King Island has no problem achieving 65% renewable electrical energy, despite the fact it has no hydro, and if they can get biodiesel may be able to get 100%.

The site below is particularly interest as it shows in real time the energy mix.

http://www.kingislandrenewableenergy.com.au/

Hi Robert LePage

Subsidies to fossil fuel sector are even more expensive for the taxpayer. The fossil fuel sector is set to receive $47 billion in federal government subsidies over the next four years.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-put-at-47bn-as-ret-wrestle-continues-58572

And count all those $Billions in subsidies for the Victorian brown coal industry during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Government.

Regards

Pete

Sadly predictable that Gary Johns' article should draw out so many trolls. It seems that in climate orthodoxy there is no room for open discussion. I have to say that the myth that wind power is fossil clean is a hard one to tackle. A few years back when I ran the World Coal Association we came across a report from Vestas - the then largest manufacturer of wind turbines - which detailed the materials used in an average wind turbine. Vestas' own figures showed astonishing levels of coal and other fossil use over the lifetime of the turbine - 250 tonnes for a single offshore turbine, 150 tonnes for onshore. But of course these facts don't fit the story some want us to believe and I have no doubt the trolls will now attack this on the basis that I worked at the WCA rather than on the facts themselves. Well done Gary.

Hi plantagenet and Robert

The two largest values in the so-called “subsidy” are removing the carbon tax and the Fuel Tax Credit scheme. One could argue that one of these is a subsidy, but if so the other cannot be. The logic of both rests on economic “externalities” – costs imposed, or not imposed, on the wider community and not paid for by the company that causes them.

The argument for a carbon tax is that emitters should pay the cost they impose on the community through global warming. And the argument for fuel being Australia’s second most heavily taxed substance (after tobacco), is that vehicle drivers impose substantial costs on the community that they don’t pay for, in the cost of building and maintaining public roads, and indirectly through urban congestion and pollution. The Fuel Tax Credit scheme is fair because farmers and miners use most of their fuel off road or in heavy machinery, so don’t contribute to the cost of building and maintaining roads, or of urban pollution and congestion.

The logic against one of these “subsidies” is the logic in favour of the other.

Personally, I’d prefer to see a carbon tax, but with the Fuel Tax Credit retained.

Please read this article....

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/coalition-makes-it-up-in-campaign-against-renewables-climate-action-85091

You're a bit brave trying to talk facts to the warmists that infest this blog Gary. Facts just wash over them, with no penetration of the closed minds.

To salute your courage I offer you a theme song. I like the Frank Sinatra version, "They didn't believe me", & it is what to expect from the Greenies particularly, along with the academic gravy train riders.