Wind, nuclear, solar, coal, gas OR thermal?

What the Prime Minister could and should say next Australia Day… Can We Survive on the Moon?

March 20th, 2007

Last night on Difference of Opinion: ABC (9:30pm - Monday) the panel of experts were basically trying to debate the individual merits of nuclear, coal and renewable energy. However they were all saying that ‘their’ technology will be better and more efficient in 10 years.

Well guess what? - the technology will always be better in 10 years.

We all need to realise that reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reversing global warming isn’t as simple as turning off your mobile phone charger when it’s not in use. In my opinion, what we should be discussing is not the merits of each energy source now (because by the time these technologies are implemented the merits will have changed), but what we want our energy mix to be in 2030, 2040 or 2050; what percentage of our energy should we realistically get from differences sources (for example - 30% renewable, 50% coal, 20% nuclear).

Then we need to spend the money developing the technology in all of these areas to achieve these targets and to reduce greenhouse gas production in all of these energy sources. We also need to work towards reducing demand and using innovative demand side solutions to reduce energy wastage by industry (Households use around 15% of the electricity produced in Australia).

If we are going to do something about our greenhouse gas emission we need a government which can develop a long-term plan. What we need to be doing now is thinking about the energy mix we want for our children. This discussion is a hell of a lot easier and one that we can have today.

In your opinion, what should Australia’s energy mix be in 2050? And why?

tag: energy, nuclear energy, renewable energy, clean coal, wind, nuclear, solar, coal, gas, thermal