Shadow minister

Points taken on current bagasse thermal generation being seasonal only. I had not researched to the subject prior to this exercise but on delving more deeply found there is currently 300 MW of generation . About that much more is feasible and there are plants to export more to grid. Future developments plan to export more to grid; perhaps these units could be supplemented by other biomasss sources.

For future plants, gasification rather than thermal would enable increased efficiency through 'combined heat and power'

Roses 1,

"Taxing all fossil fuel inputs as you suggest is essentially the same as a carbon tax;"

Ben, my main reason for suggesting taxing fossil fuel at source is that it is far simpler and fully encompassing - all pay - export product being partly or wholly exempt.

(I still think this tax is Not the right way to go, and I blame Tony Abbott to some extent for not revealing his viable alternative.)

What the Gov is proposing is collecting the tax from a multitude of "users" (what a nightmare), and then looking at reimbursing some (other?) "heavy users" (of electricity? fuel? gas?) - What a mess.

At least my way the Gov only has to tackle "essential" reimbursement.

The other alternative is Not to reimburse anyone. If there have to be export subsidies or import tariffs to enable Oz business to remain viable, then DO THAT. Other countries are doing it.

What the Gov is proposing is a huge and complicated money-shuffle - bureaucracy at its wasteful best! The Gov plans to subsidise households. Why? Just increase welfare and pensions. Simple. Everyone else just has to wear it (we're going to anyway).

Labor is "using" a "ruse" to collect extra revenue, and use it to win votes by redistributing wealth from the "fat cats". Laughable!

"I don’t think Liberal policy to pay emitters to reduce emissions will work, do you?"

What's this babble about paying emitters? Tony just wants to work with emitters to find reduction alternatives, and with eco industries to determine solutions. Save wasteful bureaucracy, and invest in development. A sound policy approach, direct action.

What does this Gov expect? Emitters will run to invest? In permits from Brazil? Russia? Indonesia? Or just go elsewhere?

No-one is going to invest in alternatives unless they have a positive incentive, not a negative one.

Do we want viable industry, or a C tax?

Look at Brazil - using ethanol in petrol-burning cars, at a $50 conversion - photosynthesis at its best, eco at its best. Vision, and direct action, not penalties.

Roses1,

Unfortunately the bagasse consuming generators are generally "bypass" turbines using the end steam in the process instead of condensing. This means that without the process using the low pressure pass out steam they cannot run.

The other consideration is that because of the low calorific value per ton of biomass, shipping it long distances makes it an unattractive fuel.

To Ben and the people who've posted on Ben's article. Can we please try to understand that we live in the real world, not some imaginary rose-coloured glasses, theoretical world? Every dollar that Gillard or Abbott propose to have Australian industries spend on CO2 emission reductions in Australia would buy several times more CO2 emission reductions if spent in China, India or just about any other developing country. They are using old technologies that need to be replaced with modern energy-saving technologies already in use in developed countries such as Australia and the USA, and they mostly use dirty fuels that need to be replaced with gas or nuclear or higher quality coal as produced by Australian coal mines.
If Australia was really serious about reducing its CO2 outputs, then some serious discussion needs to be had about a cap and trade system that gives industry 2 or 3 years to come up with their solutions as to how best to reduce CO2 emissions after which the cap is slowly lowered, with significant financial penalties that cannot be transferred on to end users to then apply for those businesses that fail to reduce their emissions in line with the lowering cap.
Gillard's current proposal is a tax that will not be effective in reducing CO2 emissions but which will deliver a huge war chest of money to buy votes at the next election.
Get real, guys.

Don't worry Saltpetre, by the next election, if little Julia holds on for the full term, everyone will know that global warming is over as a theory, & a gravy train. She will be given an academic post somewhere where they have strong stomachs.

Sanity will return to Oz, Brown will be retired to a hut on the Franklin, & the rest of the greenies will be returned to Nimbin, where they will do less harm.

We will all be able then to go back to leading our lives to suite ourselves, rather than our self appointed betters.

You know, I can't wait.

Hasbeen, I agree, and hope your prophesies turn out to be 100% correct.

Bernie Masters makes some very good points though, offering a much better way for Oz to "participate" - and if pursued could give needed time for the science to determine an "optimal" atmospheric CO2 level, and what, if any, intervention is needed to achieve and maintain such a level:

"Every dollar that Gillard or Abbott propose to have Australian industries spend on CO2 emission reductions in Australia would buy several times more CO2 emission reductions if spent in China, India or just about any other developing country."

I also agree with Bernie's proposition for forward emission caps, and working with industry to achieve these going forward - working with the science in the sort of organised collaboration needed to resolve all the complex interrelated issues involved.

My principal concerns are melting glaciers and ice-caps, sea-ice retreat, sea level rise and the loss of arctic and antarctic habitat. These may turn out to be natural, but they may also be an early warning of greater environmental shift, whose consequences could be dire. Thus, we need the best science and the best of possible actions to provide the time needed to get on top of these environmental "phenomena". We surely have the means and the will, if we can only collaborate as a global community to implement them wisely.

Population, food, forests, water-security and environment - all are part of this energy compact.