I suspect most of the CEFC's soft loans will effectively be subsidising gas, for example cogeneration or solar thermal with gas boost. George Orwell warned us of the dangers of doublespeak. We already have solar rebates for heat pump water heaters that live in darkened cupboards. Mind you the CEFC could blow most of its budget on an AP 1000 nuclear reactor, a prospect I approve of.

As for unproven technology we've already seen hundreds of millions go to dry rock geothermal and carbon capture with little to show. Minister Combet says he will conduct a review of the RET but I doubt much will change. In case it did go I think carbon price plus soft finance could be a reasonable alternative model.

The Carbon Tax gives me a warm feeling that Australia is doing its bit to save the Earth that nurtures us.

After all, the rest of the world will be inspired to follow Australia's enlightened planet saving example.

Planta

James Wight is a student so he can be excused for his idealism. When I was a student there were also many idealistic folk who were excited by the newly developed commercial photovoltaic materials and devices and their prospects as cheap new energy sources. Trouble is, that was 55 years ago. In the interim other renewables also turned out to be not so cheap.

Herein lies the problem. The only blameworthy cause of the damaging climate change that worries so many is energy. And the only contributor to the total cost of mitigating climate change is the cost of the alternatives to the energy we use now. I repeat, cost is the only barrier.

So the debate is about costs. And it is not settled; many do maintain that cheap alternatives are just around the corner. I have been waiting 55 years. Perhaps I can be excused for my pessimism that cheap renewables are coming. I do have other, more scientific, reasons for my opinion that they can never compete with the fossil fuel bonanza that humans exploited so thoroughly, but a lifetime of watching and waiting does help support them.

The real world politics of cutting emissions was always going to revolve around gas. Only the dreamers think renewables are in the game. Beyond that 50% cut in emissions that gas offers it's all dreamtime (apart from nuclear, which I have the feeling James doesn't like). Sorry if that sounds negative. That's what a long life does to the dreams of youth.

So let us excuse the CEFC. They are probably nearly as old as I am.

Great article; thanks for focusing us on these facts James. The CEFC does indeed need the changes and qualifications you have outlined.

Tombee, I agree that where a 100% renewable economy is concerned a costed pathway is needed and this is lacking. However it can be done - this is the next arena for discussion and focus. There are already papers (for an example google BZE 200 stationary energy plan)that explain it.

I disagree with your assertion that it's unachievable and that gas and nuclear are the answer. They are not. Both are polluting and neither is renewable; i.e. both will run out. These things wont affect you and me (I'm 59) but they will affect our grandchildren.

Australia is near the most carbon polluting country in the world; WA and Qld the post polluting states. We'd be far the most polluting if our coal exports were taken into account. We have a long way to reduce that carbon pollution to sustainable levels (about 15% of what it is now).

We are also close to the richest nation. These are the reasons we must lead the world in renewable energy.

Thanks Roses 1 for defining precisely what the issue is. It's all about faith and hope in an energy future that is just around the corner - always.

I am fully aware of the BZE line of argument, and with its critics. The heart of the matter is the different opinions, and they really are opinions, as to what can be achieved in the future in the way of costs and the required scale of operations. People make forecasts and say they will come good. But they haven't. I take the line that they won't, largely because they haven't but also because the whole proposition that diffuse intermittent energy sources can be competitive with high energy combustible fuels is intrinsically far fetched. Yes, it's a sceptical line and often criticised for its negativity. I wait to be proved wrong.

Australia's place in world polluting stakes is a red herring if it is being used as a moral argument. We are rich because we use lots of energy, per capita pretty much in the same proportion to our wealth as every other economy. We have higher emissions per dollar GDP mainly because of Victoria's vast wet brown coal deposits, low contribution from hydro, and zero nuclear. These are simple facts. No emotions. They do not mean that I 'like' coal, or oil or gas. But I do not like dreamy faith in their replacements.

A couple of comments.

First, it is evident that many are very worried about the threat proposed by the "pollutant" CO2. People really should trust their own intellect and look into the issue for themselves. Ask for the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing a problem. Ask how the IPCC comes up with the very positive feedback assumptions that are the cause of the supposed high sensitivity to CO2 emissions. There is active and ongoing discussion that the sensitivity to CO2 may be neutral or even negative, meaning that CO2 emissions are not a problem, and may even be a help.

Second, it is very evident that many commenters have no idea about the relative characteristics of base load power and the intermittent unreliable supply that comes from wind and solar. In fact, the characteristics of wind and solar are such that they pose real problems for managing the grid (increasing costs) and also require 100% back-up from conventional sources (also at high cost).

