Coal fired energy in Australia will always be cheaper than renewables if all subsidies, penalties and taxes are controlled for - as discussed here.

You have defended your position grandly, and also shot yourself in the foot, in one go. Impressive!

I totally accept that running an existing 'coalie' may be cheaper than installing large scale renewables today, but I also totally accept that installing wind + storage even without subsidies is cheaper than installing new coalies. Refer to the link I posted on page 22.

In light of that, please tell me what would be more beneficial to replace the existing coalies when they expire?

Coal fired energy in Australia will always be cheaper than renewables if all subsidies, penalties and taxes are controlled for - as discussed here.

You have defended your position grandly, and also shot yourself in the foot, in one go. Impressive!

I totally accept that running an existing 'coalie' may be cheaper than installing large scale renewables today, but I also totally accept that installing wind + storage even without subsidies is cheaper than installing new coalies. Refer to the link I posted on page 22.

In light of that, please tell me what would be more beneficial to replace the existing coalies when they expire?

Well I feel that the article confirmed that coal would be with us for the long haul - but anyway.

I respect the fact that you're prepared to argue without personal insults and I'll throw an alternative greenhouse gas management scenario. If Australia wanted to dramatically reduce global carbon dioxide emissions then we could simply ban all coal exports; that's a really, really radical thing to contemplate but the fact is that if we did that we'd substantially help with global greenhouse gas emissions. Same with gas - don't allow it to go off-shore and insist that it all gets burnt here or not at all. It would help massively with the carbon fairy, assuming that's the primary goal.

I'm well aware that it would fly totally in the face of the neo-liberal "free-market" convention bullsh*t but it's a realistic solution to what the anti-carbon dioxide people want to achieve AND it would have the added benefit of making our own consumers and industries super-competitive against imports because of our on-shore advantage with cheap energy. Hell, you might even see companies come back to Australia with manufacturing again, imagine how that would put money back into the pockets of the average semi-skilled or unskilled worker.

It won't happen though because Hawke/Keating neo-liberalism collides with the "Save the Planet" mob on actually restricting international trade, they will not even consider anything that radical - our coal and gas must continue to be burnt at record rates, it's just that we're not allowed to burn (coal especially) domestically any longer... for some reason. Even though it makes not one iota of difference to planetary carbon dioxide.

Own goal.

Coal fired energy in Australia will always be cheaper than renewables if all subsidies, penalties and taxes are controlled for - as discussed here.

Most discussions of electricity generation, especially from coal, are based only on accounting costs incurred by the generating companies. These costs do not represent the total costs of producing electricity because they ignore what are known as 'externalities'. An externality is the cost of doing something that is borne by someone who did not choose to incur that cost. The intrusive noise from that neighbour's lawnmower or air conditioner is an externality. In the 1950s London banned the burning of coal in domestic fireplaces because the smoke caused deaths from smog.  Governments can strictly manage externalities when there is a strong enough will to do so.

External costs of burning coal include emissions of various air pollutants, damage to public health, and climate change, among many more adverse consequences. In a 2011 study (the most concise examination of coal externalities i could quickly find) a Harvard group estimated that accounting for the true costs of coal would double or triple its price. Their estimates are shown in Table 1 of that study. They are shown in 2011 prices and would have risen since - especially the costs of climate change which have been, and are, being revised upwards at a faster rate than other costs. Comparing the basic accounting cost of producing electricity from coal with the costs, adjusted for subsidies, of other sources of electricity is invalid - it is comparing apples with oranges. Thus the assertion by Mr Canavan about coal being the cheapest source of electricity is wrong. The related Fact Check piece in The Conversation that supports his opinion is wrong. Each source ignores costs arising from the substantial externalities of burning coal.

Carbon pricing would ensure that some, hopefully all, of the negative externalities of coal burning would be borne by electricity producers. As Mrs Thatcher would have said, 'There is no alternative', if we are to meet our carbon emissions targets in order to stabilise global warming. Raising the costs of using coal would reduce demand for it and encourage production of electricity from alternative sources that are less carbon intensive. But there are other reasons as well to reduce reliance on coal, especially in reducing deaths from breathing in the small particulates and heavy metals contained in the exhausts from power stations.

Will the government go early to an election because the sitting calendar for 2019 is not yet approved by the senate meaning nonsirring days are confirmed.

Most discussions of electricity generation, especially from coal, are based only on accounting costs incurred by the generating companies. These costs do not represent the total costs of producing electricity because they ignore what are known as 'externalities'.

