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.

For me, I'd first insist we try to maximize our use of renewables first, and ask the nuclear question when it is absolutely clear that there are gaps renewables just aren't filling.

Renewables are actually cheaper and just as predictable as Nuclear power, and with a much simpler process of construction and deconstruction of various processes.

Nuclear Power is considered 'Green' simply because the fuel can be mined at a slower rate than other fuel-dependent power sources, and the power generation itself only emits steam from water tanks (thus cutting carbon emissions partly out of the mining process, and entirely out of the power-generation phase.

The problem with safe Nuclear power is that it is much more expensive and difficult to designate locations for the processes, construct, maintain and eventually deconstruct.
Every plant requires the constructions of its own custom parts, and when complete, needs constant human management.

Compared to portable mass-produced stand-alone and automated renewable power units with near or complete absence of moving parts and requiring minimal assembly costs, there simply isn't a contest in terms of cost-efficiency and money saving.

The only absolute advantage is that a single nuclear plant can fully substantiate base-load requirements (so long as a good supply of isotopes are handy).
Solar, on the other hand, would need to collect additional power and store it to live off at night, and similar for wind when its not windy.

In short, we would simply outfit any structure that does not have a critical need of full time power input and can operate on renewable reserves (houses, offices, almost every commercial facility, schools, and do some gauge work and feasibility studies on substantiating the rest of the power (which is really, only hospitals, emergency-response, and vital communications, and some labs- things where a power failure would actually be dangerous- with anyone else having the option to pay).

Dear Hasbeen,

It is because I am a researcher that I'm
for alternative sources of energy. May I
humbly suggest that you have a read of the
following website:

http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-energy/

As the article states, "There is only a finite
amount of uranium on this planet and nuclear
reactors also produce a by-product other than
the power they generate, toxic harmful waste that
must be stored indefinitely..."

Miracles don't happen over night - but with enough
persistence - countries will eventually get things
right. Science and innovation is about trial and error.

Other power may be used even new ones found but we will join a great deal of the world in using it.
I am not impressed with the attempt to link ETS or such to nuclear it is a dead end road and highlights throwing mud has become a fashion.
No way western nuclear power stations can be compared to that Russian one , 4 mile Island or any such nightmare.
Our very sun is nuclear powered and we have more to fear from our inability to live with one another than modern nuclear stations

Gillard cannot possibly be serious about meaningful emissions reductions while she continues to pander to rapid population growth and an economic system based on continuous growth.

She has talked a down a big Australia, but by all indications she’s going to allow us to keep growing rapidly until we have a much bigger population anyway, just perhaps not quite as big as Rudd would have liked….although she’s done nothing yet to steer us away from Rudd’s big Australia, and there is no sign of her doing anything meaningful in the near future or at any point in the future.

Of course, continuous rapid population growth makes it a whole lot harder to wean ourselves off of our dependency on oil and to reduce emissions, no matter which alternative energy source or combination of sources we might use.

When Gillard starts seriously talking about winding back immigration to a much lower level and heading for a stable population that is not too much higher than the current level, then we will be able to take her seriously when she talks about emission reductions.

But until then, any rhetoric from her or her government about climate change or alternative energy sources amounts to nothing more than silly-bugger politics!

I was taught many years ago that forests were causing a cooling effect, and was an important vehicle for causing rain, unfortunately no government has thought enought to ban the destruction of clearing our forests, instead of building in areas which are sparce of vegetation. Developers choose a well vegetated area, then clear it and build or the buy an area that has been cleared for cultivation, and when the owner is old and wants to retire, it is grabbed for housing. The Government should put a stop to this. There is no reason - if we want regular rainfall and presumably cooler weather, stop the clearing. There must be thousands of hectares of forest cleared every month, probably unnecessarly. I would want to know more about the long time effects of nuclear power and the residue, how long is it in a dangerous condition?

