My major problem with quotas and subsidies for wind and solar is that we are paying a premium price for a non-premium service. In return for 9c per kwh subsidy wind power should not be missing in action during heatwaves. Solar should be powering kitchen appliances at 7 pm.

In 2017 we'll pay over $2 bn in extra electricity costs for the large renewables target yet our emissions appear to be increasing. It fails at its claimed no. 1 objective. That said some windpower could save on expensive gas which will be in short supply after 2019 in eastern Australia according AEMO. Rooftop solar cuts out the middleman so long as it doesn't force higher costs onto others.

Turnbull has promised he'll cut emissions by at least a quarter by 2030. Barring recession I don't know if that's possible. As big coal baseload plants like Hazelwood and Liddell shut down we'll need to replace them with something equally reliable but cheaper long term than gas. Since energy storage is ether too expensive or small scale that has to be nuclear but a vocal minority can't seem to grasp it.

I have already commented in The Australian but here it is again: Wishful thinking about renewable energy technologies is potentially disastrous. Gary Johns’ survey of the scientific literature suggests how climate change itself might affect their future. There is already a disconcerting enthusiasm for predicting rising usage and plummeting costs of renewables over several decades. Of course we need to plan for large clean energy investments. However present faith in such long projections is unprecedented. Right now sun and wind energy comprise around 1.1% of Australia’s and 0.6% of the world’s total energy supply. Advocates talk about ‘100% renewables’. Their extrapolations are huge. That’s where the real risk lies.

Wind and solar never had a shine. And neither does the thick as two planks stupidity of the dumbest dolts on the planet, who argue until they blue in the face to support their own confirmation bias!

Coal gas, and oil, are not only very replaceable with vastly superior options; but we should embrace those options on the irrefutable economic grounds alone!

I mean and seriously, if a mere 8 grams of thorium can power your house and car for 100 years, for around $100.00 total, why would you buy a mountain of dirty stinking coal that has many more toxic pollutants (lead, arsenic, mercury, carcinogenic cadmium, uranium) than carbon, or a tanker full of oil to run your transport options for the same alluded to, period! How dumb is that?

Why not just burn money and the grandkids?

We can farm oil rich algae on a broad enough scale to completely replace all our current imports of diesel and jet fuel. And use the crushed waste to underpin an arable land and food free ethanol industry.

We can also treat our waste to recover all the biologically created methane, which can be used as is to run generators or scrubbed to use in ceramic fuel cells, the latter's exhaust product, mostly water vapour. Or run the scrubbed biogas through a catalytic process to convert it to liquid methanol, another petrol replacing substitute.

The same process equally applicable to flared methane, flared off in millions of tons annually!

The trouble with thinking inside very limited circles Gary, is the questions are equally limited along with the answers and options.

And thinking inside a locked and bolted (confirmation bias) coal,oil, gas, box, even less advantageous!

People like you with their paws all over the levers of the economy, the reason for S.A's blackouts and the demise of vehicle building/manufacturing in this country, along with the wealth and opportunities we could be creating, as opposed to selling the joint to debt laden foreign speculators!

Well done, thou good and faithful servant.
Alan B.

“David MacKay, chief scientific adviser to Britain’s Department of Energy and Climate Change from 2009 to 2014, thought the idea of renewables powering Britain was an “appalling delusion”.

2017, and it's still and appalling delusion. But then, the RET rent-a-crowd has always been deluded.

Gary you demonstrate how pig headed ignorance has been entrenched in the Labour pary. Whether it is perverting the marriage act or causing deaths to pensioners without power the ability to think has been taken away from your party. The swamp needs to be drained.

We had three black-outs in Adelaide last night, each for a couple of hours. It's amazing how much we depend on steady electricity. I thought, "Oh well, I'll just go on the computer," but of course, battery back-up or not, the modem was off. My fridge de-freezed while it was waiting, waiting, waiting, and you get into a panic that maybe the power will never come on again. Accidentally, I'd bought only tea-light candles which are cute but pretty useless. Still, it's amazing how quick you get used to very little light, like our ancestors had to, I suppose.

I wandered outside to see if the traffic lights down the road were off, but they still were working, two out of the three occasions. Hell of a lot of traffic on the road, all probably looking for a fast-food place, but of course ...... I sat and watched the traffic, it's quite therapeutic, but only so much. Back inside and look at the tea-candles. About all you can do is drink, which I did with gusto, wandering outside again with my mug, like some homeless person, or pop-star. And so to bed.

