The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The end of coal is nigh – someone just needs to tell the Turnbull government > Comments

The end of coal is nigh – someone just needs to tell the Turnbull government : Comments

By Suzanne Harter, published 20/12/2016

The senate committee recommends a comprehensive national energy transition plan for the orderly retirement of coal fired power generation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The trouble is SA has clearly demonstrated what happens when you don't have none weather dependent power generation.

When comparing Australia's power with other countries I wish green groups would be honest and explain how those other countries can generate power with less fossil fuel.

The Greenies are ignoring an inconvenient truth that those countries use Nuke and dams to make up the difference, two thing they are very opposed to. the author appears to be from the USA.
USA.
Coal = 33%
Natural gas = 33%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.6%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.6%
Wind = 4.7%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases = <1%
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 8:43:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has the author ever visited or flown over a 'dirty' coal-fired power station? She is probably happy to use the 'clean' electricity from the power points in her castle in the sky. What a load of rubbish.
Posted by John McRobert, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 8:51:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Germany often called the first renewable energy economy has a little secret since it started switching off its nuke power stations it has been increasing its coal burning to compensate. Since 2011 it's coal fire power output has increased and there are plans to build 27 more coal fired power stations.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 8:54:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Busy readers can save a lot of time via a quick check of Harter's bio: she's a "climate campaigner" at the ACF. No need to waste your time on this pap, then. But as a public service, I make the following points.

It becomes tedious when this sort of tripe contains all of the usual Left cliches: carbon dioxide is "carbon pollution". It is neither carbon, nor pollution: it is an essential trace gas which promotes plant growth. If Harter and the ACF don't know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide, there's not much hope for them.

"Systematic retirement of coal generators will encourage more investment in clean energy sources..." And if that were to happen, all of Australia would emulate the lunacy of the South Australian government, with blackouts and brownouts a feature of daily life. It's not "investment", by the way, but economic suicide, subsidised with taxpayers' dollars.

Harter says "...scientists expect that the northern region [of the GBR] will take at least 10 to 15 years to regain the lost corals...", when, in fact, the reef has survived for millenia and bleaching has always been part of the cycle, even way back before "global warming" was a fantasy and the crown of thorns starfish was thought to be the culprit.

This year is "set to be the hottest year on record", yawn, yes, again, damn those adjusted surface records, "with global temperatures measuring 1.2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels". Depends on which "pre-industrial levels" you compare it with. The mediaeval warm period, for example? And how valid or significant is the concept of "global temperatures" if it's 35 degrees Celsius in Sydney and minus 35 degrees Celsius in Moscow or New York?

And finally, it's worth noting that atmospheric carbon dioxide increases AFTER temperatures, so it's hard to see a causal relationship anyway.
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 8:56:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Catwest. A well constructed and presented response to the essay. However, you are trying to convince someone who believes the world is flat. When scientific evidence (observations) are uselous, there is no way of changeing their myopic view of the world but do, please, keep trying, it is only a matter of time before the planet will prove them as duped. I am hoping that pres. Elect Trump will break the nexus.
Posted by Prompete, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 9:59:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Same old same old. The more these idiots are proven wrong, the more hystericical they get; the further they dig their heels in and, the more they lie. The "Reef" is a huge lie: there is nothing wrong with the Great Barrier Reef, which is nowhere near coal. "The end of coal is nigh" sounds just like some nut job announcing the end of the world - 'the end is nigh' - and the end of civilisation could very well be upon us if we listen to these lunatics harping about the dangers of coal. The truth is that coal, short of going nuclear, is the only thing that will ever provide us with cheap, reliable energy. SA's lunatic government blew up our last coal-fired power station, and we will be facing continual blackouts this summer because of it. Our only comfort is COAL power from Victoria, and even there the loony Left seems determined to get rid of coal. The rubbish 'science' has been proved wrong by events, but still the mad bastards screech.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 10:04:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks,Prompete, I know you're right: that belief system is now part of who they see themselves as being. It's religious.

And yes, I agree, our big hope is Trump. If he steps back, the rest of the world will have to step back or wear huge disadvantages in trading with American companies.
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 10:21:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I explained in a previous OLO comment what can replace coal will probably cost at least double. For example any combination of wind power getting the $90 per Mwh LGC subsidy and 40% efficient gas fired generation with gas at $10 a gigajoule. A typical wholesale electricity these days is $45 per Mwh but any wind/gas combo must cost at least $90.

I don't think the public wants a doubling of electricity prices. Nor at the present time do aluminium smelters want expensive nuclear electricity.
Don't wait for gigawatt scale batteries to arrive as they may not. Electric cars could add 15% to annual electricity demand. We could largely replace coal with nuclear but it may take a few years to grasp this. As the big coal stations close we'll simply pay more perhaps for another 20 years.
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 11:00:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll leave it to others to argue the ACF's position on climate change. Far more interesting is what the ACF's overall clean energy transition strategy might be. Does the ACF recommend that gas replace coal as soon as possible? Or does it think that sun and wind alone are going to do the trick? If the latter, they are dreaming. Even if the official position of the ACF is a coal-to-gas transition, then they still need to tell us what comes next after that, since gas can reduce emissions by only around 50% and then only for electricity. That's a long way short of the 80% total reduction in emissions climate stabilisation calls for, especially as it ignores the other 60% of our total energy supply on which our health, welfare and prosperity absolutely rely. Unless the ACF can put forward a credible overall energy strategy that meets these objectives then I recommend it simply shuts up.
Posted by Tombee, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 11:08:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Suzan, coal means jobs, jobs mean properity and proserity is what makes the wheels turn.

