Ok, so let's assume we turn to clean energy in the future, let's say before coal and gas reserves are depleted.

Given we are a country that relies on exports, just to put food on our tables, where will these export dollars come from, so we can continue to live a normal lifestyle.

Simple,

We will export our coal and oil so that some one else can burnt it Tax free.

Simple.

We will export our coal and gas so that someone else can burnt it and it can be on their environmental conscience and not ours!

Oh look, Shadow Minister already said that, more or less!

I should have been more specific and said when the word turns to renewables, as This is what the greens are aiming for.

They would like to leave the coal, gas and oil in the ground, assuming we will all go back to the horse and cart.

Further proof they are a joke and should not be taken seriously.

We are on the horns of a dilemma !
We will need the coal to produce the infrastructure for the new energy
regime, whatever it may be.
So at some point a balance between how long it will take, how much of
our coal will be needed and how much we can sell.
A very difficult guess and I don't believe our politicians are that clever.

As to oil, shadow minister, well we have none to export as we use
double what we get out of the ground.

The main problem is that we do not have a way of storing electricity
in large enough MWHrs. Until we do wind and solar just won't do the job.
There are ways of doing the job, but if they need a very large part
of our GDP to do the job, then we simply cannot afford to do it.
This gets right down to fundamental circulation of energy and money.

Notice how world wide governments are crying that they do not have the money ?

Brown coal is being worked on to clean it up. Renewable energy will save heaps, weather it's solar on industrial roofs or on house roofs.
The idea is to apply some pressure to force a change.
If we deplete everything it will only make us an importer, what's happening else where should not control our push to get of Oil and Coal.
About 300 years of brown coal in the ground, is cheap fuel, this is why they are working on ways to clean it up, would this happen without the threat of a carbon tax.

A very good question 99, I like it.

Do you have an answer?

I would like to turn the original question around with a hypotheticial, but not a terribly far fetched one.
Let's set aside the whole global warming issue for a moment and focus just on economics.
There's ample evidence that all over the world huge amounts of money are being invested in developing cost effective non-polluting renewables; wave, wind, solar, geothermal, the list is endless.
If we look at how far technology has come in recent decades, then isn't there a good chance that some of these research projects will suceed and deliver low cost, non-polluting alternatives?
Surely, the rest of the world is going to say, "well, if these alternatives don't cost us any more than coal, but by using them we reduce pollution and remove the health problems associated with coal burning, (asthma, etc) then let's go for it."
In that scenario, Australia will be left dependent on a product for which there are no customers regardless of how much we've got left in the ground.
Now, I'm not saying that this will happen, but I am saying that it certainly could happen.
Shouldn't we be hedging our bets by such strategies as ensuring that we are part of the alternatives industry, maintaining our manufacturing skills, and so on?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Further to the comment I just posted, I think this is also part of the answer to the question posed by 99.
There's no doubt that huge effort and money will go towards cleaning up brown coal, and it would be wonderful to see success.
Part of the motivation will surely be the scenario I've described as well as the carbon tax.
Changing generation technologies will never be cheap, so, if clean coal did succeed in matching renewables marketing advantage, (i.e. cleanliness), then there would be no incentive for power generators to invest in the technology changes that would have to go with moving to an alternative form.
I feel that our governments are justified in putting money into clean coal technology research as if it comes up trumps, then Australia will get a big leg up down the track when the competition from clean, cheap alternatives ratchets up.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve, you gave the evidence, just came to the wrong conclusion. After 10s of billions of dollars of tax payer money has been wasted, we are still no closer to alternative energy, of any real use, than when we started.

The only idiots left, who think any of the wind/solar technology will become adequate to replace coal/nuclear, are the Poms & Greenies. Even then, I doubt most real greenies believe in their heart any of these things will work, they simply live in hope.

When the Germans & the Danes give up on the fools errand, & start backing away, you have to realise it just "don't bl00dy work" in reality.

As for coal exports, a very large chunk of this is coking coal. This is not used for power generation or heating as such, but steel making. About the only viable replacement for this is charcoal. Would the greenies prefer we chopped down forests to make charcoal, or use the coal out of the ground?

579/Antho please explain the reason for cleaning up brown coal, when the result is only the same as black coal, as it's mined, without the trouble.

We will get alternative power, but not from wasted tax payer dollars, thrown at academia. It will come out of left field.

