To Quote Garnaut:

"The global task of mitigating climate change will be more difficult and expensive if nuclear energy doesn't play a significant role in the energy future."

While advocating large scale use of natural gas in the short term, deeper cuts in emissions in the medium to long term would require zero emission technologies of which nuclear is presently the strongest contender.

It is notable that Wayne Swan has not mentioned this information also contained within the Garnaut report. Methinks it would probably not do much for the Carbon tax debate.

It is junk opinion and public comment such as this that has drive our country politics to its present lows.
Nuclear power, is an answer but not right now.
I support its introduction as soon as possible.
But come, it is the federal governments report, they released it,and surely know its contents.
Labor,wrongly in my view, is not supporting ,yet, Nuclear power.
Japan, the apparent lie its government has told from day one.
Its unwise refusal from day one to take advice it stations are unsafe, building on moving ground ,has left country's removing theirs.
Australians should note, such as this is weakening our country.
Abbott claims to believe in man made climate change, Shadow Minister,in posts this week says he believes in a carbon tax BUT NOT YET.
NOT UNTIL HIS TEAM IS IN POWER?
Be very much aware good government should be the aim not pointless point scoring.
Abbott, a man known to be anti worker visits factory's to tell them he is better than Gillard.
HE is now whipping the left telling them to get out on the streets and protest about? the ALP!
How will this conservative mess help its NT and northern farmers if Abbott takes sides with animal rights for political gain.
Nuclear power is in my country's future, my party has some within it who know that.
While we are waiting why not pass the tax/ETS numbers exist within conservative ranks to by pass lost GREENS it if Abbott's personal interests are not put before country's interests.

The 'nuclear connection'. A good title for a conspiracy movie.

There was an 'if' in that quote SM. Whether or not a Carbon Tax is implemented is a separate debate to nuclear energy.

There is not much point in dealing with the reported moral challenge of our time (climate change) if actions by governments serve only to replace one moral challenge with another.

I thought you would be all for it SM, aren't you an advocate for nuclear engery?

If they started build reactor designs like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

or this: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/610

and I'm with them all the way.

Nuclear has a nasty tendency to externalise costs, just like coal does. The main ones are long term storage costs, and the enormous clean up bill if they go wrong. That creates an unfair playing field, as the subsidies to wind and solar are obvious and up-front.

These designs are buried and small, minimising both the capital losses and the cleanup costs if something does go wrong. And because they are buried and small, and their waste is short lived, the answer to the waste disposal problem simply can be switch them off, leave them in the ground and wait 100 years for the radioactivity to reach the same level as the ore the fuel was made from.

The other nice property they have is they are built in a factory and carted to the site. In other words, they are mass produced. The first few will cost a small fortune, but the cost of mass produced items has a habit of dropping quickly over time.

As it is Shadow wants us to build a great stonking Gigawatt plant like Fukushima. Shadow, you must be smoking something if you think anybody will buy into that vision right now.

Pelican,

I am all for nuclear, but I would guess that the bunny huggers that make up the remaining 28% that are for the carbon tax would run screaming if they thought that with a carbon tax that nuclear would be on the horizon.

Yes they would SM but what is your point. Your arguments are similar to some religious fanatics who equate climate change supporters with evolutionary theories and atheism as though somehow the state of being 'one thing' ie. Christian, automatically excludes a variety of different opinions within that demographic.

How does one's opinion of a Carbon Tax have anything to do with drawing conclusions about attitudes towards nuclear energy. They are two different subjects.

I support saving old growth forests but am against a Carbon Tax. Gee whiz I don't know if that means I am a bunny hugger or not. Most environmentalists are not bunny huggers as rabbits are pests so I am assuming you mean middle class australians who run pet shops.

You are making false assumptions, particularly given Garnaut himself has raised the nuclear question suggesting not all bunny huggers are anti-nuclear.

Don't forget the Coalition has policies around moving into a Carbon Trading economy. Abbott himself mooted a Carbon Tax as one possible option. I always suspected Abbott was a closest bunny hugger.

If we are not to sink back into the 18th century we will have
to adopt some form of nuclear power, no matter what it costs.
The Japanese, with hindsight should have built their nuclear power
stations on the west coast. No Tsunamis there.
They survived the earthquake with but minor damage, but were
overwhelmed by the tsunamis.

