a means to an economic disaster because it falsely creates value in one item while falsely subtracting it from another.

Things are now really bad:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/17/501364/main20044142.shtml

"The chief of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said all the water is gone from one of the spent fuel pools at Japan's most troubled nuclear plant, raising the possibility of widespread nuclear fallout. But Japanese officials denied the pool was dry.

Tepco executives said Thursday that they believed the rods in that pool were covered with water, but an official with Japan's nuclear safety agency later expressed skepticism about that and moved closer to the U.S. position.

"Considering the amount of radiation released in the area, the fuel rods are more likely to be exposed than to be covered," Yuichi Sato said.

[The chief of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said further] My understanding is there is no water in the spent fuel pool, he said. I hope my information is wrong. It's a terrible tragedy for Japan."

If the US assessment is correct a large chunk of Japan may not be quite safe for years.

Pete

Atman,
Contrary to your last, it is coal (and Nuclear if it gets off the ground) that is subsidized as you can see by just some of the info below.
If it was not blocked by vested interests, the Alternative power systems would be up and running now instead of having to move offshore to the US and Spain to name but two. These interests have such clout, through the donations to political parties system that they are in a position to stifle any furthering of the Alt power industry.
You may remember a 4 corners program that exposed this in the Howard era called “ the greenhouse mafia” that is now long forgotten in the usual way but is still very active,
Google http://www.google.com.au/#q=subsidies+paid+to+Australian+coal+industry&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=aISCTYIthsq9A-e-2dwI&start=10&sa=N&fp=9de2688f68b31204
http://climateactioncanberra.wordpress.com/coal-and-climate/
Nationally subsidies to the coal industry total 7-9 billion dollars a year.” This year $1.7 billion was paid to industry in rebates for diesel use. ”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_transport_subsidies_in_Australia
Total energy and transport subsidies: $9.3 billion to $10.1 billion, of which: - $9 billion to $9.8 billion went to support the production and use of fossil fuels - $371 million to $334 million, which is only 3.1 to 3.6% of the total amount of subsidies.
Energy and transport subsidies in Australia - Wikipedia, the free ...
Coal power industries subsidized under the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program (GGAP). ... By energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.” ... Energy and Transport Subsidies in Australia” [1] |accessdate=2008-08-04 ...
en.wikipedia.org/.../Energy_and_transport_subsidies_in_Australia - Cached - Similar
Renewable Energy News 09 JUNE, 2009 In the recent Australian federal budget, $4.5 billion was earmarked to go towards clean energy, but over half will go towards low-emissions coal technologies, also known as “clean coal” or “new generation coal”.

81% Of the funds allocated so far under the Howard government’s (The Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund) 81 per cent has gone to subsidize fossil fuel companies
In early 2007 the Howard government granted $100 million (the LETDF) to subsidize a new brown coal fired power station in Victoria

Sarnian, So you expect me to believe that Worldwide, clandestine forces are working to stop clean efficient energies from surfacing? Why hasn't ONE SINGLE country been able to convert to these wonderful new technologies? Sounds like another conspiracy theory to me or an episode from Batman.

The answer is simple, there are no cheap and efficient replacements for coal and oil. If there were we wouldn't need a Carbon Tax to take money from oil and coal and give it to inefficient and expensive alternative energy programs.

Atman,
It is strange that you do not refute the answers I gave about there being no equivalent to Coal or Nukes.

You seem to be of the Goebels way of thinking that if you say something often enough, people will believe it.
you reiterate your previous answer ie “The answer is simple; there are no cheap and efficient replacements for coal and oil. If there were we wouldn't need a Carbon Tax to take money from oil and coal and give it to inefficient and expensive alternative energy programs.”

I have demonstrated in one of my posts that some countries ARE indeed well on the way to converting to these replacements but you have chosen to ignore that.
As for the “So you expect me to believe that Worldwide, clandestine forces are working to stop clean efficient energies from surfacing?” I did not actually say Worldwide, as you would have no doubt noted, but in fact spoke about the factually proven strong coal lobby in Australia.
I would say that you are really motivated in arguing just for the sake of arguing and have no real thoughts on this, so I will conclude my posts on this matter.

It would seem that that the total cost of ownership of nuclear plants is nowhere near as cheap as some think, certainly much more than the cost of merely constructing or operating on the cheap.

For instance, the cost of building such within structures unaffected by earthquakes or tsunamis. Such can only be ameliorated by building within rigid structures unaffected by geological or ocean movement. Think "battleship on an ocean" and project a similarly rigid structure upon the earth. That is a *lot* of concrete and steel, several times more than the basic facility. on the upside, such a site may house several generations of facilities.

The further cost of remotely accessible control points, the laying of flexible access ports from safely remote locations for sending surveillance/water etc.

The cost of a permanent-standby emergency team, underwritten to be available 24/7/365.25, with all equipment. regardless of circumstances including death of own family, or extremity of risk.

The cost (including generous family support in perpertuity) of insuring workers willing to remain onsite and perform duties in face of potentially extreme conditions. What extreme danger pay do such deserve?

The cost to an economy of losing even a single facility in terms of electricity production, let alone the cost of contaminating surrounding countryside (how much is an acre worth each decade in production?). The cost of nationwide rolling blackouts.

No, nuclear is not as cheap as some propose, perhaps so insufficiently cheap that renewables look much more competitive.

Rusty