I suspect most of the CEFC's soft loans will effectively be subsidising gas, for example cogeneration or solar thermal with gas boost. George Orwell warned us of the dangers of doublespeak. We already have solar rebates for heat pump water heaters that live in darkened cupboards. Mind you the CEFC could blow most of its budget on an AP 1000 nuclear reactor, a prospect I approve of.

As for unproven technology we've already seen hundreds of millions go to dry rock geothermal and carbon capture with little to show. Minister Combet says he will conduct a review of the RET but I doubt much will change. In case it did go I think carbon price plus soft finance could be a reasonable alternative model.

The Carbon Tax gives me a warm feeling that Australia is doing its bit to save the Earth that nurtures us.

After all, the rest of the world will be inspired to follow Australia's enlightened planet saving example.

Planta

James Wight is a student so he can be excused for his idealism. When I was a student there were also many idealistic folk who were excited by the newly developed commercial photovoltaic materials and devices and their prospects as cheap new energy sources. Trouble is, that was 55 years ago. In the interim other renewables also turned out to be not so cheap.

Herein lies the problem. The only blameworthy cause of the damaging climate change that worries so many is energy. And the only contributor to the total cost of mitigating climate change is the cost of the alternatives to the energy we use now. I repeat, cost is the only barrier.

So the debate is about costs. And it is not settled; many do maintain that cheap alternatives are just around the corner. I have been waiting 55 years. Perhaps I can be excused for my pessimism that cheap renewables are coming. I do have other, more scientific, reasons for my opinion that they can never compete with the fossil fuel bonanza that humans exploited so thoroughly, but a lifetime of watching and waiting does help support them.

The real world politics of cutting emissions was always going to revolve around gas. Only the dreamers think renewables are in the game. Beyond that 50% cut in emissions that gas offers it's all dreamtime (apart from nuclear, which I have the feeling James doesn't like). Sorry if that sounds negative. That's what a long life does to the dreams of youth.

So let us excuse the CEFC. They are probably nearly as old as I am.

Great article; thanks for focusing us on these facts James. The CEFC does indeed need the changes and qualifications you have outlined.

Tombee, I agree that where a 100% renewable economy is concerned a costed pathway is needed and this is lacking. However it can be done - this is the next arena for discussion and focus. There are already papers (for an example google BZE 200 stationary energy plan)that explain it.

I disagree with your assertion that it's unachievable and that gas and nuclear are the answer. They are not. Both are polluting and neither is renewable; i.e. both will run out. These things wont affect you and me (I'm 59) but they will affect our grandchildren.

Australia is near the most carbon polluting country in the world; WA and Qld the post polluting states. We'd be far the most polluting if our coal exports were taken into account. We have a long way to reduce that carbon pollution to sustainable levels (about 15% of what it is now).

We are also close to the richest nation. These are the reasons we must lead the world in renewable energy.

Thanks Roses 1 for defining precisely what the issue is. It's all about faith and hope in an energy future that is just around the corner - always.

I am fully aware of the BZE line of argument, and with its critics. The heart of the matter is the different opinions, and they really are opinions, as to what can be achieved in the future in the way of costs and the required scale of operations. People make forecasts and say they will come good. But they haven't. I take the line that they won't, largely because they haven't but also because the whole proposition that diffuse intermittent energy sources can be competitive with high energy combustible fuels is intrinsically far fetched. Yes, it's a sceptical line and often criticised for its negativity. I wait to be proved wrong.

Australia's place in world polluting stakes is a red herring if it is being used as a moral argument. We are rich because we use lots of energy, per capita pretty much in the same proportion to our wealth as every other economy. We have higher emissions per dollar GDP mainly because of Victoria's vast wet brown coal deposits, low contribution from hydro, and zero nuclear. These are simple facts. No emotions. They do not mean that I 'like' coal, or oil or gas. But I do not like dreamy faith in their replacements.

A couple of comments.

First, it is evident that many are very worried about the threat proposed by the "pollutant" CO2. People really should trust their own intellect and look into the issue for themselves. Ask for the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing a problem. Ask how the IPCC comes up with the very positive feedback assumptions that are the cause of the supposed high sensitivity to CO2 emissions. There is active and ongoing discussion that the sensitivity to CO2 may be neutral or even negative, meaning that CO2 emissions are not a problem, and may even be a help.

Second, it is very evident that many commenters have no idea about the relative characteristics of base load power and the intermittent unreliable supply that comes from wind and solar. In fact, the characteristics of wind and solar are such that they pose real problems for managing the grid (increasing costs) and also require 100% back-up from conventional sources (also at high cost).

Can I urge that those offering opinions investigate for themselves the relative costs of the alternative power sources. Also check the likelihood that the system could be supplied by these alternative sources.

I guess that its OK though if we are spending somebody else's money on these pipedreams. But really, would you spend that money if it were your own?