Two reasons why Australia should reduce emissions; firstly to get an early mover advantage on depletion as we see with east Australian gas. It would be insane if we ended up importing LNG. Second we should be a leader not a follower. We can hardly ask China and India to cut back when we have been profligate emitters for decades.

A simpler criticism of the RET is that it costs billions but does not reduce emissions. Look at the lower table here
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/14/australia-on-track-to-miss-paris-climate-targets-as-emissions-hit-record-highs
For the financial years beginning September 2001 and ending June 2018 electricity sector emissions increased from 180.4 Mt to 184.0. They were supposed to nosedive and drag down the all sectors total. The RET is simply not fit for purpose.

Can we restore the affordable, reliable power we once had in a NE'G'-free world?

Yes. But it will take decades. What is needed is:
• Legislation to ensure fair competition
• Level playing field
• Truly technology neutral.
• No picking winners
• No subsidies or favourable regulations for some technologies and penalties for others – other than on the basis of their relative health impacts.
• Repeal the RET and feed in tariffs for renewables
• Repeal the legislation that bans nuclear power in Australia
• Do not allow any foreign country to control our key infrastructure: electricity, gas, internet, etc.

What's the best way to reduce anthropogenic global emissions, if these are a problem?

GHG emissions are not a problem. They are a net benefit. Global warming would be beneficial, not detrimental. Global cooling would be damaging. To maximise benefits of warming and minimise the potential severe consequences of cooling, polices to reduce GHG emissions should be discontinued.

Taswegian we have about 300 years supply of shale gas alone. That is not counting traditional gas or coal seam gas. We have a couple of hundred years of coal, surely you don't believe we will not move onto a yet untapped fuel in that time.

Well we will if we don't allow the ratbag green fringe to destroy our civilisation with their continual kibitzing.

From a purely economic standpoint. Doing nothing is not an option. And if we have superior technology? what prevents us from deploying/developing it. Could there possibly be any link as reported this morning, between political donations, outcomes and the surprise sacking of the ABC's CEO, also front and centre in this mornings news? Possibly for allowing the studies findings to be publicised? But here I digress.

If the is a way to produce cheap clean safe reliable dispatchable power for less than 2 cents per KwH? Why haven't we embraced it? Could it possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the coal lobby and their political donations, and the reason some pollies are very slow in accepting reform and up to the minute transparency in this area?

And behind the fact that we have an energy crisis our manufacturing sector disappearing with all the jobs and overall prosperity that used to be ours? Now lost as our representatives represent the interests of powerful vested interests above the national interest and or that of the dummies who elect them?

We are but a minnow economically! But if we were first and hit the ground running with energy costing the average mug voter and industry alike, less than 2 cents per KwH? There'd be a veritable tidal wave of high tech energy dependent, manufacturers queuing to gain entry. TBC.
Alan B.

From the economic standpoint alone, there're two things we need to do to set Australia and Australians up for the most prosperous future possible.

One is affordable reliable dispatchable energy. MSR thorium! Creating an economy the envy of the world that even the emerging economies/biggest emitters have no other choice than to emulate! That's how we affect outcomes!

Not by the usual blather or megaphone diplomacy!

And years overdue tax reform! Real reform rather than Clayton's tax reform or tinkering at the edges. Has to be an unavoidable flat tax that every boy and his dog pays, always providing they earn above the accepted tax-free threshold!

Given actual dollars, the high tax paid by any corporation for the year ended 2018, was 13 cents in the dollar, and the highest salary earners are so able to manage their affairs so as not to pay more than 15 cents in the dollar?

Top tax anybody needs to pay is 15% and at 15% 2% more in real company tax dollars than those who paid their "fair share" paid?

Moreover, given there were no permissible deductions or exclusions!?

Able to avoid the averaged 7% currently ripped from the bottom line by current compliance costs! Meaning the effective rate for Australian corporations would be just 8%.

