rubberman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 3:00 pm
rev wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:58 am
rubberman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 7:06 pm
None of this is relevant to the O-Bahn. The decision to not replace the Port Augusta power stations was an economic one made by a private company. Like it or not, no other private companies have stepped up to build a coal fired power station in SA. So, it's renewables or nothing. In that situation, there's a case for using trolleybuses or trolley/battery hybrids on the O-Bahn.
There's actually whole topic devoted to power infrastructure if people want to debate renewables vs fossils vs nuclear.
It's not an economic decision, it's a commercial decision made with the heavy influence of government subsidies for one technology over the other.
There should absolutely be a move, or the option to move away from combustion engines. We saw during COVID the disruption to supply chains and the impacts that had on the economy.
What happens when there's some other global event that disrupts the energy supply chains that we rely on to fuel our vehicles, particularly public transport and emergency services fleets? Government should even incentivise for big corporations involved in our local and national supply chains to become non-reliant on foreign energy supplies to keep their fleets moving.
The only figures I can find are saying that the fossil fuel industry is substantially more highly subsidised than renewables.
Whether that's true or not, it'd be a good thing to cut the subsidies and see what the market did in response.
https://www.globalaustralia.gov.au/news ... 0by%202050.
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resou ... ryEALw_wcB
$25 billion for renewables.
$11.5 billion for fossil fuels.
There's a lot of click-bait and misrepresentation of figures out there by the greenies, who claim figures as much as 5-6 times higher for fossil fuels, but those figures aren't direct subsidies, they are according to the IMF the cost to Australia which our government fails to recoup for the associated health & environmental costs.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-19/ ... /101071962
But then you have the Greens leader saying $10 billion/year, but his own allies at the ABC fact checking him.
And if you're going to include fuel rebates, then you should include rebates for solar and battery storage for homes.
It's all very subjective isn't it? Some want to include the costs to health care through pollution as a "subsidy" to the fossil fuel industry, but why not include the cost to home owners who in some councils have to achieve a "green" rating for new homes?
The cost of all this shit, with our politicians and their corporate mates playing their games, is always on us the tax payers at the bottom.
We're footing the bill for the burden on the health care system, we're footing the bill for the higher electricity prices as a result of their inaction to properly transition from one source of energy to another, etc etc.
If they actually gave a toss and wanted to make a difference they'd subsidise, heavily, the cost for every house in Australia to get solar panels & batteries installed so all our homes could at least be energy self-sufficient.
Not the current 2-3 grand you get, when in reality a proper setup costs upwards of $15-20,000..
This could also support local industry to manufacture solar panels & batteries and the servicing/repair/maintenance of these systems installed on every Australian home.
Would we then need as many coal/gas power stations or have landscapes blighted with fields of solar panels and wind turbines?
It's 2023, maybe the solution isn't fields of solar panels and wind turbines, but energy self sufficiency for every home and potentially business?
Maybe they could re-direct money into research and development of solar technology that yields higher outputs.
But then, their corporate mates wouldn't make as much money would they.