I could hear the bloke next door, vainly checking his fuse-box, probably for the sixth time. I left all the light switches on, TV and radio too. So they all came back on at about one o'clock, very disorienting.

The joys of renewables ! God, we're a soft bunch of wusses these days !

just wait for the freezing winter Loudmouth when you have to cut down trees to light a fire to stay warm. You can be sure that the Greens from the leafy suburbs will still have their caol fired heating.

Complain, complain whinge whine about power outages, jobs disappearing, but if nothing changes on the supply side? These problems can only grow!

Put out a million more solar systems and when the sun goes down, back to system normal, with more factory closures etc. The folk with control can't seem to think beyond privatisation and the grid reliant 5 minute auction system, with foreigners and their profit expectations front and centre of this calamity!

Wind advocates say build more wind turbines, then rub their hands with glee when the wind picks up, until it gets too strong and blows their preferred business model away! Head down bum up coal advocates say it's not getting warmer, shovel more coal all while completely ignoring any consequent adverse results? Just as long as the dollars roll, these (cerchung, cerchung)cash registers with eyes, will ignore all else?

As always, all of the above will studiously ignore the blindingly obvious, safe, clean, cheap nuclear power and none safer, cleaner or cheaper than walk away safe, molten salt thorium based power! And because various cash flows would be decimated with the roll out of this tried and not found wanting, technology!

The only way we the people can get it is to change those at the helm, steering the ship of state, and essentially, none with a vested interest in the status quo, or the ultra deep pockets of profit gouging foreigners?

The time for this endless pointless squabbling/inaction, is well and truly over, as is the control of the do nothing hands on the helm!

One only has to listen to or experience the howls of (never was, parking attendants) derision to understand just that much? (cerchung cerchung)
Alan B.

Alan B our own ANSTO is working on one of the problems of thorium reactors
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Molten-salt-reactor-research-develops-class-of-alloys-08021701.html
They didn't say they'd solved it.

Climate change will definitely affect renewables. The implication of my earlier post was that wind is low in heatwaves with heavy aircon demand. I think in the last decade we've been getting windy heatwaves the sort that make bushfires hard to put out eg the time of the 2015 Toodyay WA fires. That's a mixed blessing of more power but also more economic loss.

In today's press it was suggested SA will get more hydro power from Tasmania particularly when Hazelwood Vic closes in a few weeks. A few months ago you could drive a kilometre out onto the dried lake bed on some of the dams, now (temporarily?) over 40% full. I'd advise SA not to depend on others.

dahh,

I'm just a little worried that we are running down the wrong road - the renewables path. The article makes a very obvious and good point. When climate issues arise it will be coal and other stored fuel sources that will make it possible to keep going.

An event I foresee is a volcanic explosion followed by a 'Dark Age', no sun, with high winds and subsequent droughts - its happened before, many times - about every two hundred years and its due again. (See David Key's book 'Catastrophe' for one glimpse at this)

Again, another variable that drives me nuts is the whole CO2 issue. It may or may not have something to do with the climate, but for sure the little we do as humans has little effect. What we do as humans with weed sprays, insecticides, GMO are far more immediate and horrifying - yet we are focused like sheep on an eye dog's shinny left eye.

And clean coal is easy, I've seen this time and time again in Germany. The CO2 issue is just irrelevant.

Climate changes all the time, big cycles, little shifts and major variables. Indeed the article makes the valid point - rely on the stored up energy, don't harvest as you go ...

Maybe I shouldn't worry, humans are rational, thinkers and smart ... our politicians will save us!

Put a heat lamp in a socket, connect a dimmer switch, turn it down a notch or two and as sure as hens lay eggs it'll produce less heat!

Similarly when the big heat lamp in the sky goes into a waning phase, it also puts out less heat! So, don't worry, Why are we breaking ambient heat records after record.

And if the clueless like you prevent anyone doing anything effective, with your do nothing advice? What happens when the big dimmer switch in the sky, ups the radiant output? [If you think it's hot now!]

It has all happened before you say and maybe so? And as always for every cause there is an effect! And for every effect there is a cause!

So if the sun is in a waning phase(cooler) and isn't creating the heatwaves and hottest recorded temperatures, with some weekend western sydney numbers set to break all previous highest ever records?

If the sun isn't responsible, given the waning phase since the mid seventies. (NASA) What's warming the joint up?

Millions of boy scout rubbing trillions of sticks together? Or millions of Trumps rubbing their ill gotten billions together? Levity aside, if not the sun and NASA has ruled it out, what then?

Burying the head up your razz and ignoring it, won't make it go away or fix itself!