You have to remember that our state governments are exporting our coal hand over fist, and think it's a wonderful thing. They are giving the other countries of the world the power to cause all that smog and other ill effects of polution. Also remember that our government is exporting not only uranium, but all the other resources that we have and destroying our own manufacturing industries with all those manufactured goods we get with the required reciprocal trade which has been the goods we had been manufacturing before those exports began. WE would probably be better using the uranium ourselves if it is really safe to do so, because it seems to be part of our government (by past history), to demand a value of any thing from 10% to less than 30% for our exports.

Seems to me it is almost impossible for any government and color to bring in change.
If we read this thread I have questions.
I want and believe in Nuclear power, if some way Gillard funded it surely it would be called a big new tax?
Ludwig ,a man who wants the best for our future truly is blind to the fact industry and both party's want a big Australia.
It mate is not right but within 3 years we will have more imported labour than ever before and a still growing population, no matter who rules us.
I want more plantation forests , to cut down and use ,we need the wood, but what has it got to do with nuclear power.
We must every day,focus on new ways to keep our planet healthy this, nuclear power would not only cut our emissions but contribute to a cut in world levels, however Gillard and Abbott only by working together can change this.
Abbott refuses to enter the tent spoiling is his tactics not compromise.

<< Ludwig …. truly is blind to the fact industry and both party's want a big Australia. >>

Belly, there can’t be anything more obvious in the universe than the fact that both big parties want continuous high population growth. Even the Greens aren’t too concerned about it… and it should of course be one of their most fundamental concerns.

But surely there is hope. Gillard has poo-pooed Rudd’s big Australia. Bligh has expressed a lot of concern about population in southeast Qld, and before her Bob Carr did the same regarding Sydney when he was Premier of NSW. We’ve had Tim Flannery and others talking about this for years and most recently, Dick Smith.

Surely it is just a matter of time before an opposition party, at either federal or state level can see that the way for them to win power is to take a platform of population stabilisation and sustainability to an election. The time is right for this paradigm shift to get huge support from the general community.

As for nuclear power, I don’t like it. One of the main reasons is that if the current mindset remains in place, it would just facilitate continuous growth.

But if we were to change our mindset and have a stable population – genuine sustainability paradigm guaranteed, then I might just be able to support a nuclear future in this country.

You can buy the solar panel chips off the internet and assemble them yourself.Apparently you can make a solar panel for about $200.Solar technology is in it's infancy.The technology has to get better.

<<<But surely there is hope. Gillard has poo-pooed Rudd’s big Australia>>>

I suspect that Gillard’s stance on “Rudds big Australia” ,as with her stance on the ETS/carbon tax , as with her stance on off shore processing, were all designed to dampen down potentially damaging issues, more than any real commitment to principle or desire to follow through.

And it worked –it worked real well.

Now she’s safely ensconced in the lodge she and her party can revert form (or lack of form).

Horus as you know it was part of the deal with independents and the greens to put ETS or what ever eventuates on the table.
During those negotiations Mr Tony Abbott said his side was talking to all about, what to do with our emissions.
At best the inference Gillard was not forced to review her stance is uninformed.
The very election result, near defeat, came because of a both gutless and unwise back down by Rudd/Gillard.
I truly, as I have said, do not trust Gillard she may have been the reason we lost direction on ETS and the DD, but using her mind change this way only convinces the anti climate change or welded on anti Labor mob.
Fact is it seems given polls say over 60% of voters want it more votes could be won by entering the discussions than trying to convince us changed out comes after the hung Parliament equal a back down.

Power generators are not the problem, as it is the 'power users' that are the problem. Us!

Now placing a tax on carbon will most certainly result in us, the consumer of power paying a higher price, which by the way may well result in less power being consumed as we will have no more money to spend, therefore, we will either use less, or go without something else to pay for our increased power bills.

We have vast areas of 'unpopulated land' to which we could establish nuclear plants that should be of little worry to anyone.

I have also heard of magnets generating power, however, my thoughts are to introduce nuclear and let future generations develop new forms of 'unknown' power in future years to come.

After all, if we cut back on power generation, we also run the risk of limiting progress, which may result in future generations having no chance to develop future power sources.