Can I urge that those offering opinions investigate for themselves the relative costs of the alternative power sources. Also check the likelihood that the system could be supplied by these alternative sources.

I guess that its OK though if we are spending somebody else's money on these pipedreams. But really, would you spend that money if it were your own?

James
This article is really hard line. You mention the target that 20 per cent of our electricity has to come from renewables by 2020. The generating industry will struggle to meet this, but thanks to the decision to split the target into large and small scale generation (small scale is the home stuff)it might be able to do it.

I doubt very much whether any carbon will actually be saved overall - remember that we're meeting targets not saving carbon - but the illusion of saving carbon will be there.

However, there is no room for the further expansion you suggest, both on a practical level in finding enough projects that make any sense, and in allowing for the stability of the electricity grid.

Grid operators have managed more than 20 per cent overseas, I think, but that's countries like Denmark, the grid of which is quite small compared to its neighbours and so it can usually just import and export the stuff without much trouble to the neighbours when they have to stabilise.

But there are renewable base load power plants now available I hear you say? No there are not.. go look at the actual literature on those plants (notably the pilot plant in Spain activists try to claim is base load). 20 per cent is all you're going to get to in Aus for some time. So it makes sense to look at gas plant emissions.

Climate change deniers should also consider the prospect of fossil fuel depletion, normally but not always reflected by higher prices. Gas major Santos tells us to expect the price of domestic gas to double in 20 years but I think it could happen in 10 years when it used for everything. That includes baseload power to replace coal, quick ramping gas turbine power to iron out wind and solar variability, chemical feedstock, domestic heat and future truck fuel.

Possibly we can increase the renewables fraction to well over 20% with the advent of the smart grid and affordable electric cars that double as overnight energy storage. That could take decades, not just by year 2020. World production of crude oil and close substitutes has been on a plateau since 2005 and must soon go into permanent decline. If we are serious about big CO2 reductions and alternative energy sources I think 3rd followed by 4th generation nuclear has to be a major part of the mix. If the CEFC doesn't think along these lines I fear they are doomed to fail.

Taswegian
Time to catch up. The Santos statement relates to domestic gas prices which has to do with demand from China and, I believe, because it is being used more commonly as a substitute for coal.. gas reserves have been going through the roof because of fracking and prices have been falling in the US.. gas scarcity is completely off the agenda. The whole energy industry is going through a revolution at the moment - although you will find people still trying to peddle the idea that the end of the fossil fuel reserves is in sight. Considering what's been happening of late, its a very hard line to sell..

I'll pass over the denier jibe for them moment...

The author says this:

"However, if a Liberal government is elected next year, it could still repeal the legislation before much money has been spent. For this reason, I think CEFC funding should begin immediately, and would prefer construction to begin on at least one project before the next election."

This is typical of the arrogant scorched-Earth approach of the current government; they know they will be decimated by the 'drover's dog' at the next election and are mongrelising the Green's ideology, the carbon tax, RET and the various CEFC legislations, by trying to make them as permanent as possible and incorporating punishment provisions in the legislation.

It is a disgrace and an insult to the electorate that the elitists who dictate green 'policy' should be taking this approach.

Between now and 2016 the CEFC and ARENA will give over $13 billion to renewable scams, primarily wind and solar start-ups.

Wind and solar do not work; they are old and inadequate technology. The fact that there is no provision for money into thorium, IFRs and UltraSupercritical coal technology shows once again that the greens disdain the Australian population.

This should end in court with the advocates of wind and solar having to justify their lies.

And Once Upon a Time Children

Aunty Julia and the Green Pixies (so happy and gay) were so kind in bringing us this Carbon Tax. And the air over our little land was cleaner after 200 years before Sleeping Beauty got 1,200 Big Power Bills from Mr Mailman.

And forget, you sleepy heads, about all that bad Gas and Coal we send to China and India and Japan to make their power stations blurt Carbon. Because exports don't count or Aunty Julia or Aunty Christine will smack you.

Aunty Julia is making us save a little bit of Carbon each year in our Little Green Piggy Banks so all the Aunties and Uncles in all the Lands will Copy us, little children.

And besides you don't have any choice except at the 2013 Elections Kiddies. When Father Tony Promises to rid us of this tax... and he wouldn't fib because his boss His Eminence Cardinal Pell will smack his :)

THE END

Roses1, even if we (i.e. everybody) went 100% with it, atomic energy would not run out in the lifetime of your grandchildren. With 4th gen technology, the time our descendants have to deal with scarcity of fissionable material is so far in the future that they could be members of a different species.