One thing that is usually lacking in discussions of this sort is conservation of energy - limiting consumption. The author expresses concern only for providing adequate energy to continue what may be a wasteful life style. Discussions of an economy would be incomplete if they only discussed supply and ignored demand. Energy policy must consider supply, usage and population. The average Australian has a carbon footprint 50 times that of the average Bangladeshi. Can we lessen that disparity? How many people can this country comfortably hold? We don't have a population policy.

I visited an offgrid family near me. The tracking PV was playing up as was the diesel generator and the batteries were near the end of their life. The chap said 'I'm getting too old for this sh**. Why can't we just have everybody connected to nuclear power?' Urban greenies think they know what's best without the trials and tribulations of real world experience. I suspect de Natale may even have a soft spot for nuclear which will put him at odds with hardliners.

Australia uses 249 Twh/365 = 682 Gwh of electricity per day. Five days storage would be 3,410 Gwh. Powerwall batteries hold 0.000007 Gwh so we'd need 487 million of them. The preferred form of gas turbine backup is high CO2 and getting more expensive as we export gas instead. Remember also wind and solar use silicon, rare earths, steel and cement that may have to be replaced every 30 years or so. I've yet to hear of a wind or solar powered silicon factory. It's time for urban greens to get real.

Non hydro renewables are not sustainable. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/ This is a physical constraint. They cannot produce sufficient energy through life to support modern society as well as reproduce themselves. Therefore, they are entirely dependent on fossil fuels for their existence and replacement, and/or nuclear power in the future.

This is the case now. They will be even less sustainable as world energy demand per capita continues toi increase over decades and centuries ahead

Peter,
Your genny starter battery problem is solved if you have a small solar panel constantly trickle charging its battery.

Renewable energy will continue to evolve, with batteries now coming household will become eliminated from the grid.

The grid needs to shut down something now because of excess solar.
When industrial rooftop space becomes a rentable commodity solar will begin supplying big business.

Smaller generators will need to relocate, to areas where power supply is needed.

Coal has had its day, and solar has a life of its own. It will not reverse, as people see what is cost effective. Neuk power is a no-brainer.

The technologies needing advance in order to complement existing wind and solar were recently discussed at a RACI meeting in Melbourne. The two most promising technologies were lithium ion batteries for small scale use and nuclear power plants that burn nuclear waste for standby grid. These and the chances of Australia achieving the ALP aim of of 50% reduction from stationary sources are discussed at
http://www.independentaustralian.com.au

That's nuthin Macca

I live on the light and heat of a 12 watt bulb with a smartie on me tongue.

Nyah Nyah

Poida
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpS31FJO8_o

Reaching a level of 50% renewables is relatively easy. Concentrated solar thermal with molten salt storage can provide a significant amount of power on demand.

Reaching a level of 100% renewables is much harder. Probably the best way of doing so would be to install much more capacity than we need, and have some industrial process using the excess that can be curtailed when necessary. But we shouldn't let worries about how to reach 100% delay our reaching 50%.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Peter Lang, however many times you post that link, it remains illogical conjecture unsupported by the facts. Sustainability, and indeed modern societies, don't require EROEI to reach some arbitrary level.

Wouldn't it be nice if governments formulate development ideas. Once ideas were formulated, sent emails to environmental interests, to argue over ideas by emails in secret, at least until ideas had all interested parties agreements.

I tend to believe governments create ideas that governments have no intentions of completing. Environmentalists get to look good in the media, protesting government plans. One more rolled over story line theme distraction among many rolled over story themes that goes no where. Democracy gets another opportunity to look like democracy in action.

When discussing energy, it pays to remember that electricity is only about 1/3rd of the energy we consume. 100% of what, Richard Di Natale? 100% of what, ACT? I suspect that both figures relate to only electricity and that ACTEWAGL, or whatever it is called these days, will still be selling gas in the ACT once the mythical 100% has been reached and celebrated.

26% of what, Mr Prime Minister? I think that it is total energy... or is it? And 26% of what total? the peak reached in 2005, or the trough 5 years later, as Australia de-industrialised? That still leaves 3/4 of the problem unaddressed, ie pretty much a failure, as also ACT and the Greens and Labor and their pretense of 100% of a third of the problem. They all are failures.

