Of course the greens are silly? Yes they do have a suite of policies that they as a minor third party cannot ever hope to implement?

That said, is there a case for alternative energy? Well yes and just on sound economic grounds that are completely divorced from climate change, real or imagined!

And here I refer to cheaper than coal thorium and rolled out as localized energy projects that could more than halve our industrial energy costs, Which if rolled out in tandem with genuine and intelligently crafted tax reform, would have the high tech industries (along with a tide of self funded retirees) of the world stampeding to relocate to these shores!?

Then there is Aussie innovation in the form of a two tank system that converts biological waste into biogas, which when scrubbed can power another Aussie innovation, the ceramic fuel cell, and currently, in combination, powering Apple HQ with the world's cheapest (80% energy coefficient) endlessly sustainable energy!

As for electric vehicles, if we just used the brains we were born with they'd be the most common vehicles plying our highways and byways inside a single decade. We are blessed with copious lithium and cobalt; and likely the most pure commercial deposit of graphene in the world!

And that's exactly what we need to turbocharge this economy and allow it to roar ahead with the speed of a thundering express steamer, into the future! Now I take it, nobody has a "REAL" problem with that?
Alan B.

Oh Don "to suggest that Australia could seriously aim for 90 per cent generation of electricity through wind and solar by 2030 is simply ludicrous, and akin to fraud. It's not possible."

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

Easy to poke fun at the Greens but at least they have vision and hope. Just think 90% renewables could be our moon shot and we wouldn't be left with memories of past glories at the end of it.

Don if you were in the crowd when Kennedy made that speech because they didn't have a plan, they hadn't even got someone to orbit the earth yet.

I can only hope the LNP will not come out with its own grand statement about renewables and some jobs, jobs, jobs bonanza!

It should proclaim a scientific and economic commission to study our energy future, with wide terms of reference including nuclear. A headlong rush into renewables should be frozen until that commission delivers its findings. The input of world economists and scientists, as well as public submissions should be accepted.

There is a complete lack of pragmatism in the Labor/Greens approach. Their a pie in the sky dream on renewables is mirrored in their economic policies. We just can't afford all the health, education and welfare we damn well want. It's time to pay off some debt rather than saddling the yet unborn with it, and, if we don't reduce company tax, the international investment needed to prosper and pay down debt will go elsewhere.

Climate change and alternative energy are not election issues for the great majority of Australian electors. The Greens are merely idiots.

Regarding sending a man to the moon, a mass solar installation has proven to be a dud in Spain, but life goes on everywhere as if it's not, just to keep the Green glow shining.

The idea that renewables can provide main-grid baseload is a shimmering chimera, where as landing on the moon was not.

Don Aitkin whinges about the silliness of the Greens' energy policy then makes claims that are even sillier! Even by 2020, Australia's energy sources will be significantly different from what they were a couple of years ago, as the cost of renewables is still falling, and more solar panels and wind turbines are, and will continue to be, installed. Meanwhile SA's last coal fired power station (in Port Augusta) has closed for good and is being dismantled, and there's a bipartisan commitment to building a solar thermal plant in the same area.

Real time information about the sources of our electricity can be found at http://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/RenewEconomy/?doing_wp_cron=1452566910.0502140522003173828125

Labor's target of 50% electricity from renewables by 2030 is really not that difficult. Of course there are technical issues, but they're problems to overcome, not insurmountable obstacles! Even the Greens' 90% target is not technically impossible (though it would be MUCH harder to meet).

And with interest rates at a record low, the Greens are absolutely right when they say it's time to borrow more. The problem our economy has at the moment isn't too much borrowing, it's too little.

@Luciferase you must drink the same coll aid as Don does, predicting the future with such centrality.
Or you have seen the future through some extra sensory perception.... can you tell me what the lotto number are this weekend it's a mega draw!

//we have no safe, reliable and cheap alternatives to coal and gas in generating electricity.//

Yes we do. It's called nuclear, and we already know it works. Presenting the argument as a choice between renewables and fossil fuels is a false dilemma.

