If Australia got to 100% renewables, the difference this would make to global CO2 levels would be of no consequence whatsoever - China increases its CO2 emissions by this amount every few weeks with new coal-fires power plants. But we're a rich country and should do our fair share to help the world avert unacceptable increases in CO2 levels so what to do? My view is that we should do the most efficient and cost effective things to reduce our fossil fuel consumption but most of our expenditure should be on R&D in those technological fields where the world still has not come up with cost-effective answers: 24 hour renewable energy, battery storage, increased efficiencies in solar panels, geoengineering (just in case the world doesn't decarbonise), etc. We should fund the CSIRO, universities and private industry to do the research and commercialisation needed to solve the world's existing problems, in particular, to develop technologies that the 4-5 billion people living in developing countries who we should assist to not make the same mistakes we made as we developed our economy over the past 100+ years.

Hi Bernie,
China is already massively investing in renewables and has plans to increase that investment on the path to complete fossil fuel replacement.

https://techxplore.com/news/2016-09-china-investing-heavily-solar-power.html

"China has made it known to the world that it plans to move from coal-fired powered plants to those based on renewable resources as quickly as possible—the smog from coal plants and the huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions the country produces have generated bad press for the country over the past several years. Now, there is new evidence that the country's leaders plan to make good on those pledges."

There has also been some marked reduction in the price of solar PV in very recent times

https://techxplore.com/news/2016-10-price-solar-panels.html

"Recently, researchers revealed that energy companies making bids to install large solar farms overseas have listed prices for solar panels that are dramatically lower than in the past. One bid, for a project in China, for example, listed a price of just $0.46/W for 500MW of solar power. Another for a project in Dubai listed $0.023/kWh for 1.2GW of solar power—such prices are approximately 25 percent lower than they were just a year ago."

This transition is going to be very disruptive to the electricity supply and distribution industries, but it's as inevitable as the introduction of steam was and just as important.

Craig, I accept that China is spending what seems like a lot of money on renewables but they continue to build fossil-fuel power stations and have stated they will continue to do so until at least 2030. They have a population of 1.3 billion and less than half are what we would define as 'middle class' economically. The Chinese govt places more importance on staying in power by meeting the needs of its citizens than on meeting its international obligations.

If you look at India, its population is due to be larger than that of China within a few years and it has more people living at or below the poverty line than China. And then we have Africa which the UN states will have a population of more than a billion by 2050.

To meet even the modest energy demands of these three countries or regions is beyond the ability of renewables at present. There is an urgent need to continue R&D into new technologies needed to give a reasonable life to the world's 2 billion people living in poverty in developing countries and Australia is perfectly placed to do this.

Jon J. Large industrial complexes? No, prototypes have been limited to around 40 MW. That size can be shipped anywhere in a shipping container!

Put ten inline and you have 400 MW! Or truck them far beyond the reach of transmission lines to provide very affordable power almost anywhere!
No, plutonium, given the process can be kick started by an isotope of thorium! Then run uninterrupted for a hundred years, at a cost to the average family at around a $1.50 a year!

Yes byproducts, medical isotopes and some waste. But unlike solid state uranium based reaction most of the thorium is consumed leaving significantly less waste.

Around 5%, which is vastly less toxic than that created in a conventional uranium fueled reactor and eminently suitable for long life space batteries. Solid state uranium based reaction only consumes 5% of its fuel leaving the unburnt 95% as waste.

Even so, a thorium based molten salt reactor can be used, and I understand the indians are trialing this, burn and reburn nuclear waste until every micron of fissile material is consumed leaving significantly less waste, with a remaining half life of just 300 years.

We know apart from the indians, the chinese are throwing billions at the technology. Knowing as they do, first to file can win the patent rights regardless of who invented it!

The first molten salt thorium reactor was built in Oak Ridge Tennessee during the sixties and ran without a single reported problem for five years until Nixon pulled the funding.

As the Wright brothers can attest, the lack of large international airlines didn't stop them building the first powered airplane! And look at the monsters plying the airways today!

Don't see any downside to adopting thorium as a preferenced power source, just a huge upside! While allowing others to gain control via the patents office, could come with huge negative implications for us and untold generations! The goal of the misinformation campaign!?

If you need more validated info, there's Google scholar or U tube and numerous highly credentialed experts!
Alan B.

Sure, the transition is going to take time, but 2030 is only 14 years away.

The bit about international opprobrium is a red herring, I think. There's a lot of dissatisfaction within China about the levels of pollution.

As well as the reduction in coal power, there have been huge programs to close polluting industries like old smelters and foundries, coal fired brickworks and the like, which have been accelerated by improvements in recycling. Recycling has also dramatically reduced demand in some places, since it requires far less energy to resmelt than to smelt from ore.

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/what-is-the-embodied-energy-of-materials.html

India already has a high penetration of solar and Africa is in a perfect position to start with a clean sheet in many places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India

https://techxplore.com/news/2016-09-sub-saharan-africa-energy-infrastructure-electricity.html

Craig, the issue I see is that we don't have the technologies to efficiently and cheaply provide industrial scale electricity to these developing countries. It's all well and good for a poor family in a remote village to have light at night and a small battery to keep their laptop and phone operating at night but neither of these will of themselves create meaningful employment that will generate an income to lift them out of poverty.

I note Alan B's comment about lining up 10 x 40megawatt prototypes but I'm not sure how he proposed to produce the 400MW of electricity every day to charge the batteries.