I'm glad you mentioned this because there's some incredibly toxic and environmentally-damaging processes used to produce "green" alternatives that are not currently factored into the production of that power.

Firstly, solar panels use incredibly toxic and hazardous chemicals produced or used during their manufacture including hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and acetone. The more powerful the solar cell the more hazardous the production is; thin-film PV cells contain even more toxic materials than those used in traditional silicon photovoltaic cells, including gallium arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride (discussed further here). The amount of toxic chemicals in the typical solar panel installation is huge and it's an environmental nightmare in itself; pollutants such as cadmium and lead can be washed out of solar panels by rainwater and so you shouldn't ever drink rainwater from a roof that has solar panels on it (not sure why there's not a public health alert on that topic?).

Solar panels also can't be committed to landfill once they're life-expired because of their toxic nature; they have to be disposed of by some other method. The state of California recently banned sending life-expired solar panels to landfill so they've been piling up in storage until they figure out what to do with them - the main problem is the lead and cadmium. They can be recycled but it's incredibly energy intensive and expensive; hence we should probably be looking at an environmental disposal levy on solar panels in this country.

Lithium batteries are even worse; lithium mining is an environmental nightmare. In South America and China, lithium mining has been irreparably poisoning the environment simply because the process of extraction and processing involves very toxic and hazardous chemicals that leach back into the environment. According to a report by Friends of the Earth, lithium and cobalt extraction inevitably harms the soil and causes air contamination discussed further in this Wired article. Is there any way that these externalities are priced into the batteries? No, not really, in fact China has been ignoring the pollution caused by its own lithium mining because it only affects the rural poor.

Coal-fired plants can scrub their emissions so that any forms of particulate pollution can be minimised - and in any case most coal-fired plants are located outside of major population centres, so the particulate pollution thing isn't a substantial issue like it was in 1950's London when people were burning coal in their homes.

Personally I'd rather have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as opposed to poisonous chemicals leaching into the environment on account of "green" energy.

Most discussions of electricity generation, especially from coal, are based only on accounting costs incurred by the generating companies. These costs do not represent the total costs of producing electricity because they ignore what are known as 'externalities'.

I'm glad you mentioned this because there's some incredibly toxic and environmentally-damaging processes used to produce "green" alternatives that are not currently factored into the production of that power.

Firstly, solar panels use incredibly toxic and hazardous chemicals produced or used during their manufacture including hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and acetone. The more powerful the solar cell the more hazardous the production is; thin-film PV cells contain even more toxic materials than those used in traditional silicon photovoltaic cells, including gallium arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride (discussed further here). The amount of toxic chemicals in the typical solar panel installation is huge and it's an environmental nightmare in itself; pollutants such as cadmium and lead can be washed out of solar panels by rainwater and so you shouldn't ever drink rainwater from a roof that has solar panels on it (not sure why there's not a public health alert on that topic?).

Solar panels also can't be committed to landfill once they're life-expired because of their toxic nature; they have to be disposed of by some other method. The state of California recently banned sending life-expired solar panels to landfill so they've been piling up in storage until they figure out what to do with them - the main problem is the lead and cadmium. They can be recycled but it's incredibly energy intensive and expensive; hence we should probably be looking at an environmental disposal levy on solar panels in this country.

Lithium batteries are even worse; lithium mining is an environmental nightmare. In South America and China, lithium mining has been irreparably poisoning the environment simply because the process of extraction and processing involves very toxic and hazardous chemicals that leach back into the environment. According to a report by Friends of the Earth, lithium and cobalt extraction inevitably harms the soil and causes air contamination discussed further in this Wired article. Is there any way that these externalities are priced into the batteries? No, not really, in fact China has been ignoring the pollution caused by its own lithium mining because it only affects the rural poor.

Coal-fired plants can scrub their emissions so that any forms of particulate pollution can be minimised - and in any case most coal-fired plants are located outside of major population centres, so the particulate pollution thing isn't a substantial issue like it was in 1950's London when people were burning coal in their homes.

Personally I'd rather have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as opposed to poisonous chemicals leaching into the environment on account of "green" energy.

Some myth-busting is required here.  

Firstly, solar panels will eventually not have many of the toxic chemicals and heavy metals you've listed.  Yes, it's a problem now but advances in organic chemistry are occurring along with other developments.

Secondly, Cobalt is the big problem in Li-Ion batteries.  The amount in each battery is declining and there have been some significant breakthroughs in recent times to eliminate it.

