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.