Carbon Tax -v- Nuclear - Australian Comment

How many people have died due to nuclear reactor explosions over the past 30 years compared with the other published methods of end of life? A handful.

It a matter of how its delivered and the extend.

An example, How many people die in car a crash, 2-4-6 maybe. makes local news thats about it.

One airplane crash where in excess of one hundred die. That will make headlines and national news for a week.

Bad news is good news.

Now answer this, What's safer, driving in a car, or flying.

Is that with, or without, an aeroplane?

¿uʍop ǝpısdn ƃuıʎlɟ noʎ ǝɹɐ

¿sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ǝɯos ɹoɟ dn n ɹ

Well to put it simply; there is no need for Australia to resort to nuclear power. Even Ziggy admitted it was uneconomic when taken as a whole system compared to advances in 'zero water demand' renewable technology.

But you are dealing with perhaps the most technically ignorant of all the 'first world' governments, backed by a 'scientific' advisory committee incapable of putting 2 & 2 together in the context of high school physics.

Naturally; the default outcome is an 'account's stock-market' view.

However; looking at options, most power demand is in the eastern States. All those States are intersected by "The Great Diving Range". Most states have existing dams in gullies in that range, with sufficient altitude and space above to accommodate a re-pumping pond.

There is a great deal of usable wind and near ideal PV environment, in close association with those existing dams (and proposed ponds)

Case studies that demonstrate the entire power demand for NSW can be stored in Warragamba Dam, have rotted in the filing cabinets of scientific committees and politicians of all parties for decades.

The reason is the "Green Vote" would object to interfering with the flora and fauna to create a pond.

For the same "logic" you will not get a political party advocating nuclear power in Australia.

The last time one did, it was John Howard, and it was crushed in a Referendum.

He was crushed in the next Federal Election.

So there you have it.

But the 'other problems' are;

Nuclear is water and infrastructure untenable.

Alternate energy re-pumped hydro, is too 'technical' for the 'advisers' to grasp.

Three questions:

Re: Case studies that demonstrate the entire power demand for NSW can be stored in Warragamba Dam, have rotted in the filing cabinets of scientific committees and politicians of all parties for decades.

Does that include a provision for doubling of baseload demand over the next 15 years as Tamu suggests will be required for the east coast of Australia? (I don't know Australian geography, which may be quite obvious. ;-)

Re: Nuclear is water and infrastructure untenable.

Is nuclear more water untenable than similar sized coal plants?

What is the other untenable infrastructure you refer to?

"Does that include a provision for doubling of base-load demand over the next 15 years"

A. It's one dam of many

B. From memory; in that 1 dam, 6 GW changes the level by 10%

C. I'm not sure where doubled the base load demand figure comes from unless the entire transport system goes electric.

D. though there are coal and nuclear designs that use little water - there is not actually enough to run what exists and scheduled in the regular droughts. Hence the move by the likes of Snowy Hydro to gas turbine.

But I note the OP has ruled any discussion outside his tunnel vision "off topic", so that's it for me.

What I would advise future posters to do is interrogate the OP's 'facts'.

http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature117762/

But I note the OP has ruled any discussion outside his tunnel vision "off topic", so that's it for me.

A little taste of Pink.

And in the next discussion we will consider ........

Hi Tamu;

I agree that Australia should go nuclear, hopefully a carbon tax will in courage that? Electrical generation was once a utility, run on a no profit basis, with saving to industry being passed on to the consumer. But government in its wisdom, possibly looking into the future, did not want to deal with the nuclear problem, so they privatised the electrical industry, who are now passing on profits too the consumer. So what is happening, every one is passing the buck, and human nature being what it is? nothing will happen till the proverbial hit the fan, and then it will be a blames game.

Regards jdretired.

I consider yours a good post, and would give you a GA if that was possible.

And, in general, the document you linked to (The Hiroshima Syndrome:Fukushima Accident) seems like a good attempt to deal in facts rather than hyperbole. But, I have at least one question about one of the early statements in the document:

NHK World tells us TEPCO reports the decontamination system for airborne radioactive isotopes has lowered the concentrations enough to open the access doors to reactor building #2. The airborne concentrations have been reduced by more than 90% inside the structure. However, the decontamination system has had very little impact on the high humidity in the building. They hope opening the access doors will be enough to ventilate the inside air and reduce the moisture levels. TEPCO feels opening the doors will have little radiological impact on the air outside and in the immediate vicinity of the building. There should be no above-limits release beyond the power complex perimeter.

