The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > ‘Protecting’ the Queensland economy? > Comments

‘Protecting’ the Queensland economy? : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 29/10/2008

Queensland could be producing all its electricity needs from renewable sources within 15 years. But where is the political will?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
It gets worse. Queensland approved water withdrawals on the upstream Warrego River even as the Feds bought downstream Toorale Station. They approved land clearing after it was supposed to stop. They fib about the CO2 savings from Kogan Creek and Milmerran power stations. Ms Bligh is apparently keen on carbon offsets which many believe are tantamount to fraud. To keep up the deception they could carefully touch up the bleached corals with acrylic paint and put them back in the water before the tourists notice.

It's a big step from solar powering Cloncurry to powering Brisbane and Gladstone aluminium smelter. In fact I believe it can't be done. Brisbane must 'power down'. Tell the aluminium giants to move to China and p.s. they can't have any more coal.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 8:52:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is filled with nice sentiments and reporting about Anna Bligh being a business-as-usual, who-cares-about-the-environment politician, but it never gets close to explaining how "Queensland could be producing all its electricity needs from renewable sources within 15 years."

The idea that "Government should seek and encourage their (Solar power plants) construction, provided they can produce pollution-free electricity at costs comparable to using coal plus the cost of emission licences," is a lovely idea, but probably nowhere near reality. Maybe if the cost of carbon emissions was $400/tonne, tripling or quadrupling the cost of coal fired power, there might be a chance.

The implication in the phrase "Where is the political will?" is that the electorate really wants something, but the politicians are stalling or opposed to it in favour of small powerful special interest groups, like the big power producers. I doubt that there is a majority in Queensland for tripling or quadrupling the cost of electrical power.

Setting a more realistic goal like Queensland producing 5% less CO2 in 2012 than they produced in 2007, would be a far more reasonable target, a target that Anna Bligh would have to take responsibility for and a target that wouldn't require tripling power costs.
Posted by ericc, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 9:22:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bligh is unashamedly just taking more and more taxes, growing dumb government and preaching about restraint to the taxpayers. She is the equivalent of Joan Kirner in Victoria, foisted on the voters by a corrupt administration and will be dealt with the same way by being voted out.
More people are realising the folly of trusting people in white coats and clipboards who increase their wealth when they scare politicians. Read up about the ice age which occurred 15,000 years ago and then talk about the barrier reef dying! It is ludicrous, from a massive Northern ice cap and no Bass Strait because it took up so much water and that was only 15,000 years ago. Withis an estimated 50 years we had the seas rise to current levels and temperatures increase. Get serious and stop funding these idiots and see them look to something else. Increase electricity tariffs and who gets the money? BG - Thats British Gas have we learned nothing?
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 6:34:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your point is nicely made, Mike. The Queensland government is addicted to the wealth coal makes for it.

Just as we, the users of electricity are addicted to it. Although industry and the public sector are the giants of carbon emissions, the only way to change the current awful denial and prevarication is societal pressure. We did it with smoking!

Reversing climate change has to happen right now. It has to be big and it has to work. Our serial centrist governments are as weak as water when it comes to making the hard decisions to change. By the time we have a societal and attitudinal change it will be too late.

We still have the consumer mentality, pathetically using because we think it's endless.
Posted by Baxter Sin, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 8:32:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a big step from solar powering Cloncurry to powering Brisbane and Gladstone aluminium smelter. In fact I believe it can't be done. Brisbane must 'power down'. Tell the aluminium giants to move to China and p.s. they can't have any more coal.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 8:52:17 AM

I must confess I have not read the article but this clause has me dumbfounded how anyone can possibly think this way.

We already have increasing poverty numbers in our country, increasing homelessness, increasing unemployment and increasing hardship and this is while the resources boom is still holding out.

God help us if we stop supplying China.

I hope you are ready for what you have wished for mate!
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 30 October 2008 6:26:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The chickens are coming home to roost. The labor gov has pledged:

1 To meet climate change requirements
2 To continue to grow the economy
3 To block any nuclear power

Without any viable renewable base load (Hot rocks has yet to be shown to be viable) these three goals are contradictory.

The labor gov has then chosen the most expedient option. Pursue economic growth, block nuclear and pay lip service to climate change.

Why am I not surprised.

The present path will see emissions growth of 20% by 2010, and less politically paletable choices being made by a party that is prepared to walk the talk.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 30 October 2008 8:31:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i think the title is right [but not the conclusion]
its all about protecting the ecomony [its the ecomnomy stupid?]

we have enjured compulsory supper [to underpin the stockmarketeers by steady supplying the fiat currency for their basel speculation income to prop up the stock market gambelers]

we pay gst, petrol tax , smokers tax ,[the drug war tax raises 65 million each year in qld alone ,plus provides work [and steady income for lawyers judges police and jailers]as govt criminalises human activity
http://www.prisonplanet.com/smokers-to-be-banned-from-becoming-foster-parents.html
#
http://www.prisonplanet.com/parents-to-be-fingerprinted-by-nursery-schools.html
so we soon will see the carbon tax here [but will we be ALLOWED free acces to facts?]

