Dr Ted,

An excellent summary of why it is possible to built an alternative to fossil/ nuclear base load, but why it would be moronic to do so.

Perhaps if Labor simply taxed everyone 95% then we could emit similar amounts per capita to what they do in Africa. The Carbon tax is a first step along that path.

Having just read ‘FUTURE BABBLE: Why expert predictions are next to worthless and you can do better’, I am in a more than usually unreceptive mood for the kind of global forecasting in Ted Trainer’s piece, especially as Doomsday projections – and there have been thousands – are a particular target of Dan Gardner’s book. Nevertheless, I am happy with Ted’s broad brush analysis of why renewables will not provide a technology fix for replacing the high-energy fossil fuels that created our current levels of prosperity. He fulfils a real need to keep putting hard numbers towards challenging the ‘unexamined faith’ that renewables can fully replace fossil fuels.

However I do not agree with Ted’s jaundiced view of both our current pursuit of prosperity and the ‘market-based’ social structures that enable that pursuit. Surely there is an abundance of evidence that, no matter how noble their aims, societies where people are forced by a central authority to comply with some planned level of prosperity simply don’t work. And that’s putting it mildly. As for the redeeming virtues of poverty that Ted implies, I suggest he goes seek the evidence.

The answer? It seems obvious to me that if ‘the market’ (a phrase that describes a hugely complex set of events) created our present wealth on the back of the bonanza of fossil fuels then that same market will shape the decline due to the depletion (still a long way to go) or our forced desertion (due to emissions) of that bonanza. Any central planning by Ted’s prescribed new society can only make matters worse. And that’s an evidence-based conclusion, not a prediction.

Ted started to go wrong when he decided that the affluent society he saw around him was not to his taste. The limitations to renewable energy happen to suit his political purpose. But his solution would just tip us out of the frying pan into the fire

This article should deflate some urban green fantasies of affluent lifestyles for all with solar panelled houses and electric runabouts. Those who advocate this are living in the echoes of the fossil fuel powered past. Curiously the article omits nuclear power perhaps on the assumption it is politically unpalatable. However similar problems exist with finding the capital though perhaps only a fraction as much.

What I think the public yearns for is renewables tokenism while enjoying the fossil fuelled lifestyle. I think they secretly hope carbon taxes won't be too high while electricity and holiday travel remain affordable. A few silicon panels and wind farms here and there will provide the necessary assurance. If there is a carbon crisis either fuel depletion or climate dramas perhaps it will be much later. That's why excuses will be found to keep burning and exporting coal and gas, carbon taxes or not. In Australia we can postpone the reality check for a decade or two except others will want some of what we have.

Future needs of essential construction materials such as all metals produced from oxide or sulphide ores and such things as cement, chemicals and plastics require fossil fuels either for chemical reduction purposes or feedstock. If we wish the human species to exist for millennia we need to conserve fossil fuel for those essentials for the humans living in those millennia.

Our energy needs can be supplied by thorium nuclear power stations for 20-50,000 years or by uranium reactors for a significant proportion of that time span.

Uranium fuelled nuclear reactors can be frightening but nowhere near as frightening to thinking people as what would be likely if we fail to conserve fossil fuels.

Although I don't agree with the author's initial assertion that alternative energy can produce base load power - we have yet to see an effective base-load alternative-energy plant of any size, despite years of trying - I do agree with the general thrust of the article.

Producing power through alternative energy in sufficient amounts to make a real difference, has been shown to be an urban greenie pipe dream. Its just not going to happen.

Diesendorf, who wrote the original ridiculous article to which the author refers, should be seen off the premises, without a goodbye.

Dr Ted

You are using science to argue against a faith based delusion. Prophets Gore, Flannery and others will continue to rake in the millions as their faithful disciples in Government continue to be deceitful and gullible.