Here we go again.

Same old, same old.

Where are the costings?

What is the significance of the comparison between natural gas power generation and wind power generation when they are serving different parts of the market (peaking for gas, and baseload for wind)?

Solar panels on roofs? That's just plain silly. They are so expensive that they never repay their purchase price. Indeed, they take years just to generate the energy required to make them. Economics of scale do not guarantee huge reductions in price. Lead acid batteries, for example, are still very expensive despite there being one in pretty much every vehicle manufactured.

Decentralised systems that provide a combination of heat and power (CHP) are useful where there is a sigifnicant need for heating, but explain how they work when people want to run their airconditioners.

As for Iceland and Sweden pledging to become fossil fuel free in 15 years, it's easy for politicians to say such things for domesitic political consumption, but such pledges have a habit of not becoming reality.

In addition, Sweden already has nuclear power plants, and will continue to use them, even if, for the moment, it is not building any more. The decision not to build more could well be reversed in the light of present day concerns about global warming.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip39.htm

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out

Industry cannot afford to pay high prices for electricity. Idealism such as the author's would bankrupt us if put into effect.

Sylvia.

Sylvia, we can't afford to not tackle the problem of catastrophic climate change. It will cost us a lot more in the long run if we carry on with business as usual.

There are some major considerations this article omits. Some of the European countries with high renewable capacity in practice have to use frequent backup with coal or gas fired electricity. Since North Sea gas is depleting fast the Woking combined heat and power experiment seems mistimed; other EU countries are wondering whether dependence on Russian gas is such a good idea. While distributed generation is good for security and reduced power loss it may not add up. Many wind farms and cogeneration plants are needed to make up the 24/7 grid input of a gigawatt nuclear power plant. From personal experience I believe rooftop solar is best suited to the outback, not cool climates. I also doubt that within a decade any EU country will be able to crack 50% renewables + effiency gains. It's a good objective but needs to be tempered with realism.

Idealism is what helps put humanity on the map and progress.

Mankind wasn't put on this earth to grub in the ground and just make money and we should look constantly forward to ensure that what we do today does not overly impact on what is done tomorrow.

CFC's were debilitating to the environment several years ago and through the development and exploration of new technologies they are non-existant when compared to 20 years ago.

Cost certainly should play an important role in any discussion in power, though to suggest it is the only point which should be looked at seems to me to be folly. In Sweden for example, the debate about Nuclear rages on, and it appears people support it if the only other alternative is to increase greenhouse emmissions. Public opinion, along with long term environmental implications should be key considerations in any debate.

And as to cost, surely as you begin to mass produce a new technology, the price comes down. Solar power is no exception and I expect the cost to continue to drop for some time to come. The question is, how do we get to the tipping point needed to encourage the majority of businesses to turn away from polluting technologies in favour of green technologies?

Sylvia,

One suspects that in 15 years time Sweden and Icelands pledge to be oil free will indeed come to fruition....whether they like it or not.

As far as 50,000 homes in Japan being decked out with expensive solar panels, it makes you wonder how the same could be accomplished with the Tokyo/Hong Kong/Manhattan high rise appartment style living.

Joel's article is well hearted by naive. When push comes to shove we'll be shovelling whatever is required into whatever technology is at hand to keep the lights on and if that means putting Pitt Street under a foot of water, so be it.

I live in hope at the thought of a decentralised model for power generation. Once initially high capital costs have been met, the benefits of increased efficiency and renewable power generation will manifest.

Unfortunately, hope is about all I have for the model. A previous post said that "industry" would never rise to meet this cost. While I agree with this sentiment, it is not "industry" that has the overriding say in this matter. It is the private consumer, who will choose to place the solar panels on their roof, or take the option of purchasing green power. Without substantial government investment and legislation, I cannot see this happening. The inital cost is too high for the average punter, and the benefits are not short term.

At least Spain et all are putting effort into making the dream of decentralised power generation a reality. Hopefully, we can put the power back in the hands of the citizens, and away from the corporations. Hopefully