Note the last sentence--that could be politico double speak (or whatever)--I'm not familiar enough with the nuclear regulations and such to be sure I know how to interpret that--presumably the power complex perimeter is bigger than say the perimeter of Reactor Building #2.

Thus, of course, a contaminent in the air at a certain concentration within Reactor Building #2 would be at a reduced concentration by the time it reaches the power complex perimeter. Is the concentration at the power complex perimeter the aim of the regulations, or is this an effort at confusing / misleading "us"?

Your weather isn't bad enough, you want to burn coal, or sell it to others to burn? The purpose of the carbon tax is to level the playing field: CO2, mercury, etc, are pollution, which should be paid for by the end user. Wind and solar and hydro and nuclear are the ticket, but they're only available to sane species. Which we do no seem to be, overall.

My post #7 does not advocate burning coal.

I don't think it can even be confused to think that I'm advocating burning coal.

Perhaps you meant to reply to a different post?

Further, looking back at the OP, he does not advocate burning coal. So, who are you commenting to?

In fact, I don't think anybody in this entire thread is advocating burning coal. (I'm not sure I fully understand #1's point, and then there are the jokesters....)

Nuclear power plants create, as a by-product, one of the deadliest substances known to mankind, which remains very dangerous for about 25000 years, and then is something like half as dangerous. How can we continue the use of this technology until we figure out how to dispose/recycle the spent fuel? Think hard about how long mankind has been "building things" on this planet and compare that to 25000 years. If we simply try to store spent fuel containing Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239 and 240, there is no way we can be sure this material will not be released with catastrophic consequences. How about if the builders of Easter Island, or the pyramids, had left a few swimming pools of this stuff lying around? It would still be very deadly, and the pool structures would long since have failed.

So, as much as we need the power, many of us are against nukes until this significant danger has been solved, presumably through technology that will show us how to reprocess all of what we have and then use fusion, not fission, in the future. When the waste by-product is this dangerous, "safety first" is more than a slogan; this stuff can kill off mankind, and lots more.

There are reactor technologies available today that can burn much of the nuclear waste product, leaving most of the waste at a much shorter half-life. (If there is some left with the long half-life, it is a much smaller quantity.)

France burns nuclear waste today in their reactors. The US does not, because of a political decision out of a concern for nuclear proliferation. Instead we stack up nuclear waste without a plan for dealing with it.

It's good to know there are technologies out there for disposing of some, or all, of the do-do created by nukes. Why the US does not use such technologies is probably lost in a miasma of political issues, environmental objections by which a less than perfect answer gets rejected even though it is better than no answer, and the "re-elect me" attitude that most legislators have toward EVERYTHING they vote on, no matter what they really think. But, politics aside, (if that's possible), we have a responsibility to future generations to live cleanly. Creating a waste material that can poison populations in the distant future is absolutely unethical and not something we have a right to do.

If you want a real hair-stander, just Google "spent nuclear fuel" and go the Wikipedia site. How about this: fuel that contain thorium can create fissile U-233, an isotope with a half-life of 160,000 years. Its radioactive decay will strongly influence the long-term activity curve of the SNF around 1,000,000 years.

Huh? Do we have any right to do this? I think not. We must figure out the disposal/recycle end of our technology; otherwise it must be defined as deadly over the long term,and therefore unacceptable and illegal.

Re: We must figure out the disposal/recycle end of our technology; otherwise it must be defined as deadly over the long term,and therefore unacceptable and illegal.

I don't disagree, really. First we repeal the presidential order that keeps us (the US) from recycling fuel, then we start approving nuclear reactors that burn such used fuel.

PS: I guess your SNF is Spend Nuclear Fuel? You could have said so.

I think you are at cross purposes bringing the US 'stalled development' situation into the discussion. One hopes if Australia gets into a second nuclear 'debate' and doesn't pursue the renewable infrastructure (that out lasts and out performs these 'thermal approaches'), they would seek technology that has been developed in Europe and Asia, that factors in 'waste management'. I.e. it's a shame the US has legislated it self out of some dollars, though still, the difference between 50k years and 5k years is a fairly mute point.

You're right--I lost sight of this being a discussion about Australia.

HMM a carbon tax to reduce green house gases, one of my problems with this being a way of reducing our carbon foot print is whats it going to be spent on? NO hard information as to what the government is going to use the money for. Its simply another tax. Put the price of services up and then give rebates to pensioners and those who can no longer afford to turn there lights on at night, the rest of us can just pay. Might there be some savings from business that are the biggest electrical user, possibly but most businesses are already running lean because that is just good business.

