I have to agree that our electricity generation system is not forward thinking. However it is relatively cheap unlike everything so far to do with solar. The article glosses over the need for energy storage for night time and extended overcast periods. As if straight solar wasn't expensive enough the cost of storing energy is currently prohibitive. I believe that people will store enough energy in electric cars when it actually happens. Same goes for reasonably priced solar powered air conditioning.

Since solar is not as reliable as baseload electricity we should pay less not more for it. 20c feed-in tariff per kilowatt hour for residential PV is more than enough. That's about what I get here in cloudy Tasmania. As Prof. Garnaut points out we shouldn't need such subsidies once a CO2 cap is rigorously policed. If solar PV and thermal can stand on their own feet they should add to the mix once coal and gas have been handicapped. Solar supporters want three bites at the cherry - subsidies, mandates and carbon caps.

This is not to say solar or reduced baseload isn't technically feasible. It's a question of what we can afford both in terms of limited capital and lifestyle sacrifices. Some of us feel we've already done our bit and the rest has to come from another clean energy source, namely nuclear power.

Before any more people get carried away by solar or wind I suggest that they look at the BBC information at the following site http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/01/coal-takes-the-strainagain.shtml

The site shows that, in the worst of the UK cold snap before Christmas, power generated from wind power fell to 20MW out of total demand of 53 thousand megawatt. Present generation capacity for wind turbines in the UK is about 2700MW (5% of total capacity) so that during the stillness of the cold snap actual generation from wind fell to below 1% of wind nameplate capacity. I suggest solar would be just as useless just when power is most in demand to keep cold people from freezing to death.

This is further argument supporting the sensible solution for future low carbon power generation, nuclear power, probably utilising the much more plentiful thorium resources of the world (50000years at present demand for electricity worldwide). The thorium reactors do not produce nuclear weapons fuels, are safe to operate and produce only insignificant amounts of waste.

Thorium reactors found no favour during the cold war as they were useless for weapon ingredient manufacture.

Before we rush to waste any more money on wind, solar and other so-called 'renewable' energy sources, we might like to take note of James Lovelock's comment in 'The Guardian' in March 2010. Lovelock, the man who first espoused the Gaia hypothesis, said "The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is." This is the same Lovelock who expressed his disgust at the abuse of science by global warming alarmists revealed in the Climategate emails.

Britain is almost totally reliant on coal for its electricity and heating in the middle of a very harsh winter. The millions of pounds spent on wind farms are now demonstrated to have been a complete waste of money. It's time to bell the cat on the climate change fraud.

A few points:
The evidence that when push comes to shove wind and solar cannot perform is, I believe, overwhelming.
The only thing being recycled in this article is Lovins who has been pushing this line for yonks.
Yes nuclear but thorium is a most important possiblity. As has been said what was true in the cold war may not be relevant today. Pity money is not spent on thorium research.
The article is loaded with name calling in a manner that reminds me of the 1950's communist stuff though I notice we do not have such nice phrases as 'running dog of capitalism'. However the thrust of the article really is of a similar nature. Of course anybody who does not agree with the aurthor is either stupid or bent or both. Frankly when I read this I thought of radio/television Pyonyang.

Our national electricity grid needs national leadership and control. The states, driven by soaring debts, have panicked state treasurers into such ingrained deception about what they can and cannot afford that their power games have tangled Australia's energy management to such an extent that no amount of GOAG meetings can ever undo their handiwork.

In the national interest, the states should now be given an ultimatum by the Prime Minister: transfer power to an independant National Energy Authority (NEA) on pain of severance from the national grid to naysaying Premiers.

The NEA's charter could require the adoption of the world's best standards for long term strategic energy generation planning, meeting quadruple bottom line reporting standards in addressing production efficiencies, environmental sustainability, social responsibility, community engagement and transparency. In other words, it's time to revolt and become a world leader.

Careful what you say someone might come and grab ya.
Generate your own power, and you won't have to worry about it any more.