Mark, excellent article, unfortunately many of the poster's replies are childish to the point it hurts to watch it.
It seems most are intrinsically against renewable energy on the sole basis that Greens/environmental lobbyists (or some fantastical mythical dope-smoking hippy "activist" group) want it judging by some of the sillier name-calling used.

I will only point out
Cudmidgeon- Australian Energy Market Operator is a retail operator- coal, gas, oil- any power source that must be mined, manufactured and purchased has retail and marketing value- sources that come down to an automated receiver by themselves for free, do not (wind, solar, geothermal). Biofuel has limited market value because it requires existing crops be redirected.

Pheonix- "Renewable energy is subsidized by both users and taxpayers."
Just like any other form of energy- and seeing that all taxpayers are energy users but not all energy users are taxpayers, there is both an extensive power bill and often a pensioner-subsidy in tax to go with it.
The only difference is that many renewables do not require resource or personnel input, greatly reducing their cost or need for management;
To be more precise, they only need to be payed for construction, initial transport and fitting; otherwise, repairs (which are much less than combustible or nuclear due to the simplification of parts, and reduced heat-intensity).
In other words, when you pay for solar, you are ONLY paying for the panel's costs itself.

King Hazza - no, AEMO operates the grid. Check out their site. The organisation has other functions, so that may be where the confusion arises.

Mark Diesendorf - so you do actually respond to contrary information, even if simply to dismiss or misunderstand what was said? The actual statement I made was that the supposed working baseload power stations (as in ones actually built) are nothing of the kind and are in those odd geographical locations I mentioned. Sure you can find areas in Aus where solar thermal might work - but would they work well enough to sub for base load stations considering that no one yet has been able to to build a satisfactory one, even on a pilot station scale and even in odd geographic regions?

Yes, the reports you cite are activist publications. Imagine the screaming that would go on if I presented reports funded by coal or oil companies as "proof" the solar really didn't work? Then you'll get some idea of just how little regard we have for those things.

As another poster has pointed out, this has all been going on for years. If you want to get rid of this draining criticism produce a working solar powered base-load plant, the performance of which has been certified by an independent body. Then curmudgeons like me will go away. (Liked your foray into the dictionary, incidentally, I'll keep the abuse in my scrapbook.)

rosie "smelters in Victoria have made enormous profits and paid less than 2c / kWh for electricity"

Yes, and paid over 30% company tax on those profits, employed people, bought goods and services locally, generated transportation jobs, business for suppliers of various materials, local councils also benefited

.. not quite the parasite you make out. this is the snide inference that "big polluters" are the enemy of the state, and because of them, the world is ending (horrors!)

Previous governments competed for companies to set up in Victoria, as do other states, and offered them cheap electricity as an incentive to bring the jobs and business to Victoria.

you want it to appear they are doing something devious by paying that amount for energy

that's why the eco alarmist lobby and followers are losing traction, it's loose tricky and downright misleading rubbish like this article and the alarmist supporter comments that set people not just offside, but against eco whackos and their ilk

you all get tarred with the same brush, which is only fair, if you want to be devious and attempt to mislead people, you are reinforcing to the community that you cannot be trusted, no one like you can be trusted, that anything you support cannot be trusted

then you complain no one listens, or understands you are only doing this for their own good .. oh, we listen, we just DO NOT TRUST YOU

Mark, interesting stuff but like so many proponents of renewable energy, there is often some real life, well documented actual (grid input) performance to counter the “dreamtime evangelists”.

Most recently, the UK based John Muir Trust Produced (Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation, November 2008 to December 2010). This was based on actual input to the grid and tracked by the generators themselves at 5 min. intervals.

The following is a brief extract:
“During the study period, wind generation from the UK wind turbine fleet (with an average capacity over the period of the survey in excess of 1600 MW) was:
Below 20% of capacity more than half the time
Below 10% of capacity over one third of the time
Below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve
Below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month
The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis.

We are also fully aware that the Danish produce 13% of their electricity from wind. Over four fifths of this is exported to adjacent countries, sometimes at zero income because it is produced when not needed. The most recent estimate of costs to the Danish public is above DKK 1.5Bn. (approx. A$220m). (Ref. “The Wind Farm Scam” by Dr. John Etherington).

In Dec. 2010, Transfield CEO announced the suspension of two wind farm proposals in Australia due to lack of green investment funds.

The renewable energy product, target market, economics, logistics and efficiencies are all badly flawed.

Sarnian, dream on sweetie, the same report also covers the much vaunted pumped storage for both potable water and hydro. The total capacity of all UK hydro storage is 22 hrs. We really do need to stop dreaming.

Mark Diesendorf ” should also recommend funding for research into thorium nuclear reactors instead of uranium in nuclear reactors for efficient electric power production.This research could be part of multi national effort with Russia, India, and in 2011 China. All have plans to use thorium for their nuclear power reactors, partly because of its safety benefits. (Shiga David 2011). The largest new U S giant uranium reactors in South Texas have been dumped because of safety concerns about the nuclear disaster in Japan ; writing off $A 315 million already invested. (Wald, Mathew.2011)

The US from 1964 to 1969 used Thorium-232 for breeding nuclear fuel – uranium-233, for example, in the molten-salt reactor experiment (MSR) However most of the US test reactors were closed down as their primary concern was producing nuclear weapons. It is clearly time for the nuclear power generation to shake off its military past (Editorial New Scientist 2011)

Thorium nuclear power reactors, are needed because they are potentially safe and can be used to replace coal fired power stations to reduce CO2 emissions to a level that does not produce a genocidal increase in global warming. Without these reactors to bolster the development of renewable energy, the preservation of a democratic and frugal but healthy way of life will be impossible. I agree with Marks general argument but it would take a lot longer that 20 years and as some on this list have commented we safe nuclear power and throrium reactors may be the solution with a 30 year timeframe

In a decade or so electricity from black coal power stations can be replaced with even more efficiently. Carbon capture is coming (Haszeldine & Scott 2011) but instead of shoving our CO 2 emissions underground - we should also recycle CO2. Several companies have proposed turning cement making on its head, so that it captures more CO2 than it now generates; cement now produces around 5% of all Australian CO2 emissions.(MacKenna, P 2011

Mark Diesendorf could have made a much more compelling argument about the viability of sustainables if he'd coupled their exclusive usage with cuts in consumption of energy. There are umpteen examples of where electricity is just wasted and could be radically cut as well as made more efficient. This applies to all forms of energy. We could easily cut our usage by half without any real depreciation of living standards. Indeed we could rediscover lifestyles that didn't depend upon massive amounts of energy. Our energy usage is based on profligacy and it's demand that has to be cut rather than energy having to meet demand. Even in the current system scarcity of energy would be a much more effective driver of innovation than unrealistic glut. Put a cap on energy consumption per head of population, across the board, and watch what happens.
But it won't happen, the wealthy want the ordinary scum-bags to drive innovation and the scum-bags are gutless.