Rudd has painted himself into a corner. Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter and therefore complicit in massive CO2 emissions. If not then some laws need to be changed eg selling alcohol to minors. Australia could conceivably overtake Qatar as the world's biggest LNG exporter but I'm not sure what we will then use for hydrocarbon fuels in trucks and peak power plants. Australia has the world's largest uranium reserves and may one day be the biggest exporter. Ziggy Switkowski did say however that a large build out of current generation nuclear reactors would use half of that uranium, albeit sent overseas for enrichment perhaps using the Australian designed laser process.

As to whether nuclear is necessary the facts speak for themselves. France has the lowest emissions and cheapest electricity in the EU. They are one of very few countries with the moral authority to impose carbon tariffs on imports. Germany, Denmark and Spain despite huge investment in renewables can't shake off the need for coal or nuclear. I suggest Rudd is not only a hypocrite by effectively exempting coal from the ETS and talking up the clean coal myth but he is almost alone in ignoring the proven alternative.

I have been a lifetime opponent of nuclear power because of the state of the technology. But we may be approaching a stage where we understand enough to create safe nuclear power plants.
Then there is the political position.
If we go nuclear then it must be nuclear for everyone. We would need controls or nuclear for everyone means bombs for everyone. Maybe the suggestions of Oppenheimer of a non-aligned world body to oversee nuclear power could be looked at again.
This is not a black and white issue

Rudd only wants money from the useless ETS. It will do not good at all; but, by the time the gullible find this out, he will be out of government and possibly dead.

Dreamland people dreamland.
No one will countenance a nuclear reactor in their neighborhood and building them in the desert runs up against the massive lack of cooling water needed. So where pray can one be built in Australia?
The permanent danger, huge cost, terrorist targets, weapons proliferation, catastrophic results of failure etc etc will doom any proposal for nuclear plants in Australia.

Not to mention the Iranians. Wouldnt they have some justification if we and other countries started doing exactly what they are doing and got support whereas they get invasion threats.

You right wing shills are so confused, idiotic and hypocritical that you cant see the irony of your threats to and fear of Iran while promoting nuclear power as the answer to the worlds problems.

The funniest bit is the people promoting this are the same deniers saying there is no AGW. Pathetic, shallow, dishonest and fools no one but the deluded and the submissive.

Have a nice day.

Oh and you do realise that French nuke plants are owned and run by the leftist government, are heavily unionised and somewhat overstaffed. As is the French way. They are happy to spend a bit extra for the extra safety even if it is not "efficient" like the badly run, cheap, capitalist owned plants in the US.
If you people want to praise the frogs be honest about what you are lauding and accept that the French way of doing things is better and not just in running nuclear power plants.

Nuclear? Is there a problem with that?

All the proponents of alternate energy don't want it their back yard. Wind generators kill birds & create noise. Solar panels are unsightly & expensive. Hydro? Requires Dams. Clean Coal? No such thing. The cost of power would double.

Who is causing all the problems? Would it be the very people who are calling for alternate power? Hmm...

Do I see a problem here? Hmm... You could say so.