Diesendorf has abandoned all reality for a fantasy world where no technical difficulties exist and all contrary information is ignored, or perhaps does not register.

This article represents the extreme end of the renewable energy activist spectrum. Only a few would claim that fossil fuel power stations are in any danger of being banished from power networks entirely in any foreseeable future. If you go and look at the supposed renewable energy base load stations which Mark and others talk about, you quickly find that they are pilot plants built in remote locations operating reliably for perhaps 10 hours a day, if that. Then you realise that they operate in what amounts to alpine desert environments, of which there is a shortage in aus.

I also glanced at the various studies Diesendorf cites. They amount to more valueless, activist assurances. Wind is by far the most common renewable energy source in Aus and there is no indication that wind energy is going to replace one bolt of one conventional power plant station. And if you don't want to believe this, then where are the statements from the Australian Energy Market Operator (the group that operates the electricity grid for Eastern Aus) about plants that will be replaced?

For that matter where is the hard evidence from any operating grid that renewable energy is anything more than a nuisance

Just in case Curmudgeon's comments are seen to be tainted by his well known climate change scepticism, let me, as a scientist who accepts climate science, add my support to what he says. I have been an observer of the various claims made for renewable energy over perhaps 40 years, through its various ups and downs. I reckon it's time for action, not claims. So, frankly, I can't be bothered reading about the models that announce baseload electricity to be extinct and replaceable by large numbers of intermittent sources with a bit of backup. To be convinced after all these years of promises, what I would need to see is a commercial operation making electricity profitably without crying out for taxpayer funding - yet again. And please, don't mention geothermal. In principle it's a baseload technology. But according to the US DOE there are something like 43 critical steps in the overall development pathway of geothermal sources of energy. About seven are in a satisfactory state of development. If one assigns a probability of 80% success for each of the other 36, the total prospects of seeing geothermal as a reliable power source are 0.03%. In other words, zero. A rough calculation I know, but I think I'm being generous with my probabilities.

As Curmudgeon has pointed out, this flight of fantasy is based on absurd assumptions and pure whimsy, and constructed with wildly optimistic theory.

For example:

"Secondly, some renewable energies are just as reliable sources of base-load electricity as coal, while being 50 times less greenhouse polluting. These include bio-electricity generated from burning the residues of crops and plantation forests, concentrated solar thermal power with low-cost thermal storage, and hot-rock geothermal power."

is ludicrous.

1 - Bio electricity is heavily dependant on fuel availability, which depending on crops is largely cyclical. Only forestry is not, but is limited to pulp milling or wood plants, in which case the output is tiny.

2 - "low cost" (still horrendously expensive) thermal storage and hot rock geothermal are still experimental, (and the author acknowledges they have not expanded beyond demonstration plants) and thus their reliability, capacity and cost of running is still theoretical.

This is followed up by a second piece of whimsy:

"Modeling (see below) shows that it’s relatively inexpensive to lift the reliability of the total wind output to a level equivalent to a coal-fired power station by adding a few low-cost peak-load gas turbines that are operated infrequently."

While gas fired systems are typically far cheaper than coal, the infrastructure to support them is not. The turbines, gas supplies and pipelines need to be sized to supply the up to 90% of peak load for occasional use would need to be of titanic proportions, which is difficult to justify for occasional use.

The base load could be replaced at a fraction of the cost by nuclear power, and this entire mumbo jumbo is to promote the fantasy that climate change can be done without it.

Is this seriously thrown up for consideration to the populace, or is it just preaching to the stupid for donations?

The latter is most likely to be very successful, so let's just leave at that - a very good pitch, for stripping money from idiots.

Activist groups are full of them it seems, stupid, and with more income than they know what to do with. So papers like this, with promises and speculation, some exaggeration with a lot of hysteria, show them at least one place to park some money.

They can help the world be a better place, or maybe fund some more research eh, a couple more reports eh, wink wink, eh mate, couple of grants eh what .. lovely stuff.

As they say, where does the money go? Follow that and you find the motivation. Why would we expect less from businesses like the activist industry, whose goal is to make money .. from fools.

Thankyou for posting this good sense and truth Mark. I too have studied this and know that there are many options. Pyrolysis power station run on biomass crops (mallee trees) on just 10 % 40m has of dryland agricultural land in Austrlalia could easily supply 4% of our electricity. It would emove about the same percentage of our emissions (see www.TheBiocharRevolution.com,ch 20 of the book, which I wrote)
Re base load I think certain polluting industries perpetrate this myth because they want the cheap off peak power. Non-ferrous metal refining uses enormous amounts of electricity. More than 20% of the cost of aluminium smelting is electricity. It is by far the most energy and emissions intensive of our industries, accounting for a whopping 6% of Australia’s CO2 emissions. It provides only 0.6 per cent of manufacturing employment and contributes 1.3 per cent of the manufacturing sector’s share of gross domestic product https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=discussion_papers/DP44.pdf. Aluminium smelters include 3 of the 10 largest mineral corporations in the world and are more than 50% foreign owned. The most polluting of these are the only operations that may be forced offshore under a carbon price.
For more than 25 years, smelters in Victoria have made enormous profits and paid less than 2c / kWh for electricity. It is the cheapest and dirtiest electricity in the world, generated from brown coal and subsidized by the Government. This industry, more than any other needs a carbon price as an incentive to clean up its production. Replacing Victoria’s brown coal power stations with low carbon/renewable generation as soon as possible is an obvious top priority to reduce Australia’s emissions.

oh dear the lobby supporter group has arrived

roses quote...""Thankyou for posting this good sense and truth Mark.""

ok thasts only opinion

""many options...Pyrolysis power station
run on biomass crops..(mallee trees)..on just 10 %
40m has of dryland agricultural land in Austrlalia could easily supply 4% of our electricity.""

great how much to build the pipeline to brissie
you paying for the new power lines..needing to go there?

how long is the regrowth period
in the next 10 year big dry?

is this like the sceme they got in africa
paid for..[subsidised by their carbon credit raquet?]

jobs for the locals..at the small price
of giving the scammer the land in perpetuity

[ie getting the blacks to cleasr your land..
while you steal their homes and rivers]

noting these green jobs
will be cutting mulga..in the never never
but heh you got the cash..OR do YOU NEED GOVT GRANTS?

""Non-ferrous metal refining uses enormous amounts of electricity.""
yes lets burn the mulga

""More than 20% of the cost of aluminium smelting is electricity.""
at a far cheaper contracted rate
than we consumers get

lets close them down
send their jobs to china

betterr yet retarain them to cut the mulga
[do we need to build any houses out in the bush
build roads?

what ya didnt think of that
ya dumb mugs

ya burning on a sklow burn
producing more co2..than coal

are you guys naturally so dumb
or does it take greed to make you lot so clever?

""as soon as possible""
well mate itrs not possable
unless we tax the rest of australia to death
[hey is that the real adgenda?

what happens if the bush catches fire from a spark
ya bright spark?

""its an obvious top priority
to reduce Australia’s emissions.""

the best way is reduce our use
think smarter..use less

if you save power
you get a discount..!

[switch off ya elect/hot water heaters folks]

lets take cold showers..
till these greenies get a new project
and the bankers..money changers..find another scam