A smiling CEO of an oil or coal Corporation is enjoying your article and thinking " the propaganda is still working".
It would be great if we woke up the morning after the election to a Green Government but I am realistic and would be satisfied with a large enough green and independent number elected to hold the balance of power.
This is possible the most important election yet because depending on the outcome the country will either swing toward actually doing something about global warming or as usual just talk about doing something one day.
Regarding the race for the silliest, well Don is not going to admit that some of the most unlikeliest countries are successfully silly and are close to running their power supply totally on alternatives.
Yes it can and is being done but the well financed propaganda of big business drowns out the information.

I am sure that the unis coach gw alarmist/Greens on how to be shameless. Whether it is the economy, blocking sea walls, building desal plants in flooded zones, making completely dud predictions it seems impossible to shame such shonskers. Anyone hear Hanson Young trying to describe superannuation. To much time on boats bringing rapist to Europe and organising spiteful violent anti racist to stop free speach here in Australia. Amazing how much time the morally bereft abc give to this mob of anti family, anti Australian and economic illiterates.

While I agree with pretty much everything Don says, the reality is that around half the Australian electorate (that’s an informed guess) believes that ‘100% renewables’ is a feasible objective, are unlikely to be swayed by mere assertions that it isn’t, and have never been exposed to contrary views. It’s an absolutely critical issue that determines energy and climate policy. For example there was a time when Australia’s peculiar aversion to nuclear energy was justified on the grounds that ‘we don’t need it as we are rich in fossil fuels’. Now the grounds have become that the future is one of ‘100% cheap renewables that create marvelous green jobs’, or some such fiction. It doesn’t help that renewables scepticism is damned by association with climate scepticism (Don, take note). So we have the bizarre but very serious situation that future energy choices have become a kind of beauty contest where the judges (the public) are effectively wearing blindfolds because they know nothing about energy (nor should such knowledge be expected). That’s why I recently http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18243 put some effort into providing an objective and easily understood basis for renewables scepticism. Don, we won’t change public opinion overnight but bit by bit we can have an impact.

What is not realised by many on here and elsewhere is that the
politicians are all too happy to go along with these 20%, 50% 90%
renewable aims but when you actually speak to them, they just do not
want to know.
A minister of the crown actually said to me that we have good commercial arrangements.

He meant that there is no energy problem ahead of us.

Cobber; the problem we have is much bigger than going to the moon.
Toni; I think it is too late to undertake to build a fleet of nuclear
power stations. Look at the problem the UK is having just to build ONE more !
YOU do not have the money.

Robert; Please do tell which country is close to running their supply
on 100% alternatives ?

Of course with coal mines all closed how are you going to get the
steel to build the solar panel frames ?
Well you could use aluminium, grin !
We need a system that can build itself. If it cannot do that then it fails.
The low ERoEI of solar & wind suggests that they cannot build themselves.

Aiden please understand the problem of too much debt is not fixed by borrowing more. Eventually the crunch comes and then watch out. All the pundits will say "Where did that all come from?"
The plant is Spain may not work but tell me where there is a solar plant WORKING in Australia. Bridgewater is not and I bet the big ones at Mildura and in NSW meet "Unexpected" problems. The subsidies run out and so do the operators and we mugs are left with the bill
Give it up boys and girls is is just rubbish.

Hi JBowyer,

Aidan might have a point - we can always borrow more, even if at higher interest rates. Consider a household - if you max out your credit cards, what can you do ? Get another credit card ! But, you might say, how do you pay off the interest on all those credit cards ? Get another one !

If that starts to falter, but if you have aged parents with property, you can persuade them to do the right thing. We don't need to go into that in detail, but you get the picture.

On a national scale, on that same model, Australia has plenty of resources that we can sell cheap to overseas investors, farms, mines, women, that sort of raw materials. That might give us another generation of comfort without too much thought or effort.

What happens after will provide an exciting challenge, perhaps many, to our grandchildren and, although they might not think so at first, they will thank us in the end, probably.