i feel god has sent clear sign'ss
http://www.prisonplanet.com/snow-blankets-london-for-global-warming-debate.html
Kinda ironic [but what with this new distraction about carbon?>
http://www.prisonplanet.com/australia-to-enforce-mandatory-chinese-style-internet-censorship.html

its ALL about the e-con-o-my [and giving govt cash subsidy to big buisness] think of the billion dollars govt GIVES big pharma [each year]for stroke medication alone ,

when is a tax a not a tax [when its sold to us by fear [its only smokers , its only speeders , its only [non wine] drinkers ,its only druggies ,only for criminals [why isnt polution criminal?]

well now its only carbon producers[only those who breath] thats right now we are taxed to breath [why?]well bigbuisness is colapsing they need solcialised subsidy from govt to gain yet further income streams[that the free? market can set the price for

where is the media telling you this ?
well its in process of getting shut down
[see 2 de link]

#
if we REALLY have a trouble with carbon [lock up carbon] ie stop clearing [let forrests be FOR-rest not destruction]please note REAL polutants [micro waves ;mobile phone towers even the sun have more to do with [is it global WARMING or cooling?]

hell people its a NEW tax get it?
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 30 October 2008 8:53:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll be direct here. The CFMEU has labor by its gonads in most Australian states and federally. They are certain to resist any decisions to reduce coal use or reduce coal exports. I'm a union supporter, but just stating the facts, thats why nothing changes. On the other side of parliament, the greenhouse mafia of resource and oil companies bankrolls coalition politicians.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Thursday, 30 October 2008 12:34:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is only one State that is a significant nett exporter of electricity to the rest of the five-State National Electricity Market: Queensland. It does so to the tune of around 6% of total NSW demand plus around 20% of total Tasmanian demand, these being the only two States that are consistent nett importers of electricity.

Here is a link to a PDF document containing information as to the extent of inter-State imports and exports of electricity within the National Electricity Market (NEM): http://www.esaa.com.au/images/stories/Market_reports/2008_07_26nem.pdf . The relevant graph is on page 2 of the 17 page document, the ESAA Weekly [Electricity] Market Report. There is also an annotated diagramatic illustration of electricity flow directions, showing no flows north to Queensland.

There would thus seem to be a very simple means by which the Queensland government can immediately reduce emissions from its electricity generation enterprises without inflicting supply shortages on its own domestic consumers.

Cease exporting electricity inter-State!

The issue that would then remain to be addressed would be that as to the extent of the electricity sales revenue Queensland would forego by abandoning that inter-State export market.

In circumstances of expanding domestic consumer demand, which is acknowledged as the real situation facing Queensland, such electricity sales revenue would not be being foregone, but simply coming from a different, and more morally entitled-to-supply, class of customers: Queensland residents and businesses.

I get the sense from the article, however, that the Queensland Premier is not talking of reducing existing generation output as a means of reducing emissions, but of diverting unreduced maximum output from its domestic consumer market to other more favoured customers without incurring a need to invest in more generating capacity.

If I am right, then what Anna Bligh is doing is misrepresenting an intention to both increase the electricity tariff and tolerate potential shortage of supply to domestic consumers as a 'reduction of emissions', when in fact what will be occurring is the avoidance of needed investment in expanded generating capacity.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 31 October 2008 10:56:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister;
Hot rocks hopefully will give an indication fairly soon as to
how much heat can be sucked out to drive a station.
I presume that the question revolves around, does extracting heat
from the hot rocks cool the rock formation significantly and what
rate can be maintained and still have hot enough steam ?

As the heat source is radiation decay with a very very long half life
it should be a marvelous energy source if a big enough rate can be
maintained.

As it all stands now the Federal governments aim of growth is
impossible without increased energy. Forcing a cut back in the use
of energy sources such as oil and coal must cause a contraction,
except for waste reduction, in the economy. Growth is history.

The Queensland Tourism Industry is already doomed. Airlines have
already cut back on their services and long before global warming
drowns the barrier reef the airlines and the tourist industry will
be history.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 3 November 2008 2:54:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ericc rightly questions the ability of Queensland to produce its needs for base load power from renewables within 15 years. In my view a more realistic timeline should read within 25 years – say by about 2030.

This is based on the assumptions that within this time-frame, 5 major developments will occur:
1. By 2010 the use of hot fractured rock to commercially produce base load power will have been demonstrated and that within 10-15 years thereafter, the vast and very hot rock deposits of western Queensland will be providing up to 50% of state needs.
2. Within the next 5-10 years significant improvements in the cost of manufacturing photovoltaic cells (PVC’s) and the efficiency with which they convert sunlight to electricity will be achieved, possibly using plastics.
3. Within 5-10 years, technology will vastly increase the storage capacity and cost of batteries enabling their wide use to provide power for residential purposes and small business.
4. By 2020 a significant source of base load power will be from very large solar power stations employing heliostat technology to generate thermal/PVC electricity.
5. Reduction of power generated from fossil fuels will occur because of supportive public policy encouraging production and use of electricity from renewable sources.

Development 1 is speculative but it is not unrealistic given that geothermal power is already used commercially in Germany and Geodynamics Ltd. proposes to demonstrate its use in Australia by supplying the Innamincka District with electricity by early 2009.

Development 2 and 3 are already well advanced and may be commercial propositions within 5 rather than 10 years. Development 4 has occurred in the USA and is now being sought by investors in Australia, though in my view current proposals are unlikely to be competitive with coal given the present state of technology. But that is changing.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 10:26:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy