Thanks for including the population factor, Ludwig. The greenies and all those supposedly concerned about our environment and climate change NEVER mention our tragically increasing population.

next:
"The notion that coal power demands a return on investment in some kind of free market is absurd. Not only is the industry heavily subsidised, we don't pay the externalities associated with coal energy - As Garnaut said, climate change is the biggest market failure ever. "

The governments of the western world have just spent the last hundred years forcing their subject populations to pay them to subsidise their pick of energy options: coal-fired power stations. Now they tell us this was the worst possible thing anyone could have done in the entire history of the world. And their solution? To force their populations to pay them to subsidise their pick of energy options. What makes you think they are any more capable of identifying the correct solution now than they were then? Only sheer blind prejducie could identify this as a market failure. You have identified reasons *against* more heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all, incompetent, blundering government central planning, not in favour.

"If we were required to pay even a small portion of the real costs of coal, there would be no arguments abour renewables at all."

Prove it. Don't ignore the point, don't evade the point, spare us the usual hysteria about the world is going to end.

Just prove it. And include the figures for the externalities of the alternatives in your calculations.

The environmentalists in this thread are like the creationists in the thread on Darwin. They purport to be interested in a discussion based on evidence and reason, but as soon as you examine their arguments, they descend into inchoate religious mysticism: the anti-human belief system of the new Establish Religion and its incoherent fantasy of totalitarian control of the whole world's economy and ecology.

Thank you next for highlighting the fact that coal power is already heavily subsidized and that externalities have been ignored in the arguments against renewables put by the writer and others on this thread. Incidentally, I believe that there are no unsubsidized nuclear power generators around either - they are, I understand heavily subsidized and externalities are not accounted for in their costs either.

Household energy consumption, certainly in WA. and I'm pretty sure elsewhere in Australia is heavily subsidized too (in WA to the tune of 47%). I'm not sure if your figure included this form of subsidy or not.

Even so I tend to agree with the thrust of Tom Quirks assertion that a 20% renewable energy share of the PROJECTED demand for 2020 is probably not going to happen.

If we take seriously the threat of climate change - as I do - then we have to do a lot, lot more than invest in renewables. As Ludwig notes we simply have to do our utmost to achieve a zero population growth as painlessly as possible.

On top of this we need to drastically curb our existing per capita energy use (which, and no-one likes to admit this, probably boils down to less material consumption and a lower per capita GDP as well as of course improved energy efficiency)

"nuclear power generators [...] are, I understand heavily subsidized and externalities are not accounted for in their costs"

In the US, the largest user of nuclear energy in the world, the externalities of nuclear electricity are included in the costs by way of a 5% levy on the sale of electricity, in order to pay for the management and disposal of waste and plant decommissioning. This levy has been collected over decades and amounts to a very large sum, and is considered more than sufficient without the need for public money.

It is true that the externalities of coal are not included in this analysis, and that is because the actual cost (to the environment) of coal is not known. If the alarmist scenarios of climate change are correct, then the cost may be large. Or maybe not. We simply don't know the number.

Therefore it definitely cannot be assumed that renewables are cost effective against coal and nuclear.

Finally, the thrust in Tom's article is not that the 20% MRET cannot be implemented by 2020. He is saying that it CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED. PERIOD.

ZPG and energy efficiency, and more frugal use of power, will help. But what about industry and commerce? The fact is ("and no-one likes to admit this") we still need to get 85-90% of our energy from reliable, non-intermittent sources. Nuclear fast breeder technology is the only reliable long-term solution.

Wah Ah Ling,

You probably know damn well that costing externalities is not possible as there is no market for them... that is unless one is artificially created. And that is what the whole idea of cap and trade is about.

If you believe the scientific consensus on climate change then you would need a pretty low cap on carbon emissions and therefore a relatively high price on GHG emissions - your externality in this case.

If you believed the vested interests and skeptics the risk/threat of climate change is not significant enough to warrant curbing emissions if it will cost anything to do so.

Now you asked next to prove... "If we were required to pay even a small portion of the real costs of coal, there would be no arguments about renewables at all."
Well perhaps not a small portion (depending on how you define small portion) but he already indicated the annual subsidies of $9-10 billion paid to fossil fuel industry. Take that away from them for three and a half years and use it to subsidize renewable power and you've got the $34 billion needed to get your 20% renewables by 2020 (per Tom Quirk). Add externalities in the form of a price on carbon whose cost should be much higher than Rudd's pathetic $5/tonne in my view but obviously not in everyones.

Now my question to you is - Is it really necessary for you to be so darn right uncivil and insulting against those who have a more left leaning view (ie who express more concern for the environment and future generations) than you do? Have you got all the facts? How can you prove that the free market is the answer to everything and that its success (if that is the case) has not come at the expense of the environment which is not an infinite provider of resources etc

“Take that away from them for three and a half years and use it to subsidize renewable power and you've got the $34 billion needed to get your 20% renewables by 2020 (per Tom Quirk).”

No kulu, that is wrong (Tom has not suggested that this is correct). You cannot take $34B away from coal subsidies, and expect no ramification in costs to consumers and the economy. And even if the money for renewable was magically made available, the renewable infrastructure could not be built by 2020, and even then, (most importantly) it wouldn’t work.

Wah Ah Ling is right, and is being rude to environmentalists like you, because you think that your “left leaning view” has a monopoly on “ more concern for the environment and future generations”. You assume that those who are not “left leaning” do not care about the environment. I have children too, and expect to sit grandchildren on my knee. People like you consider yourselves morally higher than others. And you propose ideas that would be economic suicide for Australia, and yet not consider that this might have a negative impact on future generations.

But, in my opinion more importantly, you doggedly refuse to see reason when it is thrust in your face. Tom Quirk has spelled out, chapter and verse, and fully quantified, the reason why renewable energy can’t ever provide more than a fraction of our energy needs. Ever. And he has shown why continued use of resources like gas are required until technology provides an alternative. And you refuse to acknowledge this, it just doesn’t fit in your world view. Your argument may seem reasonable to you, but to others it is irrational and incoherent nonsense. And it is dangerous, because people like you vote, and so are creating a direction in infrastructure development that is leading Australia into economic oblivion.