why would i read or take seriously an article written by another ANTI-socialist?

This sentence "It was reported in June that Australia received more than $4 billion from foreign governments to fund coal projects since 2007 with Australia being the fourth highest recipient of public finance for coal."

So we're worrying about foreign governments investing in our coal industry? I didn't understand this, but in any case the author doesn't seem aware that $4 billion over that time frame hardly counts - considering the vast surge in investment in the resources industry since then.

As for subsidies, the problem is the diesel fuel excise rebate. the mining industry does not use any roads so it should not have to pay the excise for road use, so it is returned. The global warming industry insists this is a subsidy, but on that logic we're all subsidised by the tax office when we get some of our hard-earned back in a refund. The mining industry pays many billions in tax.

I don't know if Abbott actually said that "coal is good for humanity" as claimed here by a person who is against everything. But, if he did say that he is correct. Without coal, there would have been no advancement or growth in the world; people would have starved or frozen to death. There would never been such things as steel production and all the necessities of life made with steel. More people would have been unemployed; we would have remained in the Dark Ages burning animal dung. If the windmill and solar zealots have their way, we will be back in the Dark Ages before we know it - those of us who survive, that is.

Kellie,

Anyone who doesn't understand that coal is good for humanity is either ignorant, gullible, naive or a Green ideologue.

"Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity" http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity

I think you're on to something here Kellie. I mean we all now know that thorium which we have huge amounts of, is cheaper than coal, and with our reserves we could power the world for 700 years.

We could use this impending calamity to really supercharge our economy. We could stop stalling on the production of biogas/algae/ethanol, with which to power the unwell domestic economy, and what more for a fraction of what we pay now, giving our discretionary spend and dependant economy, the biggest fillup it had in many years!

Thorium power would allow us to save our dying manufacturing industries as well as steel and aluminum smelting/ship and sub building!

Large scale solar thermal projects, given essential economies of scale, compete very favorably with new coal fired roll outs! Even more so when the billion dollar fuel bills start to roll in!

It's not that patently self serving pollies and other Quislings can't share in the wealth created by energy projects!

It's just they ought not be coal or fossil fuel based projects!

I can't see why any attendant technical issue can't be solved thus allowing thorium reactors to power most shipping and what's more for far less than the cost of bunker fuel? Thus conferring a huge advantage for our hard pressed exporters.

The problem is the government is being run by fools with no relevant manufacturing experience. Thus we have this almost maniacal dependance on so call service industries, the very first to go in any major down turn!

And you can bet your bottom dollar, we will have many more of those, given the hopelessly flawed economic boom and bust nature of modern economics!
Rhrosty.

macentristmoderate, whether someone has anything valid to say is not determined by their attitude to socialism (or any other political or economic philosophy).

_____________________________________________________________________________

ttbn, he really did say it.
He wan not correct to use the present tense.
Had he said "coal was good for humanity" he would've been correct.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Peter Lang,

There is no doubt at all that coal was good for humanity, but our technological ability has moved on. We no longer need to rely on coal, yet we're still using vast amounts of it despite now knowing about the environmental damage it causes. Anyone who doesn't understand that coal is now bad for humanity is either ignorant, gullible, naive or an anti Green ideologue.

Posting a link to a Koch brothers funded think tank does not help your case.

Another predictable left-wing rant by Kellie Tranter. Will it never end?

For a start, anyone who uses WWF et al. as a source of information lacks credibility right from the kick off. Of course, they wouldn't lie or misrepresent, would they, Kellie?

Tell us, Kellie, can you truthfully say you don't use anything that is a product of the mining industry? Do you use knives, forks, spoons? Glass or china? Plastic pens? Glass windows? Metal lamps? Electricity? Gas? Do you shower or brush your teeth? Drive a car? Catch a bus or train? Buy groceries? Or fresh fruit and veg, for that matter, transported in trucks made from steel and burning fossil fuels? You've used the mining industry to post this article, so there's a start.

I could go on. Almost everything we use or do is dependent on the mining industry at some point and coal is an essential part of the process of converting raw materials to those products.

So until you can truthfully say you don't, best keep your thought bubbles all to yourself, otherwise the hypocrisy is unbearable.

Aidan,
Just because you say we don't need coal, as though it is apodictic doesn't make it true. It's not. We do and we will for the foreseeable future. If you're going to trot out the old claim that we can now survive on wind and solar, don't bother. That's not true either.

calwest,

I was thinking more of nuclear, although Australia is so sunny and has such a low population density that your claim that we couldn't survive on wind and solar is rather dubious.

Anyway, this article was about coal. Not all fossil fuels, and certainly not all mining industry products. What can we do with coal that we can't do just as well with alternatives? The only thing I can think of is firing steam locomotives, which is not currently a significant use of coal.

