Au revoir carbon tax

[Power Raid]

Is there any evidence of this?

The price of nuclear hasn't reduced any time recently. After Fukushima it's very likely that nuclear costs will only increase with greater safety standards required and higher insurance costs. Nuclear also has significant costs associated with decommissioning plants that are often pushed on to taxpayers which makes costs worse than what they appear.

Without a major step up in technology (such as fusion or burning U-238) then I don't see how costs reduce for nuclear. It's already a very mature technology. Unfortunately these breakthroughs are likely to be decades away. Considering the long lead-in time for nuclear plants these technologies, if they do arrive and are cost effective, are unlikely to be widespread for a couple of decades after that.

In contrast wind is already far cheaper than nuclear in places suited to it and is decreasing in costs. We're still far short of capacity in wind in Australia. Solar costs are not that much more expensive than nuclear on a levelised basis and are plummeting at a rapid rate. Smarter use of grids and smarter usage control can go a long way to overcoming some of the major problems with renewables (for example over large areas wind's intermittent behaviour significantly reduces). There are of course issues that need to be solved with renewables with storage being the major one but the solutions seem much more feasible in the short to medium term than nuclear.

I'm not against nuclear and think research needs to be made in to improvements. In fact a couple of years ago I thought it was the most likely candidate to overcome fossil fuels. But in its current form nuclear just doesn't stack up economically. Since then nuclear prices haven't decreased and renewable prices have plummeted. The situation has changed and our energy make-up should change with it.

Your right re a US perspective but find the following table comparing Europe and China:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_ec.html


Commercial
Operation* REACTOR TYPE MWe (net)
2013 Iran, AEOI Bushehr 1* PWR 950
2013 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 1 PWR 950
2013 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 2 PWR 950
2013 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 1* PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Ningde 1* PWR 1080
2013 Korea, KHNP Shin Wolsong 2 PWR 1000
2013 Korea, KHNP Shin-Kori 3 PWR 1350
2013 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-1 PWR 1070
2013 Argentina, CNEA Atucha 2 PHWR 692
2013 China, CGNPC Ningde 2 PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 1 PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Taishan 1 PWR 1700
2013 China, CNNC Fangjiashan 1 PWR 1080
2013 China, CNNC Fuqing 1 PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 2 PWR 1080

2014 Russia, Rosenergoatom Novovoronezh II-1 PWR 1070
2015 Russia, Rosenergoatom Rostov 3 PWR 1070
2014 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 3 PWR 440
2014 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 4 PWR 440
2014 Taiwan Power Lungmen 1 ABWR 1300
2014 China, CNNC Sanmen 1 PWR 1250
2014 China, CPI Haiyang 1 PWR 1250
2014 China, CGNPC Ningde 3 PWR 1080
2014 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 3 PWR 1080
2014 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 2 PWR 1080
2014 China, CGNPC Taishan 2 PWR 1700
2014 China, CNNC Fangjiashan 2 PWR 1080
2014 China, CNNC Fuqing 2 PWR 1080
2014 Korea, KHNP Shin-Kori 4 PWR 1350
2014? Japan, Chugoku Shimane 3 ABWR 1375
2014 India, Bhavini Kalpakkam FBR 470
2014 Russia, Rosenergoatom Beloyarsk 4 FNR 750

2015 USA, TVA Watts Bar 2 PWR 1180
2015 Taiwan Power Lungmen 2 ABWR 1300
2015 China, CNNC Sanmen 2 PWR 1250
2015 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 4 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 3 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Ningde 4 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Fangchenggang 1 PWR 1080
2015 China, CNNC Changjiang 1 PWR 650
2015 China, CNNC Changjiang 2 PWR 650
2015 China, CNNC Fuqing 3 PWR 1080
2015 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 3 PHWR 640
2015? Japan, EPDC/J Power Ohma 1 ABWR 1350

