world

Australia's largest carbon emitter to exit coal by 2035

22 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

Just don't rely on Russian gas and oil, or other countries in the region.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Unless they can get the government to toss out the moratorium on nuclear power, which they won't, AGL is writing its own death certificate with this decision. They've swallowed the whole Agenda 21/2030 Kool Ade, condemning themselves and their customers to sporadic energy supplies in the near future.

Of course there's still a little time to abandon the crazy and pursue stable and affordable energy, especially if they get a wake-up call from what globalist European "leaders" have in store for their citizens this winter.

But I doubt that AGL's directors will have the wisdom to heed the warnings, as these are the same people who've led the company down the path to renewable fairyland in the first place.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Queensland - arguably by regions, the heart of the global coal industry - will cease all coal fired power generation by the said date.

It released details today of it's plan to build the largest Pumped Hydro Scheme in the world, to be ready by 2035.

This will operate in conjunction with a "Super Grid" combining solar and wind.

No Fairies in sight.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I guess they can always cover the outback in solar panels.....

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Australia will do its part, let's hope it actually works and the lights stay on. All eyes are on Europe this winter. 2035 seems like a decent timeline to strive for, but you just hope our current coal customers don't simply go shopping elsewhere and buy lower-grade coal from other less proactive nations, making the problem worse. Someone has to get the ball rolling though and Australia certainly has plenty of wind and sun for solar. As long as the Aussie cultural tendency that favors pragmatism over idealism holds, she'll be right mate!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

This will operate in conjunction with a "Super Grid" combining solar and wind.

No Fairies in sight.

LOL. You might need to get your eyes checked.

Hydro, fine, but is it going to be enough to provide sufficient baseload power at all times for the entire state?

As for the so-called Super Grid, I stand by the fairyland comment. This will not be able to provide reliable energy at a reasonable cost, nevermind the material and energy inputs and disposal costs this equipment involves, including toxic metals, and their relatively short service life. Everything has an opportunity cost, which the economic illiterates who pitch these projects fail to show properly - either out of ignorance or, sometimes out of outright deceit. If the public were told the truth about these renewables projects, they'd baulk assuming they can grasp basic economics. The government is relying on the hope that most people won't think about the issue too deeply, and sadly they'll probably get their wish.

And remember this is the QLD Labor government promising this. The same one wanting to host the 2032 Olympics. Where's all this money coming from? Big on pipe dreams, big on budget blowouts.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

prionking

If the public were told the truth about these renewables projects, they'd baulk assuming they can grasp basic economics. The government is relying on the hope that most people won't think about the issue too deeply, and sadly they'll probably get their wish.

Ignoring climate change comes at a much higher cost than proven super grid technology and renewables, which are the only realistic option for the future.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Ignoring climate change comes at a much higher cost than proven super grid technology and renewables, which are the only realistic option for the future.

Not at all.

Wind and solar are useful as supplements only, not for reliable baseload power. For that, you need fossil fuels or nuclear power as the only realistic options, and hydro in some locations where there is enough elevation and reliable rainfall.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

prionking

Ignoring climate change comes at a much higher cost than proven super grid technology and renewables, which are the only realistic option for the future.

Not at all.

Wind and solar are useful as supplements only, not for reliable baseload power. For that, you need fossil fuels or nuclear power as the only realistic options, and hydro in some locations where there is enough elevation and reliable rainfall.

Ah, you are a defeatist. Add hydro, nuclear and storage options combined with a grid that spans Australia should do it.

But you didn't respond to the statement that climate change comes with an enormous financial cost.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@prionking

Thanks for your reply.

This will not be able to provide reliable energy at a reasonable cost, 

And you know that?

You know of all the tech developments over the ensuing decades?

I'm sure the horse and wagon world thought steam would never viably replace them nor the steam world thought petroleum would viably replace them nor the petroleum world thinks electricity/hydrogen would viably replace them, nor the electricity/hydrogen world thinks...........................will viably replace them......!

One think I will assume with confidence is that 2000 - 2020 technology will not be widely applicable in 2040 + esp in energy resources.

Many things to sort out - smart-phone wasn't built in a day, or was it? - but I'll back renewable cleaner energies in the longer term - they've got to start somewhere.

And as an economic illiterate, even I know that there will be costs, big costs.