Right on, Aidan :)

Joe

Bower, Spain did run for four days on "alternative" power.
They used solar, wind, some bio I think and hydro.
I guess hydro got them through. The fifth day might have been cloudy.
The greenies are running wild with that news.

Oh, yes the UK ran one day on alternatives, hooray hooray !
So it can be done if the wx permits and the dams are full.
Oh, didn't someone say the rail will never fill the dams, oh Damn !

Loudmouth,

You misunderstand completely.

Australia owns the RBA.
The RBA has unlimited capacity to create Australian dollars.
So in the extremely unlikely event that everyone else is unwilling to lend to us, we could always borrow from the RBA.

There's a persistent myth that doing so would cause our dollar to collapse. Before the dollar was floated, that was arguably true (the argument being about what is cause and what is effect). But since it was floated, it's undeniably false, as the dollar's value is self correcting. There's no theoretical basis for a collapse that doesn't rely on false assumptions, nor any real world examples of floating currencies collapsing in that situation.

__________________________________________________________________________________

JBowyer,

The problem we have isn't too much debt, it's too little money. And that can be fixed by borrowing more.

Unlike Spain, we have unlimited credit. The RBA will never refuse to lend to us even though the ECB refuses to lend to Spain.

There has to be a first time for everything.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,

Australia can afford nuclear power, and could probably learn from the UK's mistakes, but with our low population density and sunny climate, I think solar power is likely to work out cheaper.

"Of course with coal mines all closed how are you going to get the
steel to build the solar panel frames ? "
Molten Oxide Electrolysis!

We've long passed the stage where EROEI's the limiting factor. It's no longer that low, either for solar or wind.

Rail may never fill the dams, but rain is likely to.

Don, you stated "...there are no alternatives of any consequence for petrol and other oils in areas like transportation." You also stated "we have no safe, reliable and cheap alternatives to coal and gas in generating electricity. Nor are any likely to appear in the next 14 years."

I have news for you. You are 100% incorrect.

Australia can and must start development and construction of Liquid Floride Thorium Reactors, a proven safe, reliable energy source which not only generates electricity 24/7 but also permits the generation of transportation fuels (very similar to diesel), greatly needed medical radiation products and lastly, safe nuclear battery technology, safely used by NASA for over 30 years and now no longer available due to a number of factors.

Google search thorium energy and in particular try to watch presentations by a guy named Kirk Sorensen, here is a brilliant start https://youtu.be/P9M__yYbsZ4

We only need the will to take off our myopic blinkers regarding new developments (actually old technology from the 1950's and 60's) in the nuclear energy field and to see what a bright future could behold us.

Unfortunately vested interests, complacency and corruption within governments, and total ignorance from the green sector are likely to see this brilliant opportunity slip through our fingers.

Cheers
Geoff

So Jeff, is this thermo energy something we can produce here, if so, can it be mothballed for a later date?

I say this because we have invest hundreds of billion of mainly private funds into our CSG industry, and it would seem a waste not to use it, even if it were to provide for our own needs. Even diesel powered motors can be run on CSG.

It may not be as clean as thermo, only guessing, but it's here and ready to go and it's far cleaner than coal.

It would be wise to use this reserve before turning to another don't you think?

Aiden, your suggestion that we can just print it to repay our loans.
There seems to be something wrong with that.
You said we borrowed in Australian dollars so we can repay with Aussie
dollars. Just print them on bits of paper and give them to the Chinese.
Why not just print one note for $x and say thanks.

Seems a bit like the story of the hotel and the $100 note that went
the rounds of the town.

Yes Bazz and right on the money! And the pun was intended. Yes of course there's a case for borrowing like there was no tomorrow, if the money raised is used exclusively to build infrastructure projects that earn a reasonable return, which must include all repayment and management costs inside a reasonable time frame say thirty years!

The upside will be the extra economic activity as well as the extra permanent jobs that would be created along with myriad spin offs and upsides, as you'd create with an inland canal that then provided an economical source of permanent reliable irrigation, and in the current dead heart?