Imagine academia trying to overcome the problem of horse poo in 1900s cities. They would still be experimenting in ways of cleaning up/using the stuff. It was private enterprise who came up with the answer, the horseless carriage, the motor car.

If you reckon that answer would ever have come out of government funded & directed research, you are kidding yourself. Alternative power will be no different.

Hi Hasbeen,
You're not one to let the facts get in the way of a good theory, are you.
First, the cost of solar cell sourced power is falling dramatically.
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/19395/sunshot-solar-pvs-falling-costs/
Second, Spain has completed a successful pilot solar plant that indicates that solar energy costs will be lower than predicted for scaled up plants.
http://www.inquisitr.com/207572/spanish-solar-power-station-works-even-at-night/
Third, Portugal has built a trial wave generation plant based on Scottish technology that looks extremely promising.
http://www.pelamiswave.com/
I could go on and on citing real live operations that are steadily chiseling away at alternative energy costs, but, hey, that would be just adding a few more facts, which you don't seem interested in.
So, you go ahead and live in your fool's paradise, believing that the world of the twenty first century will be the same as the world of the twentieth century.
I understand that change is scary for some folks.
But I urge you to try to accept its inevitablility anyway.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

579, we are a small country (population wise) with a large appetite ad as sc, we rely on exports to provide our lifestyles.

Without exports, we will fail.

The one subject we have not mentioned is hot rocks.
There is a lot of heat down there, so it makes sense to keep spending
on it to fix the problems.
If it can be made to work economically, all our troubles are over.
Global warming is not a problem, as the oil & coal deplete the CO2
emissions will fall.

Cocentrate on the main game.
How will we feed ourselves as oil demand exceeds supply ?
Will the governments have enough guts to ration fuel and give farmers priority ?
Will the governments wake up and realise that they cannot keep ignoring this problem as it will not go away.
At some point they will have to say;
"We are in an energy crisis and we cannot do anything about it except
try to find an alternative and ration what we can buy on the world market and ban the export of gas and coal."

Oh come on Anthy, send me an email when some of those projects get passed the promising, ready to be scaled up, or price falling rapidly, & I'll have a look at it.

How much has Obama wasted of his tax payers money on this rubbish. One solar cell manufacturer went down with over half a billion, yes billion of tax payers money. Another it was 250 billion. That should have subsidised a few cells, but where are they.

The fools paradise around here is the one the fools who believe this garbage will ever work live in, & the bl00dy idiots who think we need it. A few years time we'll be required to burn coal at home to try to warm up a cooling earth. It won't work then either, but some fools will believe it.

The problem is storage and its cost.
Even if solar and wind can be made economical the storage needs to be
where it can be switched on line rapidly and needs to be located at
a strategically located place.
It has to be of a size that could cope with a week or more of heavy
overcast and a string of windless days, like the last three days here.
The generation capacity has to be five perhaps ten times bigger than
the maximum load.
If not, it will not be able to keep the storage system charged.
Another point, storage systems will generally be electrical so it will
be DC and will have to be converted back to AC with some additional losses.
If not electrical storage there will be two conversions with even more losses.
It gets very messy !

Too many articles I read compare the cost per Mwhr between wind or
solar against steam. They do not seem to realise they might have to
multiply the figure of wind or solar perhaps by ten.

Bazz raises a good point.
One proven solution is to do as the Saniards have done and use a mirror array to focus the sun's rays on a (relateively) small heating area. This allows temperatures to be reached where salt (NaCl) liquifies. The temperatures achieved are hotter than the sun, as an indication.
This liquid salt is a hihgly efficient transfer method and stays hot long enough for the steam turbines to be driven at night.
Another solution, where the natural infrastructure exists is to use excess power during generation periods to pump water upwards.
The energy is stored as potential energy.
Later the water can be released to become a hydro generation source.
Solutions are appearing, and I remain confident that renewables will within our lifetimes become economically and environmentally attractive options.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Yep, all that alternative, & extremely expensive, energy has been great for Spain.

Their ridiculously expensive energy has enabled them to actually pass the Greeks in unemployment rates.

They would be a good mob to use as an example of what not to do.

They may be learning though. They dragged all that wave power stuff, up into the sand dunes, where it is currently rusting quietly away.

