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.

Hello Peter, long time no see.

I share your general cynicism about politicians' motives, but as a scientist I can't agree that global warming is a "doubtful proposition". See my posts at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/climate-urgency-and-opportunity/#more-133
and
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/last-call-on-climate/

Few discussions of energy options show any awareness of how wasteful we are at present. We can quickly and cheaply increase energy-use efficiency and reduce greenhouse emissions. See my post at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/energy-efficiency/
and the McKinsey&Company study, An Australian Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction. 2008. Available from: http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/australia%5Fnewzealand/knowledge/.

Viewed from this perspective, nuclear power is unnecessary and anyway is inadequate, dirty, dangerous, expensive and too slow. See
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/nuclear-power-uddeli-unjustified/#more-36

Regards, perhaps I'll see you in Nov.

Hi Geoff - November in Canberra - hopefully.

Here's the main point: As you point out, there are all these dominoes about to tip. Nothing the politicians are planning has a hope of stopping them in time. So we're going to tip. What can we do about it?

Peter

Well, mikk, you've certainly put the "ass" back into "assume".

You assume that everyone who's the slightest bit reluctant to jump aboard the careering Climate Change bandwagon, ETS/CPRS/insert-fashionable-TLA included, is a wicked right winger.

Well, that would be about the first time in my life I've been called a right winger. It's precisely because I'm *not* a right winger that I refuse to jump in bed with the right-wing Rudd government. It's also why I refuse to subscribe to a dogmatic belief system like capital-E Environmentalism.

You also assume that it's some sort of magic revelation that the left-wing French run a safe nuclear energy industry. Well, no sh!t, Sherlock.

Except that in the very same breath, you condemn nuclear power as a "permanent danger".

Holding to a strange concept called "Reason" means taking the stick to liars, snake-oil salesmen and fascist thugs, no matter whether they're wearing brownshirts, business suits or dreadlocks. A pox on Greenpeace as much as Halliburton, I say. Bugger Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh.

Well congrats Mr. McCloy for a well written, informative article. It is so frustrating to think that we could have had a 'green' nuclear power source already up and running if politicians of any persuasion had had the guts to do it.

More power to the French, be they left or right. At least they are going somewhere which is more than you can say for us. Mr. Rudd is intent on being a "world stage spokesperson on CO2 emissions. Bugger the workers and people in general, just go green if you can afford to. Most of us can't do that.

This is just another tax, why don't people wake up? It is not about climate change. He can't up the GST so there has to be another way; "and guess what - ETS!".

Well guess what Mr. Rudd, I have been a federal labour voter all my long life but I cannot agree with the climate change scare mongering or making this country into an overtaxed, under employed backwater. I will change my vote as I have in NSW.

Get water conservation happening, where it will make a difference, instead of bleating about carbon emissions and climate change. It is SOOOOO tiresome.

Do something worthwhile and stay in the country for more than a few months.

Kevin Rudd has definitely backed himself into a corner with the coal as energy issue. Malcolm Turnbull isn't much different though, he was the one who thought of an ETS under the Howard government & that's where the problem lies for him. He can't deny it & Rudd is using it to throw in his political face & Turnbull refuses to back away from it for the Lib's sake of face. I agree with The Author that the other reason for climate discussion is nuclear power & as an Atheist Lennon-ism is a truth in itself.

Clownfish - you claim the rational high ground and yet your entire entry is a tirade against various individuals and groups - no reason evident! Nuclear is not and never will be the answer to climate change. It is not a renewable fuel, it is incredibly vexed politically, slow to build, and is not needed. Why we refuse to embrace renewables when our wind, solar and tidal resources are so large is one of the more curious dysfunctions of current political system...

The proponents of renewable generation seem to ignore the fact that they need to be manufactured - Glass for PV panels, aluminum heat sinks for inverters etc. Wind generators still require a constant supply of electricity to run the lubrication systems and keep them rotating in low or no wind conditions.

Yes we can reduce our reliance on electricity, but industry still needs a reliable base load system to manufacture our renewable generation systems.

"Why we refuse to embrace renewables"

It's not that we refuse to embrace them, I'm just not too keen on the idea of having to peddle the backup generator bicycle every time the "green" power fails again.

Renewables simply are not viable yet; anyone who claims otherwise is simply tossing off.

By all means invest in R&D to make them so, but in the meantime we need an affordable and above all reliable supply of energy. Ask anyone in NW Tas what it's like having to live without a modern energy supply for even just a few days. Nuclear is not the "answer", in the sense of being a panacea for our energy problems, but it is a viable short-term solution, especially if you're so utterly convinced of the wickedness of burning coal, oil or natural gas.

Oh, and of course I launched a tirade against various individuals and groups: all of them thoroughly deserve it.

Thanks for the abuse clownfish.
Now how about you use your "Reason" to impart something more to the debate than strange platitudes about how much you hate everybody.