Just imagine the extra jobs and economic activity that would also entail? Ditto very rapid rail and the creation of a nuclear powered submersible shipping fleet that would connect our rapid rail system to offshore rail links and the rest of the world?

And what's more given our current level of expertise and resources, our fleet could be built right here at home as a government initiated and funded, employee owned and operated, cooperative enterprise, which will all but guarantee it can't be built any cheaper or more expeditiously anywhere? Anything but anything we lack can simply be imported! Be it materials or technical expertise!

Time for prevaricating politicians to stop with the ideological based excuse making and blame shifting, and just get on with doing the job we Australians pay them to do, as opposed to current practice, selling us down the river of no return?

Arguably, just to line their pockets or shore up their seriously enhanced retirement prospects?
Alan B.

Bazz I could go on but I am sure that you get the idea, even though they are not 100% they are close and in some cases do get to 100% at times.
Countries Leading the Way Toward 100% Renewable Energy
Denmark sets world record for wind Denmark set a new world record for wind production in 2014, getting 39.1 percent of its overall electricity from the clean energy source.
UK wind power smashes annual records In the UK, wind power also smashed records in 2014, as generation rose 15 percent from 24.5 terawatt-hours (TWh) hours to 28.1 TWh.
Renewables provide biggest contribution to Germany’s electricity Renewable energy was the biggest contributor to Germany’s electricity supply in 2014, with nearly 26 percent of the country’s power generation coming from clean sources.
Caribbean Island Says Goodbye Fossil Fuels, 100% Renewable Electricity transformed electricity system on Bonaire. The island is now home to 12 wind turbines with a total of 11 MW of wind power capacity, which contribute up to 90 percent of the island’s electricity
Renewables now supply 22 percent of global electricity and nuclear only 11 percent—a share that is gradually falling as old plants close and fewer new ones are commissioned.
List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

Alan B, I understand the method of borrowing to build/buy plant to
increase production or build infrastructure etc. Then repay loan and
interest with the extra output. Been there done that.
That all makes sense, provided everything else is in place to enable
the project.

My question was in the repayment, especially if the expected growth does not appear,
Our current debt just sits there, what then just ask the RBA to print it ?
Reminds me of Venezuela, they had three 747 loads of new notes
delivered but could not pay for them. They could have paid for them
with some of the new notes. Anything wrong with that ?

Aiden says we borrowed A$ so can repay with A$. Good just print them
and get rid of the debt. Why has no one else thought of that ?

Bazz,

If Venezuela had been sensible enough to float it s currency, it wouldn't be in this mess now. But instead, despite Chávez's rhetorical opposition to the USA, the Bolívar remains officially pegged to the US dollar. Despite occasional official devaluations, the official value is far higher than the market value, and that has prevented the export led recovery that would have happened with a floating currency.

Something similar happened with the Rouble in the late 20th century.

As for why we don't simply print money toget rid of our debt: if we did, once they banked the money, the notes would be returned to the RBA and we'd be paying interest to the bank that returned the notes to the RBA. So Australia would have the same amount of debt as before it was paid — just more in account form and less in bond form.

Rehctub watch the brilliant YouTube video and learn about this remarkable energy source.

In addition to the benefits I previously mentioned you can also use this technology to burn old outdated and dangerous existing nuclear spent fuels and sequester Co2 if required.

CSG still pollutes, LFTR hardly does at all. These units can be scaled and used in a myriad of areas of application.

Thorium is abundant globally, uranium is not. Thorium technology negates the entire green energy focus particularly in relation to the viability of 24/7 base load electricity generation.

We either get onboard now or we will all lose in the longer term.

Cheers
Geoff (with an upper case G and an 'o' before the two f's)

Ok Geoff, so are you suggesting we just walk away from the hundreds of billions spent on the CSG industry?

I will check that utube vid out when I get time because I still work full time.

Yes, the trick is to invest in money earning enterprise. Currently bulk freight forwarding remains almost the most profitable enterprise on earth.