Hasbeen,
You would have to be completely ignorant of the Spanish economy to draw a line between the use of solar power and its current state.
Ever heard of the real estate bubble in the South of Spain?
Did you know that the three fastest growing real estate markets in the world prior to 2008 were Spain, Ireland and Australia?
And that Spain and Ireland turned into classic real estate bubbles which subsequently burst?
Have you heard anything about the disastrous loan record of Spanish banks?
About their exposure to valueless Wall Street derivatives?
Have you been following the news that most of the city council in Malaga are in jail due to corruptly allowing unapproved high rise developments? Which after 2008 collapsed in value?
Obviously not or you wouldn't assert something so far divorced from reality.
But I guess reality isn't your strong suite, right.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Oh, and by the way, Hasbeen, the wave power project was in Portugal, not Spain.
Newsflash - they're two different countries.
There's that pesky reality, getting in the way of your theories again.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve mentions the solar trough and salt storage but it does not
solve what happens next morning when the day is solid overcast and
there is little or no wind.
As for waves, strange but calm seas often occur when there is no wind.

For hydro first catch water that you can waste generating electricity.
I seriously doubt that there is anywhere near the capacity in Australia
for it to be anywhere near sufficient. There are not many Snowies here.
Unless we stop the export of energy we will not have enough to run the
economy and build the new energy system which may take 50 years to do.

I am afraid the politicians will leave it too late to do a fix and then
there will be a rush to build nuclear power stations.
They do not yet acknowledge the problem, let alone discuss a solution.

Okay, taking your points, Bazz, one at a time.

Solar - you're right, the NaCl concept isn't a complete storage solution, but it's certainly part of it.

Wave - actually, you are not quite right here. In fact, the sea is ALWAYS in motion. The Portuguese project works via a series of knuckle-like joints that generate kinetic energy from whatever direction they move, and anything in the sea is always in motion, unless tethered. For an example, have you ever been on a motionless boat on the sea? Lakes and rivers, yes, the sea, no.

Hydro - here you miss my point. The project involves using excess energy during high production periods to pump water from a low level to a high level. During low solar production periods the water is allowed to flow back down and this is the hydro generation phase. In fact, it's effectively a closed loop, i.e. the same water is used over and over again, pumped up when excess energy is available, i.e. during the sunlit periods, and flowing down as a hydro source during non-sunny periods.

As for your thoughts about nuclear, I agree. I'm sure it will happen exactly as you suggest.
When it's too late we'll be stuck with nuclear.
So annoying when the science is established for the alternatives and in most cases the remaining problems are engineering ones, not concept ones.
Ah well...
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Ahh yes,
Anthony: Wave actually,
Well that is the problem the range of waves is very wide and even at
the lower levels would produce much less than the peak level.
The ratio of time could be min to max about 10 times.
The Portuguese snake had a problem. Scotland is trying again.
Tide flow might be a better option.

Hydro, yes granted, but efficiency is not brilliant due to losses in
pumping up and generating on the way down, 50% ?
Also civil engineering cost would be very high.
Which I suspect it why hydro is normally associated with dam projects.

Lets hope renewable does happen, if nothing ever evolved we would be still driving T model fords.
Nuclear is not a good way to go, we can't even agree on a dump.
There's an eighteen foot rise in tide in North WA.
Oil and Coal have to go for long term viability.
The savings on oil alone would finance vast arrays of solar, and wind.
Algae can be grown for food as well as fuel, without soil.
The potential has got to be unlimited, all it needs is the doing

Since I was 14 about 35 years ago, I have been following the renewable energy endeavour, and the common thread is how wind power, solar and wave power were progressing and were soon to become as cheap as fossil fuel generation. It was one of the reasons I became an electrical engineer and spent much of my career on power generation, distribution and consumption.

What we have today is still the same technical issues that faced us decades ago, primarily wind is inconsistent and sporadic at best, the sun only shines during cloudless daylight, and wave generation gets beaten to scrap in a storm. The links to Spain's renewables adventure has skipped the point that burden of paying for these toys has fallen on Spain's consumers and manufacturers, and helped blow out debt and unemployment to record levels.

What they have shown is what we already knew is that the unreliability of renewables meant that Spain still had to pay top dollar to buy base load while paying huge sums for off peak generation. The only generation that came anywhere near base load (the hot salt solar storage) being several times more expensive than nuclear ever would have been.

The only country in the world that has reduced GHG emissions and has cheap power is France with over 80% of it generation from Nuclear. The rest of us are just fiddling while fossils burn.