The obvious conclusion that can be drawn from the article is that Australia has no alternative to going nuclear. We have the resources, all we lack is the political willpower.
David

It is good that a prominent public figure has weighed in on this crucial topic. However I am concerned that opponents of his opinions will simply dismiss his arguments by citing his association with the coal industry (that’s what counts in this public debate, not science or engineering) and, more problematically, by simply declaring that the success of renewables is assured through future technology advances, cost reductions, and so on. It’s the blue sky arguments that are so hard to refute – because they concern an unprovable future.

The best approach is, I believe, to tackle the fundamentals. There are four pillars to the faith in the future of renewables. Technology advances are simply bound to occur and will beat the problems of weak and intermittent solar and wind energy. Batteries to store electricity are getting better and cheaper. Energy productivity and efficiency will keep increasing indefinitely to meet the wishes of energy conservationists. And the evolving concerns about the real energy returns from the energy invested in renewable systems are completely unwarranted. These are complex and technical issues. Why would the public need to understand them? Perhaps in other times they would not. But today the electorate determines energy policy, not the people who understand energy. Energy is a beauty contest and voters are the judges. Voters love renewable energy. Sadly, love is blind.

Make no mistake. Future energy is a battleground between renewables and nuclear energy. There are huge economic risks stemming from uncritical acceptance of claims made for the future of renewables. The electorate needs to believe that whatever their concerns about nuclear energy they can be alleviated by the kinds of technological innovation they currently support and expect for renewables.

I think this article is a great example of the how to use words and half truths to appear like you've got a valid argument...Well done Keith!

Well done Keith. You are brave enough to be very clear about the shortfalls of renewable energy - a popular religion among "clean" energy advocates. Expect plenty of hate mail!

As a student and author of energy books, I fully understand your article. Unfortunately many in the renewable energy camp have little understanding of the technical and practical issues with both solar and wind. As Monty Python once said "you can't tell em!".

They will embrace nuclear power one day - after they have tried everything else.

Wind and solar do work here, and as I'm writing this they're providing 12% of Australia's electricity supply. See http://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/RenewEconomy/

The clam that "every kilowatt has to be backed up by conventional power" is false. The biggest demand peaks are on hot sunny days, when solar output is high. Excluding those, the biggest demand peaks are on cold windy days. If we exclude these too, the peak requirement is much lower.

And even where we have two capital spends for the same output, that doesn't necessarily make it inefficient, let alone a dud. Most of the backup infrastructure already exists and was paid for long ago. And most of the exceptions involve open cycle gas turbines, so the backup infrastructure cost is very low. The cost saving due to reduced fuel requirements is substantial.

China is investing very heavily in solar power. The fact that back in 2014 they were building one new coalfired power plant every week (and closing three old coalfired power plants every week) is irrelevant. They've moved on!

But Keith is right about one thing: feedin tariffs are a very inefficient way to fund wind and solar energy. We should instead use concessional loans. Make the CEFC an order of magnitude bigger, and make the objective to break even rather than to make a commercial rate of return. The result will be cheaper electricity for everyone.

Ain't that the truth! The best example of the stupidity of wind is in South Australia, where we have the most windmills and the dearest power in the world: just jacked up again by another $800 a year. Labor government, of course, but the other mob have gone loony as well.

Judging on your flawed standards Cobber? Anyone with a laptop and the will can check numbers that stack up.

That said, finally someone rational who gets it? Even so there are other carbon free alternatives that are cheaper than coal, like thorium which if rolled out as industry specific projects not connected to the big white elephant of a national grid, could supply peak demand power for just 2-3 cents per kilowatt hour? At which price we'd have the energy dependant high tech industries of the world queuing to relocate here. And nearly everyone else if we could just get real tax reform done?

Real tax reform would look like a stand alone unavoidable expenditure tax and bet set lower than some nation's VAT yet still collect more than enough revenue to fund all services while creating endless surpluses!?

Simply put, we need to stop living in a fool's paradise waiting for someone else to do it for us! But just get busy ringing in the changes we need! Even if that causes some angst among debt laden foreign investors, Who not only think the world owes them a living but that we are the blind fools who can be endlessly gouged to provide it?

