DEPUTY Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has stated that Australia “absolutely” needs more coal-fired power stations into the future.
In a departure from the anti-coal stance of so many in federal parliament – including Left-wing Liberal MPs Jason Falinski, Warren Entsch and Dave Sharma – Mr Joyce has placed coal-fired power firmly back on the national agenda.
- If emissions were truly an issue, Australia would be having a nuclear debate.
- 'Anything to make our nation stronger is the path we should be going down.'
- Parliament is close to a bi-partisan agreement on legalising nuclear power.
He also said nuclear power generation would no longer be ignored.
The newly re-appointed National Party leader made clear Australia needed to be “as strong as possible, as quickly as possible”.
“I absolutely believe we need high-efficiency, low-emission coal-fired power,” Mr Joyce told Sky News anchor Alan Jones this week.
“One of the biggest earners of export dollars is thermal coal – record amounts, record prices,” he said.
“No one likes the big holes in the ground. We get that, they’re ugly.
“But the point is that you like your health system, you like your education system, you like money for the NDIS, you like being defended and this money has to come from somewhere.
If emissions were truly an issue, Mr Joyce said Australia should be having a debate about nuclear energy.
“People know who I am – I can’t change. I believe we should have nuclear power,” he said.
“Anything to make our nation stronger is the path we should be going down.”
Mr Joyce suggested there were high levels of hypocrisy in the energy debate.
“If people want zero emissions, this is it. You can have your wind, you can have your solar, but if you want baseload, deliverable 24/7, zero-emissions power, then nuclear does it,” he said.
With Australia currently the only G20 nation without nuclear power, Mr Joyce said federal parliament was close to a bi-partisan agreement to legalise atomic energy production.
“The Australian Workers’ Union supports nuclear power,” he said.
“I can tell you a lot of the private conversations I have with people in the Labor Party, they support nuclear power.”
Left-wing Liberals, however, have ramped up their attacks on Mr Joyce and the National Party.
Queensland radical Warren Entsch said the Nationals had gone off “half-cocked”.
“If the Nationals were really concerned about the livelihoods of farmers, perhaps they would do more to advocate for and enable the sector’s autonomy – rather than going off half-cocked and running roughshod over a net-zero 2050 emissions target,” he said in The Age newspaper last week.
“They might also like to consider what an increasingly warmer climate will mean for Australian agriculture in years to come.”PC
The author of the comment below posted it at the JoNova (science) website and he is an electrical engineer retired and worked at the NSW Electricity Commission during construction of various then State owned coal fired Power Stations;
“I’m working on a new long term project, showing the Seasonal changes in power consumption, showing the actual power generation from the sources. Long term because I wanted it to be recent, so it starts with the start of Autumn, 01March2021, and will end with the end of Summer, 28February 2022, so it will cover the most recent 12 Months.
I’ve just about finished the first one, that Autumn one (end date 31May2021) and I’ll have all the data indicator points and images to show the sources for power generation.
As a teaser here’s the image for the average for the previous year 2020. (shown at this link) Now, all the indicators on this image are as close to the year round average (for all of them) that there is, hence the one day in the year that is all closest to all the averages.
Now the main thing (now) that I would like to point out is at the time indicator of 6PM, (18:00) and this is the time of the daily peak power consumption for virtually every day of the year. The dotted vertical line then shows the total power consumed at this time, where it crosses that upper black line, (total power versus time, across the page, the Load Curve for the day) and also where it crosses the total for all four renewables.
The total power for each of those is then indicated at the left, and I have circled both totals.
So, here, you can see the difference between what is actually REQUIRED, 25,600MW, (shown on the left vertical axis as GW, hence 25.6, and here, notice that this is Dispatchable power) and what is the total from those four renewables, 4,800MW.
That Upper total is higher in Summer and Winter.
However, again, notice that difference.
That’s almost 21,000MW.
That’s not an occasional thing. It’s the average for every single day of the year.
Okay, now where do they even BEGIN to think that they are going to get that huge amount of power.
They’ve been ‘at it’ now for ages and have hardly made the slightest dent on reaching that difference.
Now think that all of that difference is currently from fossil fuels, that vast bulk of it, coal fired power, averaging (at that same 6PM time) 17,000MW of that difference.
Those green followers and believers can wish and hope for batteries, whatever, but there’s the task, an insurmountable one if you ask me.
Until the PUBLIC are told about this one image, then the belief propounded by almost everyone that this can be achieved with renewables will persist.
This actually is ‘The Impossible Dream’.
TWENTY ONE THOUSAND MEGAWATTS
Good luck with that!
Tony.”