Whole trains shipped as is would allow loading and unloading to be streamlined as the fastest and least expensive bulk freight transfer in the world, and with a waiting list of anxious forward bookings to keep the money shoveled by the shipload flowing in! Along with the increased two way trade that would ensure?

Rapid rail rolled out initially along the busiest domestic air route, can't help but make money particularly if people are delivered from CBD to CBD in less time and at less cost than competing air.

Then there are projects like a second range crossing which given the current trucking and the savings and time they'd save a well priced toll tunnel can't help but turn a profit. Always providing we didn't invite debt laden profit gouging private players in to cruel the project with their often comparative massive project destroying profit demands!

Of course there'd need to be a business case made and examples of other government investment strategies examined, where one would need look much further afield than near neighbor tiger economy Singapore to understand what in truth is actually possible.

Always providing each project is created minus any political interference or a view that working capital is their personal ATM.

Incidentally, it's almost impossible to lose on energy projects, particularly cheaper than coal projects kept as public projects!
Alan B.

A good article, Don, but referring to the green’s scurrilous lies as “ misuse of language” is far too kind.
The mainstream parties’ support of the climate fraud is almost as bad.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so the demonization of “fossil fuels” is baseless, and dishonest

Playing pea'n'thimble with ourselves over how we pay the preposterously huge cost of going renewable is a sideshow. However the financing is done, it can apply to renewables and alternatives equally.

In Germany domestic and small business users subsidize renewables, yet there are still complaints by big business that Germany's competitiveness is under threat. Furthermore, emissions are rising while energy return on energy invested in the massive infrastructure is a unquestioned. It's a convoluted mess, with the need to grow, maintain and use coal-fired infrastructure to deal with intermittency unlikely to recede.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/dossiers/energiewende-effects-power-prices-costs-and-industry (and this is a Green tinged view)

Why should Australia take one step in the German direction without waiting to see the outcome of its massive experiment, and why mark this time without thoroughly investigating the nuclear option?

Luciferase, I don't think we can wait to see what ultimately succeeds
or fails in Germany. All sources of oil are now declining.

Joseph Traintner said that all complex societies fail due to declining
returns on investment, money, energy etc.
In Rome's case it was declining returns on the Spanish silver mines
and the increasing cost of slaves, ie energy.
The seams of silver were getting more difficult and the slaves that
walked the water wheels to pump the water out of the mines were being difficult.
With the decline in the number of slaves food production costs escalated.

We are seeing the early days of declining returns dues to lower
energy ERoEI. It is no co-incidence that the major oil companies are
have declining reserves and increasing costs.

In the US coal fired power stations are switching to natural gas and
five nuclear power stations are being built. Several are closing
due to their age. China is building 20 new nuclear stations I read
but cannot confirm that. Maybe someone knows for sure.

Hi Bazz,

Joseph Tainter, I chased him up. Very, very interesting ideas, I'm trying to apply them to current Indigenous 'problem-solving' or the lack of. He knocked out a paper in 2006:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1476945X0600002X

But it costs big bucks to get the whole thing. This is the Abstract:

"Social complexity and sustainability emerge from successful problem solving, rather than directly from environmental conditions.

"Social complexity develops from problem solving at all scales from local to national and international. Complexity in problem solving is an economic function, and can both support and hinder sustainability.
Sustainability outcomes may take decades or centuries to develop.

"Historical studies reveal three outcomes to long-term change in problem-solving institutions: collapse, resiliency through simplification, or continuity based on growing complexity and increasing energy subsidies.

"The slow development of complexity in problem solving makes its effects difficult to perceive, especially over short time periods. Long-term social sustainability depends on understanding and controlling complexity. New strategies to mitigate or control complexity are offered."

Although not being too bright, I suspect that there are enormous implications from these ideas. One pre-condition that springs to mind is that a society has to be as clear and accurate as possible in analysing and taking into account actual reality, not just some convenient narrative. In terms of Indigenous futures, that suggests a very long road to even begin to grasp what needs to be done.

