I FEEL compelled to reply to the “Living lightly” article in last Saturday’s Pulse section of The Border Mail.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Bruce Key has certainly put forward a well-researched and logical argument in the quest to make Australia more reliant on renewable energy.
What he fails to mention is that the renewables side of the debate hasn’t come up with a viable and reliable alternative to coal-fired power for peak loading.
Until this core issue is resolved then all we are doing is fiddling at the edges.
Yes, we would all like renewables but let us not throw out the baby with the bath water.
While renewables are cheap to run, let us not forget that without massive government subsidies the renewable sector would be almost non-existent.
That is why power costs have been increased to record levels over the past few years.
By comparison now the renewable component is not nearly as costly.
But what has been achieved?
No measurable reduction in atmospheric carbon levels despite spending billions.
How many more billions are required and where is that going to come from?
Where is the defined target? Is it economically achievable?
I suggest the renewable and green lobbies work with the coal industry firstly to measurably reduce coal’s emissions and secondly to harness their resources to find a sustainable, cost effective and reliable mix of energy generation to suit both sides of the debate.
We won’t be able to do without coal-powered generation for the forseeable future and this is an undisputed fact.
Far better to have teamwork than war.
— PETER WEBB,
Albury