I note the auther hasn't (as far as I could see) talked about anything other than wind as a renewable energy source. While it is probable that renewable energy sources are not currently up to providing the resources needed, one only has to look at California and Spain, where solar thermal power is being used to provide a very large amount of electricity, reducing the need to use coal. What is lacking by the government is investment in this sort of technology for long-term reductions in CO2 emissions.

There are already 300MW solar thermal power stations operating in the USA and Spain, and 500+MW power stations being constructed to come on line in the next few years. There is also technology available and in use, using molten salts, to retain heat and use it to return power to the grid at night.

There is really no excuse to use coal-power any more, other than short-term political imperatives that are not going to provide any long-term benefits for the wider community.

Base-load power can be produced from renewable energy sources, and in a city like Perth (where I live) which has the sunshine, has the swells from the ocean (even when flat there is energy produced from underwater movement), has the reasonably consistent wind, and has signficant geothermal potential, the continued reliance on coal for so much energy is pretty abysmal.

Tom,
An article like this should have been more widely published years ago.
To the ordinary person like me, this article brings a lot into a perspective I can follow...thank you.

The one comment I do have is that your piece is predicated on current technology and profit making intentions. At the risk of sounding like a Socialist... (Which I'm not!)...any change to either of the two assumptions would alter the outcome.
Therefore *more* research is indicated, not necessarily only in clean coal but in more efficient technology generally to aid in the reduction of power consumption generally.
Clearly there is no "magic bullet" and the solutions realistically lie in the application of a number of strategies. Lowering consumption, forcing greater product efficiency etc. Rather than allowing/encouraging cheap power inefficient production methods et al.
I understand time lags design, retooling etc but we do have to start somewhere and it should have started years ago. Governments should all be investing/aggressively encouraging heavily in load reduction technologies research i.e. both on **Demand** as well as supply in practical ways.

These conclusions must burst the bubble on some green fantasies. No affordable combination of renewable energy with extra transmission and storage can replicate the job currently done by coal and gas in Australia and nuclear overseas. Wave power, geothermal outside of volcanic areas and solar thermal have all yet to break the gigawatt barrier in any region or avoid the need for fossil fuelled backup generation. That doesn't seem to stop green utopians either claiming it is possible or from quoting incomplete cost estimates. For example wind power enthusiasts conveniently omit the high cost of the standby gas fired generator for when the wind doesn't blow.

We will need that gas to make nitrogen fertiliser and to power trucks when oil runs out, currently at 3-6% a year depletion rate. It seems ironic that the firestorms hit Victoria when their brown coal stations not far away are among the most polluting in the developed world. If nuclear power is unacceptable for Australia then we must drastically cut our lifestyles ie far less travel, bland diet, minimal hot water or air conditioning. Those who cling to green fanatasies about clean energy are prolonging the reign of coal which within a generation will start running short just as oil is now.

A couple more points after studying the graphs. Under a $25 carbon tax SA's incremental generation costs take off at about the 2GW mark whereas Vic, NSW and Qld hold good to at least 6GW. However the ETS is a cap not a tax and CO2 could hit $30,$40, $50 a tonne as the cap shrank. That would happen under Bob Brown as PM probably not Rudd. However with high immigration, new desal plants and talk of electric cars total demand will increase even if the cap barely shrinks. Those additions to energy consumption had therefore better not need more coal.

The case of SA is not just different because of abrupt capacity constraints. SA has the world's largest uranium deposit at Olympic Dam and went through a nuclear baptism with the Maralinga A-bomb tests. If any place should go nuke it is SA. I think Whyalla would be a good place to build nuclear power stations as it has good sea currents on the nearby coastline, certain transmission advantages and a desal plant already in the works. Expect 'paralysis by analysis' over such a proposal however.

I also enjoyed the clarity of the article by Tom. I would go further than Examinator and suggest that this is part of the serious debate we have yet to have. We are in “analysis paralysis” in relation to both the demand and supply sides of the equation.

Trying to understand the relationship between our real energy needs, the best options to meet those needs and our future carbon output penalties, often seems to get bogged down in ideology rather than serious debate.

As I understand it only 40% of carbon emissions are related to power generation, much of the balance is from transport. So how does renewable energy help?

One of the most committed nations to reducing emissions is Sweden, which also has some of the most ambitious greenhouse gas targets in the world. (See The Weekend Australian, Feb 7 2009). As one of the heaviest users of renewable energy, Sweden is lifting a 12 year ban on nuclear power generation. According to that same article, a “list of EU countries has chosen nuclear energy”, “Finland is building the largest reactor in the world”, the UK has reversed its opposition to nuclear power and is “to replace its ageing nuclear reactors and create new sites”.

With years of experience from the nations that first committed to the Kyoto Protocol, all of whom have done a tremendous job on the use of renewable energy. Why on earth can’t Australia get access to the real life issues that they have faced and come up with a realistic rather than emotive assessment of both our demand and supply needs?

Anecdotally, a friend in the UK recently attended an energy industry seminar where government and industry representatives attended. He sent me some quotes from speakers. “All renewable generation is Government funded because there is no return on investment for the private sector generators”. “The present day decommissioning cost for each wind turbine is $1.5m, not including the concrete foundation and contractually committed land restoration”. “Taking in to account the idle time, maintenance and decommissioning costs, wind farms are eye wateringly expensive and inefficient.”

“The Federal Government has a target of 20 per cent renewable electricity by 2020. This requires about 6,000MW of additional deliverable power for a projected total energy demand of 260,000GWh in 2020.”

Tom, I presume that this projection takes into account a continued very high level of immigration and artificially ‘enhanced’ birthrate over that timeframe.

So then, what would the projection be if we did away with immigration and concentrated on zero population growth….or even a slow reduction?

It would be a whole lot smaller.

Then if we factor in significantly improved energy use efficiency and overall greater frugality, maybe ‘green’ energy sources would be up to the task.

Can you tell us what the projected energy demand in 2020 might be if our population remains constant and we achieve something like a 20% per capita reduction in demand? Thanks.