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!