Aidan,

You must be an academic. Tell us all how you think a city the size of Sydney, Melbourne (with its very changeable weather), or any of the smaller capitals could be run on solar or wind, particularly since a lot of generated energy would be lost during transmission from the extremely large, remote sites which would be required.

So far as I can tell, the only people claiming that powering all of Australia's needs with solar is possible are the people selling is solar panels. Oh, and Labor and the Greens, of course, with no regard to economic impacts.

Australia is sunny, but not always sunny. It's windy from time to time in some places, but not consistently so. Battery storage technology is not yet efficient or widely available. And low population density is not necessarily a plus, though if you live in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, that's hardly low density living.

In any case, whose going to pay for a new, uncosted national solar-powered grid? You?

And why should that be a priority over other demands, such as the health system, road transport improvements, NDIS, NBN, etc.

Remember that there are trillions of dollars already tied up in high rise real estate in the large population centres, so knocking those buildings down and starting from scratch with more solar efficient designs really isn't an option.

Nuclear? OK, I'll certainly go along with that, but it would need a massive climb down by Labor and the Greens, who have run scare campaigns on nuclear for decades. Are they likely to do that? No.And the Libs have never had the courage to press ahead on that issue. So where are the nuclear plants going to come from and how many of them will be built near your back yard?

calwest,

We'd need a lot of solar thermal with molten salt storage. But HVDC transmission losses are low. The best way to pay for it is with a loan from the Reserve Bank (the same goes for other nation building infrastructure like roads and railways and the NBN).

WTF does knocking down buildings and starting from scratch have to do with anything?

The economic case for nuclear power in Australia is very weak IMO. If it were to be built, it wouldn't go in the major cities. Better locations include:

Qld:
Fraser Coast

NSW:
Southern Illawarra,
Central Coast
North Coast

Vic
Gippsland (possibly LaTrobe valley to directly replace coal plants)
Geelong

SA:
Port Pirie

Aidan,

I was right, I reckon, you are an academic.

"The best way to pay for it is with a loan from the Reserve Bank (the same goes for other nation building infrastructure like roads and railways and the NBN)."!!

That'll be news to the RBA, since lending is not one of their functions. Their main functions are monetary policy and setting the cash rate target. The RBA is a central bank, not a lending institution.

And to quote you again: "I was thinking more of nuclear, although Australia is so sunny and has such a low population density that your claim we couldn't survive on wind and solar is rather dubious."

Now you say, "The economic case for nuclear power in Australia is very weak IMO." Is that because you now know Labor and the Greens oppose it?

So, which is it? You for or against developing nuclear power plants?

And your timid defence of wind and solar is noted.

Finally, the sites you have blithely nominated for nuclear plants are certainly not capital cities, but those areas still contain sizeable populations and most are not very far from large cities, such as Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Wollongong, and Newcastle, to name only a few. The NSW Central Coast has a population approaching 350,000, making it the third largest urban area in NSW. Geelong has a population in excess of 180,000 and is virtually a suburb of Melbourne. The La Trobe Valley has a population around 130,000. Queensland's Fraser Coast has a population approaching 110,000.

The politics of getting nuclear into any one of those sites would be extremely difficult. Que sera sera. But what we do know with certainty is that wind and solar are not economically viable without huge subsidies, which have drive up household electricity bills.

As everyone here is so smart can anyone enlighten me? In Bridgewater in central Victoria is a large multi panel solar array. Looks really snazzy but has never worked. If solar is such a shoo-in why not?
I am totally perplexed and people tell me it is all about grants and subsidies? I reckon that sums up the whole business but please explain how I am wrong.

calwest,
I'm not an academic.

I'm well aware of what the RBA is, and I know it's not primarily a lending institution (although it does do some lending to commercial banks). But you asked about funding so I told you what I think the best way is. Alternatively we could fund it via the bond market; that would be functionally the same but slightly more expensive. It's more efficient for the government to cut out the middle man and borrow from the RBA directly.

Globally I'm for developing nuclear plants. But Australia has so much sunshine and so little demand (because of our low population) that I think solar could do the job more cheaply.

"Finally, the sites you have blithely nominated for nuclear plants are certainly not capital cities, but those areas still contain sizeable populations and most are not very far from large cities"
That's the point. There'd need to be a large potential workforce to recruit from, but it's better to avoid the costs of locating in large cities. There's likely to be a higher proportion of people supporting it in country areas, and the number of locals strongly opposed to it would be much lower.

As I said, the basis of my opposition is economic, but the political considerations are still very important and public opinion should not be ignored.

BTW I NEVER EVER base my opinions on the policies of Labor, the Greens or any other political party. Never have, never will.

Renewable energy iv very capital intensive, but has very low ongoing costs. Therefore its financial viability depends on the cost of finance. When the interest rate gets down to 4%, solar thermal (without subsidies) becomes cheaper than fossil fuel. Since the RBA has set interest rates to 2% it makes sense to take advantage of that and invest in solar.

Aidan,

You contradict yourself with every post. Don't have time for that.