- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,785
- Reactions
- 24,771
Well it has been proven they are cheaper than fossil fuels, so they might as well get on with it and put them in, why should the taxpayer fund it?On the one hand major business groups, the CC scientists , the economists and the environment groups see the opportunity and urgent need for a renewable energy based recovery.
Well it has been proven they are cheaper than fossil fuels, so they might as well get on with it and put them in, why should the taxpayer fund it?
Maybe you could supply a link to the non viable expenditure.Indeed.
So in which xxxxing universe should $2.25 B of tax payers funds be showered on terminal fossil fuel industries to develop projects that will never be economically viable to capture carbon emissions ?
The deniers still rule.
Maybe you could supply a link to the non viable expenditure.
Now I know from what you have said, you admire the Government for its handling of the corona virus and following the guidance of the professionals rather than listening to white noise from the press.
So you no doubt agree with the Government continuing in this vein and following the scientists direction.
https://www.sustainabilitymatters.n...lls-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-1212453137
Carbon capture and storage is absolutely critical, according to Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel.
The comments were made at an address to the National Press Club, and have been welcomed by CO2CRC.
During his address, Finkel called for a technology-driven, orderly transition to clean energy and the need for carbon capture and storage (CCS), alongside renewables, to decarbonise Australia’s energy and industrial sectors.
CO2CRC CEO David Byers said that Finkel’s comments are an important acknowledgement of the role for CCS in meeting the dual challenge of supplying more energy but with fewer emissions.
“CCS is a proven technology with a critical role to play in delivering reliable, secure low-emissions energy and supporting the development of Australia’s burgeoning hydrogen industry,” he said.
“As Dr Finkel noted: ‘By producing hydrogen from natural gas or coal, using carbon capture and permanent storage ... we have four primary energy sources to meet the needs of the future — solar, wind, hydrogen from natural gas and hydrogen from coal.’
So the Govern.ent should believe ghe scientist, untill you disagree.The article deals with carbon capture from brown hydrogen. Frankly I think this is a sop to the fossil fuel industry to give them a piece of the action.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/finkels...n-light-but-could-be-lifeline-for-coal-69939/
Finkel's comments were wholly in relation to a hydrogen economy where that gas was the product of fossil fuels.So the Govern.ent should believe ghe scientist, untill you disagree.
This analysis also underlines the difference in directions the government could take.
The second story highlights just how bad the policies of the Coalition have been in reducing GG emissions.
Is the Coalition's gas nirvana just an attempt to have its fossil fuel cake and eat it too?
Katharine Murphy
Ten years ago politicians used to talk up the virtues of gas as a transitional fuel. But that was 10 years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...t-to-have-its-fossil-fuel-cake-and-eat-it-too
'For your children': former top Australian public servants call for carbon price
Ex-Treasury head Ken Henry tells Four Corners he looks back on a decade of failed climate policy and feels ‘gutted’
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tralian-public-servants-call-for-carbon-price
At last, something sensible from you, congratulations.Finkel's comments were wholly in relation to a hydrogen economy where that gas was the product of fossil fuels.
His comments also reflect his definition for "clean hydrogen."
So yes, if you want zero net CO2 emissions from producing hydrogen from fossil fuels is IS essential to use carbon capture technologies.
The thing is, Finkel also notes that carbon capture is not necessary for producing hydrogen from electrolysis.
All successful outcomes have involved lockdowns; the harder the more successful.At the begining of the corona virus outbreak, everyone and his dog had an opinion and posted up stuff like you have to support the reasoning that the Government was going down the wrong track, the Government stuck with the recommendations of the Chief Medical officer and his scientists.
Many other Governments around the World, did their own thing, which in some cases was quite different from our Government did and had different outcomes.
Generally the consensus appears to be, that the Australian Government following the chief medical officers advice, has done exceptionally well.All successful outcomes have involved lockdowns; the harder the more successful.
Not all countries are geographically isolated islands and have Australia's advantage. Yet land-locked Jordan, at the opposite end of the spectrum and with over half a million refugees, has been far more successful.
Had Australia followed Taiwan's lead we would have had significantly fewer cases.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?