Justin has got this partly right, Global warming, & the attendant alternate energy, cars & the rest is a great instrument for command of control. Why else would the UN have it's dirty fingers all over it. We will find ourselves subjects of a world government pretty damn quickly if they can swing it. Yes subjects rather than citizens for sure.

However it has an even more attractive side to it for left politicians. It is the perfect vehicle for crony capitalism.

Obama managed to transfer billions of US taxpayer dollars to his campaign donors, with grants of up to half a billion dollars each, YES BILLION, to a number of start up alternatives companies, controlled by those donors. Four had disappeared as had the billions, during his first term. That he was re-elected shows just how stupid yanks really are.

Of course our South Australian & Victorian governments show us that we are not much smarter if any, as does our present prime minister.

So folks, if you are in favour of alternate energy generation, it tells me you either on the gravy train with the other smarties, & the academics, or are about as bright as those US taxpayers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q33S5iZw270

Mark, even if the States don’t provide direct subsidies, the Commonwealth via the RET does provide a “certificate-trading scheme (that) allows generators of renewable energy to earn additional income for the electricity that they generate, above the market price”. I expect that the SA scheme does contain various incentives too. Despite what Craig Minns implies, solar and wind power must always be more expensive than fossil fuels, which occur free in the ground, store energy at high density in solid, liquid or gaseous form, and are simply set alight to release that energy. Too bad that they are harmful and we have to stop using them, or that they will eventually run out, but that’s no reason to pretend that other sources are superior. Fossil fuels have been a bonanza, they got us to where we are today, they will be hard to give up and replace, and this constant exaggerated claim that renewable energy (actually just electricity) will be cheaper doesn’t help. It induces a complacency that is counterproductive.

Hi Tombee,
Actually, already solar PV is cheaper to build than new coal, regardless of subsidy. In fact new coal is more expensive to build than rooftop PV, gas, large scale solar, wind and various forms of wave and tidal generation.

In addition, the use of various renewable technologies encourages new industrial development, both through direct investment and technology transfer, as well as the creation of new workforces. Fossil fuel industries are very bad at employing people because they are extremely highly mechanised, relying on the availability of cheap oil supplies to reduce the cost of production. They are getting more mechanised all the time, with Rio Tinto now operating a significant fleet of autonomous dump trucks and looking at automating their railstock.

Craig, I think you need to be careful in making such comparisons. They often do not compare like with like and take a rather uncritical view of reported cost data. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. As I recently wrote on these pages: “There are abundant good news stories about growing renewables investment and declining costs, e.g. for solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal technologies. The technologies themselves are improving incrementally. Enthusiasts claim that renewables are already cheaper than alternatives. Great! No need for subsidies or carbon pricing! Since not a single national climate policy is based on this premise, it seems safe to bet that the enthusiasm is premature.” Of course the topic deserves continuing careful critical analysis, but exaggerated claims about declining costs, which have been a feature of green advocacy for many years, are simply not helpful.

Yes Tombee, and energy suppliers have to date charged as much as the gold plated market will bear! And completely missing in the debate is energy density comparisons?

Where 500 tons of clean safe cheap CARBON FREE thorium has more energy density that a million tons of CARBON LOADED coal?

Molten salt reactors and thorium have a proven track record of being inherently walk away safe.

Yes salt corrodes and sacrificial anodes; plus electrolytic precipitation may help minimise that! Moreover, the right choices of heat tolerant construction materials, takes care of most heat issues!

We have an inherently walk away safe process that is arguably cheaper than coal! Can be mass produced in factories, which if building larger more complex aircraft, are limited to one a day! [And think, refueling may only be necessary once every 100 years? Put one in my backyard, please!]

And given similar mass production, one shipping container sized reactor a day is doable!
What in the living blue blazers are we waiting for? Permission? From whom? Mr Putin?

A place like King island would be overpowered around the clock? With one 40 MW generator and likely for less than 3 cents per kilowatt hour, of carbon free energy!
Try doing that (anywhere) with diesel/solar panels/wind turbines.

All NUCLEAR is not the same. The gamma radiation in a fission process is potentially deadly and can kill!

Whereas the alpha radiation of NUCLEAR isotopes can and has cured previously incurable cancer! Similarly not all nuclear reactions are the same. Some are fast some are slow!

Even so, the slow thorium molten salt reactor can burn current nuclear waste and create modern miracle medical isotopes, we are either running out of or getting short of?

Simply put, we've never ever needed fast breeder reactors!

What are we missing and why are we still waiting? Surely it can't be something as simple as rank vested interest on the part of this nation's gormless decision makers?
Alan B.