A lot has been witten in recent weeks about Nuclear v other alternative future energy sources. As a country and even the world, we need to buy about 20 plus years before the real alternative, Solar, or even hydrogen becomes truly viable for the mases. We need to stretch our existing resources to buy time. We need a clear, low cost fuel to fill the petro-gap. Given this countries huge natural reserves why are we not driving on Natural Gas? Fillable from the house supply at a small fraction of the cost of petrol. I would assume we could also use this abundant and clear resource to generate electricity at the odd power station, I for one would prefer a Natural Gas fired power station over a Nuclear power station any day.
The resource and the technology is available now, so why do we not exploit it?
Does anyone have any information on the true viability of Natural Gas for such uses?
How clean is Natural Gas compared to Coal for the environment?

We really only use the very cleanest coal in our power stations here in Oz. All the dirty stuff (coking coal) which has loads of sulfur is sent over seas for making steel. We've actually made huge advances in cleaning up the emissions from coal fired power stations in this country.

Gas is much cleaner than coal as it has lower levels of pollutants such as sulfur. It doesn't produce smog the way coal emissions can. Gas however does not address the issue of global warming. By burning gas we are still releasing carbon dioxide, so in that respect it achieves nothing.

The biggest push for gas seems to be into peoples homes for heating and cooking. I really don't see that we need to use gas for water heating here in Queensland when we have the luxury of solar. I guess solar water heating is unpalatable for government and business because it makes us as consumers a bit more self sufficient. And so gas is being forced upon the customer at the expense of solar. I know that the later saves me almost 40% of what I used to spend on electricity. The issue for government and business is to maintain a healthy customer base for base load power generation and then to be able to efficiently meet those supply needs.

IMHO the issue of energy needs should not be focused on energy sources but more upon energy efficiency. We can achieve this by scutinising our own energy uses. An example is the rise in the use of these stupid leaf blowers. I got one for Christmas and immediately chucked it out. For a start, just because they can be recharged by plugging into the wall does not make them "environmentally friendly" as one good-hearted if gullible relative informed me. It still uses electricity that is derived from burning a fossil fuel. Secondly, whatever happened to sweeping the driveway with a broom? Instead I see people get out their blowers and afterwards, they're off to the gym to pay a personal instructor to show them how to exercise.

Hi thebull,

I have to disagree about nuclear. We should be looking into Thorium nuclear energy.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

I'll start by pointing out that I am more than happy for anyone to "have a go" at the statements that I am going to make - all for good discussion!

Firstly, I really cant remember who it was, but a few months back there was a poster who seemed to know what they were talking about when it came to solar energy. The point made by this person was that solar energy is actually extremely inefficient, as the energy required to manufacture the solar cells is higher than the energy that they are able to capture in their lifetime. Point being that if they never wore out, then they would be environmentally friendly, but they do wear out and far too soon to have a good environmental impact.

Second, I have issue with the impact that humans have on CO2 emmissions. For example, the stated output of coal-fired power stations in 2000 was 186Mt (megatonnes). Research estimates that the co2 emmissions from bushfires in Australia is around 400Mt annually (I got interested in this when I heard a stat that the recent fires in Victoria produced more pollution than 1000 coal power stations would produce in a year - we have 24 power stations, so thats 41 years of pollution from electricity in a mere 2 weeks). Just think how much pollution there would have been from the Victorian (and other) fires if we hadnt been able to slow its progress.

Here I go again with the same old rant. But jees it needs to be said…..

One of the biggest factors of all that we need to consider here is the rapidly increasing rate of demand for energy in this country. It is so rapid that it will overwhelm even the most optimistic improvements in per-capita energy consumption.

Soooooooo….

The issue of never-ending rapid growth simply MUST be addressed by each and every person that cares enough to put any effort into reducing per-capita energy use or finding alternative energy sources. They need to put at least 50% of their effort into getting our grossly irresponsible government to gear down immigration forthwith and abolish pro-natalist polices such as the baby bonus, so that we can achieve a stable number of energy consumers as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Ludwig, I hear you. That was exactly the point I was trying to make - we need to reduce the amount of energy we use rather than finding new sources. We actually think about the things we do, alot of it is really pointless. Electric leaf blowers, car trips to the gym and that constant battle to maintain the perfect green lawn are just a few starters. We can use coal fired power stations to provide base load power from now until eternity. We can even have a few nuclear power stations if we want. But if we don't cut back on what we use, nothing will ever be enough.

Hear, hear, Porphyrin! Whatever way one looks at the energy debate, conservation of energy, energy efficiency - comes out top. In England, at Oxford University, I think - they are trialling a project by which each person gets their regular "carbon emissions" allowance. Admittedly, this ambitious idea uses a kind of "smart card" - no doubt abhorrent to Australians. In this scheme, those who use more than their allowance, have to pay the difference. Those who use less, are paid back the difference.
An individual cost to each person would result in a drastic change in the way each uses energy. The researchers estimate a 60% drop in Britain's carbon emissions would result.
Far fetched? probably - but the idea that we can all keep on mindlessly using more energy is even more far-fetched. Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

I believe in Thorium but 'Hot Rocks' energy seems to be a closeup second. I was involved with a debate on it at http://www.ozpolitic.com and there was good points made for and against. My biggest worry with 'Hot Rocks' is if we use the steam inside the planet wouldn't that eventually result in overheating of the planet?

The easiest and cheapest way to reduce emissions is to reduce energy consumption. The cheapest and easiet way to do that is via a green tax shift. Once you have it in place, no more government interference is necessary and market forces will work with you (rather than gainst you) to reduce emissions quickly, cheaply and easily.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html

Freediver, with respect, you are thinking about per-capita energy consumption, not total energy consumption.

Green taxes or various disincentives will reduce average per-capita energy consumption. But with a rapidly increasing number of ‘per-capitas’, this is not going to reduce overall energy consumption and it is not going to be the answer to our energy issues.

We’ve simply got to get serious about addressing the absurdity of the continuous growth paradigm. This is by far the most important thing that we need to do.

Reducing per-capita energy consumption is an important part of the whole story, but only in conjunction with limits to human expansion.

In fact, without addressing the continuous growth factor, reductions in per-capita energy use will….

ONLY SERVE TO MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE…..

because they will effectively facilitate continued rapid population growth.

If we all use considerably less energy, then more people can live under the same energy-provision mechanisms. And that is exactly what will happen for a long as our economic system and society is based on this absurd perception that continuous growth is necessary. More people will demand more resources of all sorts, not just energy, and will progressively reduce the chances of us living sustainably.