Thirdly, scrubbers can never remove all of the particulates and heavy metals associated with burning coal.

Incidentally, wind generation is largely a very safe power generator.  (Unless you're a endangered parrot).

Here's the facts:
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

Firstly, solar panels will eventually not have many of the toxic chemicals and heavy metals you've listed.  Yes, it's a problem now but advances in organic chemistry are occurring along with other developments.

What about the ones that are out there now? Have you ever heard a health department warning about not drinking rainwater from a roof that has solar panels on it? Nothing has ever been said but that toxic chemical warning should definitely be publicised because every solar panel is loaded with that stuff.

Firstly, solar panels will eventually not have many of the toxic chemicals and heavy metals you've listed.  Yes, it's a problem now but advances in organic chemistry are occurring along with other developments.

What about the ones that are out there now? Have you ever heard a health department warning about not drinking rainwater from a roof that has solar panels on it? Nothing has ever been said but that toxic chemical warning should definitely be publicised because every solar panel is loaded with that stuff.

How many threads do we now have about energy.

Can we move this to one of those

Morrison is really getting desperately resorting to wedge politics twice this week.

First it's that issue for all occasions 'National Security'. Hey everyone we JUST discovered encrypted messaging apps!!!

Now it's LGBTI coming after your kids (again).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-05/bitter-political-fight-about-discrimination-against-gay-students/10585050?section=politics

Firstly, solar panels will eventually not have many of the toxic chemicals and heavy metals you've listed.  Yes, it's a problem now but advances in organic chemistry are occurring along with other developments.

What about the ones that are out there now? Have you ever heard a health department warning about not drinking rainwater from a roof that has solar panels on it? Nothing has ever been said but that toxic chemical warning should definitely be publicised because every solar panel is loaded with that stuff.

How many threads do we now have about energy.

Can we move this to one of those

Yeah I agree 100%, we all know what each other thinks - let's confine this to its own thread.

Scott Morrison's sorry story is much more interesting...

It emerges Malcolm Turnbull has been negotiating with Bill Shorten to get his preferred carbon-management model in - surprisingly a scoop from the Guardian (News.com.au);

The Guardian’s Katharine Murphy reports a draft of Malcolm Turnbull’s speech to the Smart Energy Summit yesterday included the suggestion that Labor's 45 per cent emissions reduction target would not drive up energy prices.

“Labor has announced it will adopt the NEG (National Energy Guarantee) but with a higher emissions target,” the draft read.

“Ours, as you know, was 26 per cent, which was only just above business as usual, so it obviously had no adverse impact on prices.”

Mr Turnbull’s draft pointed to modelling from Frontier Economics saying Labor’s target “will not result in higher prices”.

SO Malcolm is working with Bill Shorten to shore up a new carbon plan - if that doesn't get him finally kicked out of the Liberal Party then nothing will.

It emerges Malcolm Turnbull has been negotiating with Bill Shorten to get his preferred carbon-management model in - surprisingly a scoop from the Guardian (News.com.au);

The Guardian’s Katharine Murphy reports a draft of Malcolm Turnbull’s speech to the Smart Energy Summit yesterday included the suggestion that Labor's 45 per cent emissions reduction target would not drive up energy prices.

“Labor has announced it will adopt the NEG (National Energy Guarantee) but with a higher emissions target,” the draft read.

“Ours, as you know, was 26 per cent, which was only just above business as usual, so it obviously had no adverse impact on prices.”

Mr Turnbull’s draft pointed to modelling from Frontier Economics saying Labor’s target “will not result in higher prices”.

SO Malcolm is working with Bill Shorten to shore up a new carbon plan - if that doesn't get him finally kicked out of the Liberal Party then nothing will.

Good on you Malcolm. Stick it right up those troglodytes who got rid of you. Do you think he really cares if he gets kicked out of a decaying party?

Good on you Malcolm. Stick it right up those troglodytes who got rid of you. Do you think he really cares if he gets kicked out of a decaying party?

Yeah but the Australian people are the victims of this bullsh*t, and I'm not talking about loading up the poor with the expense of converting to 'green' energy sources. Who's running the joint?

Good on you Malcolm. Stick it right up those troglodytes who got rid of you. Do you think he really cares if he gets kicked out of a decaying party?

Yeah but the Australian people are the victims of this bullsh*t, and I'm not talking about loading up the poor with the expense of converting to 'green' energy sources. Who's running the joint?