We have a super fund of around two trillion dollars, that currently earns virtually no tax revenue for us? Moreover, other nations currently gain the economic advantages and multiplier factors that these funds create, for everybody anybody else! Just not here!

A pragmatic leader would get his cabinet to realize that these funds could be put to work right here if the income earned from thirty year self termin We'd be no worse off given 30 year self terminating bonds were given a tax free status? And every cent could be put to work on income earning projects, ideas and endeavor! And that's where all the new revenue could come from?

Some of which could be carbon free cheaper than coal energy projects!? Simply put, a good businessman knows without being told when to cut the losses and get out!
Alan B.

It is pretty obvious renewables will never provide our entire electrical needs at current demand levels.

Nuclear is the solution, but not existing silly uranium powered technology.

Liquid Floride thorium reactors (LFTR) are the only sustainable electrical generation source we can sustainably rely on for the future.

LFTR operation not only provides cheap electricity, it can generate liquid fuels (similar to diesel), reprocess spent existing nuclear fuels, produce much needed medical isotopes and a myriad of other benefits. LFTR is also scalable and can be mass produced if required.

This technology is also safe, it operates at low pressure/high temperature, thereby negating the current nuclear technology problems and most importantly, the world has an abundance of Thorium unlike uranium.

A no brainer, we should embrace this technology now but probably won't because of political mismanagement, corruption via vested interests and the ridiculous scare mongering by green manta advocates.

Green energy, particularly in its current guise is a Ponzi scheme.

Geoff

Excellent article. It great that people who actually understand the economic consequences of the distortions governments have been imposing to try to incentivise reneweables are beginning to get more exposure. In the USA, subsidies for solar and wind power are 100 times and 20 times higher than for nuclear. But, whereas nuclear provides reliable power supply, solar and wind do not. As Keith says, solar and wind provide low value power for enormous cost. This chart compares the US Federal government subsides: https://i2.wp.com/i.imgur.com/m72CxQv.png

US Federal Government subsidies per MWh
Solar = $280
Wind = $35
Hydro = $1.47
Nuclear = $2.10
(Note: The Federal subsidies included here are only part of the total subsidies paid by Federal Government, State Governments, local governments, tax payers, rate payers and consumers).

EIA, 2015, Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2013 http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

A superb essay.

Also the percentage of renewable power drops even further if vehicles are counted.

If vehicles, from cars, trucks to trains and aircraft?, had to ditch their petrol/diesel engines the vast demand on renewable electricity would prove even more cripplingly expensive.

China (likely to increase by 100+ million vehicles in the next decade) doesn't include vehicles in its Greenie convincing renewable propaganda.

@ Alan b...mmm you seem to be reading a lot in my post.
The fact is the author has left out quite a few things that would perhaps led readers to a different conclusion. It's something many people do to re-enforce their point.

Perhaps if you think fossil fuel burning isn't a major contributor to the climate change we are experiencing then making cheap energy by burning coal makes sense. If on the other you do then no matter how cheap it is it's a dumb idea.

Given that I think we should be making use of nuke power which I see by your post you do too, I'm not sure on what your point of disagreement is?

oh and by the way this is a counter to Peter Lang post http://issues.org/22-3/realnumbers-21/

Now I'm sure they have left out some items to help make their point too.

Yes http://issues.org/22-3/realnumbers-21/ would have been of some relevance...

...if Peter Lang wrote his post way back in 2003!

In response to the comments of Aidan and others, I think the ground rules of such debates need to be clear, as well as the numbers involved. Of course electricity can be generated using wind and sun. No-one argues that it cannot. Right now it’s pretty windy across southern Australia and the ‘renewables meter’ Aidan refers to is running at around 13% of total electrical power generation. That performance needs to be judged against the claims and aspirations of renewables supporters, which can be summarised in the slogan ‘100% renewable energy’. Today’s 13% figure is for electricity, not for total energy. To put that in context, only around 40% of Australia’s primary energy goes towards electricity. The other 60% is largely in gas for heating and industry and liquid fuels for transport. Personal transportation (cars etc.) can conceivably be electrified, but electrical versions of shipping, aircraft, heavy transport and heavy machinery are another matter. That holds for nuclear as well as renewables. We will need at least three times the quantity of electrical energy than now used. Without cheap, plentiful, continuous, intense sources of low-emission electrical energy it is highly unlikely that the basic purpose of any practical future energy plan, the mitigation of climate change, can ever be achieved. Indeed, it may well be impossible. Imagining that wind and sun can do the trick will lead to massive wastage and economic devastation.