Cutting back is not the right option, especially if we wish to offer future generations the same opportunities we enjoyed throughout our life times.

I say nuclear power is a given.

Every source of energy should be exploited depending on particular circumstances in different areas including nuclear power. We have a solar advantage so perhaps we should look at that more here, or perhaps geothermal, but that doesn't mean we should discount nuclear.

Thermo nuclear power is being used world wide and I believe there are over 200 plants producing electricity now. Because "nuclear" is associated with bombs and nuclear waste, there is such an emotional prejudice against it that is illogical. Coal mining has killed literally thousand of people world wide in its extraction, never mind the pollution and ill health it has caused in burning it. The old story of Chenobyl and Three Mile Island is always raised, but this was a Russian plant, cheaply built and well below the standard regarding safe guards now employed. We should also bring it into context with millions killed on roads around the globe. I am not necessarily saying that should be accepted without question, it just brings into focus the comparison that we accept far more dangerous things quite easily.

Nuclear power is as clean or cleaner than most conventional power sources with the exception of perhaps hydro, but as I said, no one source is perfect. Now we have the means of storing and disposal of waste we should come into line with the rest of the world.

No one wants to live next to a power station with all the high tension wires etc., but given the choice between coal and nuclear I would choose nuclear every time.

With reprocessing the amounts of waste will be much smaller and lower risk. This is still much less than the contaminants from coal fired power stations.

The alternate sources of energy do not generate power reliably enough or when needed enough to replace coal or gas. And even then, the power they generate is many times more expensive.

Without nuclear, the carbon price would have to be massive to make a difference. And then only by making electricity too expensive, and Australian goods uncompetitive.

For all those worried about nukes, have you seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE_qpx5Dxyo&feature

Would it really matter if we had a few in Oz?

They're blowing us up bit by bit anyway. Is it any wonder cancer is on the rise?

A modern day reactor is never going to achieve this kind of destruction on planet earth. I was against nukes myself for a while there, but really it's kind of a moot point if you watch the video.

To be honest, I wonder how these government types think they have the right to do this and then have the gall to tax us on CO2 pollution.

We will get Nuclear power, it may even come under a Labor government.
It is the right thing to do.
Each of us should not be afraid to put the same effort in to selling it as the PC mob put into telling us lies about it.

Some on here seem to think that renewables are the way to go.
The problem with wind especially is its monumental inefficiency.
The construction of them uses a lot of resources for little output.
They almost never over a period of say a few days achieve better than 15% of
their nameplate rating.
Nameplate refers to the manufacturers plate on the m/c that states
what the maximum output is at maximum design wind speed.
Also the wind does stop over a whole continent at the same time.

They burn up a lot of coal with standby plants trying to keep track of
their output and reduces the efficiency of the coal fired plant.
So to say they do not generate CO2 is simply not true.
If natural gas burning plants are used as wind followers they are more
efficient at that job as they can be rampted up and down more easily.

Solar is more predictable in that you can be certain that there will
be no output between sunset and sunrise.

The real problem is that there is not the unlimited supply of coal
that many believe will keep us burning it for hundreds of years.
If we cannot get geothermal going then we are in real trouble.
Even nuclear has a problem in that the diesel used in mining uranium
will increase as the ore body deteriorates and the cost of the diesel
will make the ore too costly.

Thorium reactors might well be our saviour and we must probably wait
until India completes its thorium reactor.
However storage I am told is not the problem that it used to be.
Reprocessing of the waste in a multiple reprocessing cycle reduces
the radiation level very significantly.

I believe that it is possible that we face a choice, nuclear or starvation.

Let me first state my preferences, and then offer a recommendation. You'll find acres of Internet information today about 'over-unity devices', magnetic machines, Tesla generators, cold fusion and the like. If any of these had ever demonstrated a chance of delivering on their promises, I'd be marching down the street with a placard. Unfortunately, none have; and my training in the physical sciences allows me useful insights into their theoretical bases. I don't say something like this can never happen, but we'd be foolish to rely on pie-in-the-sky.