Your efforts would be better spent researching a way to deal with carbon as the reality is without coal the wheels will stop turning. Then what!
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 12:44:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
well if a lie is told often enough it will be believed. Evolution is the greatest example of that. Scare the kids and the naive with the gw faith. They are shameless as they fly the globe producing far more carbon than most and then preaching their heresy with moral indignation. Have all those fool movie actist moved to Canada yet?
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 4:41:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, so many correspondents pushing the same lines. There seem to be too many to address at one time [Yawn].

Carbon pollution? While it is true that the author is using code to refer to the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, this is neither new nor rare.

Carbon dioxide as a harmless gas and one necessary for plant life? Certainly necessary for photosynthesis and one that is being recycled through living things back into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, it is being added to the atmosphere at a vastly faster rate than photosynthesis or solution in the waters of the earth can keep pace with. The concentration in the atmosphere keeps increasing. At this point, let us be aware that carbon dioxide is a very effective greenhouse gas: it allows the shorter wavelenghts to pass through while not allowing longer wavelengths radiated from a heated earth to escape back to space. This raises the temperature of the earth and causes many changes, not the least of which is a raising of Arctic ice and land temperatures, leading to the rapid outgassing of methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times more effective than Carbon dioxide.

Let's use nuclear in place of renewables? A most incredibly expensive activity which produces more carbon dioxide than it substitutes for, along with environmentally dangerous tailings, lethal 'spent fuel' and structures which cannot be used for anything until their radioactivity had dropped to safe levels. Uranium, useful for 50 years, dangerous for fifty thousand, and unable to proceed without massive subsidies.
Posted by Brian of Buderim, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 5:10:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good cogent essay Suzanne.

As usual, some folk think that nuclear may replace coal? We need small factory built modules that can be trucked to the customers. And those factory built modules ought to be, CHEAPER THAN COAL, CLEANER THAN COAL, SAFER THAN COAL, walk away safe, molten salt thorium!

Thorium is the most energy dense material on the planet and we have enough in our dirt to power the world for the next 1,000, and 1,000's more if we start to mine igneous rock!

Moreover, Millions of tons of thorium has been mined with other minerals and some sand mining!

All of which has been treated as waste! Some concrete slabs may have large concentrations of thorium under them?

Thorium is abundant easily recovered and available as is, without any enrichment whatsoever!

It is less radioactive than a banana! Produces 90% less toxic waste and may even be tasked with processing nuclear waste until the half life is reduced to 300 years! While other nations pay us billions!

And money enough to build dozens of walk away safe molten salt, thorium reactors. None of which need to be connected to an energy wasting, money wasting grid!

Reactors for zilch, and virtual free power! Moreover, for the hundreds of years we'd need to process and reprocess imported waste!

The greens will as is their want, waffle on about radiation and nuclear weapons?

You're exposed to far more GAMMA radiation, when flying any long haul international route!

There just isn't any weapons spinoff from thorium! The very reason this tried, tested and not found wanting, fifties technology was abandoned?

And maybe because powerful energy companies knew they'd be annihilated by costs so low, they couldn't ever compete!

And the very reason for putting it back on the table, then allow it to stand or fall on the huge meritorious economic upside alone! Nothing else, no ifs buts or maybes!

Wait 20 years for that?

WHY?

Got a problem with widespread economic growth and unprecedented general prosperity?

Or, can't get permission from our bettors?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 20 December 2016 5:19:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we are going to transition away from coal? And we are going to transition away from coal! Then that transition needs to be based solely on the economic upsides of doing so!

An imperative for a nation producing around 1% of the planet's Co2 emission!

Simply put, if a truly massive economic case can be made for that transition!? Why would anyone want to obfuscate or delay for as long as possible, to effectively prevent that transition?

Surely there would have to be a very narrow vested interest coupled to that obfuscation or delaying tactics? A light water reactor 20-30 years from now!? You think?

Look, 20-30 years from now the same expert, perhaps with an alphabet soup behind a name, can suggest the very same thing, without ever once setting out a superior economic or environmental argument for wanting we Australians for doing so!

[Remember, an Aussie sounding non de plume, doesn't mean the poster is actually Australian?]

Perhaps until any possible advantage has gone or become the boon for others not governed by incompetent dolts? Nincompoops one and all, who if they shared a brain between them, would find it lonely!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 20 December 2016 6:13:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear "A most incredibly expensive activity which produces more carbon dioxide than it substitutes for"

Totally egregious rubbish, Brian, completely negating your credibility. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf
Posted by Mark Duffett, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 9:01:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ACF groupthink is on display.

