Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche


Clean Coal is Just Dirty Coal – Here’s the Facts!

*Pic: Graph – The Climate Institute 2017


Burning coal is archaic, unhealthy, and uneconomical, yet the Turnbull government is fixated on continuing down the same old fossil-fuelled generation path. The Liberals solution to reigning in atmospheric emissions is to construct new electric generation plants using clean coal. But there is no logical justification to do so beyond supporting their donating coal magnate cronies.

Burning coal pollutes the environment and damages our health as it emits toxic and carcinogenic substances into our air, water and land, severely impacting on the health of any communities in contact with emissions.

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (2009) estimated coal’s health impacts cost taxpayers $2.6 billion every year.

The Liberal new terminology for clean coal is called ‘Ultra Supercritical’ The Federal Government wants to build coal power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) even though they emit significant greenhouse gases. (see emissions chart above)

The Liberals Clean coal (dirty energy target) will not help Australia meet its obligations to reduce its emissions objectives by 2030

Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel (together with a panel of reviewers) has now released the findings of a review into the future of the National Electricity Market (Finkel Review) (Finkel 2017).

The Finkel Review finds the electricity system must achieve key outcomes:

• Lower emissions

• Increased security

• Future reliability

The Finkel Review acknowledges that by 2035, most of the current coal generating plants will have reached 50 years of age”.


Presently the Turnbull government is demonstrating its utmost contempt attempting to save the doomed Liddell coal-fired power station. According to Dr Finkel, the Liddell plant may require about a $500-600 million upgrade, and then may not be very productive. Dr Finkel uses the comparison of the Muja plant in Western Australia where $300 million was spent on a refurbishment that ultimately failed.


Australia in recent years has spent about $600 million in clean coal research, yet hasn’t produced much convincing technology to show for the investment.

Tony Abbott and other backbenchers have argued that the government should use taxpayers’ money to back new coal. But Malcolm Turnbull has said decisions on whether to build coal plants were best left to the market, and the energy minister Josh Frydenberg has also stressed that the government was not planning to build a coal plant itself.

This is an absurd position from the government to suggest that private investment should consider coal over the cheaper, efficient and shorter construction duration of renewable energy alternatives.

The Liberals’ concept of clean coal is doomed to failure, but that won’t stop the Conservatives floundering in their support of it.

The only statement that is certain is – There is no such thing as ‘Clean Coal’

*Ted Mead is bewildered why any government would want to consider building more coal-fired power stations given the global crisis’s facing us in this 21st century. Ted comprehends the conservatives’ lame ideology relating to protecting the environment, though given renewable energy has now become cheaper to reproduce, Ted acknowledges that even the most shrewd fiscal operator should know what the most logical and practical options are.

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Russell

    September 26, 2017 at 4:09 pm

    Re #32
    For the last time Robin:

    1.5GW of electricity extra into the grid which could be provided just by having all Tasmanian homes solar powered is MORE than Hazelwood or Liddell coal-fired power stations can produce.

    And would be achieved in a shorter timeframe.

  2. Ted Mead

    September 26, 2017 at 11:30 am

    #32 – Robin with all that inspiring geriatric old-world ideology of – ” Heavy industry, National security and Saving the planet nonsense” you should put your hand up for the position of replacing Matt Groom.

    I’s right up the Liberals’ alley, so you should be a shoe-in for the job.

    Go for it – nothing would please us more than to have another clueless Liberal on the podium displaying why the world is in a such a mess!

    ” Time to stand on our own two feet” – And how are we going to do that if the Liberals continue to flog off our public utilities, and encourage other countries to buy our arable land and resources from underneath us?

  3. Robin Charles Halton

    September 26, 2017 at 3:42 am

    #31, Carbon price is only a feel good mechanism, in reality it has not worked very well, especially when Tasmania earned all of those pats on the backs for Hydro Tasmania by selling ” clean, green energy” to Victoria which has “dirty coal fired” electricity.

    In effect Tasmania severely drained its lakes for Carbon credits under the Labor Rudd-Gillard- Rudd Federal regime.

