The coal mines in Australia are totally unnecessary. Australia is one of the best countries in the world for the ability to be powered on renewable energy. Which is now cheaper than coal. Literally the only purpose for coal in Australia is political reasons now.
Yes I know coal is used for the production of other materials but there is more than enough coal currently being mined for steel. We just need to stop senselessly burning it when there is limitless energy raining down on empty desert.
From what I know (and I don't claim to be an expert), solar panels require mining and also cause a lot of waste (what happens to a panel after its 20 year life cycle?). I've not heard whether solar farms would work in Australia - wouldn't the amount of distance be a problem? - nor whether they'd actually be any more efficient than nuclear. Certainly, I recently watched Michael Schellenberger's talk (it's in article form here[1]) and I was surprised at how destructive renewables seem when more detail is given about their implementation.
Most of the materials from a panel should be recycleable. The bulk of the panel is an aluminium and glass wrapper over the solar cells. Glass and aluminium are very recycleable.
Sounds like that thing about the perfect being the enemy of the good to me.
This chain of comments is interesting to me because it seems to follow a theme I always see around discussion of mining in Australia. To put it extremely bluntly, it usually goes: "Australia is in an advantageous position for a pivot to solar energy" --> "Well yes but we can't just stop mining, and solar panels aren't perfect by the way!"
Related is the (to me) laughable notion that someone who uses products derived from Australian mining or benefited indirectly from that industry (almost unavoidable given Australian rare earth mining, for example, and the size of the mining industry in Australia) is somehow a moral hypocrite. I'm sorry, but by that logic, one is a moral hypocrite if one has criticized politicians but has not personally tried to make a difference in the system by becoming one; or one is a moral hypocrite for criticizing Google while continuing to use Gmail. It has no end. "Oh, you want a greener world, but I see you got on a plane once. Checkmate!!"
No one reasonable thinks renewables like solar are a perfect solution. They just don't produce on such a drastic scale things like unlined coal ash dumps that leak into the groundwater.
Well, if we’re going down the route of fallacies then the post I replied to was cherry picking to produce a false dilemma, but to claim that would be just as unfair as your straw man. They made the choice between “limitless energy raining down on empty desert“ and coal, without mentioning a) how to move the energy, b) how to get the materials for the panels, c) how to clean up / recycle the panels, or d) why nuclear in the desert isn’t a choice.
I’d say nuclear seems the good choice here versus a perfect that’s so perfect it’s utopian. It’s not wrong to question utopian visions. By all means, get rid of coal - is anyone arguing on this page arguing against it?
The parent comment mentioned the boycotts in Australia. Maybe I should have added the context for those not in on Australian news but these boycotts are all about coal mining in Australia.
Yes I know coal is used for the production of other materials but there is more than enough coal currently being mined for steel. We just need to stop senselessly burning it when there is limitless energy raining down on empty desert.