Hearing that Morrison delivered a very hysterical presser today, is that right?

Kind Regards

Yes, there was hysteria, there's been all sorts of shenanigans today. Last sitting day for the year (phew!) so no more totally dysfunctional parliament. In the meantime we're being robbed of our natural resources every day, unable to afford to use them ourselves like the Irish Potato Famine.

They left the kids and families on Nauru - Cory Benardi - of all people - ran down the clock so the bill would not be debated and passed.

Apologies to Sen. Derryn Hinch: Shame, Morrison, Shame!

Thank goodness we only have another week of the Scomo Government in power, I know Billy Boy won't be much better sadly , but anything's worth a shot at this stage...

Kind Regards

Barnaby's calling for the abolition of the ban on MPs spouses working in their offices. Must be nearly time for his new Mrs to go back to work.  No self Intrest in play here?

Barnaby's calling for the abolition of the ban on MPs spouses working in their offices. Must be nearly time for his new Mrs to go back to work.  No self Intrest in play here?

What a hypocrite.

They left the kids and families on Nauru - Cory Benardi - of all people - ran down the clock so the bill would not be debated and passed.

Apologies to Sen. Derryn Hinch: Shame, Morrison, Shame!

There's exactly six kids left on Nairu - they have medical attention, shelter and food.

Also I think it's worth noting that it was Labor who put them there with the promise that those particular boat people would never, ever be settled in Australia - but now it's a Liberal government that's moved nearly all of them to Australia.

Unfortunately the boats will now start again... nothing surer.

Unfortunately the boats will now start again... nothing surer.

When?

Because I'm such a fair person, I won't hold you to a specific point in time, but because you are so confident with your prediction, I will hold you to a specific quarter of a year.

So, when???

Barnaby's calling for the abolition of the ban on MPs spouses working in their offices. Must be nearly time for his new Mrs to go back to work.  No self Intrest in play here?

Or he's about to trade her in on a newer model,that he just discovered working in his office.

Unfortunately the boats will now start again... nothing surer.When?

Because I'm such a fair person, I won't hold you to a specific point in time, but because you are so confident with your prediction, I will hold you to a specific quarter of a year.

So, when???

Sometime after Shorten gets elected.

Do you recall the chaos with boats that happened after Rudd got into power? They started again almost immediately. Over a thousand people lost their lives trying to get here, many were children. It got so bad that it lead Rudd to his hard-line ban on anyone coming by boat ever being resettled in Australia (this was a Labor Prime Minister incidentally) and immediate detention off-shore.

But now because we've decided we're too squeamish to put children in places like Manus or Nairu that Rudd promise was broken - those families he said would never, ever be resettled in Australia have indeed been resettled in Australia, primarily because they have children in their company. Now there's something like 14,000 people in Indonesia who have been waiting for the opportunity to get on a boat (NY Times), lots of them have heartbreaking stories but at least they're safe where they are.

Don't you think people smugglers will see the business opportunity when it's official that children and their parents cannot be detained and start again with their $20,000 one-way tickets? Do you not realise that there are people desperate enough in the world that they'll risk that? And they'll drown in unsafe boats, get smashed on the rocks at Christmas Island - all that stuff again - just in the hope that they can be resettled in Australia. People are prepared to risk their own lives and that of their children to get here in the hope of permanent resettlement and if we don't have that off-shore deterrent then we will be overwhelmed again in a short period of time.

Hello All,

ScoMo alleges that Shorten is a danger to national security yet more funding cuts to ABF / Australian Border Force, Dutton's security police , means less staffing at airports ( the source  of nearly all visa overstayers , and hardly a refugee amongst them ) over the Xmas New Year period, the busiest portion of the travelling year.

Long queues in an airport , that will deter the terrorists !

Regards , Radioman.

Wars are good for incumbent governments. We have two perpetual ones, 'Boat People' and Terrorism. Both cynically played-up by them this week.

But now because we've decided we're too squeamish to put children in places like Manus or Nairu that Rudd promise was broken - those families he said would never, ever be resettled in Australia have indeed been resettled in Australia, primarily because they have children in their company. Now there's something like 14,000 people in Indonesia who have been waiting for the opportunity to get on a boat (NY Times), lots of them have heartbreaking stories but at least they're safe where they are.

Aren’t we spending billions out there stopping the boats. Surely that is the effective deterrent, not making examples of children.

At what point do you stop feeding this paranoia?