Well said Tombee.

Wind and solar could earn their stripes if they got there because of tough emissions rules, not as a result of quotas and $80/Mwh LGCs. After all they might do reasonably since wind power is a partial saver for high priced gas while solar on the user's premises cuts out the middle man. However they should pay the fair standby costs for the rest of the system. That system fills the supply gaps and maintains a stable frequency and voltage.

The great white hope is Twh scale battery storage but there is precious little evidence that will happen. We're talking hundreds of millions of Powerwall type batteries. Then as pointed out we'll still have the needs of transport and heat for domestic and industrial customers. Hard to see a metal foundry (eg for electronic grade silicon) run on batteries. Time for a major rethink about where the money should go.

yep the rationalist again show how unrational they are. Many of them sit in Government offices not paying a cent for their heating/cooling and junkets flying around the globe. They then wack all this unnecessary costs for heating and cooling on pensioners and the poor through electricity bills. All this while sprouting their superior junk science knowledge. Disgraceful really when you look at the homes many of them live in but the high priests have managed to dumb down many of the young ones to make them think that by fighting so called man made gw they are doing something 'morally'worthwhile. Truth is that it is just a cover for a morally perverse generation.

//Personal transportation (cars etc.) can conceivably be electrified, but electrical versions of shipping, aircraft, heavy transport and heavy machinery are another matter. That holds for nuclear as well as renewables.//

Aren't some aircraft carriers and submarines fission powered? Surely it wouldn't be too hard to make that work for large ships.

And for what it's worth, I reckon you can have electric aircraft as long as they're airships rather than aeroplanes. Bring back the zeppelin!

Not so sure about terrestrial heavy transport. Maybe the internal combustion engine is the only practical choice there.

Cobber, you seemed to suggest that the Author was manufacturing some of his numbers, which from my perspective seem to fit the facts and the result of buying the green renewable ideological imperative? Wind or solar, solar or wind!

I'm an owner of a solar array, and therefore not against that source of clean energy. However, as an energy dependant economy I believe we need to resuscitate our manufacturing industries! And simply not doable with something as expensive and intermittent as wind and solar. Albeit great as gifts to completely undeveloped third world countries to kick start very rudimentary cottage industries.

I like thorium for much the same reasons a Geoff, We have enough to power the world for around 700 years, or ourselves for far longer if we would keep the huge economic advantages this cheap reliable energy source would confer! Why rolled out as local power it would be even substantially cheaper than national grid dependant hydro power! The indians are working on a 300 megawatt prototype.

Moreover, any waste is far less toxic than oxide reactors, which consume around 5% of their fuel type whereas thorium consumes 95% of their fuel which might be just a single truckload over the fifty year life of a local non grid reliant project! Which probably underlines why it is cheaper than coal, which during the same period would need mountains of the stuff and at ever increasing prices!?
Cheers, Alan.

Plantagenet,

Cobbler commented on my link to US EIA data comparing US Federal government subsidies in dollars per MWh (I gave the source):

EIA, 2015, 'Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year' 2013 http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

Cobler posted to a link that is disingenuous and misleading. It does not compare the subsidies in $ per MWh. It simply gives the total dollar amount of subsidies per technology type, ignoring the fact that renewables supply negligible amounts of energy, nuclear much more, and fossil fuels very much more.

Cobbler fell for the oldest trick in the book, a trick frequently played by the renewable advocates in various ways - i.e. misrepresentation, disinformation, dishonesty.

I'm staring at a global economy heading toward another global downturn, which could turn this nation's economy into banana republic status and possibly for several decades if we sit on our hands and wait for others to do something for us?

