>".I have stated multiple times that the government has tried and failed to repeal the CEFC."

That's totally irrelevant as I've explained multiple times. That's this week. Things change in politics. Economically irrational polices don't last. it seems you have no understanding. Look what happened to the carbon tax.

But you cannot change the physical constraints that mean renewables cannot have much impact of global GHG emissions.

You still have not explained the benefit v the costs of your scheme. That's the killer crunch for you. You have not valid justification for your idea. It's just driven by ideology, and presumably, self-interest.

Those who like to call themselves 'Progressives' share your irrational ideological beliefs. They have been retarding progress for 50 years.

Got a PV quote today to make the point as to why domestic PV is viable.
On an 8.32 kW system costing $18296 there is a gov't rebate of $6536, and surplus electricity is bought by the utility.

No wonder Warren Buffett and Berkshire-Hathaway invest in China, with the subsidy and Gov't guarantees there. Whatever, I'd rather see Oz gov't money buying into Oz nuclear rather than into anything Chinese. Why build up China's future rather than our own?

Stand alone RE doesn't cut it without subsidies, electricity buy-back, and knobbling competition.

Craig Minns, I congratulate you on the most vacuous post on this thread. No, not "round and round", that's good for you, but your "trust me, I'm right" effort. GSOH.

No, you don't have to trust me, Luciferase. You're welcome to be as foolish as you like.

But I'm still right.

The fundamental facts that need to be recognised are:

Fossil fuels have done an enormous amount of good for humanity and the environment:

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-5/the-return-of-nature

Fossil fuels will continue to be the main source of energy and do enormous good for humanity and the environment until there is a cheaper alternative.

Renewables cannot be the alternative to fossil fuels (see previous comments and references). They cannot replace fossil fuels (except small amounts on the margins - but, this is irrelevant to the main discussion. Pareto Principle says to focus your efforts on where you can have the most effect - do the most good.)

Trying to force more expensive energy to replace fossil fuels is bad for humanity, bad for the environment and cannot succeed - economically irrational policies as these are - cannot survive therefore they cannot succeed, Therefore, they cannot change the climate so they do not deliver benefits (in terms of climate damages avoided).

To succeed in reducing global GHG emissions, the world must act together; and the policies must be sustainable for 100 years or more. The only policies that will be sustainable over long time periods are policies that deliver net benefits to all sovereign states. The most obvious way to achieve this initially (i.e. over the first half century or so) is to reduce the cost of energy, globally. This can be done - with GHG emissions reductions delivered as a bonus - by removing the impediments that are blocking nuclear power. The US and EU can make this happen. Australia can't (on its own). But we can play an important part by becoming advocates for rational policies and dumping the irrational policies of the anti-nuke scaremongers and 'Progressives'.

Luciferase,

I don't think anyone on this thread has come close to suggesting that domestic PV is viable. Though, it is projected to increase 24% p.a. between 2013/14 and 2016/17. It serves little value financially or environmentally for the money invested.

In regards to EROEI, I've reviewed several journal articles. I've come to the conclusion that EROEI is heavily dependent on the location and the specific project, so broadly stating EROEI tells us one thing can be highly misleading. It seems coal, nuclear and hydro can all have the highest EROEI under the right conditions, and equally can have very low EROEI under the wrong conditions.

For example, a previous article from Hall C.A.S determined solar, hydro, wind, gas, oil and coal had higher EROEI than nuclear. In addition solar had an EROEI within the same range as nuclear. But this was under certain conditions that wouldn't be replicated here in Australia.

Specifically, the problem is that the whole calculation requires variables. The first solar PV panels had a efficiency of something like 1%, recently Australian researchers broke the record at 40%. This changes the EROEI. Equally the same for efficiency improvements in wind turbines/nuclear/hydro.

Where a solar panel or wind turbine is located is going to determine a different EROEI. Australia has one of the highest average solar radiation per square metre anywhere in the world. Wouldn't this favour Australia over places such as Spain, France, Germany and USA for solar PV EROEI?

I want to point out I am only asking a question. I am not advocating for anything one way or another.

True, there have been many analyses of ERoEI. Many methodologies used. Much debate. But many analyses have been seriously flawed one way or another.

The Weißbach analysis has stood up well to critiques: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/#comment-350520

However, what many people don’t understand is that the ERoEI stated for nuclear is for LWRs. These use <1% of the available energy in nuclear fuel. When it becomes more economic to use breeder reactors than LWR, the ERoEI can increase by up to a factor of 100.

It’s also important to recognise that wind and solar use about 10 times more materials than LWR per unit of electricity produced over the plants life time, as well as much more land area.

And the transmission cost is many times more expensive as penetration increases: http://www.energyinachangingclimate.info/Counting%20the%20hidden%20costs%20of%20energy.pdf

Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited, so it is sustainable indefinitely.

And it has the potential to power the planet. Wind and solar cannot (for reasons explained above. There are enormous opportunities for reducing the cost of nuclear power. But progress is retarded by the ‘Progressives” and anti-nukes.

It’s easy to see Spencer Wright knows he’s lost this arguments. He knows his idea is a dud. He knows he can’t justify it with cost benefit analysis.

Furthermore, he’s neatly dodged throughout this thread the points that are killers for his idea – the latest example is he’s simply avoided this: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17320#306767 .

Not admitting when wrong is sign No. 5 of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/