Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The previous speaker spoke of coal and our minerals being providential, and certainly they have to this point been such. I know that only too well, with the western coalfields being part of my electorate. If we can clean coal it may continue to be providential; if we cannot, we are in a very deep hole. The providential power supply, I would suggest, is above us shining every day, and that is solar. It is also the source of our problems. It is the reason for the drought and the reason for global warming. But in our solar potential we have the means already to harness that energy power baseload that the PM says cannot be delivered by anything other than coal or nuclear.

We heard recently the news of the report that was commissioned by the coal cooperative research centre. That was repressed for almost 12 months until Rosslyn Beeby of the Canberra Times did such good work and exposed the fact that that report had been sat on. Why? Because it demonstrated so clearly that solar thermal was capable within seven years of being cost competitive with coal if indeed we put in the right emissions caps. Indeed Exxon Mobil is now suggesting that a carbon tax is the most transparent way—quite separately from any carbon trading, which they and others believe is so mired in commercial imperatives and so non-transparent—of ensuring that we do put proper caps on our emissions.

Clean coal and nuclear, on which the Prime Minister keeps insisting, are not the clean energy options. Indeed neither are remotely clean or green at this point. We cannot shut down coal immediately, but we can make that transition. The answer is not expanding uranium mining, and we should totally reject nuclear power. There are other options; for instance, the geothermal option. A briefing of scientists last week in my office pointed out that geothermal is viable now as a baseload supply and is located adjacent to our current mining areas right throughout this country. You could begin the transition from fossil fuel to at least a supplementary production of energy, given that we are not sure in any way that the clean coal technology and carbon sequestration is going to deliver us an option. What if we get to that point where it does not work and we have done nothing in the meantime to allow for any transition from coal to anything else?

We should not just jump into the nuclear option as the Prime Minister suggests that we should. Quite apart from everything else, there are enormous costs. The previous speaker spoke about the cost to our economy and the cost to our nation. The cost of the nuclear option around the world is one that is hugely supplemented from the public purse. There is no will from the private financial markets to support it in any significant way. We are told that solar thermal, for one, could be cost competitive with coal, especially with an emissions tax—which Exxon Mobil now supports. The PM answered the question I asked him about geothermal and solar thermal energy a couple of weeks ago by saying that all options are on the table. They are not. Massive investment is needed in solar, wind and geothermal. The kids of coalminers should be working in new, alternative energy developed alongside the existing mines.

The forward-thinking union officials whom I have spoken with in Lithgow and other places believe we must be moving down this path. On the rural front, we need to get far more serious about biofuels. Our targets for ethanol are voluntary; they should be mandated. Research by Malcolm Wegener from the University of Queensland, who met me this morning, says that the sugar industry can include cogeneration of electricity and the potential for bioplastics. What a massive environmental plus that would be if only we were serious about getting this industry up and running. (Time expired)

See this speech in context