Hasbeen,
It is true that burning coal in power plants has minimal effect on greenhouse gases compared to the production of other greenhouse gases (about 20%). Burning natural gas can be a major waste, as natural gas can be used in the future as a feedstock for nanotechnology.

If Australia cannot resurrect its manufacturing base, then perhaps Australia could become a major carbon sink to earn carbon credits. We have vast areas that could be reforested, and I’m sure the wildlife would appreciate it (or what is left of Australian wildlife in many areas).

hasbeen

It is disappointing when commentators wrongly present their beliefs as fact, misleading fact at that.

Contrary to your claim, gas is rarely used in manufacturing. However, it is widely and increasingly used in Australia to generate electricity, specifically by power stations at Urangquinty and Colonga in NSW, Barcaldine, Condamine, Oakey, Braema and others in Qld, Osbourne and Torrens Island in SA, Bell Bay and the Tamar Valley in Tas.

Of the 15 new power stations approved prior to the new lower emission standards imposed by government, 5 will be fired by gas. Doubts about those 5 proceeding to construction arose because of their inability to compete with high polluting coal-fired generation. That problem is effectively overcome by placing a price on carbon.

Martin N.

Le Mesurier does not need to learn a bit more about power generation. A price on carbon increases the cost of using coal, making it relatively cheaper to use gas or renewable sources to generate electricity The article is correct in its argument. Your view that the best alternative to coal is nuclear is perfectly legitimate but for reasons I alluded to in my initial comment, that option is not on the table.

Agnostic, you must be a greenie.

It is usual for greenies to make bland statements like "high polluting coal-fired generation", with absolutely nothing to justify that statement.

After billions of dollars have been wasted on "climate science" trying to find some plausible evidence that coal, as used today, damages anything, it is no longer good enough to expect to get away with such rubbish. Please justify your statement, or withdraw it.

The list of power generation planed to use gas is an indictment of both our government, & the green movement. Please don't boast about the level of stupidity now reached.

Hasbeen

There is global recognition by governments, scientists, academies and other institutions that fossil fuel in general and coal in particular are the largest source of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. It is of course possible that they are all wrong and you are right. The earth may also be flat.

Google is a good search engine which you may care to use to reference the subject of concern to you – the source of CO2, rather than the subject of the article. And no, I am not a “Greenie” but unlike you, I try framing my observations on the basis of fact rather than fiction and address the topic which is the future of coal in Australia.

That tends to improve the commentary on OLO articles which has recently fallen to abysmal levels, wouldn’t you agree?

I think the author is overly optimistic; CCS will never be cheap enough even if a few luckily sited power stations might be able to successfully deploy it. There's more than 3 times as much CO2 as coal burned, it's a gas and it won't ever be cheap to separate, transport or pump underground. Geothermal has a lot of potential but in the R&D funding divvy up it got very little when the fossil fuel industry wants to keep up the pretence that CCS is the best way to go. What they want they tend to get. Nuclear should be getting real consideration but it's strongest proponents seem more interested in preventing renewables or a carbon price that might favour those in the short term - despite it favouring nuclear in the longer term - opposing any attempts to mitigate climate change by means other than nuclear. Large scale energy storage simply fails to rate as an important area needing serious R&D - even less than geothermal. Most of all keeping energy costs low wins over reducing emissions and cheapest of all - especially if you pretend away the accumulation of consequences and costs - is to keep burning fossil fuels.

It all seems to be about the lobbying power of various interests and in that game the fossil fuel industry has that game so sown up that we mostly get greenwash to keep those of us that are seriously concerned thinking we're going to get serious policy action.

Agreed Ken, Well put.