    I am suggesting that the government needs to force a catch up mechanism into the electricity market to pretty quickly develop 1000’s of Kw of base load electricity and the quickest way to do it is to at least take the responsibility for placement of two modern coal fired units, one central for the southern states to replace the combination of the Northern/ Hazelwood/Liddel closures.

    Another for Qld will get the extra boost from the National/ Katter/ Hanson spruikers in that region to avoid the same series of mistakes that haunts the NEM in SA,Vic and NSW.

    Pumped Hydro is another time waster, a lot of stuffing about with water storages, it would take forever to develop electricity capacity to equal that of a 1200-1400KW coal fired or to a lesser degree, gas fired power stations.

    Australians are sick and tired of fiddling about with energy, we need to get back to Post War basics as now we remain deluded about saving the planet nonsense that is hampering our capacity as a nation to continue to maintain of heavy industries that in affect give us our ability to maintain a high level of national security at all times.

    Next thing if it keeps going this way we will be asking China to build our next naval fleet and military hardware.

    Mate, its time to stand on our own two feet.

  4. Wining Pom

    September 23, 2017 at 4:31 pm

    Robin, you’re obviously right wing so therefore believe in market economics, so why not call for a carbon price? Labor brought in a carbon price, a market mechanism, then the Liberals got rid if it and brought in a Soviet style 5 year plan which has led to in increase of CO2 emissions
    The market is not willing to invest in coal, so you suggest the government fund it.
    The cry of smaller government seems to have gone out of the window.

  5. Russell

    September 23, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    Re #24
    Ted, they were probably 250Ah batteries you spoke of (roughly 300mm deep x 150mm wide and 500mm high)? A company I worked for in Darwin had the contract to replace them as they came up for end of service.

    Re #29
    All Government Department infrastructure has a ‘used by date’ where they must be sold and/or replaced, like transmission towers, Navy vessels, aircraft, etc., and yes even Telecom batteries so that people like yourself can use your landline telephone without any hiccups. They are compulsorily replaced whether they have had it or not.

    If you ever bothered to follow up on any of the information and links provided to you on TT you would already have the answers to the… sniping questions you ask.

    In WA there are already whole housing estates built and more being built with their own solar collection and battery systems. Not only do they provide almost free electricity to the residents (who are shareholders of the energy business), but they also sell the excess at a premium to dills like yourself.

    The problem in Australia is that there are too many of the… ignorant types like yourself and RCH who want a free ride …

    Well, the free ride’s just about over and you had better get used to the reality that you’ll be paying through the nose to continue your wasteful, …and selfish lifestyles.

    Happy electricity bills to you 😉

  6. TGC

    September 23, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    There is something smirkingly self-satisfied in #24
    but has that contributor considered the practicality of this rather introverted option on a grand scale?
    “I originally bought some ex telecom 2 volt 25 amp lead-acid batteries for $2 each that they discarded. Funny how they continued operating for another 15 years past their discarded date, and probably longer after I sold the property.” – now how many of these would it take to power up – say – a couple of housing estates?- and how environmentally pure are they?
    There probably hundreds (thousands?) of examples – even in Tasmania- of niche energy supply operations which cost nothing to run and mean all those folk never pay a power bill in their life- Great community-minded people they are too!

  7. Robin Charles Halton

    September 23, 2017 at 11:40 am

    The folks have to be told, whether they like it or not my studies point to the construction of two new coal fired power stations backed by the Federal government as a part of their package leading into the 2018 Federal and Qld State elections,

    The National party in NSW and Qld is strong on coal to be used as a source of energy especially for industrial applications and so is the Hanson Party which is becoming a major source of supporting realistic expectations for the people of Queensland.

    The Federal Coalition has to support these measures to be reelected, Pm Turnbull should announce these measures after the SSM count where to I hope the Yes vote is successful.

    Australia has to face the facts, we are isolated and need to exercise our freedom from super powers such as China who would pounce on our economy totally if we show weakness.

    Australia needs stability in political will, at present we are far too divided being bullied and baffled by climate science scare campaigns that would be ultimately be our down fall in the region unless we act to protect the national interest.

    Does anyone actually think that life will go on as usual,leaving electricity in the hands of foreign powers and the government handing out generous subsidies for the gradual development of Renewables, la de dah!

