There is a lot of wisdom and good political sense in Leigh Ewbamk's article. This is the way policy must move now. Coincidentally, his arguments are very similar to policies advocated in detail in my new book, 'Crunch Time: Using and Abusing Keynes to Fight the Twin Crises of our Era'[Scribe]. It's interesting how this happens - public ideas whose time has come are floated by different people at the same time. Thanks, Leigh - and I hope your piece and my book provoke positive thought and action.

One point- it is a bit naive to think the coal power lobby would not oppose a government focus on constructing a renewable energy based grid. The lobby does oppose it now, actively, as can be seen by the way the 'base load power problem' myth continues to keep popping up in public debate. But you are right that it would be harder for them to oppose a Keynesian renewable energy national grid construction project approach than to oppose complicated ETS financial engineering, which by now has its own large problems of credibility.

To criticise such a fluffy, well-meaning article would seem brutal. Why rob the author of all those beautiful dreams? So I'll just take exception to one item.
It says, "The backbone of a national renewable energy scheme will build new transmission lines that connect Australia’s population centres with our abundant renewable energy resources that are currently untapped."
Part of the problem with intermittent weather-dependent energy sources is that we do have to build such lines. Unlike transmission lines to nasty, fossil fuel plants, these have to be much longer to get to these remote sites and have to be built to high capacity, where that high capacity will only be used a fraction of the time. As has been noted before, its like building a super highway which, for most of the time, will host only a trickle of cars. The average output of wind towers, for example is only about one third of installed capacity, but the transmission lines have to be built to take the full capacity.
Building all those lines creates nasty emissions to, but perhaps I really souldn't spoil the author's beautiful dream

Oh dear... what a naive young fellow.

Leigh, fossil fuel interests don't "thwart development", they've been driving it for some 25 decades. Similarly the oil & gas industry has saved a lot more whales than Greenpeace (or didn't you know people hunted whales primarily as a source of lamp oil?).

If you'd studied real science instead of "Social Science Environment" you might have known that we do not have a precise expected mean temperature for this planet sufficient to determine whether it is currently warmer or cooler than anticipated. Nor do we know it's current absolute surface temperature with an accuracy to know whether the estimated +0.7K over the period 1750-2005 is real or not (don't take my word for it, search for "the elusive absolute surface temperature (SAT)" - it's a NASA-hosted Hansen Q&A).

Your adviser should have his/her butt kicked for allowing you to so dedicate yourself to such a dubious premise.

Please, try a real field before it's too late.

Okay, I'll add another spoiler. Adding large numbers of intermittent power sources won't affect the number of fossil fuel plants that have to be built a jot. This is why big energy really hasn't bother to oppose them, despite the fantasies of those in favour of those things. What it will do is alter the mixture of plants. Instead of more big coal and gas plants we will get more fast reaction gas plants to cope with the sudden changes in power supply from renewables. The real problem to be faced in integrating renwables on the grid will be to do so in way that actually saves on emissions. At the moment because of the amount of power the electricity grid has to keep in reserve to cope with changes in power supply from renwables, and the changes using a lot of those generators forces on the grid, there is a real question about how much intermittent sources save in emissions.

What an absolutely amazing idea, for anyone who is green (as in naive and immature).

Renewable energy is by and large so intermittent and unpredictable that it creates massive instabilities in the transmission network that have to be counter-acted in fractions of a second. How can we do this? Only with conventional power generating capability that is instantly switchable to full capacity.

Oh, you'd like geothermal energy from some remote location would you? No problem at all except for the massive costs of building and maintaining transmission lines (don't want more bushfires do we?) to a site of unknown longevity. Case in point - Iceland's Kraflur where an earthquake suddenly reduced the geothermal output to less than half. Who is to say that the fragmentation of rocks between two drilling points will not severely restrict the passage of water between them and render the drill holes useless for providing energy.

You'd like wind turbines? Okay, all very well if the wind blows but few turbines do any better than about 20% of the output that was touted and you have all those mechanical bits that need maintenance but are way up on those towers, not to mention the low-frequency noise like a pulsating jet engine on an aircraft and the birds that are killed.

Stick to what you know best - Social Science. I think the Environmental stuff is a big too much for you.