Much as I'd love to champion photovoltaics, my experience in electronic design convinces me that it will only ever be a backup without an unforeseen technological miracle. As an ordinary, unqualified enthusiast, I'd like to believe in wind or wave power, biofuels, captured emissions from cattle breaking wind, or the flight of the fairies, but I can't.

I really don't like nuclear power. From the standpoint of Physics, using all of that complex, expensive technology just to boil water (a nuclear reactor is just a giant steam kettle) is downright embarrasing; if we truly UNDERSTOOD nuclear energy, we'd convert it directly into electricity. At present, we're at the stage of cavemen, who knew that rubbing two sticks together makes fire. We know that confining enriched uranium under specific conditions cracks apart their atomic nuclei, but not much more. And when it comes to disposing of the waste products, we can only cross our fingers, dig a hole to bury it, and hope that we die before the consequences become manifest.

BUT ... there have been some major breakthroughs in emerging technology that could allow us to use thorium instead of uranium for power generation, and with waste products that decay much more quickly. I believe that the following deserve serious consideration:

http://energyfromthorium.com/
http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

We can't solve such complex problems in a single step. We needed a staged approach across a century or two that safeguards our biological environmenmt and artesian water reserves, but makes the best possible use of presently available technology until something better comes along. And it will.

I can add to this conversation.
I have a friend who shall be nameless, although anyone in the business
will know to whom I refer. He is an Australian.
He worked on nuclear power stations in the UK.
He occupied a position at or close to the top of the nuclear industry
in Australia and was I think in charge of the design of the Jervis Bay
nuclear power station that did not get built.

He told me the story of Chernobyl.
At a conference at the International Atomic Energy Authority in Vienna
in I think he said 1960, the Russians described their reactor design
which is the common design used including Chernobyl.
In the following discussion it was pointed out to the Russians that
there was a design flaw that could in certain circumstances cause a
melt down.

It was that flaw that meant the operators lost control of the reactor
when they were testing their emergency procedures.
My friend learnt of the details long before they became publically known.
The flaw had something to do with the carbon moderators storing energy.

I think it is reasonable to assume that flaw is now well known and
has been designed out in all other reactors.

> something to do with the carbon moderators storing energy.
Quite right, Bazz. As I say, even as a lifelong enthusiast of humane and responsible (as opposed to academic and commercial) science, I'm embarrassed, not only at our true lack of scientific understanding in this field:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=308

but at the crude technological implementations of it that were especially prevalent last century. A big problem is that thoughtful, well-meaning critics are put off by the complexity and the bizarre maths (which is about the best way ever invented of disguising something you don't really understand). Understanding what went wrong at Chernobyl is CONCEPTUALLY very simple, but a mathematical nightmare if you want to get technically involved. Graphite, a highly flammable substance, is the form of carbon once found in 'lead' pencils; a black, slippery, crumbly solid. In order to initiate nuclear fission, neutrons must be slowed down from their high-speed ejection from radioactive atoms to where they can 'crack' other nuclei. One way of doing this is to pass them through graphite.

So ... imagine a big room, somewhat smaller than a basketball court. Imagine this filled with blocks of graphite. Then imagine drilling holes through it and inserting rods of enriched uranium, which immediately start heating up, and continuing this until the whole thing is near red heat. "Why doesn't it burst into flame?" you will ask. Because it's sealed off from the atmosphere and filled with an inert gas. But what happens if there's a crack in the wall, and air gets in? Answer: Chernobyl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite_moderated_reactor

Things have much improved since then, but I'd be much prefer that the general public knew more about matters such as this. As I say, the CONCEPTS are usually quite simple; it's the detailed analysis that's so complex and demanding. Many opponents of nuclear power would alter their opinions radically if they'd only take time to find out more about it. Unfortunately, the High Priests of Science don't like the proles understanding these things, and maintain the aura of profound mystery and intellectual superiority on which their authority is based.