Froggie, Vanadium batteries are already being used and solves the problem of storage http://www.vfuel.com.au/index.htm Looking at this subject through glasses that look backwards, is always a problem for humans, but looking forward always gives us the solution.

There are also engines that run on compressed air and ones that generate twice as much as they use

http://www.lutec.com.au/

Or check out the sundance generator motor, http://www.befreetech.com/techpage.htm

The options are endless if you are prepared to look, get them now because once the vested interests get hold of them, they will disappear just like the pritchard steam engine, the Cauvanagh electric car, and the Winslow hydrogen converter, which converted water into hydrogen and oxygen in your car for fuel and used the exhaust to recycle the water vapor for re-use. It's our desire to live within the illusionary comfort zone of the past, that causes us so many problems. Whilst if we lived in the future reality, most of a our problems would have solutions that we could see ahead.

Alchemist
While my mind is open to the possibility of alternative methods of power production and storage, it seems to me that the results of such innovations are always "in the future" (a bit like an affordable hydrogen fuel cell) or they have been suppressed by a mysterious "they"...
I don't believe in internet conspiracy theories.
Until a working model is on general sale to the public, like for example a PV solar panel, I remain rather sceptical.
Incidentally I wonder why solar panels have not been suppressed, seeing that they have the potential, if they ever become more cost effective, to undermine the economics of the grid and the markets of the so-called "big business" people, and decentralise the production of electricity- putting it back in the hands of the people, as you say...
Maybe the "big business" people are aware of their inherent weaknesses. I understand that BP (a "big business"?) is the biggest manufacturer of solar panels in Australia. Maybe they are deliberately making them too expensive so as to avoid cannibalising their own market...Oh, but I forgot, BP has no financial interest in the power grid...silly me...
The only reference you provided in your post that I would take seriously is that of the Vanadium batteries, but here again, these appear to be not yet fully ready for commercialisation. The Government of Victoria, which presumably is not in the pocket of those nasty "big business" interests, have even put "up to $1 million" into the project, according to the web site...
"Big business" just about everywhere in the world, is financed mainly by superannuation schemes, insurance companies, commercial and merchant banks, etc., of which most of the shareholders are people like you and me. In fact, if you are a contributor to a superannuation scheme, as most Australians are, you are also probably one of them...

Froggie, I'm sorry, but your last reply to me was totally incorrect.

1. Nuclear power requires vast subsidies to be economically competitive. Also, look at the laws that need to be put in place in the US before companies will consider building new plants - they want immunity from lawsuits and no responsibility for clean up costs. They know accidents happen and decomissioning and remediation is incredibly costly - and they don't want to pay for these things when they occur.

I don't pay taxes to make large companies with political connections richer, and I imagine American taxpayers don't want to either.

2. Wind power is, right now, cheaper than nuclear, even ignoring the likely steadily increasing cost of uranium and nuclear plant decommisioning in future years, and the decrease in wind power costs as economies of scale for turbine manufacturing are attained. Check out this for some examples:

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003748.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/05/wind_map_tells.php

3. Wind plants aren't ugly - they look great. Ask anyone what they would rather have on their horizon - a wind plant or a nuclear plant - or solar panels on every roof for that matter...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/windfarms_beaut_1.php

4. Intermittency is not a meaningful drawback, especially if you consider the existing base load capacity and combine demand based pricing with efficiency and conservation incentives. For example, hot summer days are sunny and these days cause maximum demand spikes in Australia due to airconditioning and modern housing design. Solar panels on all houses would very nicely dovetail peak generation with peak demand with no new baseload capacity required. Ditto for wind in many parts of the country - Western Australia being a classic example (hot days are the windiest).

The key to the future of energy generation and distribution is battery technology so renewable energy can be stored and harnessed when required - do some reading about "smart grids" and the way the system will work in the coming decades.

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/10/richard-smalley-and-smart-grids.html

5. Don't forget ocean power - particularly when we live on an island with most of the population living near the coast.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002428.html

Biggav, the Alchemist, Scout et al.
We could go on for ever with this kind of "it is, it isn't" sort of discussion, each coming up with numerous references to back our case.
I think that this forum has shown enough examples of innovation and human ingenuity to definitely disprove the main thrust of the article by Busby that reserves of natural gas, coal and uranium will not give Australia secure buffers against the impending energy crisis.
These immense reserves in Australia, complemented perhaps by "renewables" where these are appropriate, ensure a secure energy future for Australia.
Technologies that need development are for example "Plug-in electric hybrid vehicles". If we could get average fuel consumption down to the 2 litres per 100 kms range, think of the difference that would make to oil consumption. Of course the change to totally electric vehicles would be even better, but we need some development in the technology before that can compete with PHEV on an equal basis.
You have provided some interesting references to other new technologies that may be helpful in the future.
My view is that economics will ultimately decide which elements of the energy mix will predominate. You may have a different point of view, as I detect a definite bias against "business" in general, and "big business" in particular, forgetting that the main shareholders in Australia are ordinary people like us. Sure, there is plenty wrong with corporate governance as it is at the moment, and I think the answer for this is to democratise the process and give real power back to the shareholders. Perhaps some changes should be proposed to Company law.
In order to marshall the necessary financial and other resources, it is inevitable that some businesses should be "big". This in itself doesn't make them evil.
I have had discussions with the more extreme "Peak Oilers" who for reasons of their own, discount any possibility of mankind surviving the transition.
So I am happy to note that you are not among them.
Thanks for an interesting discussion.