2016 Finland, TVO Olkilouto 3 PWR 1600
2016 France, EdF Flamanville 3 PWR 1600
2016 Russia, Rosenergoatom Novovoronezh II-2 PWR 1070
2016 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-2 PWR 1200
2016 Russia, Rosenergoatom Vilyuchinsk PWR x 2 70
2016 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 4 PHWR 640
2016 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 7 PHWR 640
2016 Pakistan, PAEC Chashma 3 PWR 300
2016 China, China Huaneng Shidaowan HTR 200
2016 China, CPI Haiyang 2 PWR 1250
2016 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 4 PWR 1080
2016 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 5 PWR 1080
2015 China, CNNC Hongshiding 1 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Fangchenggang 2 PWR 1080
2016 China, several others PWR

2017 USA, Southern Vogtle 3 PWR 1200
2017 Russia, Rosenergoatom Baltic 1 PWR 1200
2017 Russia, Rosenergoatom Rostov 4 PWR 1200
2017 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-3 PWR 1200
2017 Ukraine, Energoatom Khmelnitsky 3 PWR 1000
2017 Korea, KHNP Shin-Ulchin 1 PWR 1350
2017 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 8 PHWR 640
2017 Romania, SNN Cernavoda 3 PHWR 655
2017? Japan, JAPC Tsuruga 3 APWR 1538
2017 Pakistan, PAEC Chashma 4 PWR 300
2017 USA, SCEG Summer 2 PWR 1200
2017 China, several

2018 Korea, KHNP Shin-Ulchin 2 PWR 1350

 

[Power Raid]

The major problem with most nuclear cost assessments is they do not take three key factors into consideration. Insurance costs, site construction/maintenance for waste disposal and security costs to the state.

The insurance costs are prohibitive. No insurer offers full coverage, which means ultimately taxpayers will be those responsible in case of a nuclear incident. The situation in many countries, such as the US, sees exorbitant partial coverage, usually provided by a combine of insurers subsidised by government and therefore taxpayers.

As for waste disposal, independent site construction costs are massive, which is why they are usually subsidised or covered by the state, or operators opt for on site management. Ongoing waste management is usually pushed onto consumers by the regulator in the form of a surcharge. Most often 1%> of electricity bills, which alone isn't terrible.

Lastly, there are significant costs to the state in terms of security, regulation and monitoring.

I find it interesting greenies call spent fuel rods as waste. Surely if it were waste it has no future value?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/N...Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/#.UnjAKhAbTag


Australia has some of the best places to store uranium. We have many old mines with 10km declines, 1km deep, dry and in stable rock.

Australia should position itself as the technical expert in storage and reprocessing. To achieve this we need to stop selling uranium and instead lease fuel rods instead. We need to get smart rather than just dig holes.

 

[Ripper]

If you want information straight from the source , instead of what you are fed by Murdoch , Fairfax and the ABC , there is a House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee interviewing that ABC favorite , Lord Stern here ,where you can watch, if you want to broaden your mind.

Remember , most of this has come out of the UK , there are still a bit ahead of us , so this will give you an idea where we are headed.

 

[TheMase]

I find it interesting greenies call spent fuel rods as waste. Surely if it were waste it has no future value?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/N...Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/#.UnjAKhAbTag


Australia has some of the best places to store uranium. We have many old mines with 10km declines, 1km deep, dry and in stable rock.

Australia should position itself as the technical expert in storage and reprocessing. To achieve this we need to stop selling uranium and instead lease fuel rods instead. We need to get smart rather than just dig holes.

Totally agree with this.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Your right re a US perspective but find the following table comparing Europe and China:

View attachment 34716

Have you got a source for this? 2010 is fairly out of date so do you have anything more recent?

 

[Footy Smarts]

That report represents costs in a very specific and arguably misleading way.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/10/is-nuclear-power-really-more-expensive.aspx

It's hard to compare prices but levelised cost is the best way we know of. That article's pretty poor. It makes a very good argument that once built nuclear is cheap. Which is fair enough. But that's not the issue. To tackle climate change we're going to have to build new clean capacity to phase out fossil fuels. The question is how that is best done and you've got to take construction costs in to account there.