Another point worth knowing is that so called renewables are unreliable energy supply sources reliant on the wind blowing and there being sufficient solar activity for solar panels, and they perform best on cooler cloudless days between 10 am and 2 pm, just 4 hours duration and thereafter minimal between the break of day and sunset.
And bursts of solar energy into a grid can cause instability and therefore recommendations have been made for rooftop solar to be for household or business premise use and no feed in to local grids.
When the renewables industry and supporters report on the performance, say a new wind business installation, they quote the manufacturer’s theoretical maximum energy produced when the wind blows suitably. This is known as “Nameplate Capacity” meaning the engineering specification capacity.
The rating by the market regulator is Capacity Factor meaning the calculated most likely average energy output, and for wind turbines that is CP 30% to 35% but independent observers report that the annual average is about 29% of Nameplate Capacity.
So when you read or hear that a new wind turbine installation supplies whatever, use 200 MW as an example, the Capacity Factor at best would be 70 MW and most likely 58 MW. Solar CP is much less.
And when batteries are mentioned remember that they discharge depending on capacity within a couple of hours depending also on demand for that energy, and then considerable time is needed to recharge. The SA battery system was installed to try and stabilise the grid as intermittent unreliable bursts of “renewable energy” destabilised that grid, SA also draws electricity from VIC via an interconnector transmission line. However, with VicGov determined to ruin their State grid reliability with renewables SA has negotiated for a new interconnector with NSW, but NSW now often relies on the QLD interconnector. The farce continues as the woke fools lacking common sense fail to consult the expert engineers.
Germany was one of the first to adopt wind turbines and is now building a natural gas pipeline to Russia to fuel power stations as their wind revolution fails their nation, and but electricity from neighbouring countries, Poland’s coal fired power stations and nuclear power stations in France.
Barnaby and the Nationals are well aware of the issues and problems, Australia must construct new coal fired power stations as soon as possible, follow the NSW Electricity Commission’s plans for upgrading existing coal fired power stations including adding new HELE (High Energy Low Emissions) generator units at existing sites. And noting that Japan has improved HELE technology by re-burning emissions something like a diesel engine exhaust gas reticulation valve system.
And the government ban on nuclear must be lifted and plans made for the latest modular nuclear powered generators to be installed around this country.
At last some common sense. Australia contributes less than 2% of the global warming emissions but our stupid politicians are ready to sacrifice our economy by denying us the use of our best resource for low cost power, meanwhile exporting our coal to China and others so that they can take our iron ore and bauxite, process it cheaply using our coal and sell the final products back to us at price that our manufacturers cannot match using our expensive “renewable” energy, meanwhile producing global warming by burning OUR coal.
High quality Australian coal and the most cost effective generators being coal fired (steam turbine) power stations.
Some time ago a brilliant suggestion was made to construct a railway line from the west coast to the east coast and for trains to haul iron ore and coal to a new steel manufacturing blast furnace or more for our own use and for export.
South Korea is a customer for these products and has become one of the major shipbuilding nations, but compare the standard of living there to our own, it might surprise you and explain that if governments got out of the way: Repeal UN treaty and agreement based legislation and related business compliance costs and generally remove after the blue tape the red, the green and the black tape deterrents to investing in businesses.
And there is another dimension to the coal debate and its relation to China and Co2 emissions.
China boldly, but deceptively, offers 2060 as its target for “net zero”
Interestingly, that is a full decade after the western world has locked itself into a 2050 “net zero” economic disaster.
Why do our gullible politicians (State and Federal) trust China’s commitment? In 2050, When the west is economically wrecked due to expensive, unreliable “renewables” (made in China!) …what is to stop China saying, “Sorry guys – we’ve changed our mind!”
Surely, a smart politician (deliberately oxymoronic!) …. would offer 2060 as their net zero target…and play China at its own game?
Or do vested interests and climate stupidity, outweigh a common sense strategy?
Are any politicians prepared to address this question…? Gladys Berijiklian? Scott Morrison? Matt Kean? Angus Taylor?
Just askin’ for a friend!
Barnaby may be a National Saviour (every nation that has advanced always had cheap power), but what he is lacking is a Climate Countermeasure to balance coal fired power. What he needs is a re-forestation plan (which could be on the basis of payments to re-foresters) to go hand in hand with increased coal power to keep the Greens and the young demographic of Climate Change advocates in the (voting) tent. We can burn as much coal as we like (China has 3600 coal fired power plants – we have 6) by reducing some of our exports (price will go up – so good for us) and burning some ourselves – provided we have a carbon sink offset (new forests) to soak up the emissions. Aligned with that strategy needs to be a campaign to pressure the Greens to stop supporting exports of coal to China (Greens don’t seem to mind if China churns out emissions for us to breath), and support more responsible use of coal, which we/AU can control and regulate (Green New Deal). Think BIG Barnaby – we need you.
