Come on lady, do you ever think about what you are saying?

Do you think all of us are as dumb as some labor shadow ministers who fall for this spin?

Is there any reason I should not include you in that group?

First you praise the Hydro. You are trying to forget I suppose, that it was your lot that stopped a lot more hydro development a while back, & were advocating removing some existing dams.

Then you start praising the fact that there are more people employed in solar than coal fired power. Do you ever think what you are saying, & what it means.

Just think for a minute. If you are right, how much waste is involved when it takes more workers to produce a minute 2% of our power than it takes to produce 90%. How expensive is it to produce so little by so many.

We could ask, when in the field of human endeavor, has it cost so many, so much, for so little? I'm sure Churchill won't mind, in fact I expect he would be glad to help.

Are you really advocating we spend even more to produce even less. I guess with our experience of Labor projects & policies we should not be surprised to find such illogical thinking. When we then remember you were a minister in that Green/Labor shemozzle that has got Tasmania in such a mess we should actually expect to find you, & your Labor mates can get things so ass up, & then boast about it, as if it were an achievement to be emulated.

I wonder how your party can let you out, without a minder to stop you putting your foot in anything else.

"Are you really advocating we spend even more to produce even less."

LOL Haseen, yes, that's exactly what these morons are advocating. Not only that, but they think that they're being more clever than everyone else and showing the way to a more economical system.

Note to Lisa: using more resources to get the same or lesser result, is LESS sustainable, not more, dumbo.

It is all very well quoting megawatts of generating capacity. It is the megawatt hours of energy produced that matters and when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining, that figure is a big fat zero. You still need your coal fired or nuclear power stations to fill in the inevitable gaps.

David

Shadow minister.
Given thorium connected to local micro grids, costs less than half what we currently shell out for coal fired reticulated power!
And or, endless biogas made for virtually nothing from wasted waste.
And given that gas is then scrubbed and fed into a super silent ceramic fuel cell, with no moving parts to wear out, and an energy coefficient of 80%, or four times better than coal fired power!
Or put another way, four times cheaper than current power supplies; and whats more, provides endless costless free domestic hot water!
Then the only one suffering any form of self delusion are the shadow ministers of this world, who can't fault the actual bare facts, and are therefore, reduced to completely asinine obfuscation!
Which is so much easier, than producing any hard facts or factual evidence, to support a contrary case.
The only way I could actually kid myself S.M., would be to give any credence whatsoever, to your completely illogical turn of phrase/totally empty argument!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, a few screaming errors in your rant:

A thorium nuclear reactor is not renewable

Biogas is not free, but has costs transportation and handling and can be seasonal based on production of waste. The result is that most biogas is produced from landfills and while cheap are limited in generation capacity. Biogas is essentially methane which is similar to natural gas, which can generate power with an efficiency of up to 65% which compared to black coal at 35% is nearly twice as efficient. Fuel cells can get a higher efficiency, but are very expensive and have a limited life.

So I do have the facts, you clearly do not. Please feel free to check them. As I am a power systems engineer working with generation and distribution most of my life I am happy to debate the nuances of power generation with you, but not the "facts" you pick up over a few beers.

S.M:
Thorium is not a renewable, and I never ever claimed it was, as you try to infer, via the now predictable verbal.
My only assertion, if you can call it that, it is a viable and less costly alternative. Understand? Alternative!
Biogas can be made in a backyard, with sufficient size for two septic tanks.
Or under the building or in the basement failing that!
Meaning, it just doesn't need to be transported anywhere, and can be stored in bladders on site; and used via ceramic fuel cells, to produce a energy on demand, day or night, along with equally sustainable, free, endless, domestic hot water!
Given a super silent ceramic fuel cell has an energy coefficient of 80%, or twice that of the next best option, or four times better than coal fired power, it follows that it is four times cheaper than current coal fired power! And the gas can be transported by pipelines or national pipeline grid, if only to prevent the current transmission losses, without which, even coal fired power, would be twice as cheap or allow them to pay for themselves, particularly if you understand that gas is a redundant! Look mum, no rust!
And closed cycle solutions simply don't emit a smell, the only real objection!?
The ultimate renewable just has to be hydrogen, made by using seawater, and the older catalyst assisted water molecule cracking method, and for just a couple of cents a cubic metre, if we use solar thermal and free sunshine!
Solar thermal compares very favorably with coal fired, if we include robotics/mass produced arrays and economies of scale! No ifs, buts or maybes!
Moreover, I don't expect we'll run out of seawater or sunshine anytime soon.
And if you want to argue that hydrogen is dearer! But only if we garner it from NG, or via standard, par for the course electrolysis.
Fine. That's just not how I would make it! Understand?
You'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Rhrosty.