I could even argue that the best thing for us all to do is to be profligate with our energy usage, so that the real crunch comes sooner rather than later, and the message is driven home to our idiot decision-makers and blasé populace that endless growth in human numbers, resource consumption and waste production is just completely ludicrous.

So, yes, let’s have green taxes, but ONLY as part of a holistic approach that includes an end to the continuous growth paradigm.

This sounds like a dream or just wishful thinking, more energy efficient products, even if available today will not do enough. Australia’s expected energy demands are expected to more than double in the next 10-15 years. Heavy transport truck is expected to more than double. Solar can’t provide that sort of energy power gap. Energy conservation or efficiency is one thing but suggesting we just use less electricity, will not cut it, but by all means please give it go.
Solar hot water for the shower is one thing, powering a nations industry, or a large fleet of aircraft or a city full of large office blocks, even my car is another thing altogether. And no I will not be giving up the car just because petrol goes to $5 a litre, I’ll pay up, along with everyone else, if there is no real alternative.
What we need is that real alternative. If the alternative to fossil fuel is electricity, them we will need Nuclear of one sort or another. However, if we could buy some time with an alternative available energy like natural gas, then in 15-20 years maybe Solar, or all the other “ALTERNATIVE” fuels, together with more efficient use, may just get us to a stage of a safe, clean, power, be that a new Nuclear or whatever.
So by all means; cut your own power demand, raise the cost of electricity, introduce individual carbon emission allowances, throw away the odd leaf blower, put a stop to all future population growth, hook-up the house to solar hot water. In truth, all this will make very little difference to the base load requirements. Even if, you are all correct, in the end, we need more power and lots more of it. We either prepare to go Nuclear now to come online in the next 10–12 years, or we start to use alternative fossil fuels now and hope we can hold out until that better alternative becomes viable

Ludwig, suggests that we start bumping people off, because the population numbers in this country or all over the planet are too great for his liking, is just a little off beam. Maybe, we could start with everyone who is ‘sick’, or maybe the criteria should be ‘unemployed’ or maybe over the age of 55 or even better 45. Or are we going to say only one birth per couple, no that’s been done, we should have our own ideas, don’t copy others. I think we could have a lottery, if you get your number called you get the chop.
Or how about we get smart and generate more power!

Dear bull, take a moment to consider the incredible contradiction you have just presented;

You introduced this line of discussion with presumably heartfelt concern about the state of energy consumption and provision in Australia….but you are apparently completely averse to the notion of even reducing the rate of increase in consumption, let alone stabilising it.

That’s a hell of a contradiction!!

You are only concerned with buying time before we can develop ‘better’ energy-supply mechanisms.

You seem resigned to the fact that “Australia’s expected energy demands are expected to more than double in the next 10-15 years”, and you seem only to be concerned about how we can keep up energy supply to match this demand.

Not a thought of striving to slow that rate of increase, which of course is mainly driven by rapid population growth.

Doubling the entire energy consumption in just 15 years. Now that’s one hell of a rapid rate of increase. What happens after that? Another doubling in the next 15 years? That would be a four-fold increase in 30 years and an eight-fold increase in 45 years!

Of course our energy consumption is not going to increase at anything like that rate, but it WILL keep rapidly increasing with no end in sight under the current growth-at-all-costs regime………until we come up against some very painful barrier. And we have people like thebull who seem to think that that is just fine!!

People who are concerned only with facilitating this rapid increase in energy consumption need to be condemned for their one-eyed and completely antisustainability-oriented efforts. For goodness sake, I implore them to look at the subject in a holistic manner!

.
“Ludwig, suggests that we start bumping people off…”

May I suggest that you be very careful. You know full well that I have neither suggested nor alluded to any such thing. My posts are there for everyone to read and to see how you have misrepresented me. Thebull, statements like this will only serve to badly damage your credibility.

Without a population growth fixation, governments would obviate the need to spend tens of billions of dollars on infrastructure. This could allow more research funding. Similarly, individuals, no longer financially crippled by the impact of high population growth, might have more disposable income to take their own action.

It is more about the reality than a contradiction. If we are not going to actively reduce global populations, how do we go about dramatically reducing consumption? I assume you are well aware of the current increase rate of prosperity in India, China, most of Asia is also in rapid growth, add that to the increase in prosperity of Russia, it is not about what would be ideal, it is reality that our planets population is becoming more wealthy, every year. With that wealth they all want cars, air-conditioning and refrigeration etc.
You can try telling India and China that they can’t have a 1st World standard of living for the billions of their people, because we stuffed up, it wont get far. We need solutions, not idealism.
So, how does a World go about “addressing the absurdity of the continuous growth paradigm” or “stopping population growth fixation of Governments”. What is the current growth-at-all-costs regime, I’m unaware of that?
Ludwig, your comments are idealistic, they may even be correct, the World may well be a better place, if the World had less people in it, less technology, less air-conditioning, less cars, less powered up cities, but that is not a reality, it is just a dream of an idealistic place or time.
Right or wrong, for better or worse, it is not going to happen any time soon, that is the reality, not a contradiction. So how do we go about dramatically reducing consumption?
The simplicity in saying the answer is in stopping growth, is not a reality that is likely to catch on any time soon.
Looks like we will go Nuclear, just because we can, and no one has a better answer other than stop using the light switch so often.
Maybe in time we will have the ability in every household to generate our own electrical power. However, that is still a long time off in the future, what will we do in the mean time?

Ludwig

"But with a rapidly increasing number of ‘per-capitas’, this is not going to reduce overall energy consumption and it is not going to be the answer to our energy issues."

1) It's about carbon emissions, not energy consumption

2) It depends on how quickly you reduce emissions. The population issue has a much longer time span involved. We will solve this long before we make a significant dent in the population.

"ONLY SERVE TO MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE…..

because they will effectively facilitate continued rapid population growth."

I fail to see the logic here. Unless you think rampant global warming is a good thing because it will cut down the population. See the IPAT equation here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/population-sustainability.html#IPAT

Solving global warming within one generation will not necessarily lead to continued economic growth - most econonmists predict a slight decline in economic growth. So that's two of the factors - technology and affluence - working in your favour. Solving global warming is hardly going to cause the population to go up.

"And that is exactly what will happen for a long as our economic system and society is based on this absurd perception that continuous growth is necessary. "

It isn't based on that perception at all.

"I could even argue that the best thing for us all to do is to be profligate with our energy usage, so that the real crunch comes sooner rather than later,"

If that did happen, things could get much worse, very quickly.

