Australia finally ends it. Good on them.
[Update a couple minutes later]
“Aussies hated having their energy prices raised so the elites could feel good about themselves.” But Californians remain idiots.
18 thoughts on “The Carbon Insanity Down Under”
Comments are closed.
If California ended the carbon tax, the saved money could be built on five extra legislature buildings.
Granting California more room for elected politicians wouldn’t be doing them any favors.
Apologies, the above was a comment based on dn-guy’s outrageous claims in another posting’s comment section.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=55930#comments
Do you actually know how much is collected on carbon taxes in California?
Of course I don’t. But any amount is too much.
The interesting thing about Conservatives is the less they know the more they want to comment on a subject.
You have no sense of irony whatsoever, do you?
I cheered and got attacked by watermelons on Twitter.
Australia is one of the world’s coal export leaders. Did you expect otherwise?
I would rather we used nuclear power to generate electricity but nuclear has an undeserved bad rap.
Nuclear power isn’t cost effective, it’s significantly more expensive and given Fukushima,
nobody trusts it.
“and given Fukushima”
Do you happen to recall what happened there?
4 reactors went into critical failure, 6 more were damaged beyond all hope of repair,
and they managed to contaminate a good 30% of the main island.
And none of those failures happened in a vacuum. The way you’ve used it as an example is as if the reactors all just decided to give out one day because nuclear energy is inherently unsafe and unreliable.
I’m glad that Fukushima was recent enough that just about anyone who was paying attention (and the majority of those who weren’t paying attention) remember that it was all precipitated by a cataclysmic earthquake and tsunami.
I would imagine fewer people are scared of nuclear power as a result of Fukushima than as a result of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.
“I’m glad that Fukushima was recent enough that just about anyone who was paying attention (and the majority of those who weren’t paying attention) remember that it was all precipitated by a cataclysmic earthquake and tsunami.”
In japan, Earthquakes and Tsunami’s happen. Routinely.
I realize you probably don’t know much about engineering, but, describing the environment and then determining adequate safety limits is part of the job.
That an earthquake of that magnitude and a tsunami of that magnitude had happened before and was not designed for indicates it’s not economical to design for the expectable environment.
Fukushima? The place where no one died due to radiation?
It is cost effective if the reactors are built in series. The French make a business of exporting cheap nuclear electricity to the rest of Europe because of that. If you have a bunch of one of a kind nuclear reactor prototypes then it is not cheap to maintain.
Lots of coal miners die every year in Chinese coal mines from black lung. Then there are the coal dust explosions in storage facilities and the sludge ponds near the mines. Plus the air quality problems near the power plants that result in increased cardiovascular problems. But yes let us ignore those.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_slurry
“The place where no one died due to radiation?”
That depends upon how you want to define cause of death.
Most people who are exposed to radiation die from cancer, or circulatory disorders.
” Masao Yoshida, the former Fukushima supervisor of damage control who was among the Fukushima 50 (employees who remained on site for clean-up after others were evacuated) died of esophageal cancer in July 2013. There is some dispute as to whether this was due to his radiation exposure during the 2011 event.”
If you work around the plant for a year, it will give you cancer and you will die soon enough.
But if you think it’s safe, you should buy a house in Itate, it’s cheap.
Maybe you should tell that to Rand who loves coal