Worth a look:-

http://www.enviromission.com.au/

The alchemist maintains the "negative right wing economic elitist perspective" is no solution to our carbon usage and suggests we all become sel-sufficient in energy. He even argues that there will be surpluses and these can be connected to the grid. Are we living in the same world? The outcome would be spending all our lives searching for and creating energy and conserving what little we have. Life would truly be brutal and short.

Martin Callinan should consult the Uranium Information Centre website if he wants to obtain information on nuclear disposal costs (and no, IPA does not receive any support from the Centre). Nuclear is the cheapest and safest form of energy production for most countries in the world but not for Australia.

The $41 per tonne carbon tax/price I cited was the trading price of CO2 in Europe last time I looked. The Bush Administration's estimate of price of $150 per tonne may well be the price that would be required if there were to be genuine reductions even to the level of Kyoto.

The cost of coal is, contrary to Mr Callinan's suggestions, not constantly increasing. The cost of coal fired electricity ten years ago at best practice was $38-40 per MWh. Even with the 30% inflation since then it is now $32 per MWh on the latest Queensland figures (which may contain some subsidy). Renewables have also reduced in cost but entropy is catching up and they will remain 2-3 times more expensive.

And Australia does have carbon taxes already in many guises. As my article demonstrates, present taxees and subsidies mean at least $800 million per year is scheduled.

Without commenting on the Australian details of Alan's article, the rest looks plausible. Certainly the European Emissions trading scheme (ETS) has seen the price for CO2 ranging above EUR 20/t for some time, and it once came close to EUR30/t. At those levels nuclear would be comfortably comptetitive in Australia.

Alan suggests the Chicago study excludes wastes and decommissioning - I dont think so. The main point it made was the effect of series construction on actual power costs. But his figure of about AUD 5 cents/kWh fits. See also www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm for more.

certainly we will not see nuclear power in Australia - or at least the eastern states - if we are able to keep on using coal as we do. if however we get serious about CO2 emissions and cost them like the ETS, then for base-load power we have nowhere else to go. Forget the folklore and fantasy of some of the detractors (as quoted in one posting), and look at what is actually going on overseas, and why investment in nuclear is ocurring and likely to do so much more.

“The outcome would be spending all our lives searching for and creating energy and conserving what little we have.” Alan, what a senseless stupid and un informed statement.

Five years ago we installed a solar system for our hospitality section. Now our entire business is on 24vdc. We use led lighting, a 5kw pure sine wave inverter, a 2kw solar bank, two 450w wind generators and a 5kw diesel backup generator that is coupled to a 1000ah bank of gel batteries. We have only ever used the generator for workshop equipment. Our neighbour is connected to the grid and receives a 3 monthly cheque from Aurora energy for his excess power.

We are updating by including solar balls, producing 3 times the energy of our cells for half the cost. The last 4 years, we have been using biodiesel to provide fuel for our vehicles and 15m charter boat. This year we will produce enough oilseed to become self sufficient in fuel from the mustard plants that we are growing. One acre of land provides enough fuel for our 3 vehicles, boat and generator.

We recovered the entire cost of our first system within 3 years. Even with 38c fuel excise, we still produce our fuel for less then 65c per litre. There are many people in Tasmania that are providing surplus energy to Aurora. So I think you need to come out of your closet, have your chains removed and get a life.

By the way, our system will not need renewing for more than 25 years. Before we changed, our energy bills ran to more than $10000 pa, the electricity component, $5600. Last financial year, it was $450 for cooking water heating gas, next year we hope to change that to methane from our own bio system.

It is you that does the searching, not people like us, we live in the real world, not the past fantasies that you are trapped within. We have satellite internet and voip as well, no landlines, another great saving.

Congratulations Alchemist - you did all you have mentioned without the need for a carbon tax or credit scheme.
What's the point of having one then if businesses can change of their own free will, without being heavily subsidised and they reduce costs.
You should encourage as many businesses as possible of the need to do what you do. If it is as financially prudent as you say, companies will jump on board quick smart, without the need for government regulation and imposition. Capitalism in action.

t.u.s.

Yeah, I’ve had a look at Uranium Information Centre website; they think Uranium is fantastic. They do not however provide any example of a Nuclear power station that has been decommissioned and had all its waste safely disposed of for only 10 - 15% of its total cost. They don’t even name such a station, let alone provide evidence that its life cycle costs are as modest as they suggest.

If you’ve already invested in a nuclear power industry, and a nuclear arms industry, then sure, I can see how the numbers stack up.

The Bush Administration's estimate of price of $150 per tonne was a large number plucked from the air to support their case for not doing anything. My point was that last year such a large (unrealistic) cost was paid by US motorists (via the gasoline price rise) with apparently little adverse impact upon the economy, or even the energy sector. Fo’ shizzle, US oil companies did rather well last year.

Do you think, Mr. Moran, that the establishment and operational costs of new coal stations (those with modern emissions controls and perhaps, even, carbon sequestration) won’t drive up prices? Australia definitely doesn’t have the newest fleet of coal fired power stations in the world.

Entropy catches up with everybody. Times, ideas and circumstances change, if it weren’t for climate change there’d be far less incentive to develop renewable energy.

Taxes serve purposes. One of their key advantages as a mechanism is that they can be directed to serve long term national interests; the sort of interests that individuals are rarely willing to sacrifice short term gains to meet.