Now put a smart meter on peoples houses that charges you peak rates of up to 4 times the off peak rate. Make the peak times from 5am to 9 am and 4 pm to 10 pm then tell people to use cookers etc outside peak times if you want to save money.

Call me cynical but it looks just like a cash grab. The current prime minister went to the poles with the concrete promise of no carbon tax, now a little over a year latter we are looking at a push for a CARBON TAX with a trust us we know what we are doing. I dont trust BARE FACED LIARS. THe tax is nothing other than a money grab, do the sums on renewable energy options such as solar panels and factor in the rebates and tax breaks the current energy industry companies get and all of a sudden the technology becomes very affordable.

Heres an idea use the carbon tax to subsidise the instillation of solar panels on every house roof feeding the power back into the grid during the day supplying power to industry, getting payed for it to offset coming home at night and using mains supply. that couldnt be good for the power companies but would be good for our carbon footprint and the tax would get a pass from most people

Well fellas thanks for your responses. As usual most on topic, some upside down [alright, funny AH] and by and large in the spirit of what this forum is all about.

Written from an Australian perspective it applies as a bookend discussion amongst the learned here regarding what you will do when your country attempts a stunt like a Carbon Tax [CTax].

Just how a government qualifies and quantifies at CTax is the first problem. The poor politicians will need help because we have carbon emissions 'puting out from the most obvious to the least. Thus in my scale of a 5 year political nod on anything, CTax will be discussed for 5 years before anything is actually realised in terms of $ or rather a tax.

Those in the discussion identifying solar and wind for baseload - do not pass go, do not pick up $200 and go directly to jail for not getting it. Baseload as rightly identified by some is a profitable venture often brought by the likes of financial institutions and the ragbag profitability spreadsheeters behind them.

Those in the discussion suggesting Fukushima was a Chernobyl-like explosion of radioactivity into the air - take Exit 2 to the nearest taxi rank and think before you open your vents. And if your Prime Minister calls you at the plant, tells you to open a valve causing a hydrogen explosion, ask him what he would know.

Now where were we? I said a carbon tax was silly given the parameters. The other pillion was baseload demand. The eastcoast of Australia, within a 15 year parameter must double baseload demand from 25 to 50 Gw.

Simply stated: are you going to accomplish that with coal or nuclear? Solar and wind will be regarded as 'off topic'.

Just a Yes/No answer please.

Can non-Aussies vote?

If forced to choose between coal and nuclear, I'd recommend nuclear.

But, I'm not sure there are not other alternatives that should at least be considered.

• Is there enough "wind diversity" over the whole of Australia that, combined with pumped storage, could serve baseload?
• Could baseload demand be decreased, possibly at a cost to standards of living?
  

No to Nukes.

One of the problems i have with the whole carbon tax thing is whilst those with a vested interest are setting the agenda for the debate it by nature cannot be an open and full discusion. As you would be aware Tamu currently we are getting all the rhetoric party line politics and celebrities on television telling us why we need a carbon tax with no meat in the sandwich of what the tax will do. A tax doesnt stop a company from reducing its carbon foot print it is an overhead passed on to consumers.

A farmer uses bio diesel to plow his field he produces it on farm does he pay a carbon tax on it?

A refuse station has its own gas fired power station run from reclaimed methane does it pay a cabon tax?

The list goes on and on a TAX is just that a TAX putting carbon in front of it doesnt do squat

Hydro electric power and new dams should be on the agenda, but with the greens controlling parliment this wont happen. Gas fired power stations is another alternative.

Germany is looking at no more nukes in the future, what technology are they investigating to offset closing down their plants? Is it pie in the sky stuff? Can it be done? if it can should we look at doing the same.

Is the problem return on investiment? we currently have aging coal fired power stations needing more money spent on them to keep them going, should the public have to pay more for power in the form of a tax because companies didnt invest in plant and pocketed the money.

Once again before alternatives are rejected you need to factor in the rebates, grants,tax concesions and other goodies the energy industry has access to and apply these to the alternatives before discounting them. Because that is not a level playing field and the figures dont stack up when you dont apply the same formula to all the alternatives.

A TAX is a TAX is a TAX. And many fees and some such are TAX under any other name. I searched my memory high and low, and found none, that - after high sounding promises to achieve passage - was not immediately "redirected" by the ruling politicians. Reason is simple: political life of a politician is short, needs are many and present, success is now. And what happens 10, 20, 30 years later is so past the mental horizon of the ruling politicians (and their voters), as they may as well not even exist. There are exceptions, few, very few, and these are people with successful life before slipping into politics for a stint. Expectations, that they behave differently this time shows, that you are green behind the ear. Examples are plenty, states melting down around the world for making promises the could not possibly fulfill. And now in turmoil.

