Wind and commercial solar would have more legitimacy if they got there on the basis of tough emissions targets, not quotas and subsidies. We'd know that electricity providers could slot them into the mix without excessive cost. Now we have solar installers actively lobbying in the forthcoming Canning by-election presumably to keep the government largesse coming.

On another forum it was suggested that you shouldn't feel guilty about car driving and plane trips if you have solar panels. That theory will be put to the test when oil runs out. Things seem OK now precisely because we are using 85% fossil fuels to make heat, electricity and transport. If political luminaries think that is easy or cheap to turn around show us where it has been done.

There is a cost in not reducing carbon emissions (but it is not 'extinction').

Of course there are high costs in establishing new energy technologies but, in the case of renewables, these are largely fixed costs.

The ongoing costs for renewable technologies are relatively small cf. ongoing variable costs of mining coal. Nobody talks about these aspects of "the costs".

Yes, "Australia would be crazy not to reap the benefits of what promises to be one of the world's major growth industries .." ---- but they are not "industries of tomorrow", or benefits "of tomorrow" --

--- they are industries of Today, and removing the carbon price/tax has severely damaged the ability to reap revenue and other benefits presently and into the future.

This Lib-Nat Federal Coalition gummint have cost Australia. Big time.

.

Tas,

Emission reduction targets are every bit as flawed as the other "green" solutions: they are artificial constructs to solve a problem that almost certainly doesn't exist, since there has been no warming for 18 years and the thousands of predicted catastrophes haven't occurred.

McReal,

You say the "ongoing costs of renewable energy are relatively small".
You mean after the first $100 billion?

All in all a very good article from John.

Who will pay the price for this fiscal insanity?

The people, our entire future prospects, the economy, our manufacturing arm or base or both!

Simply put, to create a decarbonized economy only requires carbon free energy, and the only one that competes with coal on roll out costs is very large scale solar thermal energy able to utilise economies of scale!

Those that clearly outperform coal are, cheaper than coal thorium; seventies technology, rejected because there were no weapons spin off!

Conversely, in complete inversion to oxide reactors they produce just around 5% waste, which is vastly less toxic, and then still suitable as long life space batteries!

Then we have cheaper again biogas, created in onsite digestors, and stored in bladers, and after requisite scrubbing, consumed in locally invented ceramic fuel cells; that together as a combination, produce the world's cheapest energy!

Firstly because the energy coefficient is a world beating 80% and secondly; there are no transmission or distribution losses to consider for energy produced where it is used!

And lets not forget the endless free hot water that these combinations produce, along with the pristine water evaporate that is mostly, the exhaust product!

If Labor shared a still functioning brain between them, you could probably put it in a thimble and still hear it rattle?
Rhrosty.

"Building enough solar and wind power to meet Labor's new target would cost the country 80 to 100 billion dollars."

It's much worse than that. It's not feasible.

http://euanmearns.com/the-renewables-future-a-summary-of-findings/

The biggest joke comes in politicians' renewable energy 'targets'. Abbott, who really doesn't believe in the nonsense anyway but plays along to keep his job, goes for twenty something percent; the other buffoon pokes a pin into an absurd figure of 50%.

The stupid public wears this rubbish without even asking if any of these electioneering ploys are achievable, or even if the massive expense will have any effect on the climate. At the moment, even 'the science' (drum roll) says no and no.