“Apart from the ABC's green touts, few see rationality in our for-the-moment PM's compote of half measures intended to 'fix' an addled energy market. Unlikely to pass the Senate …..”. (Peter O'Brien, Quadrant Online, 24/10/17)

The best place imaginable for Malcom Turnbull, is not engaged in fixing Australia's problems, but directing traffic at the front desk of a brothel...there's bound to be many unhappy customers though, but Malcom should be used to unhappiness by now.

Green religion thanks to Rudd, Gillard, Turnbull has led to this total debacle. Tony in power was to cowardly to call this renewable scam for what it was and is. China with its 1000 coal station must be laughing at Australia's naïve fools who have made power unreliable and expensive. The most educated and dumbest generation we have ever had since Federation.

Some ultra right wing conservatives see political capital in a great big fight energy fight with Labor!?

Fixing it has to be worth far more, come next election!

Most energy suppliers and investors are more pragmatic than many coal devotees?

Even so, there's a future for coal in the steel industry, OURS!

In the creation of all our diesel/jet fuel or cheap hydrogen as portable fuel?

The latter options requiring cheap energy to make them competitive and financially feasible!

Something with a projected price of 1.98 cents P.K.H. as the median? (Professor Hargreaves)

That narrows the field down to walk away safe, molten salt, thorium? Which has several advantages.

#1 it works in normal atmosphere and therefore needs no containment vessel, nor special hardened building.

#2 Because the process is liquid based, the expanding, xenon isn't trapped in the fuel, which can and does cause or has caused containment vessel rupture or pipe sheer, releasing 300 atmospheres of pressure?

Possibly implicated in Chernobyl? ( nuclear technologist, Kirk Sorensen)

#3 Given molten salt thorium operates at normal atmosphere, the fuel can be circulated and refreshed, with the unwanted material along with medical miracle isotopes, removed without expensive shut downs! Unless desirable? Meaning the fuel can be far more completely burned; added to as necessary.

#4 Moreover, such systems can be deployed to very safely burn waste, which simply becomes additional fuel for the systems!

#5 Earn the nation/economy annual billions as part of the process!

#6 Enough, if one of the early bird economies to completely pay for the entire roll out of several such systems!

#7 And entirely off budget!

#8 The final waste product of molten salt, thorium (1%) is eminently suitable as long life space batteries!

#9 Able to very economically, power new space age deionization dialysis desalination and virtually drought proof Australia/bring vast arid regions into full food and fibre production! Provide almost limitless opportunities for quite massive entrepreneurial enterprise/cooperative capitalism!

Simply put, only those with manure for brains, would chose coal fired power, all while rejecting thorium, with Rasputin like religious zealotry zeal!
Alan B.

The main purpose behind the NEG is to ensure that the energy retailers buy the correct ratio of dispatchable power to non-dispatchable power to ensure network stability.

The other benefit will be to bring out in the open the real cost of wind and solar power as the cost of back up generation will be automatically included.

The ratio for renewable power will act pretty much as the RET has been working now.

Don - excellent article. I had wondered about all those different bodies and how they fitted in.. now I see the whole thing has grown like topsy.. good stuff..

This article only confirms my own confusion regarding the regulatory system for electricity in Australia. Moreover, I’ve tried to research info, for my own blog, on why electricity prices continue to rise, and have gotten nowhere. I do notice, though, that the author regards Australia’s compliance with the Paris climate agreement as ‘fatuous’ without explaining why. My interest is in renewable energy, disruptive technologies, battery storage, electric vehicles and the like, but it seems that the author is promoting business as usual (as is our current federal government and many state governments, it seems). As to the NEG, we can but wait and see, but I’m very suspicious about the fact that the Feds seem to have a policy of never mentioning clean energy. It’s clear that the movement away from dirty energy is increasing.