Then there is the recent example of Texas. It has a large number of dried up old oil wells, and now a huge, I mean huge gas layer was discovered. Add the "fracking" technology to the mix, and both can be bountiful for many decades or longer. What was the greens reaction? They are rushing right now, to push a lizard and a prairie chicken onto the endangered species list to snuff it out, entirely. Let's look at it a bit closer now. Fracking requires to drill down, then out in different directions 1 - 2 miles. Then pressurizing it with sandy water, cracking open the softer oil/gas bearing rock down below. So, if the wells are well sited, they are some 3-5 miles apart. Would somebody with a straight face try to explain to me, that a small lizard and a chicken can find 3-5miles (5-8km) free areas between anythings manmade confining?!?

The french fuel 80 - 85% of their economy with atomic power. They not only have no problems with waste, the recycle fuel for others. They do not even have the Yucca Mountain boondoggle. They separate the useful from the waste and the really bad ones. The really bad ones go back into reactors to burn up. No very long high level waste storage there. Why? Because they have a can do attitude and pay no attention to greens.

I have a challenge to greenly inclined guys and gals frequenting these quarters. I have had plenty of lyrical waxing on wind and sun. I grant the niche applications. But, for the rest of us unenlightened and unbaptized, show us the hard, dollar and cents economy of those "renewable" proposals. With all the subsidies at every stage showing, and explaining, when they supposed to become economical. And, how come that the oh-so-green Kennedy clan opposed and scuttled a good looking windmill farm way outside their vacation spot, Cape Cod??

--------------------------------------------

Base load was and is coal, atomic. And will be.

I would challenge you to show the same accounting for the entire life cycle of a Nuke

it's difficult to do a complete analysis, including the mining, health effect to workers, decommissioning the site, insurance...

the cost per KWH tends to have some hidden subsides

It seems, at least some of us gets some meat on the table on the matter.

I looked for the frequently showcased, windiest danish example, and the internet brought up tons of useable information. One example:

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/Denmark/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf

The title: An Assessment of Danish wind power: The real state-of-play and its hidden costs. As I see, a nascent industry attempting to support its cost structure.

I do not bother to bring up similar studies of the now over 60 years nuclear industry. You can find your own in that internet deluge pro, contra or crosswise.

I think your lack of a response speaks for itself

if you don't want to present the facts you feel are relevant

I can easily assume there aren't any....

if you are going to have expectations for responses, you should be ready to meet those same expectations

you keep trying to change the subject which is:

Carbon Tax -v- Nuclear - Australian Comment

The reason for alternatives being off topic in this discussion is that in Australia they are not practicable nor do they provide anything like the baseload required. Alternatives, even with huge taxpayer funded schemes, account for less than 3% of the current baseload. Baseload power is on topic and we're discussing the proposed CTax and what the future will hold for future baseload power generation demands even with a CTax. It's a no-brainer that Australia has sufficient gas for peak demand.

Warragamba dam used to supply water for Sydney and it has spent the last 10 years so empty that a desalination plant was built. There may be hydro alternatives available however they would, as gas does, only provide peak power demands. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains_Scheme is used for peak power demand, took 25 years to build and has left the farmers downstream dry across drought periods. It's 3,000 or so MW output hardly makes a dent on the peak load of 10 GW and it is fuelled by baseload power. So it's a coal fired hydroelectric scheme. Great. Tax it as well.

Droughts in Australia can be widespread and go on for years. They have and they will. The last one ran for 8 years and we saw a bit over 2 inches of rain on the family property over that entire period.

Note also that this discussion's figures are relevant to the large eastern states grid principally running 18M people, not the other smaller ones.

Exactly where and how to apply the CTax is a vexed question. Should coal exporters pay or should it be paid when and where the coal is fired? What if there is no CTax where it is fired? Should a community doing something non-carbon pay the same as one which does not?

Fracking? That is a crime and should be banned internationally. Why? Because of the interference with the aquifers. There are many instances of water + gas coming from wells in Australia and you can flame up the output. Water is as noted, just as precious a commodity as power. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110221/gas/default.htm

The comment about politicians, their duration in office and their agenda is pertinent. Look at Germany and the crowd pleasing decision to close down nuke power stations in a knee jerk reaction to Fukushima. Another classic example of The Hiroshima Syndrome. If Germany thinks their baseload will come entirely from alternatives it's dreaming. The only place that happens is Iceland. The Germans (and Californians) brought up so many solar panels, they caused a shortage and raised the price. Solar is for situations where you have no grid.