    We are not following in the footsteps of the climate obsessionism of Kevin Rudd and we need to drop the Gillard induced Asian century, both were in effect were belittling for the average Australian that we should face those as threats.

    I am expecting the PM has to find a diplomatic solution with China as a trading partner and stop patronising them by reducing the sale of our real estate to Asian interests.

    At home we must secure our energy future now, immediately as the nation could become awkwardly divided with so much uncertainty prevailing at present as political divisions broaden.

    We elect governments to recognise our best interests and not to be played about with by opportunists within the global business sector.

    A deeper inquiry into the banking sector in this country would be a good start as is supposed to be happening currently with the CBA.

    Turnbull needs to broaden his appeal to the Australian public otherwise we could be faced with the rapid demise of the nation under Bill Shorten.

  8. Russell

    September 22, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    Re #23 and #25
    As usual it’s those with absolutley no personal experience,…or have a vested-interest in environmentally harmful practices who know or do nothing.

    …When people are whingeing about $1000 per quarter electricity bills, try 3-5 years depending how wasteful your are.

    Like Ted said, I hope you enjoy your increasing power bills.

  9. Ted Mead

    September 22, 2017 at 12:42 pm

    # 25 – Of course it is true, and probably only doubted by those who think there are no ethical and practical alternatives that could exist beyond their cavern entrances.

    FYI – I have never provided any information on TT which I would consider false.

    I may stand to be corrected on facts occasionally, and I accept that, learn and move on.

    I have never deliberately stated misleadlng information, unlike the resource industry propaganda machines.

    No doubt you are even in denial of that!

    By the way how is your highly expensive power bills going?

    They say it takes a lot of energy to light and heat a cave these days!

    Maybe you should exit your insular grotto and venture out into the sunlight, get yourself some Vitamin D, erect a few P/V panels and join the rest of the world in a progressive move!

    You never know, It may open your mind.
    And that would prove to be a major transition in neanderthal development!

  10. MjF

    September 22, 2017 at 2:44 am

    Good for you teddy. I’d expect nothing less, whether it’s actually true or not !!!!!!

  11. Ted Mead

    September 21, 2017 at 11:48 pm

    # 23 – Well my homes have been operating on PV solar for almost 35 years.

    In that time I have had to only replace 1 faulty inverter (sine wave).

    I originally bought some ex telecom 2 volt 25 amp lead-acid batteries for $2 each that they discarded. Funny how they continued operating for another 15 years past their discarded date, and probably longer after I sold the property.

    I still have one of the PV panels I bought back in 1985 and it still performs, but not as efficient as the modern ones.

    All up I reckon I have spent only about $5000 of infrastructure to power my homes in the last 35 years, and have had very little maintenance issues. (that’s $142.50 per year)

    So I haven’t had a power bill over that duration – Solar can be as cheap as chips if you aren’t a heavy power consumer.

    So for those who berate renewables, they just have their head in the sand and are hoodwinked by the coal industry, just like they are with the forest industry!

  12. MjF

    September 21, 2017 at 8:12 pm

    At current pricing and discounts, 15 years,
    How long will the components like panels, inverter and batteries last ? Actually don’t tell me, I know.
    At least when you replace everything it should all last a bit longer if you don’t cheapskate it.

  13. Russell

    September 19, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    Re #7
    All about thorium reactors


    Re #13
    “Free solar energy indeed. Shame about the expensive infrastructure needed to harness it and loss of generating efficiencies if install is anything less than perfect.”

    It costs about $20,000 to go completely off-grid running a normal house as you would now. How long does/will it take for your grid-based power bills to rack that up?

    Re #19
    “after all, what was Nazism if not identity politics on steroids, with its ‘Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer’? And apartheid South Africa, with people classified by identities based on skin colour?”

    Sounds like Australia!

  14. TGC

    September 19, 2017 at 12:57 pm

    No shortage of contributors pointing to the problems…not quite so many able to offer even half sensible solutions.
    And because I am not in the business of ‘looking for problems’ – i am equally not too concerned anout trying to find solutions. There are a great many people being paid very large sums of money to talk about the ‘problems’ and an even greater number of highly paid suggesting ‘solutions’
    Neither academy wants to lose their job..