IWe have comprehensively stuffed our energy policies nationally and globally for over 50 years. We have demonised and outlawed the only source of electricity that is carbon free and scaleable to meet the needs of industrialised societies. That is nuclear power, which just happens to be very much safer than even bicycles or rooftop solar or anything except hydro on existing pondages.

Thanks, Mrs Caldicott. Thanks for nothing.

Hi JohnBennetts

Some very valid points.

Also we need to remember that these uncertain percentages concerning Australia become further academic when adding in the pollution loads of the rest of the world - which generate a pollution input into Australia.

China's economic downturn is forcing China away from China's highly publicised greenhouse gas goals - which were supportable in better Chinese economic times. This means China and India are rapidly expanding coal and other smoke fuel - less solar and less wind energy growth.

The Chinese middle class also want a level of car ownership per capita that is equitable with the West - meaning ONLY 500 million cars in China by 2030? Maybe a similar number in India.

The greenie assumption that Australia can environmentally-morally shame the world into being a good greenhouse example like Australia was always rubbish like Rudd was.

Pete

Aidan says:"....install much more capacity than we need, and have some industrial process using the excess..."

Shouldn't the industrial process be a needed one (hence come under the heading of need rather than excess), or, do we just make up something to waste energy on to justify the whole mad caper?

Outrider says: "...power plants that burn nuclear waste for standby grid."

Forget about 100% renewables. It's a farcical idea, and building nuclear to supplement renewables, well that's even more farcical. You can't be a bit pregnant, it's all or nothing with nuclear so making renewables redundant on the grid.

Luciferase,
"Shouldn't the industrial process be a needed one (hence come under the heading of need rather than excess), or, do we just make up something to waste energy on to justify the whole mad caper?"
Obviously the industrial process should produce something of value, but not something we need the constant production of. We must be able to time the start and finish of the process according to the availability of cheap electricity.

100% renewables is not something we have to worry about how to get any time soon, but it is far from farcical.

What's farcical is the idea that nuclear makes renewables redundant on the grid. It hasn't done so yet anywhere in the world!

"Obviously the industrial process should produce something of value, but not something we need the constant production of."

Anything we produce is for consumption. How can something have value if it's not needed/wanted/consumed, constantly or not? Isn't that inefficiency/wasted energy?

If going 100% renewables needs an energy sink, it's a boondoggle to overbuild then sink the output.

With regard to supplementing the grid's nuclear output by anything more expensive than nuclear, or more GHG emitting, the only reason that situation might exist is because nuclear expansion is nobbled by government, and/or, governement heavily subsidizes renewables. Germany is a case in point, which would rather burn coal than free nuclear from its hobbles.

Luciferase,
"How can something have value if it's not needed/wanted/consumed, constantly or not? Isn't that inefficiency/wasted energy?"
Obviously you did not understand what I just said. I did NOT suggest making anything that's not needed/wanted/consumed. I said we should produce something of value.

"f going 100% renewables needs an energy sink, it's a boondoggle to overbuild then sink the output."
Possibly, but that's not a safe assumption. It depends on the cost of renewable energy, the cost of finance, and the cost and price of the end product. Future conditions may be very different from present conditions.

"With regard to supplementing the grid's nuclear output by anything more expensive than nuclear, or more GHG emitting, the only reason that situation might exist is because nuclear expansion is nobbled by government, and/or, governement heavily subsidizes renewables. Germany is a case in point, which would rather burn coal than free nuclear from its hobbles."
You are ignoring the possibility that building more nuclear is significantly more expensive than expected (as is turning out to be the case in Britain).

___________________________________________________________________________________

plantagenet,

"China's economic downturn is forcing China away from China's highly publicised greenhouse gas goals - which were supportable in better Chinese economic times."
What is your source for that claim?

Aidan

My razor sharp eye and wit matey.

I don't need to be reminded by economic experts what is happening.

Come see my blog Submarine Matters http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/ . I can't claim to be ex Navy or submariner either.

Pete