David, you seemed to have missed the point. Yes coal turned into homegrown fuel will likely wind up as CO2 in the atmosphere as does all our imported fuel now.

Some fuel just doesn't need to become CO2 when we convert it into usable energy. Methane can be consumed in ceramic fuel cells to produce energy to run the household appliances. Where the exhaust product is mostly pristine water vapor.

Methane can be compressed and used as a substitute fuel in diesel engine where the first effect is an overall reduction in CO2 emission by as much as 40%. And given it's a gas, little or no particulate matter common to smoky diesels.

Moreover, the cost of running any diesel with CNG/methane is dramatically lower than for diesel!

Simply put it matters not whether or not you burn fully imported ultra expensive fossil fuel or something crafted in and industrial process here at home? Some similar CO2 emission is unavoidable!

And we are far too dependant on tax avoiding, price gouging, profit repatriating foreigners for our fuel! We need to stop being a captive market as we electrify as much of our transport system as we can reasonably do so.

Even so there will still be a need for some diesel or Alternative for many decades ahead in time!

There's just no way around that until or unless we can miniaturize thorium power and use inboard laser activated thorium power to drive all transport options, farm and mine machinery?

Simply put, if I put a gallon of gas in my car and drive down the road, it matters not whether that gas is the product of a local coal conversion process or delivered from a Singaporean refinery. The CO2 emission will likely be the same? Rather than more as you seem to have implied?

The only real difference, we can line the pockets of an Australian entrepreneur rather than some tax avoiding, price gouging, profit repatriating, foreigner!
Alan B.

Alan B, I never implied anything of the sort, but now that you mention it, the process of turning coal into anything else will also need energy. The point about converting it into methane is well made though, because while that process itself will require energy, a fuel cell is a much more efficient way of producing energy than a diesel engine, so you might gain a bit more bang for your buck there.

David

Battery stored wind and solar is not cheaper than electricity from coal. Otherwise coal would be finished. Wind power may cost around $80 per Mwh without subsidies and battery storage about $230 together $310. Coal power under $50 per Mwh absent carbon taxes.

Wind power is a gesture beloved by city folks who want farmers to actually have the towers on their land. A year or two ago farmers were getting $10k annually per tower. However to reliably drive pumps, food factories and cities you need to burn coal or gas, nuclear being too ghastly. There's no contradiction here...city folks get their food and green gestures, farmers get to run a business.

VK3AUU,

One doesn't need to be a scientist to know that batteries don't produce power.

It was announced last night that the batteries plus solar panels will be allocated to 50,000 Housing Trust properties, thereby freeing up more grog and drug money for the tenants.

ttbn
"One doesn't need to be a scientist to know that batteries don't produce power."

That may be true, but there are still a lot of ignorant people out there that think they do. My main concern with batteries is that people in most parts of the country who haave cloudy winters with shorter days, don't realise that that their solar panels are not going to produce enough power to run their homes, let alone charge their expensive batteries. From an investment point of view, batteries result in a negative return whereas the return from the investment in sloar panels alone is quite good.

David