Geez. Who thinks new tech is free.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

2020hindsightsToday  01:44 pm JST

prionking

Ignoring climate change comes at a much higher cost than proven super grid technology and renewables, which are the only realistic option for the future.

Not at all.

Wind and solar are useful as supplements only, not for reliable baseload power. For that, you need fossil fuels or nuclear power as the only realistic options, and hydro in some locations where there is enough elevation and reliable rainfall.

Ah, you are a defeatist. Add hydro, nuclear and storage options combined with a grid that spans Australia should do it.

But you didn't respond to the statement that climate change comes with an enormous financial cost.

Nope, I'm a realist, not a climate catastrophist. All those predictions of doom have not come remotely close to fruition, abatement measures or not. The financial costs of following the catastrophist route are obscene, in the realm of AOC-onomics. The UN Agenda 21/2030 plan, which is what QLD is basing its plan on, is economically unsustainable. Bjorn Lomborg has a lot of interesting things to say about the costs of chasing the renewables pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and not many of them are nice. And he's hardly a "denier".

And you misinterpreted my response, hopefully by accident. As I said, wind and solar (with their storage facilities) are OK as supplements, but no good for baseload power because they're too unreliable and have a short service life. And you ignore the end-to-end environmental impact of their manufacture and disposal. If we rule out fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro where possible are the only realistic options, and I'm glad you included nuclear in the equation.

I bet Germany is wishing they did right now, instead of shutting it down in favour of the renewable fairytale.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

prionking

Nope, I'm a realist, not a climate catastrophist. 

There is no such thing as a climate catastrophist. And you are almost certainly not a realist, because you seem to underestimate the impact of climate change.

All those predictions of doom have not come remotely close to fruition, abatement measures or not.

That's in the future, and so far many predictions have disturbingly underestimated the effects. Take the ice melting in the arctic as an example. It's melting way faster than predicted.

Bjorn Lomborg has a lot of interesting things to say about the costs of chasing the renewables pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and not many of them are nice. And he's hardly a "denier".

He is the very definition of a "denier". He's one of the originals.

As I said, wind and solar (with their storage facilities) are OK as supplements, but no good for baseload power because they're too unreliable and have a short service life.

Sure, but in combination with hydro, super grids, nuclear and storage, no need for carbon emitting power sources.

And you ignore the end-to-end environmental impact of their manufacture and disposal.

There is some impact, but it isn't as bad as the alarmist say. For example, an electric car throughout its lifetime has less environmental impact than an equivalent internal combustion engine car.

And we would expect better and better technology for recycling to come online, and it's starting to.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Browny1,

Thanks for your reply, too, and I get that your heart's in the right place.

Indeed, tech isn't cheap and takes time to develop. No argument from me there.

Problem is, there are certain people, like Palaschuk, who are rushing headlong into tossing the baby out with the bathwater with little understanding of the implications and costs. She doesn't have to worry about accountability because even if she gets turfed out in an election, she has a cosy publicly funded pension to fall back on, and probably a cushy job as a lobbyist or consultant on top of that. Nice work if you can get it.

Meanwhile, people and businesses will be slugged with high power costs and unreliable power supplies, reducing business confidence in QLD and reducing the amount of income people have to spend on other essentials and non-essentials. We're already seeing this, and when people aren't confident about the future, they'll naturally cut back on spending as a defence mechanism.

Even if power users are subsidised by the state or federal government, those subsidies have to come from somewhere - higher taxes or borrowings. Higher taxes are as palatable as sushi left out in the sun. And borrowings have to be repaid with interest and add a burden of debt on future generations. These governments claim to operate on the assumption that certain resources are finite, which is all well and good, but that money is infinite, which it isn't if we want it to hold any semblance of value in the medium to long term.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

By all means protect the environment and transition to clean energy, but do it dibetately and incrementally so that you don't wreck your economy, put multitudes out of work, suffer energy shortages and become reliant on outsiders for energy thus potentially becoming their slaves.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

In 13 years not now. That a lot of worldwide climate disasters.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Concerned Citizen

By all means protect the environment and transition to clean energy, but do it dibetately and incrementally so that you don't wreck your economy, put multitudes out of work, suffer energy shortages and become reliant on outsiders for energy thus potentially becoming their slaves.

Makes total sense, but I would say that we need to accelerate the transition to clean energy because if we don't we cross tipping points that we can never go back from. So the increments need to be large.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Nope, I'm a realist, not a climate catastrophist. 