There are engineers, serving or retired, throughout australia's power generation industry who could rebut the dogmatic nonsense peddled here by three correspondents trying to mock leigh ewbank into silence. (obviously leigh ewbank has stung them into panic responses.)

here are a few fallacies exposed:

yes, solar and wind energy are variable , but there are many ways to compensate for that variability - combining them in a large diversified national grid. the sun is usually shining and the wind blowing somewhere in eastern or western australia, where we already have two very long-distance national grids in service.

the length and spread of powerlines in our present national grid is already huge - adding branch lines to new geothermal feeders in central australia is no big deal. as for bushfire danger - hello, where are most of the powerlines now? through our most heavily forested tableland areas, mostly. there is not much bush to burn in innamincka.

solar and wind technologies can be smoothed out by the inclusion of well tested and proven heat storage reverse cycle technologies eg in colorado 15% of the budgeted capital cost of new state-supported solar plants is for such technologies.

coal-fired power stations cannot be fired up instantly. they take several hours to fire up fully and are actually clumsy generators of power , unlike geothermal, reverse cycle heat storage or hydroelectric reverse cycle technologies which can be turned on literally at the flick of a switch.

also demand can be smoothed by smart grid demand regulating computer systems, for uses that can draw variable amounts of power e.g. for , heat bank storage heating or air conditioning, overnight recharge of electric car batteries, etc.

demand can also be regulated and smoothed by the incentive of variable tariffs, encouraging consumers to buy electricity when it is most abundant and cheaper, and vice versa. [end of part 1 -part 2 to follow.

please tonykevin1, no more, I just can't take it, ROFL is busting my sides.

I'm an old engineer and what you talk about is truly the best pie in the sky, manna from heaven rant I've heard for ages .. thank you, it reinforces my belief that most eco/greenie types have no idea about planning, scale, budgets, tendering processes or time .. to name but a few problems I see with your grand vision.

A national grid, sure, it will only cost 10s of billion of $ and take 40 or 50 years .. have you any idea why we don't have a national broadband network, this is 100x more complex and expensive.

"demand can be smoothed by smart grid demand regulating computer systems" of course it can, given time and unlimited budget, but that's not how engineering works, typically we have budgets to work to and delivery schedule.

"demand can also be regulated and smoothed by the incentive of variable tariffs, encouraging consumers to buy electricity when it is most abundant and cheaper, and vice versa", confusing but I guess you mean I should run my air con not in summer when I need it, but in a different season? What if consumers resist your cunning plan? Will there be thrashings?

Clearly you have no experience in project management, government tendering, electrical engineering or running a business.

You obviously want so much for solar and wind to be successful, that you appear to have suspended reason. You cannot just demand it be so and it appears, government works are difficult, by nature.

Thank you though, I'm going to send this around to bunch of other old engineers who I know will ROFL as well. If this is what counts for thinking with the eco/greenie types, no wonder we're in a mess and you don't understand the damage your ilk have done to Melbourne and Brisbane by lobbying against dams.

Keep dreaming son, that's what this is isn't it, the eco dreamtime, completely unrealistic rubbish.

Tonykevin 1 - There are no power engineers saying the things you said, because it isn't true. Storing energy on power station scale is a major problem, so where did this come from - 'well tested and proven heat storage reverse cycle technologies eg in colorado 15% of the budgeted capital cost of new state-supported solar plants is for such technologies'. On reflection I think you've read something about solar heating systems. Its possible to store heat in water. In fact its done all the time, with the reverse cycle you're talking about, but internally in solar heating plants. Its not used to store energy on the sort of scale required to make a difference to grids

Stick to your guns tonykevin1 what you say makes sense.

Leigh Ewbank article is a positive contribution to the climate change debate and has much merit.

Arguments about whether this technology or that technology is best or most "economic" is not what the debate should be about. Leigh's suggestion is to change the narrative so that we have in place a mechanism for us to work towards the common good. The most appropriate technologies to reduce the green house effect will arise and be developed if they are given the chance

ficklepickle .. oh it makes sense, it's just not realistic.

Look if you want huge grand projects, then go back to the one that's been around for a really long time. Pipe water to the Southeast of Australia from the Northwest.

The problem is with the author and Kev is the unreal attitude to real world problems. Grabbing bits and pieces of technology they have heard of and stitching it together and shouting how all this should be done NOW!

National grids cost a lot of money, think about why we don't have a national broadband network, which is simple by comparison to power grids - it's expensive, it's hard and it takes a long time and the cost benefit is not there. The process starts with the design, then the planning of where it goes and where it is to be delivered to - there's 4 to 8 years of work right there before a spade is picked up. Then you have to go to tender, go through the tendering process, employ people, get them to where they need to be .. and on and on it goes, standard large project stuff .. it takes time, which you all bleat we don't have.

you can't just demand unrealistic infrastructure, when there is limited funds, i.e. taxes, and expect it to be there overnight. If the government decided to do this, it would take on the order of 2- to 30 years to complete.

the author is a salesman trying to change the market perception, know their type well .. what is he called, a consultant of Framing and Messaging - that's new for Sales and Marketing is it?

Kev, well he's trying to promote his own book and I thought his blatant attempt to do this in the first post was pretty cheap. Kev you're not the first to write a book, or to see it not sell, get over it.