  15. Wining Pom

    September 18, 2017 at 7:31 pm

    sneering insult……. eg.. (a favourite ploy of the ideologically blinkered in every age)

  16. Leonard Colquhoun

    September 18, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    Comment 10 finishes with “To vote Liberal means the country remains braindead!”

    Apart from the sneering insult implied about millions of us (a favourite ploy of the ideologically blinkered in every age) it misses the real problem: who’s a conservative centrist to vote for?

    Labor, as many did during the Hawke / Keating years? No thanks, not with today’s mob selling out battlers and workers to the Green-Left brain-addled. ‘Salus populi suprema lex’ is not limited to national defence; it must include secure access to 99% dependable and largely uninterruptible power supplies, without which the ‘salus populi’ is severely diminished.

    The fringe-dwellers? No, for two reasons. One is that elections should enable a government to be formed, otherwise Parliament become a farce like the one in Weimar Germany or the 50 or so in post-war Italy, and other (connected) reason not to is that they are a rabble.

    Or the fascists at the two extremes, the ultra-nationalists and the anthropophobic Greens?

    Today’s pathetic fawning shadow of one of our two great parties needs a root and branch cleanout with a strong dose of, and deeper understanding about, small-l liberalism. Otherwise fascistic ‘identity politics’ will send us backwards to the middle of the 17th century – after all, what was Nazism if not identity politics on steroids, with its ‘Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer’? And apartheid South Africa, with people classified by identities based on skin colour?

  17. MjF

    September 18, 2017 at 1:46 pm

    Thanks frankly but for what ?

    # 17 no argument here Keith A.
    If Australia was serious about curtailing emissions and meeting targets, then coal exports would be phased out as well as local coal power generation plants phasing out. As you say we’re all effected regardless of where emissions are released. We know that’s not going to happen.

    I’m all for renewables as long as cost effective. Currently I don’t see that when the great unwashed are struggling to pay their current energy costs sourced primarily from fossil fuel generation as it is.

    Certainly competition is heating up though amongst retailers, I recently got a 25% discount on usage charges for on time payment for 2 years, with base unit costs on a par with the cheapest available in this locale.

    From the citizens perspective, the obvious positive step forward to take is installation of solar PV

    It’s still out of reach for many families who typically use a lot of power. The government needs to do more to encourage and facilitate uptake of rooftop PV.

    REC’s need a solid price base to operate on, not the current model that sees almost weekly price movement. A person never knows what a quoted solar price will end up at as underpinning the price is the daily changing $value for a REC.

    The option of paying a premium on your power plan to enable your retailer to purchase more renewable energy that someone else has produced via their rooftop array is one of the biggest scams of the modern era. Are the punters stupid enough to actually do this which supposedly enables them to sleep better at night ?

  18. Keith Antonysen

    September 18, 2017 at 11:49 am


    Should the Adani mine go ahead the amount of emissions created would be place it around 15th after 14 countries for the emissions created it has been suggested. Whether the emissions are created in India or elsewhere, ultimately it will impact on us. In the long run it doesn’t matter where the emissions are voided we will be impacted.

    On the 7.30 Report last week, Christina Figueres, stated we have three years to do something significant in relation to climate change to ward off any major tipping points. A major tipping point for example is an ice free Arctic. Once that happens temperatures will quickly increase. Taking into account trend lines, the Arctic will be ice free in 10 +- years for a short time with a business as usual program. Despite Paris, we are still generally on a business as usual program.

    Last year a yacht was able to sail the North West Passage, it has happened again this year. To place it in context, sailing the North West Passage would not have been possible 10 years ago. Snow and ice provide an air conditioner keeping temperatures down. Glaciers are disappearing and permafrost is thawing.

    Scientists working for ExxonMobil in the 1970s warned management about the impact of greenhouse gases on climate; yet management later promoted a policy of creating doubt.
    We have been warned about the impact of climate change for decades; some Economists have made assessments showing that the cost of taking action will increase with time. We are now in a period of catastrophic climate change, if you do not believe that check your dictionary for the meaning of “catastrophic”.

