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