Our coal and gas gives us a transition fuel. However to get fifty
years or more transition time, we would need to stop exports of both.
We would need at least fifty years to replace all coal stations with nuclear.
The big hope is geothermal, but we have to work on the basis that it
will not be a goer. In any case we should know if it can be made to
work by ten years time.

Pelican

I thought Shadow Minister was having a 'senior moment' and meant to write "tree-hugger". As you say rabbits are vermin and an introduced species, then again maybe SM does mean pet-shop owners who knows?

As for the time and money needed to transition to nuclear energy, couldn't we just head straight to a group of clean renewables instead?

I would not have a problem with the Carbon Tax if there was a clear strategy for the implementation of sustainable technology.

Ammonite, there are no renewables capable of supplying anything bigger than a small village, & then only at huge cost.

Ask anyone who has lived off the grid & tried to supply power requirements from any or all of them, & this includes trying to store power in batteries, a technology not available in large scale.

Wind is a bad joke & solar is only 8 hours a day. Even for a single home with gas hot water, cooking & refrigeration, you only have reliability with a diesel generator.

The target is 5% below 1990 levels or 25% below today, and 35% below projected 2020 levels based on population growth.

Given that coal based electricity generation is about 35% of emissions and changing all of this to gas would save 14% (40% of 35%) The additional savings would have to come from transport, agriculture and industry.

Given that $40/t is required before the change to gas is required, and there is several years time lag between when a project is viable, and when it is running, the chances of meeting the emission targets via a carbon tax are zero.

Post 2020 further reductions will require zero emission technologies, and while the greens are confident that renewables will be able to meet all our needs at a reasonable price, there are no power system engineers that concur.

To meet these demands, nuclear is the most important candidate prior, and this requirement was specifically mentioned in the Garnaut report.

So by using the Garnaut report as a justification for a carbon tax, there is implicit acceptance of nuclear power in the medium term (10-20yrs)

I must admit to not understanding the oppositions proposal on CO2.
If the idea is to give to the polluters the money to convert/change
their plant then I see no difference to a tax.
Either way the taxpayer pays.
The taxpayer pays for the opposition scheme.
The taxpayer pays via the generators and commercial users of
electricity raising their charges to recoup their extra osts.

When it all comes down to it, no matter how you fiddle with it, you
and I will pay one way or the other.

I mean, who else is there to pay for it ?

See, there you go again. No carbon Tax will be needed if the human-populations can be reduced to fit in with currant models that sustainability calls for with dwindling resources that we all well know. Like I said.....8 billion, then 9 billion, then 10 billion.......and the earth with that many people on it will be just fine. What planet are some of you people on? This tax will be used for a wide range purposes and we all well know the consequences of ignorance when the environment is concerned, don't you. You don't need much of a brain to see whats going to happen, and the past is the very foundation from where the future can be drawn from.

The one main problem that's causing all that we see, is our numbers. Reduce that, and all the problems we see now, will slowly reverse......but no!....other forces of IQ think other wise.

LEA

I thought you would be all for it SM, aren't you an advocate for nuclear energy?
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 8 June 2011 5:24:09 PM

Yes he is, and I'll be interested on how he's going to convince the people after japans major screw up:) However unclear Power in Australia is a safer bet than any-where else on the rim of fire. The water issuing from a hot spring is heated by geothermal heat, i.e., heat from the Earth's mantle. In general, the temperature of rocks within the earth increases with depth. The rate of temperature increase with depth is known as the geothermal gradient. If water percolates deeply enough into the crust, it will be heated as it comes into contact with hot rocks. The water from hot springs in non-volcanic areas is heated in this manner.


In active volcanic zones such as Yellowstone National Park, water may be heated by coming into contact with magma (molten rock). The high temperature gradient near magma may cause water to be heated enough that it boils or becomes superheated.

Just another way power can be generated almost for free......

See, if disasters like what happened with Japan, the only thing at risk is the price to rebuild, but like we saw, unclear power stations break/fail with catastrophic effects. The waste is the next problem, and since the planet ever stops moving, to put it underground is just another ticking time bomb.

You all know the planet will have to go fully green when fossil fuels become out priced for all to use.

LEA