I trust that re-forestation plan would not involve prime farming lands.
Or more conversion of state forests set aside for sustainable logging into national parks where everything is banned from felling trees, to building new dams, to exploiting natural resources, etc.
About 130,000 years ago the ever changing climate zone here became much drier over time and as a result the rainforests that had covered this land were replaced, all but three per cent today, with eucalyptus that tolerates dry conditions, droughts and bushfires which they need for regeneration.
My point is that climate changing is natural Earth Cycles, and vegetation changes over time, like the Sahara Desert was once a green area.
To the left luvvies in the Liberal Party (conservative pretenders), you should understand that the climate change narrative is based on modelling of the likes of temperature rise and sea level rising. One ex Australian Government appointed star was a person named Flannery, preaching doom and gloom and his models were so off our planet he was able to secure a nice stash of funding from Gillard’s Government at the time. And just like some models, they look pretty on the surface but when you dig down a little deeper the facts and evidence disclose the real truth.
It is pitiful that some of those elected and on the tax payer funded nipple (whatever side of politics) are short of the ability to undertake their own unbiased research into some of these issues like climate change, where they would like us to see our planet the way Thunberg has been abused into thinking.
One of Tom Foolery’s predictions was for the Sydney Opera House to be submerged by 2000.
How could anybody take him seriously?
OH THANK HEAVENS – WHAT A RELIEF!
Barnaby Joyce has ‘emitted’ a soothing wave of immense common sense and of wise thinking and planning! Modern Coal-fired Power is the safest, cheapest, most reliable and, – the ONLY way Australia can be ‘as strong as possible and as quickly as possible’, – IT’S IMBECILIC TO THINK OTHERWISE!
I’m normally a fairly contemplative, truth-seeking optimist! But what with Morrison madly spouting ZERO EMISSIONS BY 2050, coupled with the sheer lunacy of our needless, INDEFENSIBLE LOCKDOWNS – I now find myself living with a worrying sense of dread and pessimism when I contemplate the horrific economic mutilation both lunacies will engender. I increasingly worry about the ‘unlucky’ Country that my children and grandchildren will inherit!
My husband and I have been around for quite some time and our well-observed, well-considered conclusion is that the hysterical panics whipped up over ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ & ‘CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS’ are ALL COMPLETELY SENSELESS! The facts these alarmists present are ABSOLUTE RUBBISH – INSANITY WRIT LARGE!
Once we’ve run out of our high-quality coal, THEN it will be time to convert to NUCLEAR. But of course, there must be some serious consideration about what to do about the resultant nuclear waste.
And maybe people in general are not aware of future fuels like reactors using molten salts and thorium, Australia has lots of these deposits.
Much further away but achievable is mining Helium-3, extracting it from Moon soil where it is plentiful, discovered from samples taken during US Moon landings. Robot earth moving machinery taking the soil to a factory where very hot Moon solar would extract Helium-3 and very cold Moon nights would convert it into liquid gas for transport to Earth via a space shuttle, much like liquid natural gas. The major nations are competing to be first to mine Helium-3 which China calls the perfect fuel.
Using nuclear and/or thorium molten salt reactors in power stations coal could be reserved for conversion to liquid fuel, as Germany pioneered during WW2.
Barnaby Joyce is of course right about Australia needing coal fired power stations for the long term future and to maintain a reliable and stable generator fleet using our quality coal and new power stations with the latest advanced High Energy Low Emissions technology … Japan has improved HELE technology with emissions re-burnt, much like a diesel engine exhaust gas reticulation valve.
Australia must also plan for nuclear powered generators with zero emissions and with due regard for the substantial reserves of uranium here which is exported but by government legislation mining limited and the legislated ban on nuclear.
Germany is one of the first countries to adopt a wind turbine plan and now with high electricity prices and unreliable supply they are turning back to fossil fuelled power stations, including construction of a natural gas pipeline to Russia.
China, India, Japan and many other countries are continuing to construct the most cost effective generators of all, coal fired power stations.
ps: The main reason why the RAN cannot obtain nuclear power plant submarines is the stupid, illogical parliamentary ban on nuclear energy, the Lucas Heights reactor manufacturing radio isotopes for medical and commercial purposes exempted from the ban.
And just recently the NSW State Government members voted in the majority to disallow new uranium mining.
I learnt in manufacturing industry that accountants should be confined to accounting and allow the engineers to make practical decisions.