Ludwig,
I agree in principal with what you say however like all idealistic aspirations Rudd and Garrett have to deal with what is possible. I feel Garrett would have been better in the Greens as a senator. He is ideologically hog tied to labour’s grand compromise.

Examinator’s law of compromise states “The more people involved in a compromise the less option are available and therefore the less meaningful its outcomes are.” (I’m sure some philosopher will have plagiarised it somewhere).

Q&A is right about vested interests although I think his conclusion is right for the wrong reasons. The public doesn’t want dramatic changes wide ranging reformers always get it in the neck.
The greater part of society is frightened by rapid changes. Most of which are influenced by cynical vested interests, with statements like “if business doesn’t get this or that they will axe jobs”. This terrifies the average person.
Consequently people demand a steady as she goes ‘administrative PM’ than a real leader that might frighten the horses.
Howard lost the plot when he tried to drastically change peoples comfort zones. Hence our elections are between those seeking the middle ground.

Tragically too many jobs and interests are tied up in the status quo. You may note that Kalifornia doesn’t have any real motor manufacturing, coal industry and the electricity is a mess the people are demanding change. The industry is less powerful/influential giving the Govenator less interests to compromise.

Pity about Australia being so reliant/dominated by the extractive industries.

It's all about power.

Perhaps, just for once this bloke has got something right.
He may have looked hard at europe, & seen that alternative energy is alternative pie in the sky.

The day when a company offers to supply renewable energy, at competitive rates, with no subsidy, will be the only time to think about this pipe dream.

Wood fired boilers are about the only renewable energy that works, at present, but I doubt you lot include this in your dreams.

I 1/2 agree with you Ludwig, but it is in no way as simple as you paint it.

Firstly, when it comes to electricity Australia, or most of the world for that matter doesn't need renewable electricity like we need a replacement for oil, say. Australia isn't about to run out of coal any time soon.

Secondly, renewable electricity doesn't help us economically. It is more expensive than coal fired electricity, and likely will remain so for some time.

Thirdly, energy production is a very capital intensive industry. For every $1 paid out in wages, you have to put many dollars in for the stock and machinery. Where this that capital going to come from where there isn't any to be had? In terms of stimulating the economy, there are simply better options.

Yes, there is global warming to worry about, and that is a good reason to invest in renewables. But I am sure that doesn't rate very highly when you are struggling to keep the economy moving - and I notice you didn't mention it.

Obviously there are things we could use, and use soon, like coming up transport in a hydrocarbon-less world. Maybe a better battery, lighter cars - but such inventive endeavours don't produce a lot of jobs. The bottom line is it not as simple as you are making out.

Hasbeen: "alternative energy is alternative pie in the sky"

Maybe. The only thing that strikes me about renewables is if you put in a subsidy with a target - eg 10% or 20% renewables or something, then unlike most engineering projects rather than taking longer than expected it takes a much shorter time than predicted to hit the target - as in under 1/2 usually. So, for example, in order for Europe to hit its target for electricity for 2010 they need a growth rate of 10% in wind power. The current growth rate is 40%.

If it is indeed a pie in the sky, it ain't very high. At least not for Eurpoe, where energy is expensive.

http://www.erec.org/fileadmin/erec_docs/Documents/Publications/EREC_Targets_2020_def.pdf

rstuart. it's pie in the sky, because as with Denmark for example, it just don't work.

They have a massive investment in wind. It represents 30% of their installed generation capacity, but produces only 6% of their power.

That 30% capacity represents over 40% of their investment in generation capacity.

This type of "Investment" would long ago sent any company broke, if it weren't for huge subsidies, paid at taxpayer expense. This will of course send the country broke ultimately.

Fortunately for them, as part of the EU, when their lights go out, they can all migrate to Germany, where they have seen the light, [I really am sorry for that one], & are now backpedalling away from this stupidity, as fast as their little legs will take them, with Italy, & a few others in hot pursuit.

It looks as if it will be the englishmen, out in the midday sun, yet again, but this time, because they have no light to see by, at night.

Hasbeen,

I tried to verify the figures you quoted. This is what I found:

- Wind produces 11.4% of Denmark's power.

- It produces 19% of their power consumption. Note this means Denmark is almost at the 2020 target of 20% renewables for its electricity consumption.

- As you can probably tell from those two figures the lights are unlikely to go out, as they export around 25% of their power.

I could not find any figures on investment. Could you supply a link verifying your claims please?

Mine are from:

http://www.ens.dk/graphics/UK_Facts_Figures/Statistics/yearly_statistics/2007/energy%20statistics%202007%20uk.pdf

In that document you can see Denmark's electricity production from wind has been stable at about 10% since 1990. If that report can be believed, it was closer to an amazing 61% in 1980. As far as I can tell the country has shown no signs of going broke in the 30 years since.

On the contrary, Ludwig should probably hold Denmark up as an example. After the oil shock in the 1970's, they made a conscious decision to use renewables. It paid off big time. They now export 90% of their wind turbine production.

For base load reliable power there seems to be two real candidates.
Solar thermal that has an advantage that it can be retrofitted to
existing coal stations. Night supply can obtained from molten salts.

Geothermal as per Geodynamics Pty Ltd in South Australia. (hot rocks)

These two systems are where the government should be really active.
I must read the site provided by rstuart as it seems so different to
everything I have previously read.
Output of windmills falls to the cube root of the wind speed, this is
the cause of their usual poor performance.