The problem rpg is that the Kevs of this world seem to be driving
the whole show.
Even if governments decided that what Kev wants should be built, by
the time work was started we probably won't have the energy and the
ability to do the necessary work.
By then we will be choosing between fuel for ambulances and fuel for food,
let alone fuel for infrastructure construction in remote areas.

What will be the situation with the supply of aluminium for the
conductors of such a mammoth job. Then the steel for the towers, oh
dear just about 20 years too late.

We were warned of this by someone called Hubbard way back in 1956.

Great answer Leigh, pity we don’t know what the question was? As rpg puts it, we have just been “Caldicotted” again.

Before we head off for more “Tilting at windmills”, can we just back up a little and pose the questions that need to be answered first. Like so many others before, the assumption is made that a meaningful contribution can be made from renewable energy. If this question cannot be answered how can we move to options, tactics, strategy, policy or implementation?

Your first question is "where in the world is any nation achieving more than 10% of its energy needs from any combination of renewable sources? How are they doing it? And how might we improve on that?", remembering that we are setting MRET targets of 20% or even 30%.

If we cannot answer the basic technological questions, what sense does it make to move to any answer? Let alone tactics, strategy or policy.

The “no to everything lobby” has again gone full circle and is spinning its wheels. No coal, no nuclear, no destructive dams and no meaningful contribution from renewable sources. So what do you propose to leave on the table? Your default position of “cut our consumption by mandate” is clear evidence that you do not have any other solutions.

Leigh, if you cannot solve the technological problems, why on earth have you jumped to policy as an answer?

I was going to suggest that you are out of your depth but I think you need to start by getting your feet wet

rpg

Snide remarks about the character and motives of others does you no service and I would suggest that such remarks diminish the debate and have no place in OLO.

Your main points seem to be that it is going to be expensive to build a renewable energy infrastructure and that the current approach of letting "the market" solve the problem of energy will work quite well. You also imply that if the market does not solve the problem then it will have to be funded by taxes. You also say that burning fossil fuel is the only economically way at the moment to produce energy.

These are your assumptions - not tonykevin1 or leigh.

Your assumptions are correct - if we continue as we are and if we try to approach the problem through the manipulation of the price of energy. The point about tonykevin1 and leigh's ideas are that we need to break away from those assumptions and approaches because they are clearly not working.

There are other ways around encouraging investment than simply increasing the price of fossil fuels. These methods will use markets to distribute resources, will produce energy cheaper than burning fossil fuel and will not leave the nation in debt - and are practical. It does however, require a freeing up of the way our financial system is regulated - and that will require government intervention.

Rubbish!

Human caused climate change is by definition caused by increasing numbers of people.

The notion that stabilising populations for zero growth is not a magic bullet to halt climate change is just GREED infecting the ranks of the pollutical and business minority factions in our community. The majority suffer while the minorities garner riches from THEIR immigrated economic growth.

The magic bullet for Australia and other countries which wise-up is to legislate that immigration quotas be voted on by referendums.

The current ad-hoc immigration quotas to raise GST and property prices is pure insanity and defies logic in the quest for stabilising climate and ultimately in avioiding looming civil unrest and even civil war.

All the poisons that lurk in the RUDD .. are HATCHING out!

[part 2 of 2 parts] RPG as an ‘old engineer’’ should know that national electricical energy grids exist now. When I buy electricity in Canberra, it can come from anywhere on the Eastern Australian grid, between Adelaide and Cairns – ‘parcels’ of electricity are moving around the grid all the time to even out variations in local supply and demand. This is what network engineers do.

The sceptics who say ‘it can’t be done’ are like those who said the US could not put men on the moon – because it had not been done before; or that Britain could not match Nazi military might in time, when appeasement failed in 1938. Once great nations decide things have to be done urgently, they get on and do them.

Once we have decided that we need to cut GHG emissions, for the sake of our children's and grandchildren’s climate security, we will meet the engineering challenges involved.

This is simply an issue of linking existing technologies to scale. They already exist but have not yet been linked to scale in Australia. Our present national grid design was designed to link the old coal-based power infrastructure locations with the demand centres. Of course it will need to be modified, but a lot of it will still be useable.

Reverse cycle heat storage technologies include ammonia-based and molten salt solution heat exchange systems. This is what is going in in Colorado. Domestic systems of heat storage include offpeak heat banks and thermal underfloor and water heating. Car batteries will be charged at offpeak times. These technologies all exist. Geothermal technology - steam from pumping water through fractured hot rocks - is being tested now in Central Australia. Reverse cycle hydro generation systems exist already and the Snowy Mountains Scheme could inexpensively be modified to act as such a system.

And I’m 67. I do urge ROG and like-minded sceptics to read my book before pontificating further. They might be pleasantly surprised

Tony kevin;
I think you have gone off half cocked.
rpg did not say it could not be done, but that there will be major
changes in the grid network to make it possible to handle large amounts
of power over the country.

