I agree with "Foyle"

Oh Dear,

I knew the CAGW thing was going “boom” when I saw the full page from a dozen or so environment NGO’s in The Australian.

The message is slowly getting through; it’s all over red rover. The tax is going, the RET is going, Kyoto is gone, emissions trading is gone and the renewable industry has collapsed.

Where are the NGO’s going to get their revenue from now? The answer of course is rattling donation tins in the shopping centers. All those gravy train executive appointments and tax payer funded bongo drum junkets, all gone.

Mike, think of it this way, if your science had any merit you would still have your toys.

Go figure.

Taswegian – You comment … “As of now” but what the article suggests is that over the next decade development in storage of electricity will make it cheaper and more efficient - a development enabling domestic users to go off-grid. Fantasy world or a necessary development already underway?

Government expenditure on renewables is for the development and application of new technology rather than operational subsidies such as those paid to the coal mining industry. And it is quite right to assert that “coal fired power stations are not going anywhere” – at least not yet. But like all old technology they will go, unless of course we can develop and use Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology. Unfortunately, despite investment of billions, it has not yet been possible to develop CCS which is either sufficiently efficient or affordable for power house use. If those problems can be overcome, that could be a game changer.

You make a good point about nuclear power requiring a conventional grid, but is nuclear a real option for Australia? The majority view still seems to be NIMBY.

You say that … “When southern cities nudge 50C in future summers I suspect people will want aircon”. How true! It is to avoid that horrific prospect that a change from burning fossil fuels to non-polluting energy production is inevitable and is being pursued. Does it require a “conventional grid” or development of high tech regional grids?

BIG GRIDS=BIG CASH GRANTS...to those who love govt cash flow
big dams..damm big big bigger..[im sick of big is better..too big to fail/too big to bail..

break it up

LET "INVESTERS>>SPEND THEIR OWN,CASH

this farce..[infrastructure spending..is for lines/pipes..etc,,to be put in at govt expense..its sukking at govt teats..[like santo'gas lines..to free ports/

i got a nice windfarm..if only there was a *free govt paid grid/pipeline,..into the CON-sumer cashmachine to take my power/gas to an export port/market..[paid for from the govt purse...

so i can get hugebonus

the snowjob mountainsceme..still has huge outstanding debt..use the wateronce..[lol]..when in the old days...hundreds of smaller water wheels..[or windmills..served power locally..at much smaller cost..all along the water course.

Further to my previous comment on the cost of 'climate policies' like carbon pricing and renewable energy, 'Quadrant Online' published an article this morning by me "No gain and lots of pain with the ETS". It explains why carbon pricing will not succeed.

And, right on cue, Professor Henry Ergas has an article in today's 'The Australian' titled: "Carbon folly comes at a price": http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/carbon-folly-comes-at-a-price/story-fn7078da-1226675618444

The take home message is the cost-benefit of wind power is -5:1. That is, the costs are five times the benefits. As Ergas says:

"The aggregate result is that for each $1 of benefit, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's intervention makes Australians $5 worse off."

"No Gain and lots of pain with the ETS" by Peter lang, 8 July 2013:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/07/no-gain-and-lots-of-pain-with-the-ets