It's too late to fix the problem of anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change.

It should have been addressed 50 years ago.

And now the problem is just too big too fix.

Especially now that China is using action on climate change as a political weapon to get the US to kowtow to its demands.

Relax Alan, most of us understand that ultimately nuclear of one form
or another is the ONLY solution.
Incidentally the next cold period is coming according to the cycle
timing in about 300 to 500 years for the cold minimum.

to continue
As additional turbines are added they have to be spread around the
area covered by the grid. The grid has to have a high capacity and
a very good communications network to enable the switching of power
from anywhere to anywhere. A country the size of Australia might well
be able to do it, but at what cost ?

The grid has to work from winter 4pm to winter 8am which time includes
the time of maximum demand, so the capacity of solar is irrelevant
to some extent.

Batteries are promoted as the solution and they can be a big help
in stabalising the grid. However there is no way they can be
considered to be a backup supply because of cost.
Assume a cold winter late afternoon, and as usual the wind dies off
and the batteries come on as backup. It goes all night with little
or no wind.
The next morning sun up and wind blowing and a set of flat batteries.
Now we need to recharge them ! Where to get the power ?
Not off the grid, it is flat out supplying the country anyway and
the power needed is almost the same as the days need anyway.
Just hope tonight is not a cold still night !
Therein lies the crux of the problem of solar and wind and batteries.

SR, "... got on with driving toward renewables which are continuing to come down in costs in leaps and bounds..."

Without subsidies, targets and mix-mandates, their cost is high. How can it not be with the enormity of materials required per watt-hour produced? Storage sufficient for 100% renewables (excluding hydro where it's possible) is astronomically expensive.

If it's all so cheap and projected to get cheaper, why is Germany preparing for decades of fossil-fueled backup? It even has the advantage of extension cords to French nuclear and Nordic hydro. Why is it that Japan is building so many coal-fired power plants for its future needs?

Hydrogen is needed for synfuels for shipping and long haulage. Efficiencies of energy conversions from its production through to final use don't look good without high temperature electrolysis, industrial heat which only nuclear can cleanly and viably provide.

The article hits all the nails on the head. The examples of Germany, California and South Australia don't convince politicians of the stupidity of the path we're going down with intermittents and gas. There are no cheap storage solutions, just faith in their 'continuous' price reduction towards affordability through unwise extrapolation beyond the date set. We obviously need a crisis to realise we've screwed up.

I can only hope that Biden's impact here stirs the Coalition to tout nuclear as the solution, but I doubt it. One reason I voted for it was thinking nuclear would get a bigger guernsey than an enquiry, but no, we get gas as our saviour. Gas doesn't cut it, nor HELE coal.

With a trillion dollar debt, high energy prices to consumers, energy-intensive industries emigrating, more frequent droughts affecting primary production, an embargo on coal-exports at some point, and China flexing it's muscles, our grandchildren are in for har, hard times.

#1/ to operate any modern coal-fired power plant with something else mall one needs is a heat source and efficient heat transfer!! Waste heat could be tasked at almost costless desalination!

#2/ the Chinese are installing thorium reactors in their warships and subs!?

#3/ Anyone reckon it's time we had a serious look at thorium reactors and all their many advantages? One of which has to be the unlimited production of medical isotopes! And the rejuvenation of the bush, airlines, hotels, motels as millions of medical tourists that would follow this production out to the myriad day clinics we could build out there!

We could start by simply lifting the taboo on open transparent submissions on the topic of thorium!? I could send you a dozen or more vids on the peer-reviewed science if you and Sally Neighbours would lift your (Ve don't vant to know) FB messenger embargo?
Alan B.

Lucerferase, the big problem with getting any change is that the
schools are turning out 18 year olds brainwashed against anythig but
wind and solar. They will start voting after they leave school.
You can see why the coalition is leaning towards wind & solar.

The sun is the driver of the planets temperature, generally recognised in an 11 year solar cycle. Yes, CO2 has a peripheral effect on planetary temperature when measured from 0 to 325ppm. Increases in atmospheric saturation by CO2 beyond this 325ppm level has a vanishingly small temperature effect, only realistically measured mathematically.