Which is largely how we got where we are today. However we can use the downturn to our advantage just by using the brains and the resources we were born with and the world's cheapest energy! And no that's not selling any at fire sale prices to debt laden foreign speculators, but rather develop them ourselves and firstly as income earning infrastructure projects; then employee owned cooperative enterprise, very doable as government initiated pragmatism?

Co-ops were the one form of free market private enterprise that largely survived the Great Depression intact and the reason we need to roll them out again, given there's no less costly nor more efficient manufacturing or production model?

It just stacks up, no other production paradigm can compete as cost effective efficient production, particularly where you can incorporate large production runs and scales of economy.

China currently enjoys a 30% wages inflation and still relies on state owned or last century's energy inefficient conventional manufacture to get manufactured trade goods to the world.

At the moment we export iron ore to them, when e.g. if we were intelligently lead with nothing off the pragmatists table, we could be exporting steel, aluminium and other metals with the lowest carbon footprint in the world to the world and at more than competitive prices!

There are innumerable other even more exciting and profitable possibilities! But only if we apply Lee Kwan Yu's pragmatism and vision! However ideologically unpalatable!

Given the impossible debt load the world is currently carrying, we have no other viable choice?

Can't died in a cornfield over a century ago!
Alan B.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm

These charts show how unpredictable and random renewable generation is. Germany produces roughly 30% on average renewable power, for which they need to keep roughly 90% non renewable energy generation available. For this they have one of the most expensive electricity prices in the EU.

Hi Toni Lavis

Nuclear powered merchant ships were developed and generally discontinued in the late 1960s through the 70s. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Civilian_nuclear_ships

Reasons for stopping were generally:

- economic (high cost of development, repairs, alterations, port support equipment, etc)
- many ports didn't want such ships
- especial dangers if grounding or collission occured

Russian authorities, having little public pressure to worry about, and the special power needs of icebreakers has maintained a viable fleet of nuclear powered icebreakers to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft projects didn't get too far due to:

- the un-airworthy nature of the heavy lead shielding needed to protect pilots, occupants and ground crew
- danger of crashing anywhere
- power to weight ratios weren't favourable

Need for heavy lead shielding precludes road vehicle uses.

Use on trains with track exclusion zones may be the best from an engineering viewpoint but the risks of hijacking and terrorism are substantial.

Its nice to think that even as adults, some can still have dreams, because that's all the renewable targets are, is dreams.

This article is full of lies, half truths and omissions. For example:
'Germany ... derives 1% of its electricity from solar PV'
The real figure is 6.9% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany (only out by a factor of 7!).
Furthermore Germany derives 30% of its energy from renewable energy, up 5 fold in 14 years. Why do Spain and Germany keep increasing RE if it is as you wrongly assert 'sending them broke?' sourceshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany.

Keith when you quote the electricity price increases in Europe over the last 10 years why do you omit the >100% increases in Australia over the same period and the reason for it - distribution network 'gold plating'; nothing to do with renewable energy.

When you cite 75% nuclear in France why do you omit the fact that they plan to reduce it to 50% by 2025 and that they are increasing renewables? And why no mention of Japan and the Fukushima disaster- cost $70 billion and rising and they've closed most of their nuclear plants?

Oh and I see your article is published in 'The Australian'- true to form from that and the other rags in the Murdoch stable. It's now common knowledge that articles such as yours and others on climate change and renewable energy in 'The Australian' are nonsense propaganda. Most of the time they either deny or ignore the reality of global warming and the need to do anything about it.

Roses 1, it is true that the article under-quoted the contribution to Germany’s electricity production from solar PV. However, your claim that “Germany derives 30% of its energy from renewable energy” is wrong. It looks like you have taken that same reference and summed the contributions from solar, wind, biomass and hydro, amounting to 29.4% of total electricity, NOT energy. The difference is critical. According to the latest data (IEA Key World Energy Statistics 2015) in 2013 Germany’s electricity consumption was 576.5 TWh, and that included some imported electricity. Its total primary energy supply was 3694 TWh. So electrical energy amounts to only 15.6% of the total energy supply (roughly, as the source data seem to be one year apart). Of course these figures need interpretation, especially as some of the primary energy goes towards electricity generation, but however you look at it renewables are a very minor player. And if one sticks just to solar and wind, which are the sources of interest in this context, Germany got 84.2 TWh (from the link you supplied), which is a trivial 2.3% of its total energy needs. And solar alone at 32.8 TWh contributed 0.89% of total energy needs. Perhaps that’s where Keith DeLacy got his ‘less than 1%’ figure. Shows how careful you have to be when handling energy data, and throwing around allegations of lying. By the way, I read The Australian so you can safely and conveniently ignore everything I say, right?

