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.