"So, yes, let’s have green taxes, but ONLY as part of a holistic approach that includes an end to the continuous growth paradigm. "

Well, that much I agree with. You are giving me mixed messages I think.

bull:

"Energy conservation or efficiency is one thing but suggesting we just use less electricity, will not cut it, but by all means please give it go. "

That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that we do that first, given that it is easiest. Whatever outcome you think is suitable, a green tax shift is the best way to achieve it.

"And no I will not be giving up the car just because petrol goes to $5 a litre"

Neither will I. But I would make more of an effort to save fuel, and buy a more efficent car next time.

"Australia’s expected energy demands are expected to more than double in the next 10-15 years."

It could also halve under a green tax shift.

freediver: Your idea of a 'Green Tax' shift, may be worth a go, but most likely will only impact on the poor the most, most people will simply pay the bill and complain that the Gov is ripping them off, much like today with petrol tax etc. The poor and old will be left in the cold, the rest of us will charge more for our services and move on.
I don't think it is so easy to reduce consumption without raising the cost through the roof, via taxes or other means, even then I can't see that making much of an impact. Does not seem to work for Petrol consumption, I still use the car about the same as 5 - 10 years ago, although my car is more economical these days I will admit. Aust's energy demand will continue to increase, and far outstrip the population ratio.
As individuals we will use more power! Throughout the planet a huge amount more.
The goal needs to be some form of electrical power supply attached to every house, but as I said that is a long time off.
In the mean time, we need a reasonably clear energy source well before then.

"but most likely will only impact on the poor the most"

You'd be surprised how often that comes up: http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q3 (btw I disagree)

"most people will simply pay the bill and complain "

Not if they're in charge of the energy bill for a large company, or buying a new car, or deciding how close to work they are going to live, or choosing between roo meat and beef.

"I don't think it is so easy to reduce consumption "

You'd be surprised how far industry will go to save money over time. Of course it won't be easy, but this is the easiest way. And a green tax shift does not only result in a decrease in consumption. It will lead to a switch to renewables once the easier options have been taken.

"even then I can't see that making much of an impact"

It depends how much the price goes up.

"Does not seem to work for Petrol consumption"

Actually it did - have you seen the sale figures for bicycles and small cars?

"Aust's energy demand will continue to increase"

Eventually, when we switch to renewables and the normal economic processes take over, but in the short term we are headed for a reduction, if our politicians know anything about economics.

"The goal needs to be some form of electrical power supply attached to every house"

Why would that be better than say, wind farms?

“It is more about the reality than a contradiction”.

Thebull, our reality in Australia does not have to include endless growth in population and resource consumption. We cannot for one moment just accept that future outlook.

Globally we are just not going to be able to address the overpopulation issue, but we surely can in this country.

So there is a contradiction – thinking you are doing the right thing by promoting clean energy and frugal energy use, while just accepting that overall energy consumption is going to increase unendingly.

You also seem to be confused about the scale on which you are talking here. In your first post yesterday it was all about Australia; (“Australia’s expected energy demands….”) but today it is all about the global situation.

The two levels are extremely different. Basically, we have stuff-all ability to change worldwide population growth and energy-consumption patterns, but we CAN and MUST conquer these issues in Australia.

So back to the Australian situation, which I was talking about, following on from your obviously nationally focused comments; to just accept rapid growth is absurd, especially when it can so easily be dealt a huge blow by reducing immigration down to net zero, if not declaring a moratorium on it until such a time that the country reaches genuine sustainability and is able to absorb more people without negative impacts on our environment, and resource base.

“What is the current growth-at-all-costs regime”

It is the type of government that we have always had in this country, which is so fundamentally hooked into continuous population and economic growth that it is just completely unable to even entertain a suggestion that growth should be slowed or halted for a while, let alone us reaching a steady state economy and population.

This can’t be more obvious than in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, etc, all of which have dire water problems… and all of which continue to have rapid growth in population, fully encouraged by just the same state governments that are telling all their citizens to use less water!!

This situation is just stonkering!!

Further to my last post…

“The simplicity in saying the answer is in stopping growth…”

The bull, I have never implied that THE answer is stopping growth. It is one factor, albeit the single biggest factor in the Australian situation.

Consider I=PAT (kindly brought to our attention by freediver), where I is impact on environment, resource base and quality of life, P is population, A is affluence or per-capita consumption and T is technology or efficiency of resource usage.

I should also point out that ‘growth’ has two very different components; expansion and technological advance. The first component has become highly undesirable if we are to reach sustainability, whereas the second component is highly desirable.

The trouble is the two are seldom differentiated, which is very confusing for all.

Ludwig

I'm with you over your concerns with increasing Australia's population. Bumping up population figures is foolhardy indeed given the dire situation of the environment and the destruction of the ecolology by the human footprint.

While gas is also a pollutant, I understand that gas emits only half the carbon based emissions compared to coal. Given the amount of gas we have, I am at a loss as to why this fuel has not been seriously considered for debate, at least for an interim period to mitigate our current pollution.

The latest annual figures for coal in the National Pollutant Inventory (www.npi.gov.au) reveals that 88 coal facilities reported to the NPI. The total amount of all pollutants emitted during 04-05:

........................88 facilities = 97,600,319 kgs

The latest annual figures for 3 uranium mines reveals the total pollutants emitted for 04-05:

........................3 facilities = 6,100,125 kgs

Radioactive emissions are not included.

Most of the pollutants are carbon based - a few, non-carbon based, however, all are hazardous.

A quick calculation to achieve an average for each facility reveals that uranium mining is emitting almost double the pollutant emissions, per facility, than the coal industry.

Average emissions for Coal = 1,109,094 kgs per facility

Average emissions for Uranium = 2,033,375 kgs per facility

For governments to declare that we must have nuclear energy "clean and green", to reduce our carbon based emissions, wins the medal of the century for spin and deception.

There are many new uranium tenements with companies eargerly waiting for the green light, to commence operations!

In addition, I believe there are already some 100 million tonnes of radioactive tailings to dispose of. Additional tailings have been dumped in an aquifer with no remediation. It's mind boggling to think that we may proceed down the dead end path of nuclear energy!

We've plenty of sunshine - let's get serious about solar.

Ludwig: Australia’s overall population growth is about what… 0.8 per cent, per year. That is NOT rapid growth. Sure we need to get people back to living in country towns, and out of Sydney etc, but that is a new subject. Yet our demand for power is going through the roof, driven by demand from industry and general economic growth and prosperity.

Freediver: Build or Tax let me see… If I where a politician what would I do? I would build… because Tax is BAD.
My electricity bill is about $600 per year, gas another $500, petrol another $1,500. Lets assume you can introduce a ‘Green Tax’ at say 50%, I won’t like it, but it will not change how I live. I just can’t see that becoming a reality, no politician or political party would go for that level of Tax and survive an election. It may effect some usage for some people, but I can’t see it happening to the extent needed to avoid an alternative to more Coal fired power stations.

