The huge growth in population and GDP in the last two centuries has come on the back of high yielding energy sources. Back in the Neolithic you had to collect your own firewood to keep warm now you flick a switch. We've programmed ourselves to depend on it yet we kid ourselves we can consume at the same level with diffuse and intermittent energy. If that fickle energy has to be stored it will be even more expensive.

On our present course I predict several things will happen. Subsidy fatigue will hit some heavy industries like aluminium smelting so we will watch them decamp offshore. New industries like rare earth processing won't get off the ground without big power subsidies. When all the cities are hitting 45C air conditioning will be remotely switched off. EV charging will be rationed at times, something that has already happened in Switzerland and California. Growing food will be harder with less tractor fuel and fertiliser. For those of us still around after 2030 welcome to the brave new future.

Now the politicians are doing the opposite and making us poorer with unreliable and expensive electricity, and mass immigration.

Just one small example of the latter in SA, where the growing population requires more housing - in outlying areas, and the Labor government is increasing every SA Water bill by $85 a year to pay for water supply to these remote homes and sewerage.

The electricity bills will be next.

It's been a long time since a Labor government was fit to run a country. They have to go.

For various reasons including energy, Australia's inflation is higher than most other Western countries. Everything is costing more:

. Health + 9%
. Food + 10%
. Housing + 12%
. Electricity + 18%
. Gas + 25%
. Insurance + 26%
. Governor-General's pay + 43

Kudos ttbn.

Everything is costing more:
ttbn,
yes, because of the insane imbalance of salaries vs wages thanks to some integrity devoid unions & their self centred members !
Anyway, cracks are appearing left right & centre.

The Law reform Commission isn't doing its job, the stupid have more costly undeserved privileges than normal folk !

The article raises valid points about energy density and challenges, but overlooks significant technological advancements and the potential economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy. Successful integration of renewables in various countries disproves the notion that they inherently lower living standards.

While fossil fuels have a higher energy density, this isn’t the sole factor affecting living standards. Technological advancements have significantly improved the efficiency of solar and wind. Countries like Denmark and Germany, which heavily invest in renewables, have not seen a decline in living standards; instead, they've experienced job growth in the renewable sector and reduced dependence on imported fuels.

The claim that renewable energy requires extensive space is true but manageable. Rooftop solar panels and wind farms that coexist with agricultural land demonstrate efficient land use. The notion that native forests are widely cleared for renewable projects is inaccurate and generally opposed by environmentalists and policymakers. Most projects are sited on degraded or previously cleared land to minimize environmental impact.

Energy storage inefficiency is another concern, but advances in battery technology, particularly lithium-ion batteries, have significantly improved storage capacity. Pumped hydro and solid-state batteries, are addressing renewable energy intermittency, too. Countries like Germany and parts of the US, with high renewable penetration, have developed sophisticated grid management systems to ensure stability and reliability.

Australia’s shift to renewables, despite our small contribution to global emissions, is part of a collective global effort to address climate change. Leadership in renewable energy can drive technological advancements and set a global example. Transitioning to renewables can also create economic opportunities, reduce health costs from pollution, and improve energy security by decreasing reliance on imported fuels.

The comparison of gasoline's energy density to wind and solar is misleading without context. Renewable systems often incorporate energy storage and grid management technologies for reliable power, focusing on overall system efficiency and sustainability rather than raw energy density. Policies supporting renewables drive innovation and reduce costs. Investments in renewable infrastructure lead to long-term savings and stability.

A balanced energy approach, including a mix of renewables, storage, and potentially nuclear power, offers reliable, sustainable, and cost-effective solutions.

John, I don't know what you smoke before writing such glorious prose but I just point out that Germany's carbon-intensity is multiple times that of France. That's after Germany has outlaid ~AUD 1 trillion. I don't know what else dissuades the enthusiasts from dragging us all kicking and screaming with them down the 100% renewables bottomless gurgler.

The timeline for nuclear is problematic given the barriers to it here. Intermittent renewables are a distraction from real action, Germany's carbon-intensity being a powerful indicator of that even well before Russian gas was pulled. Australia should replace coal with gas and cease the roll-out of intermittents requiring backup with inefficient OCGTs, in preference for efficient baseload CCGTs. This will roughly halve emissions until nuclear intercedes. It's hard for the LNP to mouth this without stirring accusations of entrenching gas, but renewables are doing this anyway with storage forever remaining economically unviable. The LNP is trying to walk a line that doesn't diss renewables, talking of a 'mix' of baseload and intermittents on the main grid. The sooner is clears that idea out of the way the better, nuclear making intermittents redundant. There's nothing significant to be gained emissions-wise by adding more intermittents with transmission system extensions and OCGT backup while nuclear preparations and roll-out proceed. The Nationals seem to be more on top of this than the Libs, but they'll need to be on the same page very, very quickly. I believe Australians are capable of taking these facts onboard, as well as the idea of importing nuclear technology while we build our own skills and manufacturing base. South Koreans did it for the UAE, they can get us going here. It's ultimately about emissions and cost at scale, and history supports nuclear (Messmer Plan ++), with cherrypicked exceptions.

Luciferase,

I understand your points about Germany's carbon intensity and the challenges of relying solely on renewable energy.

Comparing Germany and France isn't entirely fair, though. France has long relied on nuclear power, which is low in carbon emissions. Germany, meanwhile, is in a transition phase, moving away from nuclear while ramping up renewables. This has led to a temporary increase in carbon intensity due to reliance on coal and gas. However, Germany’s heavy investment in renewables is about building a sustainable, low-carbon future, despite the current challenges.

Regarding costs, Germany’s significant spending on renewables is a long-term investment. The upfront expenses are high, but as technology improves and scales up, costs are expected to come down. This investment is crucial for developing the infrastructure needed for a clean energy future.

Replacing coal with gas is a sensible short-term strategy since natural gas emits less CO2 than coal. However, it’s essential to continue developing renewable energy sources and storage solutions alongside this transition. Depending too much on gas could delay the shift to sustainable energy.

Nuclear energy does present significant regulatory, safety, and financial challenges. Yet, it remains a vital part of a low-carbon energy mix. Countries like South Korea have successfully implemented nuclear programs, and their expertise could be valuable for Australia.

Intermittent renewables like wind and solar have their issues, particularly with storage and grid stability. However, they are crucial to a diversified energy portfolio. Continuous advancements in battery technology and storage solutions are making renewables more reliable.

Policymakers need to adopt a balanced approach, integrating different energy sources to ensure reliability, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness. This includes investing in renewables, improving storage technologies, and exploring nuclear energy's potential. Political discussions should focus on pragmatic solutions that address both immediate and long-term needs.

In short, transitioning to a fully renewable energy system is complex and expensive, but it's necessary for a sustainable future. Using natural gas as a transitional fuel, investing in nuclear power, and developing renewable technologies are all critical steps. It's important to have open and informed discussions to develop effective energy policies.

Hi John, I began as a true believer that intermittent renewables have a place on the main grid. They certainly do in offgrid locations. Then I soaked in the physics and economics of storage and realised I was so wrong. I could take issue with other things you've said but this, in particular, encapsulates our essential impasse,

"Continuous advancements in battery technology and storage solutions are making renewables more reliable."

The need is for storage to advance by orders of magnitude, not increments. This is limited by physics and economics. Cross that rubicon and you've convinced me, but all the prose in the world that skirts this matter is completely wasted on me. Meanwhile, history supports the nuclear route, and your concerns about it are addressed to my deep satisfaction.

Thanks Geoff Carmody for the article. Kudos.