An opinion as reported in The Australian:
“It's time we in the ALP gave up pretending that nuclear energy is Satan's power supply of choice, because it's not working. It's time we stopped repeating the myth that waste is an issue that can't be dealt with. Some countries such as Sweden are dealing with it. It's time we stopped saying that nuclear power is bad for the environment. It's just not true. Name one species that has been made extinct by nuclear power. You can't, can you?
Now have a think about the environmental effects of global warming. The whole Great Barrier Reef - gone. Whole biosystems - wiped out. And with them species after species after species. Are we really going to let an ideological hangover from the Cold War stop us from fixing this thing?
It's time we accepted that in some countries nuclear power is the solution.
Nuclear power is not an environmental problem, it's an economic problem. The Prime Minister's political attempt to wedge the ALP over nuclear power will cost the average family between $500 and $1000 a year. If you have a $1000-a-year electricity bill, the Switkowski report says nuclear power means you'll be paying $1500. That'll be $3000 if you already have a $2000 bill.”
"Geothermal energy is emission free, cheaper than nuclear, not much more expensive than our present coal and definitely cheaper than coal if allowances are made for geo-sequestration.
...there are some technical areas where processes employed in Australia would differ from those used overseas and these need to be dealt with quickly.
The federal Government could be doing a lot to help. For instance, it should develop a drilling subsidy for geothermal similar to the South Australian PACE initiative which is for minerals).
This would put in one government dollar for every private dollar incurred in the very expensive drilling required. It should also introduce a flow-through share scheme for geothermal.
This would pass the tax deductions for exploration and development costs incurred by geothermal companies on to their shareholders, thus increasing investment in a risky sector.
A national emissions trading scheme, furthermore, would help."
Am I reading this correctly?