It also makes some very questionable justification. Take this one:

Think about it like this: Would the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have 28 pending applications for new reactors on its desk if nuclear posed such a disadvantage? Over the long term, nuclear is a cheaper, more efficient, and more dependable generation source than any other energy source at our disposal.

He's referring explicitly to the US. Except that in the last couple of years in the US wind has been the biggest contributor to new generation. He gives absolutely no justification for his view on costs apart from a 2010 report by the OECD. Except the landscape has changed massively since 2010 with the cost of nuclear increasing and the costs of renewables plummeting.

If you're trying to argue that the cost of nuclear is cheap perhaps you can try and explain this to me.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/10/30/energy-markets/britains-nuclear-cost-bomb

Why does a new nuclear plant in Britain need a power purchasing agreement from the government around 50% greater than recent wind power in Australia?

Nuclear might make a bit of sense for Britain since it's got terrible renewable resources but, just to reach parity we'd have to be able to do nuclear at ~50% cheaper than they can in Britain and that's not taking in to account the still falling wind costs.

 

[Power Raid]

Have you got a source for this? 2010 is fairly out of date so do you have anything more recent?

no but I will be in china early next year with cncc and cgnpc. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself why is china going nuclear and rolling out a fleet larger than the US? Is it because they the most expensive?

It is not hard to understand why nuclear in china is cheaper than the US:
1) modular design
2) modern design with higher efficiency and safety but lower opex costs
3) cheaper construction costs due to modular and cost of labour
4) areva and westinghouse falling over themselves to win a 40 year contract of works
5) cheaper cost of capital
6) no protests or unions holding up construction
7) construction time US = 8years; China 5 years and target 3 years


I can't see nuclear being a solution for Oz for 20 years as we simply have soooo much dirty cheap coal. But china, India, Korea, Japan, Turkey, Russia, Britain, France, Poland, UAE and many other jurisdictions have very little choice but to continue down the nuclear path.

 

[Footy Smarts]

no but I will be in china early next year with cncc and cgnpc. At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself why is china going nuclear and rolling out a fleet larger than the US? Is it because they the most expensive?

It is not hard to understand why nuclear in china is cheaper than the US:
1) modular design
2) modern design with higher efficiency and safety but lower opex costs
3) cheaper construction costs due to modular and cost of labour
4) areva and westinghouse falling over themselves to win a 40 year contract of works
5) cheaper cost of capital
6) no protests or unions holding up construction
7) construction time US = 8years; China 5 years and target 3 years


I can't see nuclear being a solution for Oz for 20 years as we simply have soooo much dirty cheap coal. But china, India, Korea, Japan, Turkey, Russia, Britain, France, Poland, UAE and many other jurisdictions have very little choice but to continue down the nuclear path.

The argument about nuclear in China isn't that important to the topic of how Australia should shift away from fossil fuels. Even if you're right about costs in China (which I don't think you are) it has little comparison in Australia where nuclear faces much greater construction costs and a real lack of political will to implement nuclear.

Your suggestion that China is "going nuclear" isn't true. Yes they're rapidly expanding their nuclear fleet but that expansion is slower than the current expansion of renewables. In 2020 it's planned to have ~80GW of nuclear generation and raise that to ~200GW by 2030.

Yet in comparison renewables are expanding at an even more rapid rate. Hydro already accounts for well over 150GW of power. Wind in 2005 had 1.26GW of capacity in China. In just 8 years that has exploded to 76GW, an expansions rate far in excess of nuclear. Solar's even more impressive than that with the installation going from virtually non-existent in 2010 (a tiny 0.8GW) to exploding to around 15GW by the end of the year. In fact in 2007 China was planning for 1.8GW capacity by 2020. Currently they're at ~15GW and increasing that at over 6GW per year, with plans to vastly increase that rate.