    There have been major storms, wildfires, and droughts in the past. But, the number of storms causing billion dollars plus of damage have increased. Rain bombs are constantly happening where a month’s rain falls in a short time frame.
    The seasons of wildfires have increased, a fire in Siberia in a remote area near Lake Baikal, Siberia, reignited in 2017 having begun last year; and wildfires have been experienced in Greenland.
    Water reservoirs have dried up in a number of countries; the irony being that after drought some areas have received rain bombs, e.g.India, California.
    A youtube channel, since 20th June 2017 has produced 17 films showing extreme events that have happened around Earth where people have been killed, businesses destroyed, homes and cars overwhelmed, and toxic wastes released.

    The ABC Catalyst program provided an preview of what can be expected in 2013:


    So, go for using fossil fuels to create energy and watch energy prices soar (new coal fired plants are extremely expensive, private companies will want to redeem costs and keep shareholders happy. Then, there are the hidden costs to health and extreme events; or, get behind promoting stored energy, it will allow an increasing number of people and companies to go off grid as energy storage becomes cheaper through economies of scale. Use of renewable energy produces many jobs.

  19. Ted Mead

    September 18, 2017 at 11:15 am

    #14 – Ok Frank – I’m listening, explain to us all how biomass burning of our native forests is not braindead?

    FT has been desperately looking for other means to plunder native forests for years.
    They targeted biomass as a probable use. That is why over the last decade they continued to employ a consultant from Europe to investigate and argue a case for biomass burning in Tasmania.

    I suspect FT just couldn’t get the federal subsidies to make a go of it. From my conversation with FT’s consultant it couldn’t see how biomass burning on a grand scale could practically or efficiently work in Tasmania.

    But as we know FT has never been about practicality, efficiency or economics.

  20. Frank again

    September 18, 2017 at 6:06 am

    #13 MjF
    Re: …” solar energy indeed. Shame about the expensive infrastructure needed to harness it”…
    I say:
    Do something proper for positive change!
    Many had it too easy for far too long under Down Under to be frank.
    Easy and cheap sniping is not a ‘fair go’.

  21. Frank again

    September 18, 2017 at 5:57 am

    Re T. M. #10:
    …”Biomass? I’m sure if you were running the country the native forests would be falling at an astronomical rate, burning them for power generation and subsidizing people to go back to wood fired stoves for cooking and heating, whilst contaminating our urban areas with carcinogenic smoke particles.”

    Dear oh dear – what scope and hope is there for an open mind? Talk about and mention the ” braindead”.
    So stuck – so boring…
    Religious wars in Tasmania?
    The level of debate / exchange of thoughts lately is saddening actually to be frank.
    Do your homework Ted & Co – Please!
    It is really time for real change of planning and action. My door is wide open.

  22. MjF

    September 17, 2017 at 11:57 pm

    Certainly symbolic and with a touch of irony that the Paris Agreement on climate change should be negotiated and agreed to in a country that produces 75% of its energy from nuclear zero emission reactors. Such a good example to set for countries like Australia producing all of 1.4% of global carbon emissions.

    Puts us roughly on an even footing with Britain, Spain and South Korea except they all operate nuclear reactors as well but still manage over 1% emissions globally.

    Perhaps we’re not travelling too badly afterall. And lucky we’re such an wealthy country and can easily afford all these reduction measures.

    Tell that to the 1000’s of Aussie families having their power disconnected.

    Free solar energy indeed. Shame about the expensive infrastructure needed to harness it and loss of generating efficiencies if install is anything less than perfect.

  23. Wining Pom

    September 17, 2017 at 3:29 pm

    ‘To vote Liberal means the country remains braindead!’
    Indeed. I may have mentioned it before but the last election gave choices to both parties. Liberals were asked to vote below the line for Richard Colbeck, the highest ranking government member from Tasmania and the same for labor voters for Lisa Singh. Liberals walked in and ticked the party whereas Labor voters thought a bit. Seems like it proves your point Ted.