I’ll put my money on building more power stations of some description and the price being only marginally higher. If Nuclear can be done in a safe, cost effective way “a thorium nuclear reactor” maybe a possibility, if, whenever, proven: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348 (Freethinker), I’ll put my money on that, as a political bet for what will happen, rather than what should or could happen.

I’m unsure how much Thorium we have in Australia or the World for that matter. I assume it is more abundant than Uranium, if that is the case, once proven, it just needs to be sold as new safe “Thorium Power” with a nice community message and a bright logo.

As for Wind Farms, just about every place I go in the country, I see signs on fences, “Wind Farm Free Zone”, not popular in country areas! Noisy & ugly and you need lots of then to power a small town, last I heard was about 100 windmills to power a town of under 20,000 people, in a good windy area.

“1) It's about carbon emissions, not energy consumption”

Freediver, it needs to be about sustainability. Energy consumption is a subset of that. And carbon emissions is a subset of that.

Let’s stop thinking about ‘subsets’ in isolation and start thinking about overall sustainability in a holistic manner! PLEASE!!

The notion of debating energy use or clean vs dirty energy or nuclear vs fossil fuels, without putting it fairly and squarely within the context of sustainability is just crackers!

“2) It depends on how quickly you reduce emissions.”

How quickly do you think we can reduce emissions, or overall energy consumption on the personal level, compared to our current rate of population growth? Even if by some miracle we can reduce them substantially and quickly, how long do you think it would be before population growth cancelled out the gains?

This is what I said on another thread; “Even if we are hugely successful in addressing the per-capita resource-consumption aspect, to the point of reducing it by say 25%, and the population increases by 33%, then we have gained nothing. With the current mindset of our political masters, the population is set to increase by an amount that will cancel out and completely overwhelm even the best improvements in the average personal footprint, and in a pretty short timeframe, after which it will of course just keep on increasing.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5315#66383

Continued

Dickie: My original post was based on natural gas being abundantly available and reasonably cheap, and reasonably low carbon pollutant. So why, do we not use a lot more of it, to power electrical power stations?

I still don’t have that answer.

Nor I, Thebull. Methinks it has something to do with our "Masters" ulterior motives.

By the way, bull, Esperance in WA has had windpower for some time. About 16,000 population - unsure how many turbines which supports a gas supply of energy and supplying 22% of wind energy for that coastal town.

I've yet to hear of any objections to the turbines - not even during the public assessment period. Apparently housing development occurred near the turbines after installation and the real estate prices have increased, similar to that in other sections of Esperance.

I suspect there are a lot of negative myths surrounding wind turbines, however, I wonder why we are not considering off-shore windpower (like Germany) where there would be minimal impact on community amenities and few negative cosmetic effects.

The reason that gas comes second to coal is because gas is more readily converted to liquid fuel than coal. Unless biofuel technology advances greatly, liquid fuels derived from coal and natural gas will be the most viable alternatives. The GHG emissions are a point of contention, with recent NREL research suggesting twice the emissions for fuel synthesised from coal than from oil derived fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process

I am curious why thebull wants to go nuclear. Perseus spoke of the potential for technological advances to solve problems quickly and at much lower cost, comparing computing dinosaurs with modern $1000 laptops, and citing the analogy as a good reason for inaction on climate change. So why not use similar reasoning for the nuclear option? Generation IV nuclear reactors are scheduled for testing between 2010 and 2030.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip77.htm

Has anyone else noticed how some are so keen to have global warming analysed to the nth degree, then still call for further evidence before taking any action, yet seem childishly keen to have Australia dotted with CSIRAC's when that $1000 laptop could be so close at hand?

“I fail to see the logic here.”

Freediver I explained myself in the paragraph following that statement.

“Solving global warming within one generation will not necessarily lead to continued economic growth - most economists predict a slight decline in economic growth.”

Most economists predict a slight decline in the rate of growth freediver. So they are predicting a continuation of economic growth.

“It isn't based on that perception at all.”

Really? I wonder what Howard or Costello or Rudd or Iemma or Bracks or Beatty thing of that? All of these illustrious leaders would have no qualms at all about stacking in more people if there was any chance at all of them being supported by the current infrastructure or resource and service provision. Just look at the water situation in our cities, or the health debacle in Queensland. Neither of these have even slightly slowed the rate of population growth into affected areas.

“If that did happen, things could get much worse, very quickly.”

Fair enough. I wouldn’t really argue that increased profligacy is a good thing.

“You are giving me mixed messages I think.”

Well I certainly don’t understand that.

dickie,
further up you compared coal facility pollution vs uranium facility pollution and have concluded that uranium mining produces double that of coal.
Is it not possible that the 3 mine policy means these mines are big, certainly in relation to the "average" coal mine. How about you compare to three equivalent sized coal mines.

In denouncing the green credentials of nuclear through your conclusion, have you taken into account the amount of power obtained per kilo of waste from both coal and Uranium. Maybe Uranium mines potentialy produce 3x power for 2x waste(if 2x is actually the case). Still would be of net environmental benefit.

I'll bite Fester

How will Generation 1V nuke reactors reduce GHG emissions?

Are they the reactors being designed to separate the plutonium substance, thereby safeguarding against nuclear terrorism?

If so, it still doesn't address the issue of the very pollutant operations of uranium mining.

Mining of uranium emits huge amounts of carbon based pollutants and radioactive substances such as radium-226 (1622 years half-life) and its daughter product of radon 222.

All carbon based fossil fuel pollutants are released from the mining of uranium.

And we haven't even addressed the massive emissions from the remaining metal ore industry.

Given there is a lag of some 80 years (debatable) for atmospheric CO2's damage to become apparent, we need to reduce emissions now, not increase them, wouldn't you agree?

Rojo

I was unable to find figures for tonnage throughput and waste. Not living near "coal" country, I am not au fait with that industry's operations.

However, your advice fails to allay my concerns, given that our current exports of uranium are only about 1% and we already have 100 million tonnes of radioactive waste from tailings - I believe that is mainly from 2 mines only.

Since we are flush with uranium and tenements are plentiful, the increase in uranium mining will be devastating for the environment.

Already one mine in SA is the biggest user of underground water in the southern hemisphere; the biggest electricity user in the state and taking millions of litres of water daily from the Great Artesian Basin and expanding.

How anyone can purport that nuclear is clean has me completely and utterly flabbergasted.