Or if you will, 5% less in real terms than that which the top taxpayers paid in actual surrendered dollars. Even so, much more money for internal revenue minus the current costly, massive money churn!

Furthermore, there're considerable savings to be made on the expenditure side if we once again fund public health and education(all of it) via a means-tested education and or health endowment that the client or parent directs.

The age of entitlement is over! We can't afford to carry indolent drones/unearnt privilege/entitled leaners! Time for a real change we can all believe in! And pollies (all of them) able to make all their (costed/financially validated) promises attached to space age lie detectors!

Given the influence of big money, big media etc! Alan B.

All that is needed to be able to formulate a rational energy policy is straight arithmetic and an understanding of the scope of the problem. Ideologically driven arguments from the Greens and their fellow travellers are simply a waste of space as well as a waste of energy. Great article Geoff.

Taswegan "when we have been profligate emitters for decades."

The mass of Australia's emissions is miniscule by world standards and if Australia dropped off the face of planet earth it would make no difference internationally. Stop using dishonest and misleading statistics to try to justify an idelologically indefensible argument.

Low-cost carbon-free energy means a viable steel and aluminium industry the rest of the world cannot match!

Even with hydropower given they are attached to high voltage transmissions lines and distribution systems that bleed as much as 75% of their generating capacity before they power anything.

Be it a toaster your fridge or big industrial electrically powered arc furnaces. MSR thorium technology would lower those costs up to twelve times making the household budget go far further/restore much of our surrendered discretionary spending so vital for a staggering debt-laden domestic economy.

And given it's our smelters in operational overdrive churning out the most affordable lowest carbon footprint metals in the world!

We can affordably, retrofit most of our domiciles public amenity schools hospitals etc with the locally invented two tank system that makes endlessly sustainable biogas for waste currently pumped in annual millions of tons, out to sea.

The byproducts are high carbon soil improver and thoroughly sanitised nutrient loaded reusable irrigation suitable, water, and as annual billions of litres.

This gas can when scrubbed fire up also locally sited ceramic fuel cells placed where the power is consumed. And given the 80% energy coefficient of the combination able to supply continuous on-demand electrical domestic power and at least a 50% salable surplus, at less than a quarter of current coal-fired power.

And a gas supply that more than matches our combined domestic and industrial needs, FOREVER! Something to terrify the fossil fuel industry/lobbyists, whose political donations sway decisions in their favour and away from the national interest?

If there's another rational believable explanation for our current energy prices, dire economic straights? I've yet to hear it.
Alan B.

PoP according to this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Australia is a much worse per person emitter than China, India and all the major English speaking countries. If you accept the need to take action then Australia would be free riding without a relatively bigger effort.

Where I agree with the OLO article is that quotas and subsidies for renewable energy will never achieve those emissions reductions. Those who say we should extend the RET are therefore part of the problem not the solution.

I was pleased to read this article as it confirmed my beliefs that I
expressed in an article on here some time ago.
The one thing that Geoff did not cover was the geographical spread that
becomes necessary to take advantage of varying weather conditions in
different areas.
The whole country would have to be covered by a very high capacity grid.
For weather and seasonal reasons the wind & solar in say, NW Australia
might have to supply almost all the power needed at 5pm in NSW &
Victoria. Anywhere has to be able to support anywhere.
The cost of such a grid might be equivalent to the cost of the
generation installations. As the area of the grid is reduced in size
I believe that the cost of the generation and grid would increase
exponentially. Together with the exponential increase Geoff shows
with the increased percentage of renewables I suspect we have two such
mathematical financial nightmares working together.

It is rapidly becoming obvious to all that the cost is astronomical
and will never be attempted. Knowing all this back say in the 1980s
we would have banned the installation of wind & solar grid connected systems.
Once we rebuild our generation using coal or nuclear perhaps wind and
solar systems should be banned totally. Would improve the scenery.

Reports emanating from the USA claimed that a couple of very large solar thermal power plants, built by private players? Were able to match or beat coal-fired power plants on build cost and 24/7 dispatchable power thanks to heat sink technology. And built respectively in Arizona and California?