Saying that China is "going nuclear" is laughable. Current fossil fuel expansion is many times bigger than nuclear. Additionally, renewables are also increasing at a far greater rate and, apart from hydro, have gone from basically non-existent in China to contributing more total electricity than nuclear in recent years.

This graph doesn't even take in to account the last year which has seen both wind and solar increase at a greater rate:

The facts are clear. China is going renewable at a far greater rate than it is going nuclear. You have to ask why that would be the case if nuclear is so much cheaper?

 

[yibbida]

"Electricity prices will go down as a result of the abolition of the carbon tax, there is no doubt about that," he told reporters in Sydney on Wednesday.
"The economy will be stronger. There will be higher economic growth as a result of the abolition of the carbon tax."

- Joe Hockey today.

 

[Power Raid]

The argument about nuclear in China isn't that important to the topic of how Australia should shift away from fossil fuels. Even if you're right about costs in China (which I don't think you are) it has little comparison in Australia where nuclear faces much greater construction costs and a real lack of political will to implement nuclear.

Your suggestion that China is "going nuclear" isn't true. Yes they're rapidly expanding their nuclear fleet but that expansion is slower than the current expansion of renewables. In 2020 it's planned to have ~80GW of nuclear generation and raise that to ~200GW by 2030.

Yet in comparison renewables are expanding at an even more rapid rate. Hydro already accounts for well over 150GW of power. Wind in 2005 had 1.26GW of capacity in China. In just 8 years that has exploded to 76GW, an expansions rate far in excess of nuclear. Solar's even more impressive than that with the installation going from virtually non-existent in 2010 (a tiny 0.8GW) to exploding to around 15GW by the end of the year. In fact in 2007 China was planning for 1.8GW capacity by 2020. Currently they're at ~15GW and increasing that at over 6GW per year, with plans to vastly increase that rate.

Saying that China is "going nuclear" is laughable. Current fossil fuel expansion is many times bigger than nuclear. Additionally, renewables are also increasing at a far greater rate and, apart from hydro, have gone from basically non-existent in China to contributing more total electricity than nuclear in recent years.

This graph doesn't even take in to account the last year which has seen both wind and solar increase at a greater rate:

The facts are clear. China is going renewable at a far greater rate than it is going nuclear. You have to ask why that would be the case if nuclear is so much cheaper?

1) you are getting confused between capacity and generation
2) The roll out of nuclear has only just started
3) Hydro is fantastic but there are only so many site they can be built. Personally I can not think of a better power source other than the environmental damage to the flooded area (which is a reasonable trade off), the risk of dam wall bust and the issue that they are not a truly renewable resource (but can be reasonably be considered as renewable)

 

[Power Raid]

 

[Footy Smarts]

1) you are getting confused between capacity and generation
2) The roll out of nuclear has only just started
3) Hydro is fantastic but there are only so many site they can be built. Personally I can not think of a better power source other than the environmental damage to the flooded area (which is a reasonable trade off), the risk of dam wall bust and the issue that they are not a truly renewable resource (but can be reasonably be considered as renewable)

1) Some things I referred to were capacity but that graph is of total output. In 2012 wind overtook nuclear for total electricity output in China. This gap is expected to grow this year.
2) Correct but so has wind and solar. There's no doubt that nuclear is increasing in China. But even by 2020 it's only expected to account for ~4% of China's generation and growing to ~6% by 2030. On current trends, solar and wind will eclipse that with ease. If nuclear is really the cheapest form of energy then this makes very little sense.
3) Like everything hydro's got positives and negatives. The point is that china aren't going nuclear any more than they're going wind and they're turning to coal and hydro far more than nuclear which is illogical if nuclear is so much cheaper.

View attachment 34822

This graph is meaningless. You could produce a very similar graph in terms of wind, coal, solar or anything else. China's electricity use is exploding so it's leading the world in basically every form of electricity. Also the quote that "the rest of the world is following" could only come from somebody blindly pro-nuclear since it's clearly wrong.

