Craig,

"If you've got a grand plan that costs that much I'd like a job please." - Is what you backed down from, amongst several technical claims.

Either you are confused or lying again, I no point conceded that 100% renewables is feasible.

Pretty much anything is possible with enough money, however, 100% renewables is a long, long, long way from being feasible, and I suggest that you consult a dictionary before making such a blunder.

Unless you can find a lazy $1000 000 000 000 lying around, 100% renewables is as feasible than establishing a colony on Mars.

Aidan,

My fantasies on money supply seem to be shared by all respected economists, so I will stick with them.

SM,
At no time have I advocated a shift to 100% renewable energy. The reference was merely to counter your usual dodgy claims that it isn't possible. You see, the fact that I refer to a scientific study simply means that I found it interesting, I don't go looking for advertorials to support my proselytising of predetermined positions based on perceived self-interest. That's your schtick.

As anyone who is honestly following the various discussions on this topic can verify, I've consistently advocated a model in which thermal power backs up renewables until it can be phased out as new technologies mature.

Of course, those honest readers don't include yourself, so you can continue on sad and sorry mission of fighting the imaginary demons attacking your wallet and I'll bid you farewell once again.

"At no time have I advocated a shift to 100% renewable energy", followed by ... "I've consistently advocated a model in which thermal power backs up renewables until it can be phased out as new technologies mature."

These statements are conflicting Aren't you talking about renewables with storage, and isn't that 100% renewables? Either you have massive faith in an astonishing future storage technology breakthrough or in the ultimate affordability of preposterously massive, fail-safe infrastructure around current technology.

There's an almighty gulf between possibility and feasibility. Nuclear is possible, and demonstrably feasible. 100% renewables is possible, but far, far from feasible. Then you have Aidan's money creation that is a mechanism for turning resources away from everything else citizens demand. Someone has to pay.

Thinking big is limitless. Doing big has constraints.

Craig,

Yet another porkie. Perhaps you have a pathological inability to tell the difference between the truth and fiction.

I never claimed that 100% renewables is impossible. I have just shown that it is vastly expensive and unreliable with the technology that we have for the foreseeable future.

All that you have shown is that you have a flimsy grasp of technical issues, no concept of economics, and fast and loose attitude with the truth.

Hi Luciferase,
yes, you're right, I phrased that comment poorly.

I am strongly of the view that the way forward is to work toward a renewables-based economy in a managed way, using the best technology available over time.

Here's one that's probably going to be a serious step on the way.

http://news.stanford.edu/2016/10/20/perovskite-solar-cell-design-shows-promise/

Perovskites were only shown to be potentially useful for photovoltaics a few years ago and the development curve has been very steep. The same thing applies to some other forms of thin film and there are others still waiting in the wings, including dye-sensitised titanate and stannate, which Australia has a strong presence in.

Silicon has been a useful technology and will continue to be for some time, but it will inevitably be replaced by the next generation of technology.

A renewables based economy, apart from being more efficient economically, will also provide a more good jobs than thermal ever can. Solar panels at present have a life of about 20 years at their rated output. They're still putting out power, but not as much.
Typically a module is warranteed for 80% of its rated output at either 20 or 25 years, depending on the manufacturer and the technology. That means that if users are consuming the same amount of power they will need to consider either adding or replacing modules over time, creating ongoing work for installation crews.

Similarly for wind. The distributed nature of the generation resource in both cases means that unlike a thermal plant which might provide a thousand or 2 jobs for a couple of years during construction and then a couple of hundred directly and indirectly for the next 20-30 years, there will be thousands of jobs in communities indefinitely.

The energy generation and distribution firms are already on board, it's only a few whose opposition borders on religious zealotry who are resisting the tide of history. Never mind, they'll go the way of all dodos soon enough.

Shallow Preacher, tell us who you are and who you work for. I dare you.

Craig,

In spite of your weasel words, it is clear that you have entirely missed all the points.

Firstly, that renewables promises to employ a small army to permanently maintain them indicates that the power they produce will forever be hugely expensive, and in an economy that is already close to full employment where the shortage is in skilled labour, there is very little benefit to the economy from these jobs.

Secondly, the potential technology advances that you point to will be able to produce slightly cheaper power when it is not needed. The Achilles heel of the renewable industry is the inability to produce power on demand. A couple of years ago all I heard from greenies is how hot rocks geothermal was going to produce huge quantities of cheap base load energy. Today hot rocks is dead and solar thermal is the next saviour, that it cost 5x what present generation costs is ignored. As far as religious zealotry, you can't a better example of the renewables activists.

P.S. You "dare me" to reveal my identity and place of work. FFS grow up. Your candor wrt yours has added zero to your credibility.