  24. Ted Mead

    September 17, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    #7 The problem with mindless Liberal Party thinking is that there is no vision beyond the next election.

    Privatisation of Coal plants by the Liberals has notably contributed to Australia’s energy source uncertainty.

    Future Coal power generation is essentially moribund in Australia. There will only be a handful of coal-fired powerstations operating on their last legs in 25 years time, and the liberals can’t see nor want to see the alternatives.

    I’m not an advocate of Gas as an energy power source, though it may have been a feasible solution for the Liberals before they sold off all our immediate gas supplies to overseas interests.

    Conservative Australian governments have essentially tied us into the global market supply so we can’t even obtain cheap gas for our own domestic use, despite the country having a massive amount of gas resource. We are no longer the lucky country, we are now the unlucky country! – Unlucky because we have an imbecile populace that is hoodwinked by the slightest promise of a better future. (that being $10 in their back pocket at the end of another election)

    The Liberals have, and never will advocate an egalitarian society, they have a free for all pillage and plunder, capitalize whilst you can ideology. That’s is exactly why the country is sinking expeditiously.

    So Robin, What’s left for the Liberals then? – Biomass? I’m sure if you were running the country the native forests would be falling at an astronomical rate, burning them for power generation and subsidizing people to go back to wood fired stoves for cooking and heating, whilst contaminating our urban areas with carcinogenic smoke particles.

    Voting for a political party of energy reliability would be a sound platform but we all know you will vote for the Liberals regardless, which means nothing will change, if anything your vote will continue to drive the country further backwards!

    The only glimmer of hope is the certainty the both the Federal and Tasmanian governments will be out of office at the next elections!

    Meanwhile renewable energy technology is advancing in leaps and bounds around the world, and whilst the sun continues to radiantly shine in abundance more and more countries are tapping into this amazing renewable, ethical, clean and free resource!

    It’s the only way ahead!

    To vote Liberal means the country remains braindead!

  25. Keith Antonysen

    September 17, 2017 at 11:32 am

    I wonder what impact the major storms of Harvey and Irma will have on the global economy; the severe fires of Western USA have hardly been taken into account. It has been suggested that hundreds of thousands of mortgages may not be payable by house owners.
    Already debt is said to be higher in the US than during the GFC. Debt level was assessed just prior to the damage wrought by the storms and wildfires; at that time it was considered to be at a reasonably safe level.

    “As many as 300,000 borrowers could become delinquent on their loans after Hurricane Harvey, Black Knight Financial Services says.”



    There have been several reports over a number of years that to ignore climate change would significantly add to costs as time goes on through damage experienced. But a number of denier groups such as Heartlands, Cato, IPA et al, plus Koch bros, have been very successful in creating doubt on the flimsiest of opinion. We are now experiencing the malevolence of their behaviour.

    Despite making promises in Paris, governments generally are not making a concerted attempt to reduce emissions from fossil fuels.

    Promoting new coal mines and building new coal power plants adds more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the proposed Adani mine will be the largest in the Southern Hemisphere should it go ahead. Coal power plants need to be phased out quickly.

    Since the beginning of the twenty first Century there have been numerous examples of “rain bombs”and the result is cars being overwhelmed and houses being destroyed. In such events a months usual rain, or more, can fall in an extremely short time frame. One area of Texas received just over 51 inches of rain from Harvey, an all time record since records began.

    An immutable fact is that a warm Ocean and atmosphere creates and holds more water vapour. Climate change did not cause Harvey or Irma, but did add to their strength.

  26. Clive Stott

    September 17, 2017 at 4:15 am

    Then what?


    Lots of talk. We need to see some action. None of this is new.

  27. Robin Charles Halton

    September 17, 2017 at 2:33 am

    Folks need to remember unlike Europe we dont have a choice nuclear in our power mix for base load requirements.

    It is highly likely that Australia apart from Tasmania will need to continue with burning coal in conjunction with gas to provide a reasonable degree of base load to maintain on top of community requirement, the continued presence of our metallurgical industries and essential metal fabrication industries.

    Australia cannot afford any weak spots in our energy mix as we would not be able to cope in a national emergency that will eventually take place in our region where we be required to respond to protect our national interest as well as those of favorble nations within our region.