Fascinating.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Bazz,

He's got a page on Wikipedia, which explains his ideas almost clearly enough for even me to follow.

He does note that "innovation that increases productivity is – in the long run – the only way out of the dilemma of declining marginal returns on added investments in complexity."

I suppose the converse is especially true: that ignoring or turning one's back on current realities, and what to do about them, is a sure-fire way to go up the creek.

Lo and behold, his book is available here in Adelaide. I'll have to save up my pennies :)

Joe

I's almost impossible to fail with energy investments. Particularly carbon free or carbon neutral alternatives that are demonstrably cheaper than coal and retained as publicly owned and operated income earning cash cow investments.

We Australians have a super fund now around two trillion and given a guaranteed low or no tax investment vehicle was in the offing as policy? Many income earning long life infrastructure projects could be started, as largely staged partial roll outs. That then start to generate significant income well ahead of the final completion date!?

And as such could leverage another two trillion of lazy capital currently held in corporate coffers!

And able to be attracted by big idea projects! Self evidently that's what's AWOL in the current debate or in the parties contesting for government who only have eyes for the electoral prize?
Alan B.

I have a question for all the rusted on liberals and also for the liberal candidates in the 2016 election/auction.
Your slogan is "jobs and growth".
This means I assume perpetual jobs and growth. You would not want to stop jobs and growth after the election or in three years, fifteen years and so on.
Now the Earth is a finite world with finite resources. What do you propose to do after the resources are gone?

IMO,

Technology trumps resources, eg., tungsten is in short supply so we shift from incandescent to LED light globes. Mining methods improve while we've barely scratched the surface in proving up reserves. Invention is continuous.

Unlimited, cheap, clean energy will allow us to solve a great deal, including environmental degradation, water supply and quality. New industries will include environmental restoration, advanced waste treatment and recycling to conserve resources, synthesizing transport fuels, protein and energy food, and new efficiency solutions.

Of course, this is all predicated on making the right energy choice to allow us to afford the above, which Mr Tainter suggests.

How long before population strains against the limitations of all the above is a long way off. The earth is a big place. At least we can buy time to reach other planets to exploit, or to reach population control measures other than war, disease and involuntary euthanasia.

Hello Joe,
Here is a talk on the collapse syndrome by Joseph Tainter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuC

It goes for an hour and 33 minutes.
It was interesting in view of all the talk on innovation that we hear lately.
Looked at from the point of the longer view it is perhaps not without
big problems as diminishing returns are well underway on innovation.
He certainly throws doubt on sustainability to be the solution many think it is.
I really need to watch it a couple of more times.

Robert, surely you don't believe we can actually produce jobs and growth?

These fools are kidding themselves.

rehctub; I never believe ANYTHING that a politician says.

Luciferase,

You're right about technology, but the example you gave was a bad one, as it was their energy inefficiency (not a shortage of tungsten) which was the reason for the old light bulbs to be phased out.

Gallium, which is in the LED based ones, is much scarcer than tungsten.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

rehctub,

I believe we can actually produce jobs and growth!
I believe how much of those we get will be the result of political decisions.
However I do not believe that what Turnbull thinks will bring jobs and growth actually will.

Robert le Page wins the position of court jester on this thread for his contribution of the most stupid question:” What do you propose to do after the resources are gone?”
The same as was done before the resources were gone, if ever they are gone. The court jester gives no basis for his quaint supposition that the resources will be gone..
The government intends not to rely on resources:
“The successful transition of Australia’s economy from the resources-led boom will be fuelled by innovation, investment in a more diverse range of industries, and support for businesses to create more jobs.”
https://www.liberal.org.au/coalitions-policy-more-jobs-and-growth-through-increased-trade-and-investment

I have started reading this eBook by Richard Heinberg and David Fridley.
It illustrates the need for alternative energy and the problems of
getting from where we are at the present to where we need to be.
I am only up to chapter three but I have learnt a few things.
For instance that there is a steep increase in cost as alternative
systems approach 100% reliability. I don't think it is an exponential
rate of rise but it does not look surmountable.

http://ourrenewablefuture.org/

There are eleven chapters plus introduction and acknowledgements.
Have a read, I have found it very interesting.

