What is this thing called carbon tax?

[mx250]

I think it is increasingly obvious that nuclear power has to be seriously considered. At least we have the advantage of being able to put the power plant and its waste in some desolate wasteland, miles from civilisation, like the back of Bourke or Ipswich.

It has? Not to my knowledge.

But that would be typical - it has as many if not more problems and potential problems as Coal. I don't see the current nuclear technology as the long term solution. I think Australia would be better off sticking with coal as we actively seek a better long term solution.

[Graeme M]

Hmmm... Let's hope Julia's announcement of the carbon tax and its subsequent effect on the Aussie sharemarket won't be a case of *really* bad timing...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/us-europe-continue-the-global-sharemarket-carnage-20110713-1hcpw.html

[Slakewell]

Nuclear power is not the demon that the coal industry would make you believe.
Nuclear power is old Tech and hasn’t any real investment for 50 years. If you took the money that was spend on finding ways to clean up coal and spent it nuclear I know we would look at it much differently. You must always remember that for 30 years coal industry has written guberment policy on power and just gotten the guberment of the day to sign it.

[Graeme M]

And a topical discussion regarding wind...

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/21/co2-avoidance-cost-wind/

[Nathan S]

http://www.heathenscripture.com/you-shut-your-goddamn-carbon-taxin-mouth/

No doubt this will cause a few brain explosions, and I do note that he takes the writer's liberty of assuming that the carbon tax will make a direct difference, but I agree with the gist.

[AjayVMX]

I think it is increasingly obvious that nuclear power has to be seriously considered. At least we have the advantage of being able to put the power plant and its waste in some desolate wasteland, miles from civilisation, like the back of Bourke or Ipswich.

It has? Not to my knowledge.

But that would be typical - it has as many if not more problems and potential problems as Coal. I don't see the current nuclear technology as the long term solution. I think Australia would be better off sticking with coal as we actively seek a better long term solution.

Nuclear power should at least be a medium term solution however.  It is a proven and mature technology (and remember Fukishima was a very early generation, 60s design, Nuclear plant, the designs of modern plants are not susceptible the the issues that happened there) and it's a zero emissions technology.

Obviously, the holy grail is Nuclear Fission, IF that ever becomes practical, the world's energy needs will be met without question.

Also, there are developments in Nuclear technlogy which involve different nuclear fuels, those with very short half lives, which would completely address long term radiation concerns.  These of course are not commercial as yet, but they probably should be pursued...

The Greens have also now admittted that they refused to allow Carbon Capture Technology to be included in the $10 billion clean energy fund... in spite of the fact that it is closest to full commercial application and would greatly reduce and possibly elminate CO2 emissions from coal burning power stations.  They are so focussed on destroying the coal industry at all costs, that they are not prepared to accept a technology that WOULD provide significant reductions in emissions and in the shorter term.  This just shows them up for the hypocrites they are.

Lastly, he's a good article...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/please-explain-prime-minister/story-e6frgd0x-1226093406422

 

[mx250]

Nuclear power is not the demon that the coal industry would make you believe.

So the stories of the danger of ongoing radiation from spent fuel rods is a myth perpetrated by the coal industry?

Nuclear power is old Tech and hasn’t any real investment for 50 years. If you took the money that was spend on finding ways to clean up coal and spent it nuclear I know we would look at it much differently.

If you are talking of change the process to fusion or Thorium you might be on to something. To talk about making the current technology safer is forlorn.

You must always remember that for 30 years coal industry has written guberment policy on power and just gotten the guberment of the day to sign it.

OMG, another conspiracy theory

[mx250]

http://www.heathenscripture.com/you-shut-your-goddamn-carbon-taxin-mouth/

No doubt this will cause a few brain explosions, and I do note that he takes the writer's liberty of assuming that the carbon tax will make a direct difference, but I agree with the gist.

That is a smartarse arrogant waste of broad band. The writer is absolute fully of himself and adding nothing to the debate short of his own arrogance and a lot of glib smart arse turn of phrase.