And given all the costs were up front and the fuel forever free. And mostly uninterrupted in arid desert country they were able to buy for a proverbial song?

Able to beat the pants off of coal? Given coal needs to be placed near a large permanent body of water, whereas that located as a solar thermal in arid desert regions needs only a reasonable aquifer or piped water for the steam turbines?

That said, we have another option that would need a visionary Leader and that is using our huge northern tides to run large tidal flow power plants. This would look like a comparatively narrow channel linked to two/three largish deepish man-made lakes.

The channels filled across the flow with turbines with reversible props that'd turn as the water flowed in and or out. And replicated wherever very large tidal flows make it practicable?

Lock gates at the entrance and the connecting middle canals would ensure there was a constant flow of water in either direction and power generation 24/7?

And the peak flows could then use adjacent pumped hydro as storage to ensure reliable dispatchable power. And various industrial towns could be built at these locations to value-add to current mineral exports etc, which should leave as finished metal or transformed products.

Alternatively, used to power space age desal and allow labour intensive (under glass) agriculture where little if any is currently possible?
Alan B.

Geoff Carmody makes a compelling case about the financial, economic and social mindlessness of increasing our dependence on the deceptively so-called ‘renewable energy’ options as currently pursued.

This is his area of expertise where the incontrovertible facts of actuality override the fanciful, often emotional and ill thought through claims and assumptions of those who for various reasons support these intermittent, clearly increasingly expensive sources of energy.

To ignore this information is to accelerate the loss of manufacturing and other wealth-creating industry, jobs, and livelihoods in this country. This can only leave us all worse off.

The main driver for this otherwise nonsensical move are the equally ridiculous and readily disproven claims that man’s emissions of carbon dioxide have become the principal driver of the present warming period.

Because of the divergence of views held by respected and knowledgeable people on both sides of this issue and because of its mushrooming implications for our society, it is an issue that urgently needs to be resolved, one way or the other, in a comprehensive and broadly acceptable manner.

Unless someone can think of a better way, I would suggest that the government institute a major Inquiry into this matter where the science, evidence, and facts surrounding the issue are thoroughly debated until a clear resolution, with a high degree of confidence, is arrived at.

Governments then will be able to pursue evidence-based policy rather than the devastatingly poorly-informed populist approach currently employed to everyone’s obvious disadvantage.

Ian McClintock,
Geoff's case may be superficially compelling, but think about it a bit more and you'll see it's actually based on a lack of understanding of the issues. If you think his claims amount to incontrovertible facts, you're very gullible!

Geoff Carmody's expertise in this area seems to consist primarily of spreading anti-renewables propaganda. He has a background as an economist: a profession where getting away with making erroneous predictions based on false assumptions is rife, and he certainly has no qualms about using similarly shoddy calculations here! An obvious example is the calculation of how many renewable power units and how much storage are needed to emulate baseload, instead of the more useful comparison of the amount of storage needed to meet the actual requirements (from renewables v from baseload).

One of the things he doesn't understand is that the cost of renewables has come down a long way, and is still falling. It's no longer accurate to claim coal and/or gas works out cheaper than wind and solar. They have different cost structures so direct comparisons are heavily dependent on assumptions, but the balance is strongly shifting in favour of renewables (and already new coal fired power is uneconomic). And though the current system of cross subsidies makes renewables seem more expensive, it results in more energy coming into the market, lowering the price. It's likely electricity prices here have peaked now.

James Temple's California study is far less significant than Geoff implies. California's wind and solar output is highly seasonal, and (unusually) they're both high in summer and low in winter. I'm skeptical that the difference is really as big as Chart 1 depicts, but even if it isn't, it should be obvious to everyone that batteries are not practical for smoothing out the seasonality. But that's not the only way to reach 100% renewables. Hence Chart 2 is irrelevant even for California, let alone Australia which doesn't share California's seasonality problem.