I think renewable energy is a case of build it while you can. The hydro schemes of the 60s would not get off the ground today due to constant bickering. Since the article acknowledges problems with energy storage and geothermal it is should offer a solution to low carbon baseload. Could be why there is no sign of any coal fired power stations being closed. The figure of 25% gas fired backup for wind and solar seems optimistic. I predict that Australia will build a series of new gas fired power stations. At the same time gas will be in heavy demand as a transport fuel and for LNG export.

The path on which Australia seams headed is no reduction in coal use, slow growth in renewables and high growth in gas fired electricity. The CPRS and RET programs will be repeatedly compromised. Emissions won't decrease until there is an unrecoverable energy and climate crisis some years down the track.

“Technology improvement to renewable energy continues, so the longer the transition takes, the better the outcome for electricity generation if not the environment.”

Mark, this to me is woolly thinking. If we do this, we will effectively be maintaining the business-as-usual model of economic management as the size of our whole society and rate of consumption of non-renewable energy sources just continue to increase rapidly. This will ultimately make it that much harder to effect the transition.

We are also likely to run into the situation where a very urgent transition becomes necessary, especially with oil.

So I would suggest that a maximised effort into weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels is needed now, especially for oil. As part of this urgent effort, technological advances would presumably be made at a faster rate than if we took the whole kaboodle more slowly.

We particularly MUST address the peak oil situation, which will probably mean very high fuel prices in the near future rather than shortages of supply. When the price of oil really starts to increase, it will impact very strongly on the price of just about all food and commodities and will affect the viability of businesses, employment and social coherence in a major way. And it is likely to happen very quickly.

So in the interests of holding our society in Australia together (and the same applies around the developed world) it is with the utmost urgency that we particularly need to address the transition off of oil.

Aaaargh. Sorry Martin. What a silly mistake - getting the author's name wrong.

Ooooow (:>(

Surely a couple of the latest generation of nuclear power plants would solve the problem very quickly. They could replace the coal fired stations and give us more time to get renewable sources on line with the necessary intelligent control system. The radioactive material comes out of the ground in the first place and only needs to returned.

its sad/funny to read about the hydro scemes=[centralised power],why couldnt we build smaller..[decentralised power generations..[because they are harder to monopolise..and thats the game play huge scemes [monopolies]

see how alternate decentralised power creation is a better way[instead of daming a river line it with small mill type power gathering plants..[recall getting power in the past was as simple as running a water wheel into a stream]

[why cant the river have hundreds of water wheels in the rivers]..or millions of windpower generators on peoples roofs..because the game is..to limit and control..who can generate/sell power..[control the power you control the people

the scam is build govt subsidised.monopoly big/few..not many smaller units spaced out,..many that make power locally and sustainably...we need to practice decentralisation of power generation

[thousands of small solutions not huge overseas monopoly positions..that began with enron..[with huge debt and huge income..allowing the take over of the small fish

we learned the lessons of too big to fail..[its tinme we decentralised power generation..[went big on solar heating and small energy distribution systems..interlinked for security..

[but decentralised power generation..as a matter of govt policy...no more big scemes..but thousands of small scemes..[no more big fish..but many smaller fish..easilly controled and regulated

Unfortunately for those pushing renewable energy in all its forms, Martin is right but does not go far enough. As matters stand renewable projects cannot be used to replace electricity generation in any significant proportion. The target of replacing 20 per cent of energy by renewables remains a fantasy. At present - and all the overseas reports are unanimous - the people who have to run power networks regard wind energy as an expensive nuisance. It is so variable that even when the wind towers are working at full capacity they have to run a significant portion of the conventional power it might otherwise save because the wind may die at any moment. It hopeless. Now this may be partially offset, as Martin suggests, by a geographical diverse network with different types of rewewables backed by a pumped hydro facility. But, tellingly, there is no indication that this is going to happen in Australia. What may very well happen, should the 20 per cent legislation get through, is that the power generators will buy electricity from renewable generators - along with the necessary emission abatement certificates - but still keep their own generators going. Electricity consumers will end up paying for renewable energy projects that are merely symbolic as they will little actual effect. As it stands, and with current technology, the scheme is madness.