It is done now as you say, but not with widespread unreliable generators.
To cope with this will need very high voltage DC lines built and installed.
Basically a new network overlaid on the existing network.

It also needs a complete rehash of the control system.
Physically small countries have less of a problem but if you get the
control system wrong you have what happened in Germany, blackout.

Have a look around the internet for information on similar systems.

Bazz

Thabk you. Now at last OLO might begin a serious fact-based discussion, instead of abusive put-downs? You have conceded that a variable-source renewable energy-based national grid is possible, but you say it will involve a lot of costly new construction and new control systems grafted onto the present grid system.

I agree. My argument is that, if Australia accepts that we face a national and global climate change emergency which if left unaddressed will blight the lives of our children and grandchildren, we can find the money for those programs. Government has just funded over $50 billion for stimulus spending (mostly unproductive of new capital infrastructure) in a recession and has committed $43 billion to upgraded broadband. These sorts of sums would go a long way - maybe all the way - towards achieving the renewable energy system we are talking about. It is finally a question of our national priorities - upgraded broadband and redundant new school assembly halls, or safe renewable energy that will not add to the world's dangerous GHG emissions that will make much of Ausralia unliveable in 50-100 years? We cannot take back the billions already spent or committed, but we can ask government next time round to spend this sort of money on renewable energy infrastructure.

Legh's article and my book point the way towards a serious Australian anti-GW national strategy that would provide Keynesian stimulus to our still fragile economic 'animal spirits', and would inspire the world with the example of one country which had the courage to commit to the challenge of 100% energy decarbonisation by 2030. This is is an exciting and achievable engineering vision - unlike complicated ETS trading schemes or carbon taxes which inspire nobody and with all their exemptions and sharp-practice trading opportunities will achieve very little.

Now at last OLO might begin a serious fact-based discussion, about how I can get by and prosper without petrol&food&water.

Conceding that a variable-source renewable-food-energy-based dead skin & hair collection grid is possible is first. It will involve a lot of costly new weight-lifting to build my body like Schwartzenegger and new Einsteinian-control-systems grafted onto my brain using computer learning aids. PEAK oil won't matter. I can stay home so transport is no problem. Climate change won't matter. We eat all our wastes, tastefully processed with new Ziggy technologies, so there will be no more environmental degradation and no more climate change.

Why we can even eat our own children and grandchildren, that way we can get the thing our tiny apes brains are REALLY after .. wink wink. .. SEXual and gourmand pleasure. What a wonderful world we can make, no more oil no more coal no more cars just Girls, gold, gourmandian delights and the glory of knowing it was OUR idea.

Now We all agree that is possible. My argument is that, if Australians accept that we face a national and global climate change emergency which if left unaddressed will blight the lives of our children and grandchildren, we can find the ethical basis to eat them.

The money for those programs can come from increased GST and property prices from huge increase in immigration. These sorts of sums would go a long way - maybe all the way - towards achieving the renewable energy system we are talking about.

It is finally a question of our national priorities - safe renewable dead skin cell energy that will not add to the world's dangerous GHG emissions & that will make much of Ausralia unbelieveable in 50-100 years?

We cannot take back billions already spent or committed, but we can ask government next time round to stay in Canberra, live off their own crap and leave us the hell alone to get on with our new unbelievable, sexy, renewable energy lives.

We don't have the oil but who needs it, we have the women, we have the technologies

I hope Tonykevin that you don't make too much of what I wrote in the last post.
My comments were towards a system that could cover a much wider area
than the present national power grid covers, but it will never be able
to cope with much more than 25% of unreliable generation.

One thing that most people do not take into consideration is that
wind generation falls off to the cube root of the wind speed fall.
Re storage, it is one thing to have overnight storage, but how do
store power to cover a week of calm or very low wind speeds ?
Especially if it happens to coincide with widespread overcast days.

I think our big hope is geothermal, although it appears that
earthquakes are a problem in severing pipes. I only recently heard
of that problem.

So all in all it is not just as simple as saying run it all on
renewables. With oil depleting already we may not be able to construct
the national grid you aspire to.

tk1, speaking of abusive put downs "the dogmatic nonsense peddled here by three correspondents trying to mock leigh ewbank into silence. (obviously leigh ewbank has stung them into panic responses.)"

tk1, trying to peddle your book on this forum is a bit rich, do you mind not doing this?

Leigh, I do worry though that all this pie in the sky, "the government should do" means taxpayers money is your eventual target. It all sounds so great, but so do so many other ideas, why shuold you get our tax dollars? While we're paying for the ETS or CPRS, you want more of our money for yet another save the world scheme?

I do get it that this article is to entice contributors to your organisation.

We should put up a warning on articles like this "Caution, Salesman at Work", to partially quote another poster.

FicklePickle, no, there is a better source of energy than coal fireed power, Nuclear. You just have to give it a chance.