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