Here's total nuclear output worldwide:

Notice it has significantly dropped since its 2006 high. Like it or not, much of the world is moving away from nuclear. I think they're doing it for completely the wrong reasons but poor economics don't help. Just to put it in perspective, China's planned ~5-fold increase in next decade or so would not even make up for the drop off since 2006. Considering a number of countries are moving away from nuclear it's likely that total nuclear generation isn't going to change significantly in coming years.

Compare that to total wind which is increasing exponentially, mainly due to it being so cheap. On the end of the next graph you can add 460TWh for 2011 and around 600TWh for 2012. At the current rate of expansion wind will overtake nuclear in terms of total energy output worldwide around 2018.

 

[Power Raid]

I think you are comparing apples with oranges

one is a boutique power source which is a nice to have
the other provides base load power


not to mention the comparative size of the generation and you unfair reasonable assessment of nuclear given most of the world are completing safety audits and upgrades to their fleet.

 

[Footy Smarts]

I think you are comparing apples with oranges

one is a boutique power source which is a nice to have
the other provides base load power

I'm sorry but this is just not true. You're acting as though the world hasn't changed in the last 5-10 years. In that time the price of wind power has plummeted so it is now close to the cheapest energy source in the world. Base-load energy is a meaningless term. We already need to incorporate quick start-up generation for peak demand times and there's absolutely no reason this can't be done for drops in production. Add to that, with large integrated networks wind reliability vastly increases.

If wind is "boutique" how is it possible for Denmark to produce over 30% of its electricity via wind? Why has the US department of energy said it's realistic to aim for 20% of electricity to be wind generated by 2030? Why was over 40% of new capacity in the US wind last year? Why does wind produce more electricity in China than nuclear? Why, if China is "going nuclear", has nuclear grown at 10% a year there since 2007 while wind has grown at 80% a year?

Wind hasn't been feasible for long. But now that it is the future of wind looks far brighter than the future of nuclear.

not to mention the comparative size of the generation and you unfair reasonable assessment of nuclear given most of the world are completing safety audits and upgrades to their fleet.

Can an assessment really be "unfair reasonable"?

Currently nuclear produces approximately 4x as much electricity per year as wind. There's no doubting that. But it's interesting that only 5 years ago nuclear was over 12x total production of wind. Nuclear has stalled in the last couple of decades, partly due to overblown worries about risk but mainly due to economics. The promises of ultra-cheap power just haven't materialised. In contrast wind is already cheaper than most sources and dropping still. That's why it's use is growing so fast, because it's cheap.

Has the world been "completing safety audits" and upgrading its fleet for over a decade? That's a poor excuse for why nuclear production is dropping away. The drop is because nuclear isn't cheap enough to bother building new plants so as old plants are decommissioned there are very few new plants being built. As your graph shows, China is the only place really increasing their nuclear fleet and that's increasing much slower than wind. Until some new technology comes along that can dramatically drop the price of nuclear it's just not economically viable.

 

[Power Raid]

I'm sorry but this is just not true. You're acting as though the world hasn't changed in the last 5-10 years. In that time the price of wind power has plummeted so it is now close to the cheapest energy source in the world. Base-load energy is a meaningless term. We already need to incorporate quick start-up generation for peak demand times and there's absolutely no reason this can't be done for drops in production. Add to that, with large integrated networks wind reliability vastly increases.

If wind is "boutique" how is it possible for Denmark to produce over 30% of its electricity via wind? Why has the US department of energy said it's realistic to aim for 20% of electricity to be wind generated by 2030? Why was over 40% of new capacity in the US wind last year? Why does wind produce more electricity in China than nuclear? Why, if China is "going nuclear", has nuclear grown at 10% a year there since 2007 while wind has grown at 80% a year?

Wind hasn't been feasible for long. But now that it is the future of wind looks far brighter than the future of nuclear.