Many of us are already aware of the radioactive pollution of the North and Irish sea - a legacy of Sellafield and the contamination caused by La Hague (France) which is reported to dump an estimated 230 million litres of radioactive waste into the Atlantic each year.

There have been major non-conformances within the Australian uranium industry and in 2005, one operator was prosecuted (twice). Fines of $150,000 and $82,500 were imposed.

In fact Ian MacFarlane, in 2004, referring to that uranium company, stated that "...... have developed a culture of complacency".

I trust that the people of this nation are not as complacent and will perform extensive research into this proposal to enable them to make an informed decision rather than accepting the current spin as gospel.

However, the question is what to do in the meantime, whilst the Neros fiddle and Oz is burning? If nuclear is a reality then twenty years is a long time to wait before "mitigating" the damage already done if we don't pull our heads in now and take action!

Whilst I am inclined to share Ludwig's concern that adoption of measures to increase efficiency may only serve to encourage the fools currently in control of our destiny to add to our population, I, nevertheless, think we should still support measures that would genuinely increase energy efficiency.

The mess created by our political leaders who recklessly encouraged population growth, in spite of the considered warnings of the likes of Paul Ehrlich since at least 1968, will have to be tackled on many fronts.

---

Regarding the 'bumping off people' argument, if we continue to allow human numbers to grow well beyond what this planet is capable of supporting, then I fail to see how hundreds of millions, if not billions, will not die horribly in future conflicts to divide up scarce natural resources. This happens to other species who overshoot the carrying capacity of their environment and there is no reason to assume that it can't happen to humans as well.

If we want to prevent such a horrific scenario becoming reality, we must do our utmost now to stop any further growth in human numbers.

(toBeContinued)

(continuedFromAbove)

thebull (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=350#6230),

Why do you consider 0.8% annual population growth NOT to be rapid population growth? In any case the figures could be over 200,000 per year or 1% if we add in factors as cross-Tasman migration and the abuse of our tertiary migration system to facilitate migration.

In fact any substantial growth is too rapid if we have already exceed the carrying capacity of this continent. The Courier Mail newspaper in Brisbane, which paradoxically does its utmost to promote the maximum possible population growth has front page stories all the time of the chaos that our relentless population growth has caused: the congestion on the road, the housing shortages, the threats of power blackouts, the water crisis and the threatened destruction of rural communities around Wyaralong and in the Mary River Valley that building dams in order to 'solve' this crisis demands.

Even if we accept the figure of 0.7%, (140,000 PA) this means that after less than 14 years years on average, every community in the country will have to share its resources and spaces with 10% more people. Clearly such a process cannot be continued indefinitely.

If we manage to keep population growth figures down to 'only' 0.7%, then after 100 years our population will have doubled to 40 million, and after 1000 years our population will have increased to 19.8 billion.

In fact population growth has disproportionately affected some parts of the country such as South East Queensland. As an example Queensland's population has doubled from 2 million in 1974 to 4 million in 2005, and in South East Queensland, another 1.25 million are to be crammed in by 2026 according to the South East Queensland Regional Plan.

Dickie

The early nuclear reactors only used about 0.7% of the fuel, so developing breeder reactor designs that use over 90% of the fuel could reduce GHG emissions for nuclear energy to a few percent of present levels. Your GHG comments for current nuclear technology seem to conflict with Dr Switkowski's report, which suggests that emissions are one tenth that of conventional sources.

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/umpner/reports.cfm

My concern with the nuclear option is that Australia could find itself committed to building nuclear power stations that are obsolete by the time they are completed.

dickie, I didn't say clean I said "green" credentials, by which I mean cleaner than coal, not that it is clean.
One tonne of natural Uranium will produce the same as 20000 tonne of black coal. If Australia's ore has 3kg uranium/tonne of ore, or even world standard 1kg/tonne, then between 333 and 1000 tonnes of ore are required to produce that tonne of uranium. That is 20x less material to be mined than coal to produce the same equivalent amount of electricity.
Further, the uranium is seperated from the ore onsite meaning that up to 20000x less material has to be transported. As you know transportation is a large contributer to pollution levels.
You are not specific about which mine you are refering to with regard to water consumption. I'll assume Olympic Dam, which I have read has entitlement to 42 megalitres/day. Plenty of farms exract more than this daily (I do mean each) so it's a claim that may/not be true, but I'm not in Uranium country.
Concerns about safety are absolutely valid. It is of the greatest importance that reactors are safe, and a lot of the safegaurds are why it's power be more expensive than current fossil fuel power.
The tailings cannot contain more dangerous material than existed prior to mining, it's just more accessible. A simple solution is to put it back in the hole and cover it up, just as coal mines rehabilitate their sites.
I too hope the people of Australia make informed decisions, irrespective of spin.

(Apologies to Ludwig: I misread your posts earlier. On closer, reading I see that we are, in fact, in very close agreement, after all. The problem of resources shortage, in particular, energy shortage, must be dealt with every way we possibly can, including, most importantly, the limiting of human numbers demanding those resources.)

---

Anyhow, the real problem we must deal with is the ever diminishing values of the Energy Returned Over Energy Invested. This was argued very well by Alice Friedemann in an article "Peak Oil and the Preservation of knowledge" by Alice Friedemann at http://www.energybulletin.net/18978.html, as I have already mentioned in a post to a discussion on "In defence of industrialisation and mining" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5291#66063

Here are some excerpts:

"At one time, the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROI) for oil was at least 100 to 1. We are reaching the point where the EROI of oil will be 1 and no more drilling will take place. It was while the EROI of oil was high that most of our current infrastructure was built. ...

"Evidence suggests that the EROI of corn ethanol is less than one, which means it takes more energy to make than you get out of it – an energy sink.

"Even if the highest claim of a net energy for ethanol of 1.67 were true, a much greater EROI than .67 is needed to run civilization. The 1 in the 1.67 is needed just to make the ethanol. An EROI of .67 has 150 times less energy than oil when we started building American infrastructure."

Dagget,
thankyou for making me aware of EROI when you did your original post. I had known ethanol net return was poor but didn't know how it compared to others forms of energy production. Bio-diesel with a 3:1 return seems a much better result. As oil approaches an EROI of one (currently about 10) it is no longer worth extracting no matter how valuable it is (unless we have a cheaper energy source with which to do the extraction).
Nuclear at 4 or 5 to 1 isn't particularly flash either when compared to historical energy gain from oil , but I'd still be happy if I could make a 400%+ return on investment.
Hydropower and wind power are excellent at a 10:1 gain, but can they be relied upon. Certainly not possible in all areas.
Solar as it approaches 10:1 will be good but night time and longer nights in winter mean an energy coversion must take place and consequent energy loss. I've read about solar power roof tiles that really are the roof, not just stuck on. The potential of solar power is enormous.

