i think the title is right [but not the conclusion]
its all about protecting the ecomony [its the ecomnomy stupid?]

we have enjured compulsory supper [to underpin the stockmarketeers by steady supplying the fiat currency for their basel speculation income to prop up the stock market gambelers]

we pay gst, petrol tax , smokers tax ,[the drug war tax raises 65 million each year in qld alone ,plus provides work [and steady income for lawyers judges police and jailers]as govt criminalises human activity
http://www.prisonplanet.com/smokers-to-be-banned-from-becoming-foster-parents.html
#
http://www.prisonplanet.com/parents-to-be-fingerprinted-by-nursery-schools.html
so we soon will see the carbon tax here [but will we be ALLOWED free acces to facts?]

i feel god has sent clear sign'ss
http://www.prisonplanet.com/snow-blankets-london-for-global-warming-debate.html
Kinda ironic [but what with this new distraction about carbon?>
http://www.prisonplanet.com/australia-to-enforce-mandatory-chinese-style-internet-censorship.html

its ALL about the e-con-o-my [and giving govt cash subsidy to big buisness] think of the billion dollars govt GIVES big pharma [each year]for stroke medication alone ,

when is a tax a not a tax [when its sold to us by fear [its only smokers , its only speeders , its only [non wine] drinkers ,its only druggies ,only for criminals [why isnt polution criminal?]

well now its only carbon producers[only those who breath] thats right now we are taxed to breath [why?]well bigbuisness is colapsing they need solcialised subsidy from govt to gain yet further income streams[that the free? market can set the price for

where is the media telling you this ?
well its in process of getting shut down
[see 2 de link]

#
if we REALLY have a trouble with carbon [lock up carbon] ie stop clearing [let forrests be FOR-rest not destruction]please note REAL polutants [micro waves ;mobile phone towers even the sun have more to do with [is it global WARMING or cooling?]

hell people its a NEW tax get it?

I'll be direct here. The CFMEU has labor by its gonads in most Australian states and federally. They are certain to resist any decisions to reduce coal use or reduce coal exports. I'm a union supporter, but just stating the facts, thats why nothing changes. On the other side of parliament, the greenhouse mafia of resource and oil companies bankrolls coalition politicians.

There is only one State that is a significant nett exporter of electricity to the rest of the five-State National Electricity Market: Queensland. It does so to the tune of around 6% of total NSW demand plus around 20% of total Tasmanian demand, these being the only two States that are consistent nett importers of electricity.

Here is a link to a PDF document containing information as to the extent of inter-State imports and exports of electricity within the National Electricity Market (NEM): http://www.esaa.com.au/images/stories/Market_reports/2008_07_26nem.pdf . The relevant graph is on page 2 of the 17 page document, the ESAA Weekly [Electricity] Market Report. There is also an annotated diagramatic illustration of electricity flow directions, showing no flows north to Queensland.

There would thus seem to be a very simple means by which the Queensland government can immediately reduce emissions from its electricity generation enterprises without inflicting supply shortages on its own domestic consumers.

Cease exporting electricity inter-State!

The issue that would then remain to be addressed would be that as to the extent of the electricity sales revenue Queensland would forego by abandoning that inter-State export market.

In circumstances of expanding domestic consumer demand, which is acknowledged as the real situation facing Queensland, such electricity sales revenue would not be being foregone, but simply coming from a different, and more morally entitled-to-supply, class of customers: Queensland residents and businesses.

I get the sense from the article, however, that the Queensland Premier is not talking of reducing existing generation output as a means of reducing emissions, but of diverting unreduced maximum output from its domestic consumer market to other more favoured customers without incurring a need to invest in more generating capacity.

If I am right, then what Anna Bligh is doing is misrepresenting an intention to both increase the electricity tariff and tolerate potential shortage of supply to domestic consumers as a 'reduction of emissions', when in fact what will be occurring is the avoidance of needed investment in expanded generating capacity.

Shadow Minister;
Hot rocks hopefully will give an indication fairly soon as to
how much heat can be sucked out to drive a station.
I presume that the question revolves around, does extracting heat
from the hot rocks cool the rock formation significantly and what
rate can be maintained and still have hot enough steam ?

As the heat source is radiation decay with a very very long half life
it should be a marvelous energy source if a big enough rate can be
maintained.

As it all stands now the Federal governments aim of growth is
impossible without increased energy. Forcing a cut back in the use
of energy sources such as oil and coal must cause a contraction,
except for waste reduction, in the economy. Growth is history.

The Queensland Tourism Industry is already doomed. Airlines have
already cut back on their services and long before global warming
drowns the barrier reef the airlines and the tourist industry will
be history.

Ericc rightly questions the ability of Queensland to produce its needs for base load power from renewables within 15 years. In my view a more realistic timeline should read within 25 years – say by about 2030.

This is based on the assumptions that within this time-frame, 5 major developments will occur:
1. By 2010 the use of hot fractured rock to commercially produce base load power will have been demonstrated and that within 10-15 years thereafter, the vast and very hot rock deposits of western Queensland will be providing up to 50% of state needs.
2. Within the next 5-10 years significant improvements in the cost of manufacturing photovoltaic cells (PVC’s) and the efficiency with which they convert sunlight to electricity will be achieved, possibly using plastics.
3. Within 5-10 years, technology will vastly increase the storage capacity and cost of batteries enabling their wide use to provide power for residential purposes and small business.
4. By 2020 a significant source of base load power will be from very large solar power stations employing heliostat technology to generate thermal/PVC electricity.
5. Reduction of power generated from fossil fuels will occur because of supportive public policy encouraging production and use of electricity from renewable sources.

Development 1 is speculative but it is not unrealistic given that geothermal power is already used commercially in Germany and Geodynamics Ltd. proposes to demonstrate its use in Australia by supplying the Innamincka District with electricity by early 2009.

Development 2 and 3 are already well advanced and may be commercial propositions within 5 rather than 10 years. Development 4 has occurred in the USA and is now being sought by investors in Australia, though in my view current proposals are unlikely to be competitive with coal given the present state of technology. But that is changing.