Can an assessment really be "unfair reasonable"?

Currently nuclear produces approximately 4x as much electricity per year as wind. There's no doubting that. But it's interesting that only 5 years ago nuclear was over 12x total production of wind. Nuclear has stalled in the last couple of decades, partly due to overblown worries about risk but mainly due to economics. The promises of ultra-cheap power just haven't materialised. In contrast wind is already cheaper than most sources and dropping still. That's why it's use is growing so fast, because it's cheap.

Has the world been "completing safety audits" and upgrading its fleet for over a decade? That's a poor excuse for why nuclear production is dropping away. The drop is because nuclear isn't cheap enough to bother building new plants so as old plants are decommissioned there are very few new plants being built. As your graph shows, China is the only place really increasing their nuclear fleet and that's increasing much slower than wind. Until some new technology comes along that can dramatically drop the price of nuclear it's just not economically viable.

wind is efficient up to around 20% every % after that becomes a bigger and bigger issue. Wind is part of the solution but not all. Why? It is not reliable but the risk of reliability can be mitigating to a degree through a portfolio of farms.

I am all for wind and other solutions to work and have their place but we must not get carried away and ask them to do what they can't. Otherwise you will have another South Australia with a busted economy. I call them boutique at this stage as they simply are not economic but they are worthwhile from an innovation point of view.

Anyone that says base load is meaningless can not be taken seriously (referring to the various green papers, not you). Sure you need quick start power for peak load and if that is cheaper than base load then you have a full solution (as the peak load generator is also your base load generator). In the case it is not, then you need a base load and peak load generation source.

Nuclear has stalled as coal is, up until recently, the cheapest option for the developing world. China has capped coal at 4Bt pa which coincidentally is their railway capacity. As such they have no alternative for base load other than nuclear. You can argue what you want, but the evidence they are is the construction of nuclear power on a scale never seen before other than the US. From a global perspective, there has never been a bigger construction pipeline of nuclear reactors ever before.



At the end of the day, we will move to things like the electric car and power use (electricity) will increase exponentially. To achieve this we will need not one solution but many and each jurisdiction will have a different mix of power generation. What is certain is those with the cheapest and most reliable power supply will control manufacturing. Those that control manufacturing will seek to control the worlds resources and those that control the worlds resources will have the biggest military might. Those with the biggest military might make the rules.

 

[Ripper]

footysmarts Obviously you have never been up close and personal with a solar panel. They are a lot larger and heavier than they appear on someone's roof.

Personally I like solar panels , in their place in the bush they are invaluable , unfortunatly they only generate their rated output for aroun d3 hours a day. I am actually working on a compact dual axis tracker tracker, which will nearly double the out put if successful.

Here is a bit of an education for you.

E=mc^2

 

[Footy Smarts]

footysmarts Obviously you have never been up close and personal with a solar panel. They are a lot larger and heavier than they appear on someone's roof.

Personally I like solar panels , in their place in the bush they are invaluable , unfortunatly they only generate their rated output for aroun d3 hours a day. I am actually working on a compact dual axis tracker tracker, which will nearly double the out put if successful.

Here is a bit of an education for you.

E=mc^2

As a physicist I'm well aware of the relationship between mass and energy. Understanding that sort of thing is part of my job. While we're talking education perhaps you'd like to learn about the theoretical derivation for our understanding of semi-conductor band gaps? After all it's been vital in all technologies relying on such a band gap in silicon including various silicon based PV cells.

http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/meso/ssscript/blochelectrons.pdf

Unfortunately this isn't a debate about physics. You can produce electricity via exothermic nuclear fission. Likewise you can produce electricity via electron stimulation across the band-gap in a semiconductor or via application of Faraday's law of induction using wind turbines. These are all proven ways of producing electricity.

