Putting a price on carbon to encourage emission reduction is all good and well as long as there is an alternative.

So much of the economy is energy dependent that energy demand growth outstrips the growth of the renewable sector. The "renewable" options are so expensive and unpredictable, that the effect of a price on carbon is more likely to raise prices than reduce emissions.

As nuclear power is statistically the safest energy source on earth, it is time for Julia Gillard to make a real decision for a change and tell the Greens that they can't have their cake and eat it too, and that emission reduction is not possible without real alternatives available today.

Dear SM,

As you well know Australia has a variety of
alternative energy production options such
as wind, solar, and many others. And the purpose
of Gillard's Committee is to discuss ways and means
of forcing the polluting industries to seek alternative
means of energy production instead of paying some form
of penalty. The so called carbon price - is only one
option, and I'm sure that the Committee made up of
Greens, Independents, Labor, (and unfortunately no
Coalition members - to maintain a balance of opinion -
which they claim to be their job in oppositon) may
well reach a variety of alternative conclusions.
Not necessarily attacks - despite what the Coalition
are claiming.

Many small countries who do not have the many options of
the large Australian continent, have no other choice but
to consider nuclear power with all its hazards of
disposing toxic waste and nuclear accidents.

Nuclear power in Australia would require the disposal of
nuclear waste. The Australian continent is perforated
with under-ground aquafers which would carry the waste
in underground water supplies. Australia has a shortage of
water and eventually may have to totally rely on underground
water storage - which with nuclear waste storage would
become poisonous. That is why scientists and clear thinking
people recommend against nuclear power stations in Australia.

Foxy, that post is beneath you.

Of all people, you, as a trained researcher, either know, or should know that all those who have fallen for the rhetoric, & built large installations in alternate energy are now in trouble, & backing away from it as quickly as possible. Spain & Germany leap to mind as those bitten, & now shy of wind wave & sunlight.

It is only Hydro that actually works, & even where we have the topography to use the technology, greens fight like hell to stop it.

It really is time to ignore the noisy wheels, & do something intelligent.

Coal is pretty intelligent, it gives us free plant food, & nuclear may be. Years ago, when the CSIRO was still of some value, they came up with a vitreous system that rendered it safe, but didn't suit the greenies. But those fairy power systems are as much use as the Australian Democrats fairies were, not much.

it is a well known...but suppressed science
that magnets can drive machinery...
to wit generate electicity for only the cost of the magnets

google you-tube..and watch these amasing machines working
no wind neded
no tides
no uranium
etc etc

i have sent the info to kevin julia
read it..clearly he didnt bother

ask him about ..the other ideas.. i sent him
as-well..[re the joe fuel-cell...conversion so cars..[internal combustion moters..can run on water...
for less than the cost of a new battery

the idea to kevin was we rent them to people

see also the ideas re
oh/heck whats the use
i went through this with kevin

you are gioing to be just the same

but chew on this
nukes..need govt subsidy
so too wind/solar-cells

remember that i told ol kevi
the two biggest poluters are methane[from home composting]

[one compust bin equals a cow]
[so much for vegan..moral superority

and the cleaner..for those heavilly subsidised solar cells
only elites can aford to buy...is cleaned with a solvent...

200 times more destructive than carbon

less we forget its the bankers..
and the traders who want the income from carbon-credits

and who will line-up for the govt hand-outs
to build up their big ...NEW-industries in china

just like that steel-mill shut-down in uk[gaining a green[gred]/credit
they spent on a new steel/plant in india
much bigger/thus much more poluting
and the uk lost 1500 jobs

note re the..green..jobs/joke
see spain..they went green bigtime

now look at their debt..and unemployment-rate..
now the green jobs are GONE

wake up julia
go read the links i sent to kevin

I support Nuclear power.
My party does not, yet.
It will sooner the better.
Who of us, come be honest, is not aware the greens will not support it.
IF Abbott was in power today he too may want it as much as I and hasbeen do, but he like Gillard can do nothing now.
We will get it and soon, but tying the ETS to it is well what is it?
It is not up for discussion conservatives have not agreed to those talks and it while a must is going to have to wait.
Unless Abbott wants to help put it in place it is not happening.

Why can't JG be serious about emission reduction while at the same time dismissing nuclear power?

SM's statement is nothing but emotive. Why replace one problem with another when it is well known nuclear power is finite, there is a huge issue with waste, and Chernobyl demonstrates what can happen in the event of a nuclear accident (or war).

Coal power would not be the problem it is if the world were not overpopulated. More people = more pollution and pressure on resources. Renewable energy may not fix the problem entirely especially in relation to baseload power but it certainly can go a long way in reducing emissions.