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.