Sir Vivor,

I spelled out exactly what my background was earlier in the thread: in short I have more than a passing knowledge of the field.

Comparing the advance of electronics to the future advances in renewable generation is extremely naive.

Other technologies have not advanced at such a pace. I remember in high school going to a university open day in nearly 30 years ago where they were discussing all of the same technological hurdles that they are facing today and were experimenting with solar heating by mirrors, thermal storage, and wind turbines. So 30 years down the track there have been improvements by factors of scale, but renewable energy is far from being an emerging technology.

Many of the hurdles faced by these renewable sources are logistical in nature and not technical, they can be mitigated to some extent, but never eliminated. For example:

The power that can be obtained from wind is proportional to the cube of the speed. So a 50% drop in wind velocity gives a 87% drop in power. You may get wind at some sites, but even with a huge spread, the output is variable.

The hot rocks need lots of water and capital. 3km deep holes are never cheap.

If we do nothing we will reach 2050 with no reduction in GHG at all.

As a power engineer I cannot see the technology being invented and rolled out in only a few decades.

etc

Shadow Minister, I understand your points and have great respect for your expertise and knowledge. This issue remains for others to answer, if the maximum contribution from all renewable energy is 10% of base load needs, where and how can we in Australia, better the UK?

The question was asked of Atom1, the response is irrelevant, incomprehensible and offers no solutions. We must assume that since the question cannot be answered, we have no hope of achieving 20% MRET let alone the 30% proposed by the Greens.

Sir Vivor, you ask “where I was when semiconductors eclipsed thermionic valves?” Actually, I was in Paulo Alto designing early PNP Substrates using arsenic and antimony impurities to create multi-layered semiconductors. I was a micro chip designer and spent 40 years in the information technology industries and others. And your point is?

As a matter of interest, where were you?

I don’t see myself as a dinosaur by challenging the “feel good dreamtime” so many wish to believe in, and yes I do have a good understanding of engineering and technology. From that base I am comfortable with what technology will achieve and yes we will engineer solutions. I am not comfortable with the unrealistic proposals and technological exclusions that are diverting science, technology and engineering.

Helen, you have been watching but refusing to contribute or respond to the comments.

You are polarising the masses when what we should be doing is coming together to solve a global problem - energy use/abuse.

Shadow Minister ("For example, peak periods occur in the early morning and early evening with the greatest peak being in the early evening").
What do you think makes this so?
Answer: tea and toast.

Yes. Hundreds and thousands of homes using electric toasters and kettles at the same time.

Now, ("The same applies to energy efficiency. 10% can be achieved without much cost or effort, the next 10% requires expensive alterations to existing infrastructure,") try bringing an electric kettle of water to the boil vs boiling only the mount of water really needed. Immediately you significantly reduce the volume of water requiring boiling as well as time it takes to do so. Now try the same using a gas stove rather than an electric kettle.
It's simple in the extreme to go well beyond that extra 10%, from domestic use alone.

I recall Dr Calicott's similar analogy, that the sensible use of clothes lines in place of electric laundry dryers where possible in the US alone would negate the nation's "need" for nuclear power.

This is the ATTITUDE required enmasse, via free, existing – and cost saving – means to get us through.

Next, the equivalent needs to be applied to industry. As a start it would help if BHP Billiton were required, as the rest of us are, to pay for the water it uses and be recognised as the largest electricity and water consumer in our driest state... all for, (you guessed it) Olympic Dam uranium/copper mine, let alone its proposed expansion.

Replying to anti-green; a hypothesis like LNT may be simple and easily understood, but that does not mean it's right. As I have said, exposure regimes characterised by high ionisation density are an unanswerable challenge to LNT's predictions and the ICRP itself has provided detail of the kinds of exposure I refer to.
There are very many disease observations which falsify the assertion that LNT provides "conservative estimate(s) of cancer risk". The routine response by conventional agencies is "They don't fit the LNT model so they didn't happen or were caused by something else." For example the Chernobyl Forum fails to blame radioactivity for increases in disease after Chernobyl (which they admit); Repacholi and other acolytes talk up "radiophobia" as a greater problem although there is virtually nothing in the actual Chernobyl Forum Report to support it.
The "notion that the smallest of exposures is (potentially) harmful" follows inevitably from reasonably good information about the mechanism of radiation induced cellular harm - i.e. that ionisations in vulnerable tissue can be caused by the smallest possible amount of ionising radiation (obvious, isn't it?).
If I might look at the obverse of anti-green's remarks, the unreasonable extrapolation of average absorbed dose considerations into low dose but high ionisation density situations can be exploited to obfuscate and diminish public fears of radiation.
The case of Lance Corporal Dyson is in line with the Bradford-Hill criteria in that it adds to the sum of evidence that challenges LNT.
However much you favour a ‘J shaped’ curve it cannot explain a million dead from Chernobyl. The detail with which you support your belief is open to challenge, but is too complex to debate in a forum like this.
We do not exaggerate the dangers of low level exposure. We have no agenda beyond advocating important truths.

Shadow minister, you said

"I have 20+ years in heavy manufacturing a portion of which was involved in designing, building and maintaining large cogen power systems running off waste and supplemented with biomass for the factories. In addition I was involved in the on sale of the excess power to the network. (never worked for any company with coal or nuclear interests)"

Yes, but let's be more specific. What are your qualifications? For example, can you name one professional society membership? Surely, that won't let the cat out of the bag?

As for your reply to my comments, you missed my point entirely. If you wish to consider a very speculative proposition, have a look at the wikipedia article on "the maximum power principle":

"The maximum power principle can be stated: During self organization, system designs develop and prevail that maximize power intake, energy transformation, and those uses that reinforce production and efficiency. (H.T.Odum 1995, p.311)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle

Maybe these ideas would register more concretely if you had seen all the vacuuum tube computer modules sold as war surplus in the electronics junk shops along Market Street, in San Francisco, back in 1960. Thousands and thousands of dollars worth of hand-wired modules for a dollar each, because they were no longer competitive against semiconductors and emerging transistor control circuitry. By 1965, the introduction of chip technology meant that the shelves were filling up with transistor PC boards.

Whether the maximum power principle is the driver of evolution in living species, as well as other systems and system components, is arguable; but it is an interesting speculation.