There is no such thing as a climate catastrophist. And you are almost certainly not a realist, because you seem to underestimate the impact of climate change.

I'm a realist, because I've heard too many prophecies of doom that never even came close to being true, as most were either just fearmongering or based on models that adequately take all the variables into account, because they can't. And I 'm a realist because I can intuitively see pros and cons of various forms of energy generation. Now I'm not an expert, but neither are the politicians and many of the business execs who are making decisions that affect us based on incomplete and/or bad data from experts, many of whom have a vested interest in pushing unreliable renewables ahead of other generation systems.

He is the very definition of a "denier". He's one of the originals.

Have you actually read or heard anything Lomborg had said? He doesn't deny climate change is happening not that some of it may be attributable to human activity. He just thinks that the catastrophists are exaggerating the threat and that their "solutions" are worse and more expensive than the problem.

And you ignore the end-to-end environmental impact of their manufacture and disposal.

There is some impact, but it isn't as bad as the alarmist say. For example, an electric car throughout its lifetime has less environmental impact than an equivalent internal combustion engine car.

I beg to differ, and there are none so alarmist as those who think the world will end if we don't embrace wind and solar yesterday. I'm not against cleaner sources of energy and vehicles, but the human and environmental cost of sourcing materials for these power and storage sources, and EVs, is very high. Especially in the cadmium mines of Africa run by the unscrupulous Chinese. If you think Westerners have a bad record with colonialism, they're Mother Theresa compared to the Chinese. Then there's the rare earth metals, which are primarily sourced from environmental vandal China, not to mention the disposal costs of batteries that have an effective operating life of 7-10 years. This will get longer, but as the number of EVs grows, that's more and more heavy metals that will have to be dealt with, and recycling them is energy intensive.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not opposed to renewables and EVs per se, but I think people rushing to embrace them while tripping over themselves to dispense with fossil fuels and nukes are doing more harm than good regardless of their good intentions.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

AGL is writing its own death certificate with this decision.

AGL and other energy giants are in the business of making money. Making money from coal-fired plants is finished. Dead. Burning coal for energy is no longer profitable in the developed world. No banks will extend loans anymore to build or maintain coal power plants. They are a loss.

The writing is on the wall for fossil fuels. Australia's renewables now contribute 25-30% of energy load and rising rapidly. Still behind most advanced nations.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This is a good move by AGL. Drive around any suburb in any major city or even township in Australia and you will see a very high, and growing percentage of homes with solar panels. Add a grid with a mix of hydro, solar and wind and your well on the way to zero coal usage and then phasing out of gas. The ideal situation is for all new homes to be solar and actually feeding into the grid during the day and sufficient storage in each state for a few days and a clean grid is no longer just fantasy but reality. Things as happened in Cuba with the entire grid going down would see currently maybe 5-10 percent of homes still with power, at least during daylight, and those with their own battery storage will be unaffected by the grid being down.

Increasing solar panel efficiency will aid every user that purchases for the home and small business.

Fossil fuels have a use by date. Nobody can be exact with it, and each nation will be different but some few are already well on the way and getting closer each day. It is heartening to see but it could be happening much faster if governments had the stones to make it so. The environment and all life on the planet would be forever grateful if they did.

AGL taking one step forward. It is up to others to take a step forward with them.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

prionking

I'm a realist, because I've heard too many prophecies of doom that never even came close to being true, as most were either just fearmongering or based on models that adequately take all the variables into account, because they can't.

I guess if you just look at newspaper headlines, you could be correct. But if you look into the climate reports: 1. the models have been very accurate and 2. they predict tipping points that we will not come back from. Like the ice melt of Greenland. These effects have a positive feedback loop, similar to audio feedback. It isn't bad, and then it is terrible. This is the same. I would suggest you research a little deeper.

There is no fear mongering here.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"We know that Queenslanders understand climate change. Today, government understands that we need to take action," Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said.

Talk about p……g in the wind!

Just up the road China will have built 20 coal fired stations by the time Australians kill their fossil fuel production

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Just up the road China will have built 20 coal fired stations by the time Australians kill their fossil fuel production

Ahh just what the world needs, pessimistic fatalism. That serves the world well right?

 

...right?

By the way, has anyone else noticed that the older the pessimist, the more fatalistic they usually are?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites