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?