Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[straight talker]

but i thought there was nothing bad about this carbon tax and it wasnt going to affect jobs or companies it was going to make us better off? so they are not really dinkum then would you say?

[Q.]

The tax is structured to minimise the initial impact and give companies a reasonable opportunity to adjust.

[straight talker]

yes i understand that so when companies are saying there is no better way to produce there product or cleaner way and they are using the best technology available what happens to them then?

[Psyber]

yes i understand that so when companies are saying there is no better way to produce there product or cleaner way and they are using the best technology available what happens to them then?

Most business in Australia is still, I think, small business. They aren't using the best technology, usually, as the profitability necessary to provide it went overseas with most manufacturing during the Hawke/Keating era. [A time when the federal government also decided we had too many doctors, and caused our present shortage.].

Now, our government, and their Green friends, are totally opposed to even re-examining the cleanest energy technology available, so it shouldn't surprise us our industry is primitive too.

[fish]

Now, our government, and their Green friends, are totally opposed to even re-examining the cleanest energy technology available, so it shouldn't surprise us our industry is primitive too.

That's a big call Psyber would you care to expand on it?

[dedja]

Nuclear power isn't the answer ...

[Sojourner]

Nuclear power isn't the answer ...

Its Carbon Neutral power Dedja! Unlike Natural Gas Powered plants it has no Carbon Emissions at all. If we really wanted to cut our carbon footprint moving our power to nuclear would do that in one hit. We would be one of the few nations to sign the Kyoto Protocol that does not have it and we have to compete against nuclear power in those nations to reduce our carbon footprint to the specified level.

Germany are doing away with Nuclear Power plants - because they are buying power generated from Nuclear Power in Russia. Considering the output those plants can make it sounds like money for jam for the Russian Government and Germany retain their no carbon output for electricity.

[dedja]

and what do you do with the radioactive waste for the next few hundred thousand years which is just a tad more harmful than CO2?

[Psyber]

and what do you do with the radioactive waste for the next few hundred thousand years which is just a tad more harmful than CO2?

The main waste from Thorium fission is radioactive for much shorter times than the waste from older technology.
e.g. Uranium-232 has a relatively short half-life (68.9 yr)
Also, major reprocessing is needed to be able to make bombs from the by-products.
The need to periodically add a little Uranium to retain fissile activity makes Thorium fission melt down proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=342

This one focuses on some of the challenges to the technology: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html


Note that Denmark which went for "renewable" energy, some years ahead of Australia's plans to follow suit, still emits 650 gm of CO2 for each KWh of energy produced.
France by contrast emits 90 gm of CO2 for each KWh, having gone nuclear 20 years ago, and there have been no threats of meltdown there.
Nuclear accidents occur with out of date technology, like Fukushima which was overdue for decommissioning.
[Source: Prof Mike Young, Chair of the Environment Institute, Uni of Adelaide.]

[fish]

Now, our government, and their Green friends, are totally opposed to even re-examining the cleanest energy technology available, so it shouldn't surprise us our industry is primitive too.

Psyber I think it is a bit of an stretch to say that Australia has primitive industry because the current government and the Greens (who have held the balance of power for just over a month) have not, according to you, considered introducing Thorium power!

[Psyber]

fish, I was suggesting, a bit tongue in cheek, that our refusal to consider more advanced nuclear power options reflects an Ostrich-like attitude in Australia that possibly carries over into industry, not that it was causative.

I did attempt to discuss it with our SA Green, Mark Parnell, but he dismissed anything nuclear on the grounds of there being long half-life radioactivity, even in the tailings.
He didn't respond to my pointing out those tailings are actually low in radioactivity and not much more toxic than those from coal mining.
Decidedly Ostrich-like I thought...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactiv ... m_tailings

Uranium tailings are waste by-product materials left over from the rough processing of uranium-bearing ore. They are not significantly radioactive. Mill tailings are sometimes referred to as 11(e)2 wastes, from the section of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 that defines them. Uranium mill tailings typically also contain chemically hazardous heavy metal such as lead and arsenic. Vast mounds of uranium mill tailings are left at many old mining sites, especially in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.

[fish]

Yeah no worries Psyber.

Succesive Australian governments of all persuasions have decided against the nuclear option - for better or for worse - for the past 50 years or so and this, I believe, has reflected the views of the Australian population.

I agree the current need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and the availability of newer cleaner nuclear technology should see us revisit the nuclear option as a replacement for fossil fuel energy.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Hooray. Bring on Nuclear power I say. Plenty of places to dump the waste in the outback. The camels might not like it though.

[straight talker]

i agree with you tsg this is what we should be doing.

[Darth Vader]

Yeah no worries Psyber.

Succesive Australian governments of all persuasions have decided against the nuclear option - for better or for worse - for the past 50 years or so and this, I believe, has reflected the views of the Australian population.

I agree the current need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and the availability of newer cleaner nuclear technology should see us revisit the nuclear option as a replacement for fossil fuel energy.

Oh fishmeister we at last agree. Bring on nuclear power stations. I'd love to see them at Tennyson, Aldinga, Port Lincoln and Renmark. Problem solved, cheap energy woo hoo!

[fish]

Hilarious seeing the anti-carbon-tax people squabbling with eachother at the rally today!

And kudos to Tony Abbott for publicly denouncing some of the banners on display.

[straight talker]

can not remember any labor pollies apologizing when they had a puppet of john howard dancing around on stage at one of bob hawkes recent birthdays?? they all thought it was a hilarious joke. I dont think abbott made the people carry funny banners about gillard last time either but some do blame him!

[fish]

Oh fishmeister we at last agree.

Oh dear I must've turned into one of those shock jocks!

[straight talker]

i think you have turned into a one eyed labor fish!! see a carbon tax believer apparently made threatening phone calls to a butcher shop abbott was meant to have visited wednesday?? as reported on sky early morning news?? I thought fish or R&B would have commented on that??? I wonder if Julia will come out and say that is not good enough?????????

[Leaping Lindner]

Oh fishmeister we at last agree.

Oh dear I must've turned into one of those shock jocks!

Oh no Fish. Next thing you know you'll be getting cash for comment from Banks and inciting race riots at Cronulla.