The author is unaware of what is happening in the real world. For example, she is unaware of the dire energy insecurity prevailing in South Australia following closure of its coal-fired power stations.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 11:16:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that coal will continue to be the backstop of energy production because only coal can provide energy at the costs that consumers can afford to pay. All this talk about CO2 and "man-made climate change" is uttter bollocks. For heaven's sake many good scientists in climate have debunked.
Posted by Gadfly42, Tuesday, 20 December 2016 11:40:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps the good lady would care to enlighten us what other remarkable technology her mob is going to use to replace coal.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 21 December 2016 9:01:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author is paid by the ACF to lie about climate. She lies when she refers to “pollution” by which she means carbon dioxide, a colourless, odourless trace gas, the presence of which, in the atmosphere, is essential to life on earth.
She makes reference to the “eminent” scientists who make up lies about the Great Barrier Reef, which after more than 50 years of predictions of disaster is still going strong, as are the liars about its condition.
It is fortunate that Trump was elected. He has stated what he thinks of the outcome of the Paris climate lie fest. We can only hope that the member for Goldman Sachs will have some sense, or be deposed by Tony Abbott.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
As Professor Robert Carter pointed out years ago:
“the hard reality is that after twenty years of intensive research effort, and great expenditure, no convincing empirical evidence exists that the human effect on climate (which is undeniable locally) adds up to a measurable global signal.
Rather, it seems that the human global signal is small and lies submerged deeply within the noise and variability of the natural climate system.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change
That remains the situation. The climate liars, like Suzanne, have no science to support their garbage.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 21 December 2016 10:38:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fist, I am not a member of any environmental organisation, I have yet to find one sufficiently balanced.

Second, I do believe that coal is on its way out, but this will be slow, 20 years plus. There is a way to go with technology to make renewables as secure as coal or gas.

Third, there is a lot of evidence that carbon dioxide is acting as a greenhouse gas and warming the planet. It is this warming that is affecting the Barrier Reef.

Fourth, a lot of countries are moving out of coal for air pollution reasons.

Fifth, for more mines we lose more farmland and lots of water and potentially much up water tables.

Six, if we got sensible, we could develop companies based on renewable and energy efficiency and sell services to the world, rather than have others sell these services to us, as happens much of the time

John Hine
Posted by JEH, Thursday, 22 December 2016 10:43:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JEH says:” , there is a lot of evidence that carbon dioxide is acting as a greenhouse gas and warming the planet. It is this warming that is affecting the Barrier Reef. “.He gives no basis for this nonsensical , fraud promoting assertion

As Professor Robert Carter observed:
"However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2

Bleaching is part of the normal life cycle of the Reef:” the Great Barrier Reef system is over 18 million years old and has rebounded from various geological events like Ice Ages, low sea water levels, and warmer water over its enormous life span. In the current bleaching event, some corals will recover once ocean temperatures drop below 29.5 degrees Celsius and corals that have died can be recolonised by coral larvae during the next spawning event. In some cases recovered areas may be recolonised by hardier corals and be more robust for future events.”
Why do you believe the climate fraud promoters JEH?
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 22 December 2016 7:37:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I omitted the link to the comment on the Great Barrier Reef
http://www.greenislandresort.com.au/reefhealth/
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 22 December 2016 10:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzanne, Iron and coal account for $160 billion dollars in export income. Got that? $160 billion. The next closest is agricultural products, and that gets us a measly $10 billion. If you seriously want Australia to stop selling coal, thejn you hade better sell your Honda and get yourself a horse and cart, because that is where the Australian economy will be headed.

I find it incredible that the very people who want to spend, spend, spend, on social welfare programs despise the very means Australia uses to get the money to pay for them. What is it about you lefties that you hate the idea of anybody making the money that you want to spend?

Human Induced Climate Change is beginning to look like the biggest con job since the Millenium Bug, but what we are dealing with hee is a religious belief system. Somewhere down the track, the dregs of the middle class become born again pagans and started worshipping nature again. Since that time, they have used their influence in the universities and the media to spread the gospel that the world is coming to an end if the human race, specifically the white European race who invented everything, don't change their sinful ways and worship Gaia.

Thirty years from now when the Asians are the richest people in the world and the European multicultural nations are looking like Aleppo, or a scene from Blade Runner, you are going to look back at your present attitudes and wonder how it was that you could have been so stupid and naïve.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 26 December 2016 7:31:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, Lego, the global warming hoax predated the Millenium
Bug hoax: the global warming hoax replaced the global cooling hoax in the mid 1970s, when, interestingly, many of the former "coolers" became "warmers" - the same individuals. They could see where the next government grants would come from.

And, ironically, global cooling to a new ice age is far more likely than catastrophic global warming, which has never happened in the entire history of the earth. The so-called "anthropogenic" global warming, said to be caused entirely and completely by human emissions of carbon dioxide, is baseless: human-derived carbon dioxide total about 0.00004 per cent of atmospheric carbon dioxide by volume.
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 27 December 2016 10:00:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzanne, when you do something at a loss, it means you're using *more* resources to achieve the same result. It means it's *less* sustainable, not more, you fool.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 29 December 2016 12:48:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy