The problem here is what is the purpose of the RET, if it is to reduce carbon emissions then hydro dams are not helpful as their constantly changing water levels cover vegetation, leading to substantial emissions of methane. On the other hand if the purpose as the name implies is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels then there is an obvious benefit.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-emissions-may-swell-from-behind-dams/

I support view that the purpose of the RET is reduce carbon emission, thus I can see no merit in including Hydro dams in the RET especially as they are one of the cheapest ways to produce electricity and thus do not need any subsidies.

The whole idea behind a RET, was to allegedly reduce carbon!

I mean and for heavens sake. The Germans are shutting down their old nuclear power stations and replacing them with coal!

Well you need to produce carbon to trade and make money from it!

An international ETS will make carbon the most valuable and most traded commodity on earth!

So how in heavens name will that incentivate emission reductions!?

And who will pay for this brand new money (140 billion per) for shuffling paper, gravy train?

You guessed it, the dumb as doorknobs energy consumer; and moreover, for the veritable army of bureaucrats charged with policing it!

We have enough carbon free thorium to power the world for around 700 years; or Australia for thousands if we just keep it here for our own exclusive use and the (carbon free) half price power it will create for us and our own thoroughly resuscitated manufacturing sector.

And reliance on locally produced endlessly sustainable (carbon neutral) biogas, and ceramic fuel cells, will cut household power bills by half yet again; thanks to the four times better than coal, 80% energy coefficient of the ceramic fuel cell.

We will still need to mine some coal for steel production, but literally halve the carbon we create; making it, by relying exclusively on the locally invented direct reduction method and energy reliant arc furnaces/thorium power!

Thorium will also not only remove carbon production from smelting most metals including aluminium, magnesium and titanium, but given the huge reduction in production costs, the lowest costing metal production on the planet!

And if we follow that pragmatism by then building a nuclear powered bulk shipping fleet, ensure that our finished/value added products are forwarded for the lowest cost to us/massively boost trade!

Forget politics David and downright dumb and disastrous PPE's; and just think Lee Kwan Yu type nation building pragmatism!

If that then compels govt owned and operated enterprise all over the place so be it!

Time to take Tweedledum's blinkers off!
Rhrosty

Oh Dear oh Dear, when will they learn ?
David Leyonhjelm is a politician and they always think anything to do
with energy can be fixed by manipulation money around the problem.

NOW HEAR THIS !

Neither solar or wind can fix what is a related problem with CO2 and
energy supply.
It is important to realise that the Energy Return on Energy Invested
in both oil an coal has fallen quite significantly.
This means a change to some other system is needed but solar and wind
are non starters. They have too low an eroei to be more than a bit of
a fill in or, shall I be blunt, a hobby for greenies.

Note how the worlds politicians are fixated on increasing growth.
They are completely unaware that they are in the grip of diminishing returns.
It is impossible to generate growth at a time when we are entering
an era of zero growth. We are entering that era because of increasing
difficulty and therefore cost of energy extraction.

Politicians are attacking the wrong problem. All this talk of the RET
is stupid because everyone is thinking wind & solar AND THAT WON"T FIX IT !

Rhrosty, your claim that "The Germans are shutting down their old nuclear power stations and replacing them with coal" is FALSE. Though Germany, like Australia, generates a high proportion of its electricity from coal, that proportion is falling despite their gradual phaseout of nuclear. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany

Molten oxide electrolysis is set to revolutionize metal production in the coming decades, but that will happen with or without thorium fission. And not exporting thorium once there's a demand for it makes no sense – Australia has abundant solar energy; much of the world doesn't and is therefore more in need of nuclear power than we are.

As for nuclear powered ships, forget it! They'd be expensive to run and a security risk, and many countries are likely to bar their access.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, not only are you wrong but you're misrepresenting David's position in a way that unfairly favours him!

Throwing money at the problem could easily fix it. But David thinks that would be impossible, and in any case he's not interested in solving it; just meeting political targets by fudging them!

It is important to realise that (except at very low values) EROEI isn't and can never be the limiting factor; cost is, and costs can be manipulated.

We aren't entering an era of zero growth. And even if we entered an era of zero energy use growth, it would not equate to an era of zero economic growth. But energy use won't stop growing unless demand for it does, and that's unlikely any time soon.

Aidan, nothing stops you from continuing to shout your zealotry from the rooftops. Get a grip!

If we are going to throw money, let it be where is can affordably affect AGW in the time-frame available, nuclear base-load power.

PV's have run their race. They don't stack up, even before energy storage costs are factored in:
http://energyskeptic.com/2015/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/
The same affliction applies to wind and solar thermal.

If only wishful thinking, like prayer, worked. Alas, God will not save us, we have to save ourselves.

And here, linked to the cited website.

http://energyskeptic.com/2015/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/#responses

What is it about reality, as opposed to the hypothetical, you reject Aidan?