Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Australia urged to utilise ‘abundance’ of coal and gas amid ‘green madness’" video.

Because the coal and gas companies are good at lobbying.
2
@ No problemos, as long as all subsidies to fossil fuels stop immediately as well.
2
@polarbear7255 Nice opinion piece, vacuous as it was. Numerous studies show quite clearly renewables are significantly cheaper at producing electricity than fossil fuels.
1
@polarbear7255 Meaningless data supported by nothing other than your worthless personal opinion. I prefer the opinion of economists and specialists in the field.
1
@polarbear7255 You would need to provide evidence of any faults in the CSIRO Gencost report and its subsequent additional reports. You saying it’s disgraced is again just worthless opinion. The AMEO has described in detail exactly why electricity prices have increased and it is a function of increased fossil fuels costs, not an effect of increasing penetration of renewables into the market. This is not my opinion it is just fact. You provide no certification, no evidence, no reference details, just your worthless personal opinion.
1
@PJRayment Yes.
1
@PJRayment you asked a simple question that only required a simple yes or no. I assumed it was an honest question seeking clarification, but clearly it wasn't.
1
@PJRayment The latest CSIRO gencost report and the latest LAZARDS study both include storage costs at various levels. Renewables + storage comes in at about $122 per megawatt hour Nuclear comes in around $245 MWh.
1
@PJRayment Are you truly ignorant of the federal and state government funded subsidies to both renewable and fossil fuel industries? I doubt this is a genuinely honest question, but if it is, i can provide a long list of direct and indirect subsidies governments provide to electricity producers and the fossil fuel industry.
1
@PJRayment So dishonesty is your game. Fine. I provided two scientific studies as evidence, and you dismiss them both without any technical expertise yourself and without any corresponding evidence either. The Gencost report has been criticised and has responded to each criticism in detail and added additional data as you would expect from a scientific study. Your criticism of it is uneducated, meaningless, and worthless. Again, just further evidence of your dishonest enquiry. You are just a low-life lying scumbag. Apparently you know more about the electricity grid than all the engineers and scientists at the CSIRO and AEMO who all agree renewables + storage backed up with some peaking gas is fully capable of providing all the electricity we need.
1
@PJRayment So I will start in Queensland and work my way clockwise around the country and finish with the federal subsidies. * Frontier Gas Exploration program: $21 million in grants. * Low emissions Investment Patnership program $520 million over 6 years to the states metallurgical coal mines * Queensland Abandoned mine sites program $19.4 million over 2 years to recommissioning activities at coal gasification sites Hopeland and Bloodwood Creek. * $12.9 million to Swanbank E, a gas fired power station. $41.5 million to build and install battery storage. * 29.6 million to the Kogan gas field joint project CleanCo and Arrow Energy. * $185 to the Callide Power station * $69.9 million to refurbish and replace infrastructure at Stanwell power station * $29.5 million to the Meandu coal mine and Tarong power station. Not finished yet, In the next instalment I'll move on the Queensland government subsidies to ports infrastructure.
1
@PJRayment I was unaware of your expertise as an engineer in the production of electricity. You provide no evidence to the criticisms of the Gencost report. The criticisms were all addressed in subsequent reports as you would expect from a scientific paper. Your opinion of the Gencost report and its data is worthless and you provided no certification or data to support your meaningless criticism of it.
1
Happy for you to provide the evidence or certification that enables you to pass judgment on the Engineers and scientists that wrote these reports. An opinion from you that something is hardly adequate unless backed by some data or evidence is just worthless opinion.
1
@ You asked for evidence and I provided to scientific reports. You have provided no valid criticism of those reports. What Skynews report, what expert?, what data, what contradictory report? Some vague personal opinion about battery storage that is provided with no data or certification other than some claim of self evidence (I’m sure it has been revealed to you) but some of us have to live in the real world. The sun shines 24/7 it never fails. The wind blows constantly as the air pressure varies from the oceans to the land. It is how our planet works.
1
@ You have provided zero evidence or any data that refutes either the CSIRO Gencost report or LAZADs report.