And what's your problem with a turbocharged economy, record economic growth and unprecedented prosperity. Because that's what on the table with a decarbed economy and almost free energy!
Alan B.

I note Shell is looking at solar power stations with coal seam gas as a back up supply. Makes sense to me.

Given we have plenty of gas perhaps this could well be a medium term solution as we make the transition in to the likes of nuclear power which in my opinion is pretty much a given. We are simply going the long way about it.

So why renewables at all? We know they're more expensive. We know they're less reliable. We know they chomp and fry birds and other critters. So why? (when I say 'we' here, I'm mean Australia.)

Do we need them because we're running out of alternatives? Nup. If needs be we can get our electricity from coal for the next few hundred years at least.

Do we need them because we have to reduce CO2 levels? Nup. Even if we reduced our emissions by 50%-100%, the effect on atmospheric CO2 levels would be too small to measure. Besides, if the overriding goal was reducing emissions, we'd all be cheering fracking rather than banning it.

Do we need them because we need to be a good global citizen pulling our weight along with the other nations? Well that seems to be the main argument - that we have to met our Paris commitments, like everyone else. But we know that the USA will pull out of Paris, that China's commitments were wafer thin and that India made no commitments. So we are trying to be a good global citizen in a world where none of the major players intend to follow suit.

So why renewables? Well a lot of people have and are making a lot of money out of them and they don't want the gravy-train to stop. And its trendy. And we're told they are the future in the belief that we are able to foretell the future. And in a world where we are indoctrinated to think that government can solve all problems, promoting renewables is one of the few ways governments can be seen to be 'solving' the weather problem.

Burn coal. Keep burning coal until something equally efficacious and cheap comes along. Sure, research cleaner coal, even fund it if needs be. Sure, research renewables to see if can be made equally efficacious and cheap as coal. Sure, research other fantasies like thorium and fairy dust.

But just now we need to solve today's problems with today's technology. Let tomorrow solve tomorrow's problems with tomorrows technology.

there may well be a number of problems for energy in various states and with regard to recent policies in terms of rising prices for consumers, but any suggestion that we should not move towards a much less reliance on fossil fuels is the stuff of stupidity.

it will happen; question is how?

Hi Chris,

And until then ? Maybe mhaze is on the money. Of course, governments should be putting far more into research into renewable and (cleaner) non-renewable energy generation. Maybe it should have done that well before subsidising actual production of plant by current-level renewable technologies.

My finger-in-the-air measure of AGW has been maximum temperature at Renmark in the SA Riverland, where I picked apricots back in 1980, and when the temperature got up to 46 degrees. Smugly, I waited year after year for it to get anywhere near that, and yesterday it did: 47.1 degrees. My Damascene moment.

Joe

Not sure that we have plenty of gas. See the red coloured area in the graph of Figure 1 here
https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/PDF/2016-Gas-Statement-of-Opportunities.pdf
After 2020 it appears we'll need to get gas from places where they don't want drilling. AGL's suggestion of importing LNG wasn't all that tongue in cheek.

Wind and commercial solar are vastly quicker and cheaper to build than current nuclear. They have capital costs down around $2 per watt and one year build times compared to $8 and ten years for nuclear. They save a bit of gas not so much coal which is why emissions aren't declining. However it does give the appearance of doing something which could be why it is favoured so much by ALP governments. Hopefully the new mini-nukes SMRs will only take two years to construct though still $8/w capex.

' waited year after year for it to get anywhere near that, and yesterday it did: 47.1 degrees. My Damascene moment.'

come on Loudmouth get with the program. The heat is obviously hiding in the ocean!

Heat is building in the ocean, in the increased algae plant matter as evidence of substance indicates.

It's an extraordinary situation, landlubbers seem only able to discuss the surface of the ocean and above, without comprehending anthropogenic-linked damage and changes occurring underwater.

Planet Earth is not flat, there is much more beyond the apparent edge. There is much more to the ocean than just the surface.

Why is there such seemingly relentless focus on CO2?

Quote "there may well be a number of problems for energy in various states and with regard to recent policies in terms of rising prices for consumers, but any suggestion that we should not move towards a much less reliance on fossil fuels is the stuff of stupidity.

it will happen; question is how?

Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday"

What an intelligent post. Full of useful information. Typical of green twits, do as I say, because I know. Fossil fuel is bad because I said so. Garbage, not science.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if these people tried to give some real reason for these statements. I suppose it's too much to hope, but just perhaps if they investigated the basis of their opinion, they would find there is none. Not a single proven fact, but a lot of magician like slight of hand.