Nuclear waste has been tabled and as we know, there are issues in the States however the French have processes in place to deal with reprocessing and so forth. I am suggesting that the only product which leaves Australia's shores is the power produced from the Uranium deposits here. There is plenty of space to bury the spent fuel after thorough depletion.

Power supply is directly connected to economic feasibility. That's why the Japanese just green lighted the restart of all reactors shut down after the March events. Otherwise the country will take a nosedive.

So the question in Australia (and elsewhere) remains: the baseload will increase (with the population trend in Australia), and will it be met using coal + CTax or nuclear and no tax?

Hallo

I agree with you on most of your presentation. So, please allow me to straighten out a few. Normal drilling/fracking for gas is thru a deep impermeable layer, that does not permit mixing with drinking water supplies. Mind it, I did NOT say, that the gas coming up cannot bring up water too. A number of states have deep wells here, and to my knowledge, no mixing. There is a different, hundred year old problem in Pennsylvania. A number of old coal veins underground burn in these old mines ever since. Those gases come up, and mix with lakes and drinking water. Needs airing out at least. But, it way precedes, and has nothing to do with deep drilling.

But, in my old country, Hungary, for the last 100 years or so drilling brought up hot water from the deep for public bath use, drinking water if shallower. Both heavily laced with methane. No real problem. The public, artesian well I collected water from for family use needed to be ignited if the flame was not visible. It was a big, soft whoosh, when the collected gas softly exploded, nothing further. Public baths collected the gas bubbling up, mostly because it was a nuisance. No side effect, no problem. I would like encourage you, not simply take my word for it, but visit hungary's many thermal spa's on the web. I am sure, some will mention the same. One exception: the deep, hot mineral laden water - while excellent for a spa - is obviously unfit for agriculture. The shallow, barely warm ones keep many thousand of hothouses productive year around.

Additionally, I would point your attention to Thorium based, modern atomic plants. It is inherently incapable to run away. The thorium cycle also inherently does not produce those nasty actinides uranium is infamous for. In 150 years its waste is not more radioactive than the coal mined. In 60 years technology came a long way. None of us would want to drive a Ford Model T, except for hobby?!?

By the way, based on limited knowledge, Australia, India and USA's oldest rocks seem to have thorium, plenty.

You seem intent in just bandying around invented relationships to support your obvious belief that nuclear is THE answer.

So taking all in your post as "ON Topic":

"Base load" is a term invented by the thermal coal power producers to distinguish the demand cycle levels as a planning tool, necessary when the thermal lag of the system is measured in hours. When there is little load, they still have to run at a thermal level great enough to respond to say the AM demand rise. This is why "off peak" was invented. It reduces the 'dead loss' of burning coal between 10 pm and 6 am daily.

Water media nuclear is slightly faster in response, but not much.

All thermal water media consumes water. Re-pumping does not.

You need to look at which coal fired stations take how much water from Warragamba, Avon and the other 19 dams. A site of relevance.

Snowy Hydro was conceived in two stages. First was irrigation of the MIA. Second was as a re-pumper. This was canceled by the incoming liberal government as at the time it could provide close to half of the NSW/Vic demand.

The argument against 'upgrade' since has been 'insufficient rain'. Again no idea of what re-pumping is. The MIA now has a salinity problem from a history of 'gluttonous use' of 'plentiful water, on top of which is 'water profit' being used to shore up a budget deficit - so the emptying of Lake Eucumbene - where a major re-pumper aught to have been.

The desalination plant is due to a government minister visiting Bahrain or Dubai and seeing oil refinery waste used to desalinate. Therefore in typical poly way thought "Oh we have Kurnell, we should have one!" Not spend the money on fixing the leaks and losses in the ancient reticulation system, or reducing thermal demand by building re-pumping - instead they sold the contents of Eucumbene to pay for it. Since commissioning, it has been idle. Which is good, because it will radically effect the littoral zone. ^{_{(and if you read the links on the Kurnell page, you will see the rest of the 20/20 shortsightedness)}}

Why are you limiting the discussion to the Eastern States when WA is the growing demand state? And in fact basically carrying the economy - a bit 'short sighted', or just emulating the blinkered self interest of politicians?

