[tomlock]

There's no evidence to suggest that we can't alleviate poverty without coal. We can alleviate poverty any number of ways. Your hyperbolic and emotional assertions about the need for Australia to continue selling coal don't inspire confidence.

[tomhoward]

This gambit of replying with a flipped-around copy of the parent comment might feel clever but just indicates that you’re more interested in cheap point-scoring than earnestly confronting the entirety of the topic. Hacker News is not the place for crappy discourse like that.

There is ample evidence that it can’t be done yet, given that governments and private companies addressing the biggest populations/markets in the world have had many years and every incentive to do it but so far have been unable to. Despite huge investments in renewables, nuclear and gas, they still need lots of coal for the foreseeable future.

Here's a 2015 article from MIT Technology Review that explores the issue in depth: http://archive.is/SXXHl

[tomlock]

Across the world, the percentage of fossil fuels used to generate power is dropping. This trend seems likely to continue, and Australians can accelerate it with our economic power. Coal is not required to alleviate poverty. Saying coal is required to alleviate poverty is a hyberbolic and emotional statement.

[tomhoward]

I’ve shared, without emotion, evidence and analysis of the topic, and you keep replying with what you wish to be true but with no backing data.

The countries that are moving away from coal are replacing it with natural gas, nuclear or imported energy/materials. Renewables in some cases but only where the country is endowed with natural energy resources and/or is already rich enough to do so. There are valid reasons why this is not immediately possible for India and China if they are to continue developing.

All of this would easy for you to find out if you cared to properly understand it and engage in constructive discussion.

[tomlock]

> The countries that are moving away from coal are replacing it with natural gas, nuclear or imported energy/materials. Renewables in some cases but only where the country is endowed with natural energy resources and/or is already rich enough to do so. There are valid reasons why this is not immediately possible for India and China if they are to continue developing.

Incorrect. This isn't even true if you're talking about Australian states, let alone countries.

[tomhoward]

Sure, let's look at Australian states then.

South Australia uses just over 50% renewables [1], thanks to being endowed with natural solar, wind and geothermal resources, but still operates 15 natural gas power stations [2] - exactly as I said in the part of my comment that you chose to quote.

Tasmania uses 93% renewables [1] thanks to being endowed with natural hydro and wind resources, but still runs three natural gas power plants [3] - exactly as I said in the part of my comment that you chose to quote.

Both states are in a first-world, already-rich and already-developed country, also as per the part of my comment you quoted. And they both have tiny populations.

These conditions obviously don't apply throughout India and China. Yes they both use plenty of renewables and continue to expand their renewables investments. And they both use some natural gas but can't use much as they don't have large local gas reserves [4] (particularly relative to their population sizes), and it's costly to ship/pipe in. So, coal it is, however much you and I might wish it to be different.

If you have any independent evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I'm keen to learn, so I encourage you to share it.

[1] https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/south-australia-hits-50-as...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Sout...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Tasm...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_g...

[tomlock]

Every country is endowed with enough natural renewable resources to service their own needs.