In the proud tradition of Robert Menzies, whose government in the 1950s and 60s ignored new inventions like the transistor and computer to concentrate on more useful technologies (sic) such as cloud seeding (rain making), we now have John Howard promoting nineteenth century power generation technology.
The risk is that we will miss, yet again, a golden opportunity to be at the forefront of a lucrative emerging technology.
You know the coal industry's in trouble when they counter environment arguments regarding the damage they are causing by promoting dodgy, unproven technologies like carbon sequestration.
Carbon sequestration is an unproven, probably very expensive and quite possibly silly venture to collect carbon dioxide, transport it and pump it down holes, and is possibly inappropriate for Australia's geography and geology. This is an attempt at a technological Band-Aid to allow us to continue with business as usual.On the other hand, elsewhere in the world real decreases in greenhouse gas generation are being produced by booming industries. Costs of wind and solar photovoltaic (solar cells) energy have dropped by 80 to 90 per cent over the past two decades and in countries such as Japan, Denmark, Britain and Germany, their time has come.
Although reserves of coal are extensive and cheap to utilise, the cost of doing so is going rise substantially due to the effect on the environment. Like it or not, this is going to reduce future demand for our coal reserves as countries around the globe move away from coal fired power generation.
Continuing research to become a world leader in renewable energy is a sensible move to counter this probable decline in our export income.
Renewable energy, like all new technologies, is expensive. However, this price gap compared to conventional power generation will fall as the technology improves and volume production kicks in. The industry needs active government support to aid development and subsidise in early adoption.
The industry needs active government support to aid development and subsidise in early adoption.
Nonsense. If the sustainable energy industry worked, it wouldn't need subsidies. Australians don't care where they get their energy from, so long as it's cheap - the cheaper the better.
Consider for a second the costs of abandoning coal power for inefficient, intermittent technologies like solar power and wind power - blackouts and power shortages. Where do you think that would leave our energy-based economy? Would you be able to blog? Would all the workers in IT still have jobs?
We should continue to use energy produced from coal-burning until we get a new, better technology.
The coal industry is receiving subsidies to research carbon sequestration. Why does an industry worth many millions a year need this?
Coal power generation won't be cheap if carbon sequestration is utilised. It will be a massive cost impost on the industry.
No body's suggesting that coal powered electricity gereration will end overnight. These's a lot of work to be done before renewables can lessen the load. What is for sure, though, is that the environment can not indefinitely support the C02 loads added by coal fired power generation.
The coal industry is receiving subsidies to research carbon sequestration. Why does an industry worth many millions a year need this?
That sounds pretty shonky. Government subsidies for either industry - coal-based or alternative - are bad, in my book. I got annoyed by the grumblings of the alternative-energy industry when the government didn't increase their subsidies. (They still got subsidies, mind you.)
What is for sure, though, is that the environment can not indefinitely support the C02 loads added by coal fired power generation.
(rantmode) Uh... I suppose I agree with this statement as well, but only because it's so vague that almost any evidence could back it up. I know 'for sure' that green hysteria about the greenhouse effect, global warming, etc, is overblown and is not an effective argument against coal-power. I also know 'for sure' that there are decent alternatives to coal-power - nuclear power, or possibly hydro-power - but that these alternatives aren't being explored. Why? Partly because of unreasonable fears about nuclear power, partly because of objections to new, large-scale industrial developments (ie, dams), and partly because the solar and wind-energy industries are 'blowing hot and cold' (pardon the pun), promoting themselves and thereby drawing our attention away from these alternatives.
(/rantmode.)