Tombee, though sun and wind power are intermittent, they are very very very far from feeble. Few people with any comprehension of how much solar radiation reaches this planet would think it technically impossible, though many would consider it unfeasibly expensive.

When trying to compare like with like, it's important not to lose sight of the real objective. When we need dispatchable power, we shouldn't pretend that what we need is baseload.

Then there's the issue of who we're applying the argument to, Australia, with its sunny climate and low population density, is technically very conducive to renewables, whereas Europe's conditions are more favourable to nuclear power.

It's not that renewable energy advocates forget that the last 5% is much harder than the first 5%. It's simply that it's of very little relevance to our present situation. Even when we reach 50% it won't be much of a constraint. And by the time we do reach the stage of 95% of our electricity form renewables, technology will have moved on significantly from where we now are. We don't have to limit ourselves to using todays technology for solving problems we don't yet have.

Aidan,

You are incorrect. The "fuel" costs for renewables do not go away, because you still need coal-fired generation as baseload backup.

The entire point about renewables is that they are not economically viable. They don't become viable just because taxpayers are forced to subsidised their construction and operating costs and their profit margins.

If the green left had any strategy other than posturing they'd be prepared to admit nuclear generation is a strong option.

Cobber,I'm with you, except where you say we need billions in government subsidies!

Factually, small (modules) waterless helium cooled pebble reactors (uranium fueled) can be mass produced in factories, then trucked onsite as wide loads!

The grapefruit sized graphite (bulletproof)balls surrounding small marbles or pebbles of fuel, mean there can never be a big enough pool/collection of fissile material to create a dangerous melt down!?

Practical Thorium reactors are limited in size to about 40 MW, and as such, can also be mass produced and trucked where they are needed.

And just ensuring they are buried in bedrock covers virtually all the so called attendant safety issues?

Moreover new isotopes of thorium, means we no longer need an oxide reaction to get them started!

And they can be paralleled as many times as you like for certain industries? 10 parallel reactors gets you a 400MW power plant e.g.?

However, placing them as near as possible to the local consumers all but eliminates transmission line or distribution losses?

And a single truckload of fuel may be all you need for the operational life of the plant, which means you eliminate most transport and mining costs!? The bane of the coal fired power industry!

And mass production as virtually ready to use modules, makes them vastly cheaper than the labour intensive, built on site, coal option!?

All that's required is development approval to get some of these comparatively safe subsidy free options up and running, much to the chagrin of the fossil fuel industry!

As one Saudi oil minister said, the stone age didn't end for lack of stone.
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Cobber the hound,

As usual you make a complete fool of yourself, but thank you for the opportunity to show it again. You asked about the subsidies for renewables versus coal (of course, to be meaningful the comaprison must be on a properly comparable basis; i.e. they must be normalised for the amount of electricity produced. The following is subsidies for electricity production per MWh by fuel//technology for Australia in 2013-2014:

Coal, inc. share of subsidies paid to coal mining $0.86
Gas $0.30
Solar $412.10
Wind $41.60
All other renewables (inc. hydro) $17.52
Total fossil fuel $0.69
Total renewables $75.80
Total all fuels/technologies $11.95
Source: Table 1 http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/media_releases/Electricity_production_subsidies_in_Australia_FINAL.pdf (Note: two figures corrected by factor of 1000 in figures listed above):

Any other silly questions. I'd suggest you do your own research first.

The subsidies for solar are 480 times higher than for coal and for wind are 42 times higher than for coal. Subsidies for all renewables, including hydro, are 90 times higher than for coal.

This same question has been asked and answered many times before on Online Opinion.

calwest,
You are incorrect. You DON'T need coal fired generation as baseload backup. You don't need baseload backup at all. What you need is increased peakload capacity. Gas is usually the fuel of choice for this.

The entire point of renewables is that they  don't consume fuel, so avoid the emissions that fossil fuel use produces. Though not being economically viable is a common feature, it's not a defining feature and there are things that can be done to make it more economically viable. It's not their construction costs and profit margins we should subsidize, it's the loans to fund them. The government can borrow for 2%. At or below 4% solar thermal is competitive with fossil fuel. Were the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to finance it at 3% or less, everyone would win. Well nearly everyone — obviously the coal industry would lose. So Abbott put a stop to that by demanding the CEFC make a commercial rate of return.

As with most political factions, there are differing views within the green left snd some do support nuclear power. However the economic case for it in Australia is dubious.

.

Dear John (the author),

.

You wrote :

« Labor's recent decision to opt for a 50% renewable energy target by 2030 without undertaking any economic modelling is a case in point. »

You didn’t cite your sources on that, John. Could you please provide the relevant statements from Tony Burke, the shadow minister for finance, or whoever …

I think you will agree that this is important as it is the basis of your whole article.

You then affirm :

« Consumers and industry will not only foot the bill for Australia's renewable energy utopia through their taxes. They will continue to pay every time they receive their power bill. »

If, as you state, the opposition shadow cabinet has not undertaken any economic modelling, how do you know how they intend to finance the 50% renewable energy target effort ?

The comments in an article that appeared in “The Conversation” on 30 July 2015 provide some insight into the question :

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-would-labors-renewable-energy-plan-cost-consumers-60-billion-45288

I look forward to hearing from you, John.

.