BennyQ most of what you said in that last post was at least reasonable....unlike some of your other excursions into the twilight zone.

Just one point though....

Here's where you drifted back to that weird zone....

"It's got NOTHING to do with politics, but EVERYTHING to do with survival."

Ummm not quite...by "IT"... presumably you mean developing viable renewable energy sources. Well..that has EVerything to do with politics.....Show me a government which could get elected by saying:

"We're going to impose a 20% GST for the next 12 months..and all revenue raised above the 10% level will go to an intensive renewable energy development program"

The Politics is seething with self interest.. does my nick not mean anything to you ? The network "I" have established, and the one 'I' work with.. is global and powerful and 'we' are all just holding our breath for that day when 'cap and trade LAWS are brought in so 'we' can reap the incalculable financial harvest of all 'our' extensive groundwork over the past few decades.

That seems to be the only bit where you are foggy.

qanda, your direction that “there really are far better forums to engage in logical and rational discourse” is appreciated, thanks for pointing that out. Silly me!

Your confirmation that you fit into both categories is also appreciated, the one that will not discuss and the one that can’t.

We can also conclude that since this forum is not the place for “logical and rational discourse”, you are definitely in the right place.

Thanks for your response spindoctor. All questions that were put to you unsurprisingly, go unanswered. So yeah, I will therefore go to the sustainable energy forum currently being held at anther site.

“As I understand it, the penalty rates on carbon will artificially raise the cost of carbon to provide funds to invest in renewables and make them viable.”
“Artificially”, spindoctor?
I think all mining companies these days accept (grudgingly or otherwise) the imposition of having to restore mine sites to their 'natural' condition, after operations have been completed.
In other words, they are expected to clean up their mess.
In comparing coal fired power stations to wind or solar power, the situation is directly analogous to comparing the economic competitiveness of 2 open cut mining operations, one of which accepts the -quite costly- charge of restoring the site (or not causing any damage in the first place), and one which does not even admit there is a problem, or if there is a problem it is not their fault, or if it is their fault, some one else (like taxpayers) should pay to fix it.
What's 'artificial' is that the cost of carbon pollution has never been factored into the real cost of coal and oil fired energy.
As for being prepared to 'examine real issues', I would have to agree that -onshore- wind generation isn't a great winner. It appears, realistically, that at least in the short term we have no choice but to go nuclear, -at least while we make the transition to a carbon neutral, sustainable society.

Boaz/polycarp/agir, you have not understood what is meant by, "it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with survival". The development of the technology itself will be an ongoing development for several hundred years at least ......... the science and engineering involved will happen REGARDLESS of whether we are governed by the left, middle or right factions of politics. This development will happen because there are NO finite alternatives; it will happen because our survival as a species will depend on it. It is NOT dependent on political ideology.

It's hard for politicised "puppets", especially from the far left and far right (like yourself), to understand life beyond ideological/ political "dogma", so I doubt very much you'd understand my first paragraph (which I tried to word as s-i-m-p-l-y as I could.

qanda, you said “All questions that were put to you unsurprisingly, go unanswered.”

You didn’t actually ask any questions, you made a number of statements and finished each with “do you not agree?” These are “closed statements” that can only be answered with a yes or no response. Open questions allow dialogue rather than closing it.

That said, I actually do agree with your statements that coal will be around for a long time, that better ways of producing it will be needed, that a mix of energy solutions will be required and that not all technologies are suited for all situations.

Now that we have established some common ground, we can now get back to the focus of the thread which was, as one of the renewable energies being considered by Australia, on shore wind farms have failed across all the applied criteria in the UK. So is this technology appropriate for Australia and if so, how and why?

If as you suggest, you go to a sustainable energy forum that offers “logical and rational discourse” on this topic, why not share some of this wisdom with us and answer the question posed?

Is this technology appropriate for Australia and if so, how and why?