Bull:

"I won’t like it, but it will not change how I live."

Well, petrol prices are already changing how I live. $2600 from your after-tax income each year is quite a lot. If it were to go up to $3900 a year, as per your 50% suggestion, then you would consider alternaitves.

There are two major points you are missing though:

1) They wouldn't all go up by 50%. Some might double, while others might only go up only 20%. This will give you a much stronger incentive to save where it is most effective at reducing emissions

2) Most emissions are hidden from you and are reflected in the cost of items you buy. There will be a much faster response from industry through a few different mechanisms. For example, some industries will grow and some will shrink as consumers change their spending patters. More importantly, industries will change the way they do things. Some changes will occur becuase you buy different products, and soe will occur because the products you buy are made and transported differently.

"I just can’t see that becoming a reality, no politician or political party would go for that level of Tax and survive an election."

You need to keep pointing out to people that their income tax, or some other tax, will go down. If the people are informed of the situation, the politicians will follow suit. I obviously wouldn't expect a politician to try to force this onto the public. However, both Labor and the Greens support the idea and John Howard sounds like he is about to do a backflip on it.

"It may effect some usage for some people, but I can’t see it happening to the extent needed to avoid an alternative to more Coal fired power stations."

If the tax is high enough to make renewables competitive, then there will be a shift to renewables.

"I’ll put my money on building more power stations of some description and the price being only marginally higher. "

If the price is only marginally higher, then you won't need a high tax to make the shift sensible. However, in reality the cost of renewable sources for electricity will be at least 2 to 3 times as high.

"last I heard was about 100 windmills to power a town of under 20,000 people, in a good windy area"

That's about a single cattle farm's worth - not much. A bit of money to grease the wheels and hey presto, we have a wind farm.

Ludwig:

"Let’s stop thinking about ‘subsets’ in isolation and start thinking about overall sustainability in a holistic manner! PLEASE!!"

That's the whole point of a green tax shift.

"How quickly do you think we can reduce emissions"

I would guess that 50% over a decade could be achieved fairly easily with a green tax shift, not that I am an expert or anything. The faster you force the change, the more it will cost.

"Even if by some miracle we can reduce them substantially and quickly, how long do you think it would be before population growth cancelled out the gains?"

It would be very easy for emissions reductions to outpace population growth by a factor of at least two on an indefinite basis. Not that I think we should encourage population growth.

I'm not really sure what your point is with this line of questioning anyway. If you are trying to say that reducing population is a way to reduce consumption, I agree. But a green tax shift would work a lot faster.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html

Another way of putting my point above about EROI this is that it is becoming necessary to divert an ever greater proportion of the available energy into the capturing and storing of the energy itself. And more must be necessarily lost in order to convert the kind of low-grade energy sufficient only for tasks like heating water or cooking into the kind of concentrated high-grade energy necessary to move, cars trucks and trains around. In order to obtain the even higher grade energy necessary to sustain manufacturing processes such as the smelting and forging of metals and welding of metal objects, even more energy will be lost.

Can I suggest that people try the thought I have tried to conduct over and over in my own head ever since I started thinking about renewables and long before the penny of EROI dropped in my mind?

Try to imagine the chemical and physical processes which would be necessary in order to convert the relative trickle of energy to be obtained from wind or solar energy into the form of energy which could be used in order to mine, and extract all the materials necessary to make the solar pannels and wind generators.

How could this be achieved? Could the energy be used as elecricity to create molecules able to store the energy? The obvious example is hydrogen. However, hydrogen is exceptionally difficult to store due to the small size of the molecules and does not contain very large volumes of energy for a given volume in any case. It is hard to imagine many industrial processes being efficiently run in any case with hydrogen alone. A chemical process that could convert carbon atoms into larger hydrocarbon molcules that we find in petroleum would be much more difficult to set up.

(ToBeContinued)

“That's the whole point of a green tax shift.”

Freediver, tax-based incentives to improve efficiency and frugality with energy use do nothing to address the continuously increasing number of consumers in Australia. Therefore, a green tax shift is not in itself a move towards sustainability.

It could be part of a push for sustainability in conjunction with measures implemented to reduce the rate of increase in consumers and approach a stable number. Or it could be just the opposite; part of a means of making us all reduce our consumption so that more people can be squeezed in under the same resource/energy supply mechanisms, as I stated earlier.

At any rate, the whole point is that concentrating on a green tax shift is certainly not a holistic approach to energy or carbon emissions issues.

“I would guess that 50% over a decade could be achieved fairly easily with a green tax shift…”

Wow, wouldn’t it be great if we could achieve that sort of reduction. But pigs will fly first! I’d say that even with very strong tax-based disincentives and even perhaps quotas and strong penalties for those who abuse them, we would not get anywhere near 25% reduction in ten years.

If population growth continues at the current rate for the next ten years, which it almost certainly will, then even with a 25% per-capita reduction, the real reduction would be only about 13%. And unless we had very significant gains as well in other areas of resource consumption, waste production and environmental impact, the overall effect of this population increase would be highly negative, and highly anti-green.

So even if a green tax shift is successful in reducing carbon emissions, it may well actually worsen things in other areas of the green agenda, if it is addressed in isolation from the continuous growth factor.

“If you are trying to say that reducing population is a way to reduce consumption, I agree.”

I have never suggested that we go for a reduction in population. But I’m pleased that you, and Daggett, agree in principle.

Fester

You express concern over "my" figures which appear to conflict with those of Dr Switkowski's.

The figures I stated are those released by the Federal government, through the DEH's NPI submission of annual figures on its website. They were accurately assessed before I posted them to this thread and therein lies the problem.

Mr Switkowski stated in his report: "It will be up to the Australian community to debate the issues raised in the review." This is not so easy when our government relays conflicting figures to the public.

He advises that nuclear power will reduce GHG by 8 - 17% by 2050, with an overall reduction of 60% for GHG, however, he also advised that Australia's energy needs will have doubled by 2050. I see no big deal in the puny 8-17% mitigation of GHG by 25 nuclear reactors as a result of perhaps some 40 additional uranium mines.

There are 443 reactors worldwide supplying only 15% of the world's energy needs. America has more reactors (103)than any other nation yet they are the biggest polluters on the planet.

If the coal industry is able to reduce its GHGs to almost zero, (by pollution prevention control) then there may be some accuracy in his predictions. My concern is that there are many other large sources of GHG being emitted such as within the metal ore industry.