1
@ There are numerous examples of direct government subsidies to fossil fuel industries. * $21 million to gas exploration in the Galilee basin by the Queensland government. * $100 million to build roads in the NT for the exclusive use of the on shore gas industry. Paid for by the NT taxpayer. * 113 million of taxpayers money to maintain the coal train tracks in the Hunter Valley. I can continue, it’s a very long list.
1
@PJRayment So you fully accept government subsidies for fossil fuels and yet you fail to understand the dictionary meaning of subsidy. Your opinion of what is and is not a subsidy is worthless. A direct government payment to an industry that would of otherwise had to pay for it itself and hence passed that cost on is a subsidy. Grow up you little child .
1
@PJRayment Once again you ask a dishonest question , knowing full well governments both state and federal subsidises the fossil fuel industry. How you lie straight in bed in beyond my imagination.
1
@PJRayment So tell me genius if the NT government had not paid the $100 million to build roads for the onshore gas industry who would have? And if the gas industry had to pay for their own infrastructure I wonder who would have paid for that? Just so you clearly understand this is a direct payment that assists the gas industry in reducing its costs. It is a subsidy by the strict meaning in the dictionary.
1
@PJRayment So explain away $27.2 million of NSW taxpayers money to the NSW Coal Innovation fund. A direct subsidy to provide research into and develop low emission coal technologies.
1
@PJRayment In Victoria CarbonNet receives approximately $20 million a year from the state government.
1
@PJRayment Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited receives $39.3 million of Queensland taxpayers money last year to assist in the export of oil.
1
@PJRayment Oh yes you did you accepted that government’s bothe state and federal subsidise fossil fuel companies. Of course you would dispute the dictionary meaning of the word subsidy as it goes to proving exactly what a subsidy is, but I’m happy to accept your definition and a reference for it. All the examples I gave were direct payments to fossil fuel industry bodies and direct subsidies. You confuse ad hominem with a straight out joking personal slur, grow up snowflake. So you accept taxpayers building roads with taxpayers money to benefit fossil fuel production is a direct subsidy, good, you are finally wising up. The evidence is the payments allocated in the particular state budget papers.
1
@PJRayment Happy for you to dispute or deny the Oxford dictionary meaning of subsidy, just provide a alternative definition and its certification.
1
@PJRayment In the 2022/23 federal budget $141.1 million was allocated to assist carbon capture and storage projects.
1
@PJRayment The evidence is the federal budget and the state budgets for Queensland, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, SA, WA, and NT.
1
@PJRayment Very convenient for you. I can’t led the blind. All links I have posted have been deleted. The Fuel Tax credit scheme is another example of a fossil fuel subsidy.
1
@PJRayment The current NT budget papers clearly states how much NT taxpayers money is being spent on the Middle Arm Project.
1
@PJRayment So that’s completely absurd, you just agreed that the fuel tax credit is a subsidy, but because it also subsidises other industries it’s not a subsidy on fossil fuel consumption. Hilarious. Clown like in its utter stupidity.
1
@PJRayment The Middle Arm Project is the roads and infrastructure paid for by NT taxpayers to support the gas industry in the NT. The Fuel Tax credit is a direct subsidy to the cost of fuel in all industries and you admitted this. That is the definition of a fossil fuel subsidy. Hilarious.
1
@PJRayment Federal government (2022) March budget paper 2, p133
1
@PJRayment NT government (2022) budget papers 2, p84
1
@PJRayment NT government (2023) budget papers 3, p16
1
@PJRayment Resourcing the Territory (2020) About Resourcing the Territory nt.gov.au/about
1
@PJRayment Government of South Australia (2023) budget papers 3, p113 relates to $64 million for a gas and diesel hub at Port Bonython.
1
@PJRayment Frontier gas exploration program $21 million Queensland government (2023) budget paper 4, p79
1
@PJRayment No you argued that a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry isn’t a fossil fuel subsidy because it can subsidise other industries. Duh. That’s a subsidy and it subsidies the use of fossil fuel consumption. You asked for evidence of government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and you have now completely agreed it does. I never suggested that renewable energy isn’t subsidised as well. The RET is a form of subsidy. You just dogmatic stuck to a line that is jokingly absurd and ignorant that governments don’t subsidise fossil fuel consumption and the industry itself. What sort of a closed little bubble world do you live in? It’s OK that’s not a genuine question, I have no interest at all in your world.
1