HVDC?

Interesting.

But I'm inclined to think that electricity is like desk space. The more that is available, the more that is used and eventually wasted.

I would much rather see Australia leading the way in energy conservation.

It seems honourable enough.

We export coal and gas for the short term, to develop technology and modes of living that eventually reduces energy consumption in the long term.

Julian’s proposal has considerable merit. It may not come to much -- thinking outside the square is an unrewarding exercise at any time, and Australia’s justifiably wary of ‘Big Ideas‘ after the last few years. Still, if we’re going to rabbit on endlessly about reducing our carbon footprint, winding down coal consumption, and actually making renewable energy a viable proposition, we’d better forget about Julia’s Carbon Tax and move along smartly towards something like HVDC.

There’s absolutely no point in peppering roofs with solar panels. It saves ZERO carbon emissions: you can’t turn down the volume on your local power plant because the sun is shining, full stop. Solar photovoltaic is just expensive window-dressing. Those rich enough to spend $10,000 on solar panels get taxpayer subsidies for installation, then payments from utility companies funded by increased rates -- the poor subsidise the rich. Nice one, that.

Wind generation is no different; it’s expensive, intermittent, and useless for base-load power generation; your coal- or gas-fired power plant doesn’t burn less fuel on windy days either. It’s only advantage is that most wind turbines are sited in the Regions, where urban greenies don’t have to look at them, let alone live with the noise, or the stench of dead birds ripped up by turbulence.

The beauty of Julian’s scheme is that it COULD make use of solar photovoltaic, wind, solar thermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, wave power, and almost anything else that comes along, to produce base-load energy. You don’t need the expensive technology to synchronise many small DC inputs. HVDC is versatile in ways our current AC generation infrastructure can never be.

The problem is that we’re supposed to be developing alternatives to fossil fuels, but we’re pretending that isn’t a radical change that’ll take a full century of innovation to bring about. We’re also pretending that generation technologies not net conceived will mesh with our existing AC energy grid, and that’s very, very unlikely. It’s MUCH more likely, though, for a HVDC approach. And almost certainly less expensive.

Think outside the square. You don’t bet, you can’t win.

Hi Julian,

thanks, exactly what we need.

Naysayers were to be expected, as in Europe with Desertec. Schopenhauer said, all truth passes through three stages. Ridiculed. Violently opposed. Accepted as being self-evident.

Saul Griffith from Sydney left Australia years ago for California where his "audacious" ideas are much more appreciated. In his short video about wind energy

http://www.ted.com/talks/saul_griffith_on_kites_as_the_future_of_renewable_energy.html

he explains that audacious things have been done many times in history and shows the example of a refrigerator factory that needed to build airplanes during WWII. At the beginning they made 1000 airplanes a year, at the end of WWII they made 100,000 airplanes.

It has to be DONE not talked about. Due to the decisionmakers' dilemma you mention I do not see much chance today for your Australian Energy Superhighway, however, I'd be happy to support any activities. Visions like yours are of utmost importance.

Europe with its poor conditions for solar is way ahead of Australia. And Germany has more new developments in the pipeline like EE-Gas which again no one here in Australia is even talking about.

Years ago I have done a pre-feasibility study about deep water off-shore wind in bass strait for Desertec Asia showing it could supply all of Australia, and more. In a speech at BZE Keith Lovegrove said once something like your vision is set up it would create a never ending cash flow from Asia to Australia. We have that with coal today but for how long and at which price?

Then there is the solar tower of Environmission that after years of delays is now being build in the US. Why not here?

It will only be able to go forward in small steps like supplying an island with wave power. Japan is missing around 40 GW from the defunct nuclear power stations which could be replaced by wave power. I have made it to the sub-governmental level with a detailed proposal but there is a insurmountable barrier, so I think it is better to start small and wait until they knock your door and ask: How do you do that?

You've got to wonder whether it wouldn't be easier to use all that energy to actually make stuff here, rather than simply exporting it like all our other raw materials.

@michael(L?), uranium resources are a non-issue, in the medium term due to exploration (the current resurgence is still in its infancy), and in the long term due to Generation IV reactor technology.

how can we feed anyones demands, let alone our own, when we are planning the cut emissions, not increase them.

this is th fundemental flaw in their future outlook