On renewables
Adrian Jackson writes: Re. “Wonder why the Coalition dislikes renewables so much?” (yesterday). I am getting tired of the debate on what power generation sources Australia should use. As long as my heater, light or radio works when I turn it on I don’t care how the energy is produced. In the next 1000 years Australia will need to use it all be it coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, wave and so on and the more diverse the better. Relying on one or two sources is risky if there is a disaster, natural or man made, too.
Roger Clifton writes: “Energy and coal”? Of course, you mean, “Coal, oil and gas”. After all, our energy consumption is necessary, but we do want it to be coming from everywhere else than fossil carbon. Considering The Greens’ selective silence when they condemn coal alone, it does raise the question of whether they too, are accepting money from oil-and-gas, perhaps under a greenwashed label of “Energy”.
Other commentators have been quick to point out that The Greens do not accept donations from Oil or Gas. But will they eliminate gas from the energy mix by 2100? Their silence is noticeable.
At least Roger Clifton has the grace to accept what previous comments pointed out, that the Greens don’t accept corporate donations. It shows how thoroughly Crikey reads the Comments.
“This is another case of Fairfax seeking to manufacture controversy from nothing” another item in today’s Crikey says. I think we could substitute” Crikey” for “Fairfax” here.
Well Woopwoop, since they haven’t been bribed into silence, perhaps you might provide an alternative explanation for The Greens’ failure to condemn gas along with coal. Better still, persuade the Greens to nominate what they would replace gas with.
I can’t speak for the Greens, but there is a school of thought that says that gas, being less polluting than coal, is a transitional stage, between coal and renewables. A sort of methadone for energy.
Yes, many of us are saying, “gas is only a temporary phase”, but mumbling that lets us delay the difficult decisions with only a promise that we may or may not think about it later. It has the logic of thieves – “I will just take care of this wallet until its owner appears”. We hear it from wind salestalk – today wind turbines generate our power all the time the wind speed is perfect, virtuously “reducing” our useage of gas backup during the transition phase to 100% wind. Which we may or may not think about later.
COP21 set the deadline for 2100. There isn’t time for a “transition phase”, considering that power stations are intended to last 100 years, with attendant pipelines and rights-of-way all the around the country and world to gasfields that are negotiated, regulated and provide work for settled communities. During the lifetime of today’s ankle-biter, fossil carbon is to be eliminated firstly from power stations, then from heating and industries and transport. Sometime in that kid’s lifetime, Oz will put up its hand and say, “we’re carbon-free” and the list of emitting countries will have been reduced by one more. That list is what we should “reduce”.
Dodger – do you have shares in an empty brazen vessels factory? You can’t be writing this obfuscatory, ‘look over there’ guff for free.