It is interesting that little reference has been made to other sources which cause considerable environmental destruction. Self-regulation of these industries has achieved little in the mitigation of GHG where companies release massive uncontrolled fossil fuel emissions without enforcement for pollution management.

The federal government's product stewardship (oil) where industries are rewarded to burn waste oil as a fuel requires immediate review. This practice is also unregulated where dehydrated waste oil emits extremely dangerous and pollutant releases of uncontrolled fossil fuel substances and other damaging chemicals.

The current economic rationale of our governments in their attempts to mitigate GHG, seriously conflicts with my degree of common sense

(ContinuedFromAbove (F@#c* these stupid OLO limits))

The more difficult and complex the process, the more energy must necessarily be wasted at each step.

And without these losses necessarily entailed in the capturing and storing of energy in the more highly concentrated forms, I don't see how the manufacturing of solar panels or wind power generators can be achieved from solar and wind power alone.

So either we manufacture them with energy from fossil fuels or we divert a huge proportion of the energy captured by these devices into manufacturing more of these devices.

The former is unsustainable in the longer term, whilst if we adopt the latter approach it is not entirely clear to me that much energy, if any energy at all, wil be left over.

This could mean that we simply have to find ways to run our civilisation with much less energy than the quantities that we have become used to in the last two hundred years. It is not even clear to me if, at that, we can sustain the world's current population of 6.5 billion.

---

Freediver, you wrote: "It would be very easy for emissions reductions to outpace population growth by a factor of at least two on an indefinite basis."

That would seem to be extremely optimistic, even for any significant finite period of time, let alone into the indefinite future.

At least we seem to be in agreement in regard to most other questions including, in spite of the above statement, opposition to population growth.

Dickie

My guess is that your nuclear GHG emission estimate comes from flawed research.(Unfortunately dodgy research often gets periodically resurrected if it suits someones agenda.) A summary of nuclear GHG emissions can be found here:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/co2&nfc.htm

This EROI website compares photovoltaics(2-10) favourably with coal(9), so Daggett's concerns may be unfounded:

http://www.eroei.com/content/view/55/54/

The following site outlines the large number of PV technologies being developed, and suggests PV EROI's of up to 30:

http://libraryoflibrary.com/E_n_c_p_d_Solar_cell.html

Alternative energy sources wont be developed solely on the basis of satisfying an agenda. They will be developed on the basis of what works well.

Fester

Your claim that my figures are dodgy reveals a poster who is rather presumptious and far too biased to access the officially documented emissions' reports to confirm that my figures are accurate.

To quote an agency such as the World Nuclear Association is hardly credible since blind Fred knows what WNA's agenda is. In addition, your thread referred only to methane and failed to mention the very damaging results of CO, NOx,PM,VOC which also includes large emissions of PAHs and we haven't yet touched on the heavy metals and radioactive gases contained in the mining of uranium.

Atmospheric CO also elevates methane and ozone before converting to CO2. I would suggest that your recommended paper is flawed and extremely selective.

Therefore, I shall again supply you with the Australian federal government's pollutant emissions website - www.npi.gov.au.

If you remain convinced that the figures are dodgy then I suggest you take that up with Mr Switkowski.

I have noticed that there is some discussion about some future energy sources but how about widen the view.

come up with a good list and then lets see.
Green tax
carbon tax

lets just tax the people out of existance is the greens plans.

Lets solve the problem with good solutions.

If you cannot find a good solution for energy replacement then look harder.

We have been told how bad nuclear is you know chernobel close enough
but as i saw on a doco last night have found that in terms of hiroshima it was not all bad news.
I know this will hit hard with those greens but we should not discount just because of an accident.

Lets really look to solve this and put up a real solution that is feasable and will work well.

I am quite happy for you all send info to me about different sources.
so what have you to loss, nothing.
If i wasnt seriously interested in this and many issues i would not bother asking for you to email, the question is how serious are you.

email: swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Dickie

Could you give a specific link to back up your claims please? It might also help if you quantify things. For example, you might like to quote sources which quantify the emissions from various types of power generation. For example, this link from the University of Wollongong gives a very favourable comparison of nuclear with coal, and quotes reseach that the total radiation from nuclear is less than one third that of coal.

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/reactors_nuc_v_coal.html

I think it better to let the data speak for you. Finding viable solutions is more important than personal agendas.

Fester

My figures were not a comparison between nuclear reactor emissions and the coal industry, as you well know.

Once again, you fail to make any sense. Your recommended thread compares nuclear reactor emissions to hydro-electric, coal, gas, biomass and solar.

How interesting that the good professor's emissions report (compliments of the Nuclear Energy Institute), completely failed to include the emissions of CO2, heavy metals and radioactive substances, from uranium mining in relation to the whole nuclear energy cycle. However, he was quick to point out the radioactive emissions from the coal industry.

Your insistence in attacking the man has grown rather tedious. You clearly are not capable of accessing the NPI website, or you have and are not capable of understanding the science of atmospheric carbon-based chemicals.

As well, you appear to be under the illusion that I support the mining of coal!?

Your inane sophistry reveals that you haven't the foggiest idea of what I am talking about and since you refuse to take your hand off it, I shall not waste my valuable time in responding to your posts in the future.

OK
Fossil fuels are running out, dirty and old fashioned.
Solar is modern but just not up to speed. Solar panels also use up lots of energy to manufacture.
Cars and light vehicles can go electric, and would already be doing so if not for the greed of Oil companies.
Aircraft need to run on something.
Australia’s population may be too high, but that is not going to change any time soon.
The World’s population may well be totally out of control, but that is not going to change without a pandemic, even that would only slow the growth.
A large amount of the World’s population is moving from 3rd world poverty to 2nd or even 1st world prosperity within one or two generations.
Bushfires create more pollution than coal fired power station however, we still need to cut total pollution not add to it.
Industry will keep consuming power based on demand and Aust and the World have lots and lots of demand.
Green Tax, can fix it all, at least that’s what some say OR Tax will do little to deter total power demand without a population cut.
Natural gas is OK but not great because it still pollutes, just a little less than Coal.
Nuclear is the devils work, no matter what, it just is. Even clean new generation reactors are just bad, bad things, besides they and are NUCLEAR.
With a side effect that you can make the bomb from the left overs.
Thorium Nuclear Reactors are not ready and considered unproven, even though they have been used and tested, besides they are still not totally clear, just cleaner.

My guess is we (Aust) will Go Nuclear, hopefully someone will be bright enough to pick the right version / style of reactors before we go too far down that road. We will also end up with a carbon or green tax or something like it and soon.

On the bright side, we may run out of water first, then we won’t have to worry about power, we will be busy looking for something to drink.