    Australia as a modern nation with every opportunity that has been thrown at it should not be in the current situation of energy uncertainty.

    The next Federal election will be based on energy security so its time to think about that mean to you and I.

    Sticking to climatic science at the end of the day most likely will not save our skins as a nation.

    I will be voting primarily for energy security for which in my opinion equals national security, without them both we are potentially cactus as the nation.

  28. Wining Pom

    September 17, 2017 at 12:15 am

    TGC ‘Whatever ‘what’ is- it won’t work.’

    No, but wiping out forests will.

  29. TGC

    September 16, 2017 at 8:53 pm

    Let’s also be realistic- shut down all coal mines- the perfect scenario for many – and do it now-and close the coal-fired energy generators and then…what?
    Whatever ‘what’ is- it won’t work.

  30. Frank Strie, Terra-Preta Developments

    September 16, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    Great topic Ted Mead,
    Let’s Talk Energy.

    Modern, efficient, well designed projects involving ‘stored solar energy’ at planned as whole lifecycle evaluated projects.
    Closing the value chain, using the ‘cascading value’ approach, and the cradle to cradle planning methodology go beyond carbon neutrality.
    The combination of the above mentioned forms of renewables such as Wind, Hydro and Solar, plus Wave & Tidal Power can achieve zero operational emissions.
    What I am, my family and pur business is interest in is to become carbon negative, consequently capturing atmospheric carbon and converting it into stable carbon, restoring the lost carbon of the soil and even use black carbon for many other useful processes.
    My international collaborators and fellow IBI members have regular webinars that provide a god insight into our thinking.
    ‘Only when we do something can we change something’.
    The Ithaka Institute Representative and IBI Board Member Kathleen Draper (based in Upstate New York) is presently organising and leading a tour to Stockholm, Sweden in early October:

    Kathleen has already outlined a strategy in 2016 that is a guides our work:

    The Biochar Displacement Strategy

    by Kathleen Draper

    Since the “55 Uses of Biochar” was presented nearly four years ago, the Ithaka Institute continues to outline and refine this expanded concept of biochar uses. The Biochar Displacement Strategy now articulates a vision for maximizing biochar use by displacing non-renewable materials. Exciting new non-agricultural biochar research from around the world paves the biochar way towards the global bio economy. …

    Draper K:
    The Biochar Displacement Strategy,
    the Biochar Journal 2016, Arbaz, Switzerland.
    ISSN 2297-1114
    Version of 27th November 2016

  31. Leonard Colquhoun

    September 16, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    Most phenomena, rather than being binary either/or extreme opposites, have characteristics which are scattered in spectrums which range from ‘extremely whatever’ at one end to ‘minimally whatever’ at the other.

    Is there any physical reason why coal usage isn’t similarly ar-ranged?

    PS: ideologues, whether philosophical or religionist, almost always see everything in bipolar extremes; reckon that AGW true believers are no different, nor are AGW denialists.

    Oh, and BTW, climate ‘change’ is not the point at issue, surely.

    Rational scepticism needed, especially re stuff from government-approved and subsidised entities – nothing like the prospect of ongoing handouts of Other People’s Money to prompt lots of “Ah, look what I/we’ve just discovered!”

  32. Keith Antonysen

    September 16, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    A new term to confound us is HELE, which stands for High Efficiency Low Emission coal. In percentage terms it reduces emissions by around 20%. The government’s own records have shown that instead of coming down, emissions have been increasing. Yet, the LNP is pushing for an extremely expensive power source which will further increase emissions. Just prior to the carbon tax being revoked, emissions were beginning to come down. Despite the LNP spending billions on the “direct action” policy, it has been a failure.

    The other matter is that NAIF (Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility) is mainly stacked with people who have been employed in the fossil fuel industry. The objectivity of any decisions is highly suspect. There have been hints that the LNP would finance coal fired plants.

    It takes some years for the investment in coal power plants to bring in any profits which means old plants are more profitable than new power plants. Hence investment by the private sector is not forth coming.

  33. Chris

    September 16, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    Easy solution get Rupert Xenophon to redefine it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top