If the RET were replaced by a tough national CO2 target then we'd know wind power and commercial solar got there on their merits not favouritism. As it is there some doubt whether we can get from about 19 Twh of RET eligible power in 2015 to 33 Twh by 2020
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2015/11/failure-to-satisfy-the-lret-prospects-and-implications/
That's despite the very generous recurring LGC subsidy now over $70 per Mwh and 50+% capital grants for large solar from ARENA and other agencies.

All of this makes bugger all difference to coal which should be the first CO2 front to attack. However opinion polls tell us the RET gets a 75% approval rating. The public may get disillusioned when they find out.

You'd think listening to some folk, we were limited to coal or renewables, the later being limited to wind or solar, and vastly more expensive power bills? And as such a recipe for economic contraction/disaster?

We have other choices (plural) Which are either carbon free or carbon neutral!

Choices like large scale solar thermal, which not only compete with similar scale coal fired projects on roll out costs, but use only free fuel all while providing peak power options!

But only if some idiots/morons believe it is a good idea to keep the great white elephant of a very vulnerable national grid and price gouging foreign control is the way to go.

That will likely end with solar panels and schemes everyone can afford, complemented by vastly improved long life batteries that are also affordable!(Any day now)

Then we have cheaper than coal thorium, tolled out as very local energy options and therefore able to reduce the power bill by more than half!?

After that we can and should turn our problematic waste into domestic energy and free hot water , utilizing Aussie ingenuity, and in so doing actually turbocharge the domestic economy!

Not to mention possible profitable spinoffs like very broad scale algae based oil and ethanol industries! However, need visionary leadership, given they won't kick start themselves!

We have more intelligent choices, which won't do ny harm to the economy, just the opposite!

Not something the greens want to hear, given they'd like more populous and poorer countries to wither on the vine, I believe. as their answer to almost everything?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, how do you cope with the four overcast windless days ?
The cost of doing so multiplies up by five.
Then when you get five overcast days, do you just stay in bed that day.

I know about your ideas on algae etc but so far they are not on the
horizon.
So far the only alternative that will certainly work is nuclear.
Hopefully the Indians will get thorium working.

There was graphic in one of the English newspapers last week. It listed presumably accurately the number of new coal fired plants India and China are building. It was in the thousands for both.

So poor little Australia which produces 1.3% of the Co2, should close down our coal fired plants to save the planet. How much difference will that make? My estimate, nil!

Yes John R it doesn't matter anyway. I doubt if it is 1000s of plants
but a lot anyway. Australia's coal position is different to the rest
of the world and a lot of the world is having problems with the grade of quality & cost of extraction.

Some seem to think we should refuse to supply India. I think that
would upset India no end as they try to improve the lot of their people.

It does not matter whether global warming is true or not as we have to
change to a new energy regime anyway.

Unfortunately wind turbines for generating electricity directly into the mains have proven a gigantic scam that depend on large legislated for effective subsidies for its survival. Wind energy is NOT cheap, NOT clean and NOT green. Obviously power grid managers regard it as of very low commercial value because of its low and unpredictable productivity. Needs 100% of backup ready to go when wind stops. Most often this involves the cost of keeping coal fired generators spinning but not producing power or using expensive fossil fuel in quick startup diesels. Wind turbines require a large amount of fossil fuel for their construction relative to estimated lifetime power outputs. Also are environmental obscenities in several ways. Especially creating low frequency noise/infrasound which is becoming widely recognised as causing health problems. They also kill a lot of birds, including endangered species and cause wake turbulence, which is a major hazard for low flying agricultural and firefighting aircraft. Money for renewables should be directed towards technologies with genuine long term potential that need further development. Not wasted on more wind turbines. Funds directed to wind should be to reduce problems with existing turbines. Especially trying to reduce infrasound. For further info, check www.stopthesethings.com and links from it. Is usually updated daily.