Meanwhile in the US
Federal coal subsidies are forms of financial assistance paid by federal taxpayers to the coal and power industry. Such subsidies include direct spending, tax breaks and exemptions, low-interest loans, loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, grants, lost government revenue such as discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, and federally-subsidized external costs, such as health care expenses and environmental clean-up due to the negative effects of coal use. External costs of coal include the loss or degradation of valuable ecosystems and community health.
According to research by GigaOm analyst Adam Lesser, buried in a 2011 report from the International Energy Agency is the fact that fossil fuels currently receive subsidies via “at least 250 mechanisms.”[1]
In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy. In a July 2011 EIA report on federal fossil fuel subsidies, coal was estimated to have tax expenditures (provisions in the federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms) with an estimated value of $561 million in FY 2010, down from $3.3 billion in FY 2007.[2]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_coal_subsidies

Tombee
Germany currently derives 12.9% of its energy from wind.http://phys.org/news/2015-10-german-power-output-tops-total.html
For South Australia the figure is about 40% with some days over 100%. ACT aims for 100% by 2025 and is buying wind by auction and power purchase agreements. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-commits-to-100-per-cent-renewable-energy-target-by-2020-simon-corbell-20160428-goh1l9.html. If these two State Governments can do it why not all?
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/south-australia-graphs-60608

I will be submitting an article on the Study I co-wrote outlining how WA can achieve 85% renewable energy by 2030.

Re 'The Australian' I read it too (though I never buy a copy). I want to see what 'news' is being fed to people. There's only one thing I can say in their favor - at least the authors of the 'analysis' articles (which are really 'opinion') are clearly identified as the same old list of right to ultra right wing biased hacks.

So in no way am I alluding to the intelligence of people who read it. One just needs to read a broad range of news, much of which can only be found on the internet. I get my real news from ABC, Guardian, Crikey, Renew Economy, The Conversation, Saturday Paper but I also read The Australian and the West Australian. The latter is not biased in the same way as The Aus. but it is parochial and guilty by omission - simply not reporting important news such as climate change, energy and environment.

We can all be researchers and get accurate impartial news these days by simply using reliable internet sources. Mr Lacey should first make a habit of being honest and secondly learn to use Google.

Roses1 committed logical errors.

It would be good for Roses1 to understand the content of others' posts before making a fool of himself by posting a failed rebuttal.

If he did, he would accept that "energy" does not equal "electricity". This was explained by Tombee up-thread. Electricity is cited there as being only 15.6% of total energy. Some Australian estimates place it closer to 30%. The rest is oil, transport, industrial, air travel, shipping, railways, explosives, chemical feedstock, fertilizers... call it whatever you like, but it's almost entirely NOT powered by electricity.

I will omit consideration of embodied energy in imports, which represents energy consumed within the study area every bit as much as locally-produced energy that is consumed locally, or imported electricity that is consumed locally.

Thus, if the percentage of electrical energy derived from solar (for example) is 3%, then that corresponds to a mere 1% of total energy and the statement in the original article was reasonable.

Given that Roses1 is happy to demand that others learn to use tools such as Google, etc, it is reasonable to demand in return that he cease using the terms "electrical energy" and "total energy" interchangeably. Readers are entitled to conclude that the resulting misrepresentation, when presented by one who claims expertise, is intentional and not simply an oversight.

"WA can achieve 85% renewable energy by 2030." No it cannot and will not. No amount of "Study" can make it true. Maybe 85% of 25%, ie 21%? All of which must be backed up by expensive, dirty, conventional fossil fuels in order to avoid blackouts every minute that the wind isn't blowing or the sun shining. That leaves 79% or so of WA's ENERGY budget non-renewable.