Richard Heinberg has just put a post on the resiliance web site about
the book and its less than enthusiastic conclusion for alternative energy.

http://tinyurl.com/hkjhmaq

Dear Leo Lane: Your "most stupid answer to my perfectly simple question is as usual with people like you an attempt to rubbish the questioner.

*The government intends not to rely on resources:
“The successful transition of Australia’s economy from the resources-led boom will be fuelled by innovation, investment in a more diverse range of industries, and support for businesses to create more jobs.*

This reads as if it came straight out of a liberal party manifesto. It makes as much sense as your answer to my question.
You are really going to have to do better than that if you are going to brainwash the bogans voters with the lib propaganda.

Richard Heinberg simply writes off nuclear as if it weren't there, despite its operation in France for 50 years and elsewhere in the world.

He also asserts that in a renewables world electricity usage would have to be way lower than presently, yet demand will rise as more and more applications arise.

How is the degradation of the earth through man's exploitation supposed to be countered without abundant cheap energy?
His own forecasts force him down a path he blithely refuses to go.
Typical of the poor old Greens, all Alice in Wonderland.

Yes, I agree Heinberg does just dismiss nuclear for no good reason.
I think the rest of their reasoning is reasonable and likely the way
it will go. The problem I see with nuclear is can we afford it ?
If solar & wind fail and are a real debacle then we may just have to
sacrifice everything else to get a fleet of them up & running.

With Mum looking at a half cooked meal in the dark then a nuclear
program will be announced the next morning.

....further to, Heinberg's conclusion is for a lower but sustainable, standard of living through renewables. Why should we accept this when abundant, safe,cheap nuclear energy will allow a higher population to live at a high standard, sustainably?

If Heinberg is correct, renewables offer humanity no pathway to the stars, and no need for that pathway.

Greens happily embracing Heinberg's conclusion won't countenance fission or fusion. Issues such as nuclear waste and proliferation are just shutters put up to preserve their limited wish for the future of humanity.

The court jester shows that he has no basis for his laughable supposition that our resources will be gone. And makes a further pointless observation about the fact that the planned growth and jobs are not from resources, but from innovation and industry.
He has proved that being the court jester is not preclusive of being the forum dunce.
Robert lr Page has gained two places, jester and dunce.

Lucifase,
I think that there are so many brainwashed against nukes
and as early as in the schools that it will not be possible to build
them until the restrictions of solar & wind are not just obvious but
actually are causing significant discomfort.

Leo, I watched Joseph Tainters talk (1 1/2 hours) and innovation is
suffering like many other systems with declining returns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI

To both of you, what both of these documents, talks whatever tell
me is that there is a lot of uncertainty.
Heinberg & Fridley give some interesting formula for the calculation
of the energy gain & costs of solar and wind and they will strip a lot
of optimism filters from the eyes of many greens.
Tainter shows an interesting inverse relationship between innovation and energy.
I wonder what Tainter thinks about Fusion innovation, will it fail
because of its declining return ?

There is a hell of a lot more to all this than I had realised and
I think that it is highly likely that we will suffer collapse before
a new energy regime is done.
I will be interested to see if Heinberg & Fridley expand on the rising
cost of solar & wind as you attempt to get it to 100% reliability.
I suspect that this is why they say we will have to reorganise the
way we use energy, we just will not be able to afford 100%.
Especially if we are in a collapse state.

So I think many more should read the book and watch the Utube.

dear leo lane: Insults do not in any way make your gobbledegook comments make any sense.
But keep right on with your nonsense and entertain yourself. I will opt out on the principle that if you argue with an idiot you lower yourself to his level.

I was not arguing with you, Robert, so did not lower myself to your level.
I merely pointed out that you failed to address the topic.
Goodbye