Come on fellers, give us a scientific fact just once, if you want to be taken seriously.

hasbeen,

the world is changing because there is already a realisation by many people and nations, perhaps lost on you, that the world cannot sustain higher and higher use of fossil fuels for ever and ever.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/06/03/a-record-year-for-renewable-energy/#1393dc6c2066

I am just one of millions and millions that do believe that something needs to be done. it is the mainstream dummy, not an elitist view. you need to read more than The Australian.

with due respect to gary johns and hasbeen, I prefer to read a lot of news sources.

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/danger_point.html

but, hang on, maybe NASA is part of the radical greens movement.

it is not the fault of renewables that are causing Aust's problems.

It is the policy implementation of energy policy in this country that is causing the problems.

the argument that we should rely on cheap fossil fuels is merely a symptom that it appears all to hard in Australia for our political/policy leaders to find a better policy mix.

yep, let the world just keep on pumping greenhouse gases out; as if.

Again, in regards to renewables in Australia, the question of if or whether its getting hotter, will continue to get hotter and all the other predictions, is entirely besides the point.

Even if Australia were to go all in on renewables, close down every coal plant, force every vehicle to go electric. Even if we were to cease to grow emissions and even became a net absorber of CO2, if our emissions went negative. Even with all that, what would be the impact on global temperatures and/or global CO2 levels? Answer: so small, so minute, that it couldn't be measured even if there was an effect.

So our push to cut emissions via renewables, isn't about reducing temperatures or saving the GBR or Tuvalu or the current 'threatened' species du jour. Because our policies alone can't do any of those things, no matter how far we try to retreat from modernity.

As I said, the logic says that we are doing it so as to be in synchronicity ith the rest of the planet. But the rest of the planet, at least the major players, are all moving in the other direction.

Oz does about 1.8% world AGW. The Antarctic Larsen ice shelf is about to be launched and is just 2000km away. A 20m wide sailing ship needs 6000 sq metre sails to do 8km/hour or 10 days to reach the Nullarbor SA. The iceberg is about 20,000m wide so needs only 6000,000 sq m of sails with solar panels to haul sails for tacking.

When beached in Oz the 500m high berg will have 50m above water suitable for reaction or impulse turbines to be fitted in grooved water-channels as the ice melts. SA will have air-con for chooks and budgies and beer cartons.

What are you on tonight, Nick? LOL

Hi Nick,

Around forty years ago, a top South Australian scientist [no, that's not an oxymoron] proposed dragging a fifty-mile iceberg up Spencer's Gulf, mooring it around Port Pirie and piping off the fresh water as it melted. Back in those days, a shortage of water was probably of more concern than global warming. But your thoughtful suggestion could work wonders in so many ways.

Cheers,

Joe

Well then Chris Lewis, I gather then that you are not a cardinal, or even a bishop in this new anti energy religion you preach. Surely you must be a high priest at least, to be so committed.

I know it must be hard for the converted & brainwashed to be sensible, & look at the real science, rather than the UN sponsored religious hooey of your new found cause.

I know the fraudsters discourage any of the faithful reading any blasphemy in the form of the real science flooding the climate field, but it is time to wake up mate. The fraud is dying, don't go all the way down with it.

Of course the drag co-efficient is mainly the cross section bow not the length. The iceberg shape is fairly laminar flow and the correct proportions for deep sea voyages . Compared with trade winds, the Roaring Forties are exactly the right speed and direction for a trouble-free Nullarbor landing with less sail area than estimated in the blueprint. Crowd-funding prospectus is available from Hon J Wetherill MP and AC 240 volts.

SA blames the energy authority for a failure to "demand" that ENGIE crank up Pelican Point. ENGIE will yield only when the price offered makes it worthwhile. What's the authority to do, mandate a price ENGIE must accept? Great investment climate, that.

Whether paying privateers for peak generation or running state owned generators, reliable electricity costs a monza where renewables are at high penetration. SA has relied on interconnection to date but, with Hazlewood going offline, the cost of Victorian electricity will both rise and become unreliable, so coal-fired power in SA will have to be considered. Solar thermal is unaffordable at the scale required, besides being unreliable. Dreams must go on the backburner.

If only there was some long term sense in the world pursuing RE to avert CAGW, one could justify the pain of it all. With no scalable, affordable energy storage solution here or on the horizon, there is no sense in it.

The oceans are obsorbing heat how else is Greenland and Antarctic melting.
The warmer the oceans get the more co2 it dispels. No matter what Turnbull does climate change is not going to stop for him.