Please people. Stop the talk about taxes. I am a tax accountant and my life is complex enough as it is!

Introducing or raising taxes will not have a significant impact, particularly on energy consumption. There are significant taxes on fuel as it is (yes people, excise is just another name for a tax), and whilst there might be some shift towards smaller cars and bicycles, there are still plenty of 4WD's getting around (albeit that there are some people out in this neck of the woods that actually need them). The point is that our society is affluent enough to adjust other areas of their life to compensate for something that they see as a necessity.

The only answer to effectively reduce power use (or water use), is to regulate and impose restrictions. You'll find that if people know that once the meter hits a certain level that the flow will be cut off, then they'll be suprising innovative in their attempts to conserve both energy and water. Where I grew up, the house was run on rainwater only (on 14 inches of rain a year) and we have never had to buy water in 100 years of living in that house. Yes, there is still a twin tub, there is only a bath and everyone shares the water (dirtiest goes last!), there is a brick in the cistern of the toilet so it doesnt fill up to far, you get the story.... The same house is well laid out and heavily insulated, so rarely uses an airconditioner, and we always just wore an extra couple of layers of clothing in winter, so power use was pretty low (and no such thing as a clothes dryer!). If everyone is IMMINENTLY faced with a resticted supply, then they will have true incentive to manage their usage of our finite resources. The way things are, there is not enough proximity to the problem to have an effect on most people.

Dickie

I would like to understand what point you are trying to make. That is why I asked for a link. I thought that the links I provided were quite objective, and do give quantified comparisons. Nuclear power is rightly a very emotive topic, but that is all the more reason to try and be objective. So could you please provide a link to support your argument.

"there are still plenty of 4WD's getting around"

That doesn't mean that the taxes ar not having a significant effect. The current taxes don't even cover the cost of building and maintaining the roads for people to drive on.

"Stop the talk about taxes. I am a tax accountant and my life is complex enough as it is!"

Hope that was a joke.

"The point is that our society is affluent enough to adjust other areas of their life to compensate for something that they see as a necessity. "

But they don't see it as a necessity.

If we all advised our current crop of dim-witted politicians (all brands) that we would vote only for those who put a population policy in place which would gradually reduce our population to its sustainable level of about 13 million, there would no need for a discussion of this kind.

A total and immediate cessation of immigration of any kind is the first step.

Until we stabilise our population at a realistic level, worrying about energy will continue to be like peeing into the wind.

Don't think that science will solve the problem. Politicians will not spend our money on ANYTHING that will solve the problem.

We have already reached crisis point with water, yet the political nutters who are supposed to be running the country brought in another 140,000 people in 2006.

Freediver, I was not joking about using taxes to curb usage. Our tax system is already among the most complex in the world - I see no point in making it worse. Taxes to try to curb alcohol and tobacco use have had little effect - enough people see them as a necessity. It is the same with fuel and it will be the same with electricity and water. Soft-skinned city-slickers would have a hell of a time doing without their airconditioned homes and offices, and will pay more to keep these running, rather than turn them off, to say nothing about the power used by their big-screen tvs and entertainment systems. This is what I mean about these things being a necessity. They will still see it as a necessity to each have a short shower, rather than sharing a shallow bath (the payoff for being last and having the dirtiest water is that you get a slightly deep bath after its been topped up with hot water a few times). People will find a way to pay for this. My suggestion is to limit the actual supply to each house over a month or quarter. Yes, hard to put into practice, but it is the only way to have the desired impact, while still being fair to those in our community that are not as well off financially.

I agree with you that technically these things described are not necessities, as I can live without them (although I would argue that it is better for me to water my lawn and trees to create a cool environment around my home, that vastly reduces the need for additional cooling in summer). However the practical realities are that many people DO see these as essential and therefore will find a way to pay for them.

"Our tax system is already among the most complex in the world - I see no point in making it worse. "

Well economists do. There is definitely a point - it is the cheapest way to reduce emissions.

"Taxes to try to curb alcohol and tobacco use have had little effect - enough people see them as a necessity. "

That's because they are drugs. The high taxes can be justified because it is a good way to raise revenue, even if they don't reduce consumption. C02 emissions are not a drug.

"It is the same with fuel "

Says who? Not the economists, that's for sure.

"Soft-skinned city-slickers would have a hell of a time doing without their airconditioned homes and offices, and will pay more to keep these running,"

Air conditioning is not the same thign as greenhouse emissions. If taxed enough, those air conditions will be power by renewables.

"This is what I mean about these things being a necessity. "

So, they won't go down. Plenty of other sources of carbon emissions will go down.

"My suggestion is to limit the actual supply to each house over a month or quarter. "

You think that would be less complicated? It would harm the economy far more than a taxation scheme, for a given emissions reduction.

"However the practical realities are that many people DO see these as essential"

Sure, but they don't see greenhouse emissions as essential. There are plenty of ways to supply those things without emissions, or with far fewer.

The fact is, the connections between goods, services and emissions is very complex. Taxation is the simplest and most effective way to respond.

"Air conditioning is not the same thign as greenhouse emissions. If taxed enough, those air conditions will be power by renewables."

Freediver, I disagree. As it stands there is not enough capacity to use renewables to supply our demand. Yes, over time there might be, but we need to focus on reducing our usage full-stop. There is great opposition to wind-farms in many areas where they are viable (esperance is an exception to this, as someone has pointed out), solar is not currently effective (uses more energy to produce then it captures in a lifetime), and the greens prefer carbon emmissions over flooding valleys for hydro power (I'll concede that the water crises would cause problems for this at the moment anyway). Renewables should be supported, I have no problem with that. I do think though that a subsidy program is more effective and more flexible than a tax system. But until renewables are developed to the stage that they can supply sufficient energy for our needs, then we need to focus on reducing the need. That's where restrictions come into play. It can be self-monitored, with financial penalty for over-use, although you will have more of an impact if people knew that the tap was going to be turned off, so to speak. Regular over-use offenders can be monitored more closely by meter-readers, who can then come good on the threat of no more for that period. Instant incentive to actually reduce consumption. The same applies for water use.

You raised some interesting points so I have added two sections to the FAQ for you.

"Renewables should be supported, I have no problem with that. I do think though that a subsidy program is more effective and more flexible than a tax system."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q5

But until renewables are developed to the stage that they can supply sufficient energy for our needs, then we need to focus on reducing the need.

True, however, the choice between the two options should be dictated by rational economics. In terms of the technology, renewables can supply however much you want and are unlikely to come down in price significantly. They are a mature technology. The marginal price for renewables goes up with the % of supply they provide.

"That's where restrictions come into play."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q6