Natural gas is a finite resource. Again you contradict - there is plenty - but fracking is evil. There is only 'plenty' if you frack.

"peak load of 10 GW" - I note you have looked up a number.

You misunderstand the working of Snowy Hydro. It is currently a nice little money maker, buying 'off peak' and selling 'at peak'. It is not 'coal powered' - it is a 'smoothing' of the thermal lag of water based coal power. It's a small and quite inefficient re-pumper - compared to the proper ones - (or what it might have been) - but useful.

The important thing is; Snowy is the grid stabilizer, but lacks re-pumping capacity and efficiency to prevent grid collapse if the alternate input component exceeds around 5%. This is why the government subsidies on PV and wind have been dumped and 'fast gas' is the fossil of the day.

Nuclear won't solve that fast reaction to quixotic inputs.

You speak of Germany but seem not to grasp how re-pumping fits in that system.

So your final question;

"So the question in Australia (and elsewhere) remains: the baseload will increase (with the population trend in Australia), and will it be met using coal + CTax or nuclear and no tax?"

Australia, with it's current water policy cannot support many more people. Opting for more water consuming power will reduce that 'carrying capacity'.

Neither coal or nuclear will solve that.

"Nuclear and no tax" is just naive. How do you propose to pay for it?

Man, oh man, that posting did not allow make head or tail out of it at all for a non-aussie, for sure.

Until the last few words: Australia with its current water policies cannot carry more....

Truer words were hardly ever spoken. And the same is true for California, for example. Without piped-in water it is a desert. With it, it is a most productive state. THAT is the question at hand isn't it? What do you want? A very natural desert or a manmade productive state? As an outsider I am an commentator. You all got to make up your minds.

A question. If you are hellbent on the natural state, why are you are building a main desalination plant at all?? Going thirsty got to be good for the continent, isn't it?

I need enlightenment!

Leveles please dont get me started on desalination plants or as we call them white elephants the one in Victoria has been 3 years in the making, is going to be over 1 billion dollars over budget and cost 257 million dollars a year before it pumps 1 litre of water. When the drought broke the plant was flooded for a month because the river people wanted to dam broke its banks and the equivalent of a years supply of water for melbourne went straight out to sea in a week. the water debate and fixes are reminisent of a monty python skit.

I Think you are having a bit of a lend. The current debate in Australia is for a carbon tax period. There is no mention of if we have nukes their will be no carbon tax.

"Note also that this discussion's figures are relevant to the large eastern states grid principally running 18M people, not the other smaller ones."

That comment is exactly why we are having problems Australia is a country and the solution should be national not confined to 3 states. A national power grid would be a start.As you say the problem is how to service the base load.

You could reduce the base load significantly in factories and offices by using solar panels etc for incidental power. eg the factory i work in has 6 acres under roof multiple hot water services and runs 200 mig welders, what is our main user of electricity? the lights in the factory because they run continuosly, could these be run from solar panels during the day yes, can the hot water services be converted to solar yes their is no. But cost of doing so is currently prohibitive.

Interestingly New zealand has a carbon tax priced at $12.50 a tonne and the yearly cost to home owners of $150.00 per year, couldnt find any figures for cost to business.

Australia is currently proposing a tax of $26.00 per tonne to be indexed so it rises each year so to start with we are looking at finding $375.00 extra for the first year with a steady increase into the future with predictions it will be above $40.00 a tonne in about 7 years.

The carbon tax will have little or nothing to do with what we use for our base load power requirements because at the end of the day a tax is a tax is a tax.

Sonny. Crankiness and demands to be served do not interests me. Do your own readings along the path provided. By the way, I give the same hints and advice to third world country (or is it now emerging countries?) students, when it is time for them to do their own homework. Be well, and call me about natural health, my other avocation. By the way, I found the danish windmill study detailed and nuanced, plenty worth of reading. Not necessarily supporting the dreamers dreamings, but that is not the purpose of any research paper. One learns nothing from fictions, while learning from facts is frequently inconvenient, while quite necessary.

Be well.

Crankiness and demands to be served do not interest me either

Nor am I your son

you probably have some point

care to make it?

at the very least learn to make a proper link or even replying to a post instead of the the thread in general...

My style, since the beginning of my postings is to deal with the thread, and only branch out very occasionally, like now. It is not personal.

Be well, and call me on the other themes.

In #34 I wrote what I knew about gas drilling.

Here is a good overwiew of the situation in the USA, as the Wall Street ournal sees it:

The Facts About Fracking