Someone who added a leaf of home grown lettuce to a multilayered sandwich once told me with a straight face they were self sufficient in food. So it is with rich countries pouring billions into green schemes who then kid themselves. They gleefully assert that mandated scheme X has increased Y% in the early years confident in the knowledge that coal, gas and oil is doing the heavy lifting behind the scenes. Crunch time will be when the backup is no longer there or there is a climate emergency.

Australian GDP and power sector emissions are both growing about 2% a year so the nexus is not broken. AEMO tells us eastern Australia should worry about gas supply by 2019. In the following decade several big coal baseload stations will have to be retired. To be replaced by Twh scale batteries? A current worry with lithium battery systems is that they haven't paid for themselves by the time the battery needs replacing.

Then there is Australia's parlous dependence on imported oil having been mostly self sufficient in the late 20th century. Electric cars will not only require price reductions to achieve mass uptake but there must be some way of charging millions of them at night when solar is zero and the wind may or may not be blowing.

So that's three energy knockout blows by 2030 ... near total oil vulnerability, gas in short supply and big coal stations needing replacement. Hopefully renewables enthusiasts and their attentive politicians will grasp the difficulty of the problem.

The survey the author claims backs support for renewable energy does nothing of the kind. The survey has concerned itself only with the question of what taxpayers money should be shelled out to support the coal industry, the renewable energy industry, and both the coal industry and renewable energy industry; it has nothing to do with what kind of energy people want. I don't know what the actual question was, but it could certainly not be 'Do you support 100% renewable energy?', or any other percentage of energy, or a mix of renewable energy and coal energy. The only thing respondents could speak to were how much taxpayers' money should go to the two industries listed. The survey is completely useless as a means of preferred energy resources.

As well, the survey, as with all surveys on anything, gags a huge number of people. If you do not believe your taxes should spent on any private industry, you cannot respond to that survey.

It seems to have escaped Tom Biegler's attention that the EROEI of wind power is surpassing that of oil.

The EROEI figure of 0.83 for solar in high latitudes was contrived by pretending non-energy costs were energy investments, and by attributing to solar power the system costs that would be better attributed to wind.n the 20th century, solar PV had an EROEI less than one, which meant that it was generally only suitable for off grid applications. But those days are long gone. It's been years since any honest study has shown an EROEI that low. And once it gets past very low values, EROEI does not determine sustainability, and nor is it the main factor in commercial viability. Cost is, and in particular, access to cheap finance (as renewable energy infrastructure's typically capital intense with low running cost and zero fuel cost. As long as cheap finance is available, it can outcompete fossil fuels in Australia.

Yes, but never as solar voltaic or wind power!

That said, recent advances now mean any serious discussion on renewables must have solar thermal front and centre, given in apples for apples comparisons that include economies of scale, it competes successfully with coal as a peak load option and in actual roll out costs!

And given that has been profitably demonstrated by private interests in the sun bleached deserts of California, beats the pants off of coal in the cost of fuel department, which for coal can only ever grow!

Also Australian innovation has produced, arguably the cheapest energy in the world thanks to a world beating energy coefficient of 80%!? And given it is applied exclusively as a very local power option excludes cost adding factors like transmission line maintenance and repairs, transmission losses etc.

[Plenty of links for the professional sceptics to search, that demonstrate this, go fetch, I'm not your flunky.]

And indeed eliminate most of the 64% average as distribution losses.

And here I'm referring to a combination of Aussie invented ingenuity, the two tank and smell free superior method of turning problematic waste into biogas, (methane) which when scrubbed can power up ceramic fuel cells. (Apple HQ)

Almost every Australian family produces enough convertible waste to completely power their homes 24/7; and produce endless free hot water, with or without sunlight or wind!

That said, any rational discussion really ought to include the latest innovation and progress in the nuclear energy option and as fact based evidence, as opposed to tired old slogans, mindless mantras and opposition based on outdated fifties technology?
Alan B.

No, renewables will not meet public expectations.
Sir Winston Churchill knew you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time.
It is inevitable truth becomes known.

Wind power is already sapping energy from air currents that drive ocean surface water currents linked to deeper ocean currents.
Physicists knew years ago of the danger of reducing air current energy, well prior to wind power installations going ahead anyway.

Ocean currents are linked to climate. Ocean dominates control of weather above. Ocean covers 72 percent of this planet's surface.

Batteries for solar power wear out in about 5 years, some less, some last 10 years, all have to be replaced at significant cost and environment impact in manufacturing, delivery transport, recycling, dumping.

The renewable energy mantra does not include the wind energy link to ocean currents and climate or life and cost and environment impact of replacement batteries

Actually, batteries will last around 25 years if just topped up to a maximum 80% for the life of the system, which in widespread common use, could be used as the best way to level out the highs and lows of the most cost effective alternative?

Which should be evidence based on just the assembled facts as opposed to misinformation or emotive ideology; or worse, a hidden anti development economy destroying agenda? Or even worse trotted out as disingenuously presented issue to get the rubes onside as a vehicle to power? Wake up in the morning and smell the Co2.
Alan B.