The question is what is the most realistic way to decarbonise our economy over the coming decades. Every option has drawbacks. Unfortunately in Australia, the drawbacks of nuclear, in particular political opposition and cost, have only worsened in recent times. In contrast, wind is already at the stage where it is cost effective and can account for a big chunk of decarbonisation with very little adaptation necessary in the near term. In the longer term, changes to the grid would have to be widespread to allow for vastly more distributed generation. Solar is dropping significantly in price and is now competitive with nuclear, although not with cheaper fossil fuels yet. This of course requires solutions to storage issues to become viable as a major part of our energy make-up.

But the question remains how to decarbonise our economy in a cheap and quick manner. Relying on a hugely divisive technology that is very expensive, shows no sign of reducing in costs and takes decades to implement is simply stupid when we've got a cheap widespread source of power that can be implemented quickly in wind. If there is an unexpected cost drop in nuclear, or in a couple of decades new technology comes online that is vastly better than what we have currently then absolutely we should move in that direction but nuclear in its current make-up is a poor option.

 

[yibbida]

Let's leave the Nuclear Power discussion for another thread and get back to the actual repeal of the Carbon Price/ETS.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/11/11/policy-politics/abbotts-first-broken-promise

the Coalition in its election policy statement said that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission would set up a special unit (The crazy repeal price bonanza! September 12) that would:
“...monitor consumer prices across all sectors of the economy. It will ensure that consumers and businesses receive the direct savings benefit on their electricity, gas and supermarket bills when the carbon tax is repealed.”

Now below is an extract of the actual legislative repeal bill that is supposed to reduce our bills (see page 71). Note that a corporation can be pursued by the ACCC for engaging in price exploitation if, and only if it makes what is entitled a ‘regulated supply’.

So what is a 'regulated supply'?
On page 70 of the repeal bill it tells us:

Also, the Coalition told us the carbon price was going to drive up the cost of building a new home by $5000. That almost completely wipes away the first home owners grant. Surely this $5000 increase would warrant adding housing construction to the regulated list?

Not to mention those $100 lamb roasts....


Can any of the Lawyers that post here comment about a bill making reference to a Carbon Tax that doesn't exist in any legislation?

 

[Lester Burnham]

Can any of the Lawyers that post here comment about a bill making reference to a Carbon Tax that doesn't exist in any legislation?

You don't have to be a lawyer to be able scroll down a single page to Section 60A Definitions where it states what 'carbon tax repeal' means.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Absolute joke. Australia has been proven to be a country of self-absorbed *******s who don't care about anything other then there own current self-interests. Abbott and the LNP are an absolute blight on society, and I feel that in 50 years, we'll look back at people who opposed climate action the same as those who did not want to give women the vote and wanted to keep racial segregation in America. And for all those who say that 'why should we do anything, no one else is?', they should do some research and discover that Australia is actually lagging behind most countries who have already taken plenty of action to cut emissions.
It's an absolute disgrace when we're 11th on the list of countries by carbon emissions per capita, especially when we have such potential to use renewable sources, or even nuclear, and if by some miracle, the left can block the repeal, Australia will gain some of its credibility back.

You'd do well promoting a borg collective.

 

[yibbida]

You don't have to be a lawyer to be able scroll down a single page to Section 60A Definitions where it states what 'carbon tax repeal' means.

So they invented their own definition so they could repeal it? Genius!

I wonder what else they will rename..

 

[skilts]

Surely, one painless way to reduce carbon would be to ban barbecues?

 

[Todman]

Not to mention those $100 lamb roasts....

You can't have a decent lamb roast under $100 with a quality bottle of red wine.

 

[clogged]

You can't have a decent lamb roast under $100 with a quality bottle of red wine.

http://priceonomics.com/is-wine-bullshit/

 

[Lester Burnham]

Surely, one painless way to reduce carbon would be to ban barbecues?

This is what you are looking for * conditions apply



* not suitable if you want to grill more than two chops or cook on cloudy days. If enough alcohol consumed in the 6 hours waiting for the food to warm slightly it can be used as a pretend death ray device.