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?