"ACT aims for 100% by 2025." Obviously, only electrical energy. I have seen no mention at all about banning liquid-fuelled cars and trucks or gas-fired backyard barbecues from the ACT.

Roses1's words are untrustworthy spin, the kind of stuff which must be swept away in order that real climate and energy problems can be identified and addressed, the sooner the better.

Roses 1, I need to correct you again. That's 12.9% of electrical energy, not ‘energy’, that Germany has derived from wind so far this year. The two are very different. If electrical energy stays roughly the same fraction of total primary energy supply as I calculated previously, 15.6%, that contribution of wind energy falls to 2.0% of Germany’s total energy. And thanks for the advice on getting reliable impartial information. It’s very important in today’s oddly ideological debate on, of all things, energy, which is all about chemistry, physics and thermodynamics.

Tombee et al

My typo acknowledged. I meant electrical energy not total energy.

Although electricity only accounts for about 30% of CO2e emissions in Australia, there is great potential for much more of the transport and industrial sectors to be electrified in future.

Converting electricity supply to renewable sources is therefore an essential first step to de-carbonizing the world economy.

“Converting electricity supply to renewable sources is therefore an essential first step to decarbonising the world economy”. Of course that’s what this is all about, and I happen to disagree with Roses 1 on the future role of renewables. I gave my reasons in some detail here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18243 and summarised them in my first comment on the DeLacy article. We can argue, and probably resolve such arguments, when they are just about the numbers but the overall global debate about future energy is less tractable. It also involves judgements and an uncertain future. And it involves voters, which means it can easily turn into a popularity contest instead of a serious technical and risk issue concerning a poorly understood subject. Not that the experts do much better. A prizewinning solar researcher will always plump for solar energy, and a fuel cell pundit will punt for fuel cells. It all makes for very tricky navigation.

Tombee (Tom)

From your article it appears we agree on the 'bleeding obvious' - energy efficiency is is the biggest source of decarbonization. I have been working on that for some 13 years. My personal / small business energy and emission calcuator can be downloaded from http://www.ghgenergycalc.com.au/calc.html. If you use this you will seen I am more than familiar with the concept of multiple ways we use energy including embodied energy. Household electricity consumption is typically about 15% of an average household's energy use, which is higher than you claim.

EROI is a minefield ripe for misrepresentation by deniers and cynics. I have read the article on the claim of 0.83 for PV on the Energy Matters website. It assumed PV in the arctic circle and panels with the highest possible embodied emissions. Typical unethical mis-use of statistics that you find on 'climate denier' websites. The accepted EROI figure for PV is around 7.

I agree that de-carbonization is a diabolical problem but it will have to be solved sooner or later (hopefully not too late).

I have submitted an article to OLO on our modelling for cost - effective 85 - 100% RE on WA's SWIS electricity grid. You will see that we (Sustainable Energy Now - SEN) don't claim zero emissions; even renewables have carbon footprints in the embodied energy of the machines, but its more that 20 times lower than coal generation. You can download and read our paper on http://www.sen.asn.au/modelling_findings

A timely article, thanks to Keith de Lacy, reminding us that renewables are not viable.

They are also unnecessary.

There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so the demonization of “fossil fuels” is baseless, and dishonest.

Thanks, Keith.

When will we get on with the advancement of nuclear? Australia's Chief-Scientist needs a rocket or removal.

Is he a speaker or a mover?

Useless turd.

Great article Keith. You put the case logically & only someone ideologically opposed to the conclusions would even argue with them.

However tell us, with this logic coming to the fore, do your old Labor compatriots still talk to you?

How many of them actually agree with you in private, but maintain the commitment to alternative energy, & keep telling porkies about its viability in public, to gain green preferences?

Do you think you can ever get them to be honest on the subject?

Do you think it is possible for Labour to have a sensible, economically viable electricity generation policy?

"The problem we have in Australia is when we talk renewable energy we are talking wind and solar only - low value, expensive, unreliable, high capital cost, land hungry, intermittent energy."

Solar is unreliable and land hungy? Is the author aware of just how much of this continent is uninhabitable desert? Pave it all with solar cells! Use the excess power to run the hydroelectric dams backwards so as to create an overnight energy reservoir. Problem solved.