Oh, I came across this joke the other day:

Q: How many conservative economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. The darkness will cause the light bulb to change by itself

In posting extracts from my colleagues’ letter, I was actually trying to point to the differences between talking about renewable energy initiatives for Australia and the factual experiences of those who have already done it. That way we actually have some real life experiences against which we might debate these issues here.

It seems that those promoting renewable energy adopt only two strategies, the first is to totally ignore the real issues presented, technology readiness, efficiency, carbon reduction outcomes, consumer costs and economic impacts, all of which are negative as demonstrated by the experience of those having actually done it. The second strategy is a diversionary approach to address any other issues except those presented for debate.

Do any supporters of renewable energy actually wish to debate these issues?

When is someone, anyone, going to comment on the overall “package” of how this policy has worked in the UK? This is a real life example that might help us evaluate this technology for use by Australia.

Based upon the responses so far, it is not unreasonable to conclude that those supporting renewable energy do not, under any circumstances, wish to examine the real issues. In addition it is becoming clear that most supporters don’t actually have a clue about the issues surrounding these technologies. Closed minds blinded by ideology, just an excuse to sound informed but really just “gobbing off”.

>> Closed minds blinded by ideology, just an excuse to sound informed but really just “gobbing off”. <<

Agree, and it works both ways spindoctor. Do you not agree?

It's good to see you have moved on to what really is important, rather than conflating yourself with something your own ideological perspective can't seem to come to grips with. So yeah, well done.

Anyway, it is a 'no-brainer' that King Coal will be around a while yet. It is also a 'no-brainer' that people have to realise that a lot of our problems stem from our incessant need for more and more energy - we just have to find better ways of producing it. Do you not agree?

In my humble opinion, it is also a 'no-brainer' that a MIX of energy producing technologies will be required. Do you not agree?

Of course, it is also a 'no-brainer' that not all technologies are suited for all situations and all scenarios. Do you not agree?

If you really want a "debate" on the issue, I am perplexed that you would want to do it here (there really are far better forums to engage in logical and rational discourse.) Why am I perplexed? Because of the stick-in-the-mud-ideologues that you yourself have identified - from BOTH sides. Do you not agree?

Bugsy nice one liner to conservative economists.

However regarding leftwing economists

they fall under the following description,

"When we hear that Russia's economic output is about half the level of a decade ago or that real incomes have fallen sharply, it is worth recalling that economic statistics under the Soviet Union were hardly more reliable than any other official statements. Moreover, a country that produces what no one wants to buy, and whose workers receive wages that they cannot use to buy goods they want, is hardly in the best of economic health."

In short

How many collectivist economists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, their economics system cannot produce electricity nor light bulbs.

Not that it matters, their economic system cannot build the houses to wire to an electrical system but the proletariat remain joyous from the knowledge that no one else is better off than them.

Oh I never realised that Russians had such trouble building houses and using electricity.

Poor sods.

Yuri Gagarin must have been an American.

As long as we continue to use "finite" resources on planet Earth for energy supply, there will be NO energy supply solution for humanity.

The answer lies in technology, not in digging holes in the ground for uranium, oil and coal. The miners will fight to their very last drop of blood to maintain the status quo.

Eventually workable and efficient alternatives **WILL** be developed. Alternatives based on NOT using finite resources. This will take several hundred years to fully implement. There's no quick fix. But there **IS** a fix. But one thing's for sure, we can't continue indefinitely to deplete Earth's resources........ that's a recipe for a return to the stone age (eventually).

The future lies in intelligent, infinite and non damaging energy supply. It'll take hundreds of years. It's got NOTHING to do with politics, but EVERYTHING to do with survival.