"...assuming that the carbon tax will make a direct difference" Why assume that when all evidence and commonsense tells you otherwise. Carton Tax is a scatter gun 'shoot and hope' policy.

[vmx42]

Nuclear power should at least be a medium term solution however.

…with an extremely long term waste problem. But then again we can just continue to live for today and bugger the consequences for tomorrow…

Nathan , single handed you will save this world.

Hey Nathan,
Just don't slip into the lycra to do it please. 
VMX42

[Nathan S]

Graeme R, what do you realistically see as options to reduce and ultimately eliminate our dependence on non-renewable resources?

[Mike52]

Someone also asked: "Where does the replacement baseload 2000MW power supply come from when they shut down the brown coal power station in VIC?"  Also, where's the money in the plan for that?  Not there, no plan.

You realize that they have hooked VIC power up to TAS power and are selling power from VIC --->to TAS.
[Yep I don,t understand that one and neither do the Tasmanian people.]
The connection is ALREADY THERE . 
Tasmania has a heap of that dirty Hydro stuff and it won,t work in Vic telebisions ,maybe ?
Tasmania also has the potential to provide an amazing amount of power but Bob Brown stopped that
These are the people who are going to run this CO2 thing.
Hang onto your hats.

[Slakewell]

Conspiracy theory? MX250
If you need to believe that the Coal Industry doesn’t control and write guberment policy on anything that affects it I hope that keeps you warm and fuzzy inside.
Now I’m sure you may believe that the Carbon Tax would be something big coal doesn’t like but look at it correctly, It’s far better than the Coal super Tax the guberment backed out off and the real cost of carbon tax have little or no affect on big coal.

[Mike52]

Just had a thought .

Now that things are so serious what with the global temp rising and all that maybe it,s time to review the Franklin River decision.
 

[Marc.com]

At least we have the advantage of being able to put the power plant and its waste in some desolate wasteland,

Yeah but is the ACT big enough.

Anyway as a consumer of nuclear power I am not a great advocate, currently we are consuming it mainly in our drinking water 

Just an interesting footnote, post Fukushima the Japanese have gone on a retarded ,meaningless power saving binge, so far 28 people have died and 12000 have been hospitalised from heat exhaustion, after what passes as Government round here asked for 53% reduction in energy consumption. 

[pancho]

 I believe.
 Human activity does not contribute a huge amount to global warming compared to natural phenomena.e.g. volcanic activity.
 However I believe that, remembering that forestry is the planets natural set of lungs, the continued madness of world wide land clearance needs to stop.
 Putting 'globing warming' aside, any one who believes the world does not have pollution problems that need to be addressed is not paying attention.
 History reminds of this sort of folly. London, prior to motor vehicles. Massive pollution in the River Thames from horse transport, of horse waste running down the gutters into the waterways. Motor vehicles caused major unemployment but solved one problem.
 Human waste handled the same way.
 Air pollution in London was so bad during winter months people were dying in the streets.This went on with the burning of COAL for housold fireplaces into the 1960's more job losses for the coal and coke trade.
 Some of us can remember seeing it all in the newsreels.
 Anyone tried driving through the Sydney M5 tunnel without air conditioning during peak hour?
 The only way pollution from industy and power generation is going to stop is if the polluters have to pay to dump there rubbish in the air or anywhere else. [Notice how thinking industries now sort out there scrap steel,non ferrous, stainless, paper etc now that they have to pay heaps to go to the tip?] plus they get money back!
 I believe power generating industries will now look at investing in alternatives.
 I believe that nuclear power will one day be a major power generation source. HOWEVER I would like to see that day held off 'till a method for getting every last piece of energy out of radioactive material FIRST leaving radioactive waste a thing of the past.
 I believe the current government strategy for taxing the polluting activities is an effective way of dealing with our worlds pollution problems by forcing the human race to develop better ways.
 cheers pancho