Squeers - But the article is completely wrong and Ted Trainer is not an engineer and fails in his ability to do basic maths.

That is the problem with the article, it's an ideological position much removed from reality dressed up as a report on someone doing some analysis and coming up with some conclusions.

As for Nuclear reactors
2x the cost of regular fuel bollicks. The world has never built a GenIII+ reactor. They're under construction but not one light bulb anywhere in the world has ever been powered by one.

The leading project in the world, caused a massive write down of $2 Billion dollars when Siemens pulled out. Areva has done their dough - the Finish project is $4 Billion over budget and 4 years behind schedule with another 2-3 years to go (at least)

As for 2nd generation - the type that are completely unacceptable in the west for new builds. That is what gets built in China, South Korea etc - those countries that place less value on safety.

MattWright,

I respect your expertise in this area, but the article isn't only about energy supply, which is only one facet of the multivalent crisis that confronts a system predicated on endless growth within finite and fragile conditions. If you think you can empirically dismiss the holistic dimensions of sustainable human societies, you're the one who's "completely wrong".
"Ted Trainer is not an engineer and fails in his ability to do basic maths".
I missed the bit where he tried to reduce the precarious complexity of biological balance to an equation and failed?
You seem to be basing your optimism on the abstract. The Earth's biosphere is not a laboratory or a computer!

"That is the problem with the article, it's an ideological position much removed from reality dressed up as a report on someone doing some analysis and coming up with some conclusions".

That is the problem with liberal-rationalism! it thinks it's above ideological "and" biological concerns; therein "it" is the view that's "removed from reality"!

I have the greatest respect for empiricism ceteris paribus, but in the real world it's only a help-mate to human reason, philosophy and ideology, and not a replacement!

Just to clarify, are you arguing that we can just continue, business as usual, and that renewables will solve all our problems?
The author of the article is taking a more rounded view.

I notice in today's Finanancial Review, that Shell are about to
start building the first of a series of LNG platforms, in
South Korea. The first one will be used off our NW coast.

They reckon that this will unlock about 1 Trilion $ worth of gas
in Australian waters alone, gas too far away to pipe to other
areas, which they can access with these rigs.

So Squeers, I don't like your chances. People will simply keep
going, because they can. Sadly, in the process, they will
destroy most other species and their habitats, for of course,
only people matter to most.

You focus on Western consumerism. Fact is, even if Western
consumerism stopped tomorrow, it would not make a hell of a lot
of difference.

In the last 12 years, we've added 1 billion extra people. In just
12 years. One day the whole shebang will crash, but not yet.

So unlike yourself, I'm not about to go on any guilt trips

MattWright,

The CANDU reactors are Gen3 and there are at least 6 running, and nearly 20 under construction.

The 2x cost of fossil fuels is based on Europe, (mostly gas) not on Australia, which would be about 3-4x

Matt, the University of Melbourne Energy Research material you refer to didn't use the EPRI data in their CSP analysis so it's difficult to see how it is "completely discredited".

I note that one of the lead authors of the University's material was also your joint lead author in the Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan.

When the IEA, US DOE and ABARE start using the University's analysis rather than their own or EPRI's then I will be more disposed to using it.

"Why the world can't rely on renewable energy if we want to remain affluent?"

First of all I think the title of the article is wrong. It should be "Why the world can't remain affluent if we want to rely on renewable energy".

Actually, if the truth be told, there is absolutely no way that we are going to remain affluent at all, in spite of technology. At present we are consuming renewable resources at about one and a half times the capacity of the planet to produce them. It is beyond the power of governments to provide a solution to this problem, and it will ultimately be determined by market forces which will drive up the cost of living to unmanageable heights. The world population has already reached the point of no return, but our insatiable demands for energy and food will see us going the way of the Mayans and the prophesies of Malthus will be fulfilled.

David