Stern, spindoc and others

Your arguments ( and particularly Stern's, colourful if flawed analogy) miss the point/objective of the exercise.

The abundance, availability and therefore cost of coal is not the issue at stake. what is at stake is the unfunded (hidden/ignored) costs/liabilities of coal generated electricity.

No is it to make Coal on the same (retrogressive) competitive with green technologies! The point is to encourage technology research/development and change from one technology that is environmentally destructive to one that is potential less so.

I doubt that it is the intention to *simply* move us from coal to existing green technologies as they stand today. Rather the intention is to encourage ALTERNATIVES TO COAL.

It would be an unrealistic enthusiast that claimed that coal is operating in or on a level playing field. There are clearly several several artificial inhibitors to stop/limit competitors both in and to alternatives.

Again, as always many see this debate between either extremes and or two energy sources that are of equal potential. This is simply a capitalist solution to human corporeal issues. Clearly the current system is stuck in cash cow milking mode.("if it's bringing profits why change" [short term]amoral mentality).

The problem is that if left to it's self commerce would do nothing untill it's too late.

It seems that the world wide billions spent on 'clean coal, hydrocarbon' etc have yielded comparatively little result. Compare this to the significant advances on the alternative energy source/storage technology (with far less investment).

Then again from the USA perspective imagine how much extra cash they would have if they weren't reliant on O/S hydrocarbon? less need to support oil dictatorships, changes in foreign policy etc...then again US is the US

Of course wind-generated energy is relatively inefficient at the moment. So is solar power, but much less so than 10 years ago. What's the difference?

R&D.

One thing that is quite certain is that renewable energy sources can be made cheaper and more effficient via more research and development. I favour any form of Carbon Tax or ETS that will assist that project.

There is no sustainable future in oil, coal, natural gas or uranium based energy. We have no choice in the long term other than to invest in renewables, even though the short term gains may be minimal.

CJ, the current crop of renewables are not going to get usable by inputs developed by tax payer funded R&D. It just doesn’t happen that way, & never has, except in medical areas.

Industry develops technology to commercial standard, & makes it profitable, not academia. Yes academia can develop mandated safety gear, like flight black boxes, but they don’t do commercialisation, of self supporting products. It is not something they are good at.

All our current technology was developed by individuals or small groups within a company, after an idea was first found. That is how our next form of energy supply will be found, & developed.

Giving funding to university based researchers in the energy field, is just a waste of resources. We have spent billions that way in battery research for no result, although I will admit that industry has not done much better. The same goes for solar panels.

To me this indicates that both are almost mature technologies, with little to offer further. A new avenue will open up, of course, but throwing money at it, will not even find the door, let alone the way forward.

Meanwhile coal, or nuclear is it, & the only problem with coal is the ugly holes it leaves in the ground. There is no reason to rip off the average punter to feather bed some PHDs who should go find a real job.

BADDD CJ... very badddddd... you mentioned "ETS" as something which would enhance R&D...

very sneaky and clever.... but *evil*.. man you must come out from the darkside.. into the light.. being satans emissary for the capitalist/socialists co dwellers in the darkness is not a good look.

ETS= emissions TRADING scheme..and you already know who 'that' benefits.

Do I need to sik Proxy onto you as well? or him AND Stern?

Hasbeen, what a load of rot.

Who funded the Space Program?

taxpayers

Who funded jet propulsion engineering research?

taxpayers

Who funds military engineering and technology research?

And the list goes on...

Taxpayers can make a big difference to any research program, in fact industrial research requires it in Australia, as most of our manufacturers and industry underspend in their own R&D. Leave it to them and you can guarantee no more progress.

What Bugsy said.

Boaz, take your meds.