I keep arguing that wind turbines just do not work. The turbines need up to 100% backup for however a short period - (ie) several days. If you have a system like this why build it in the first place? It seems that the so called environmentalists believe we can live in utopia by doubling up by wind, solar, biomass and wave but do not consider the costs.

I wrote the following to the Australian newspaper last week. It was not published.

Dear Sirs,

I would like to paint a picture. It has been an extraordinary hot day and the slightly cooler evening is coming, but no promise of anything but the mildest sea breeze. Still 40 degrees, with the sun setting in the west, and air conditioners humming. An intense high system over eastern Australia promises more of the same tomorrow, another typically summers baking day. Back in the 2020's the so called Environmentalists had finally got their way and most base load coal generators in Australia had been closed. Australia was relying on renewable energy, and the Environmentalists were ecstatic. Hundreds died that night, the elderly in their homes, hospital emergency departments collapsed as they who could not call on reliable base load electricity. Backup batteries were exhausted, and no power was available for emergency power. The electrical distribution system collapsed, and stayed collapsed. The above scenario just couldn’t happen, could it?

Foxy, you said to SM;
The phrase -
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," does not apply in this
case because it is already on the verge of breaking.

The problem is wind never worked.
There are a number of possibilities.
Hot Rocks, long way down but lots of energy down there.
Commercial development has failed but with government funding it may
be possible get it going. Suitable granite hot rocks in Sth Aus & NSW.

Tidal but needs backup which is normally a killer to the ERoEI.
Also high tides only in NW WA and Nth Qld. Transmission losses !
Any backup installed has losses and not only does it have to be
charged to cover the down time, but extra generating capacity has to
be in place because the charging has to take place at the normal usage time.

The world has tried wind and it is a proven failure.
Solar has a worse ERoEI than wind but there may be room for improvement.
I think there is a physical limitation to the maximum output possible
on the light to electricity conversion but from what I have read it is
still possible to get higher output if someone can work out how to do it.
However it needs backup and that is the killer.
Backup has a really bad effect on ERoEI of the total system.
I suspect that no one knows how to produce what is needed but they are trying.

Nuclear is the only certain way to produce electricity 24 hours a day
365 days a year. The catch as I see it is that we have left it too
late and we can no longer afford to build a fleet of nuclear power
stations.
One way might be to use the money provided by storing the worlds
nuclear waste and building reprocessing plants and power plants.

The alternative I think is to stock up on candles !

Dear Bazz,

I'm certainly not an expert on this subject.
All I can do is suggest that we continue to
look for solutions to our future energy problems
by investing with people who are experts in
these fields. Look how far our technology has
come thus far and we can only trust that it will
continue to advance. Not to invest in the future
at least to me would be rather foolish because as
I wrote in my earlier post - fossil fuels are a
finite resource and sooner or later we will have
to seek alternative energy sources.

I realise that the use of winds, tides, or sunlight -
still appear, after years of intensive research,
too inefficient or uneconomic for large-scale use
at present. But we should not give up.

As for nuclear? There are many nuclear plants around
the world but many of them are managerial, financial,
or engineering disasters. Nuclear reactors produce
notoriously hazardous wastes. What is needed is a
place that will safely contain the waste for at least
10,000 years, which is long enough for most of it to
decay.

The location of such a site is a ticklish political problem,
for the obvious reason that people are generally unenthused
about the prospect of having a radioactive dump in their
own neighbourhood.

The disposal problem seems to be one that has no
acceptable technological fix, at least for now.
Proceeding with renewables seems like a better solution.

Yes Foxy renewables would be ideal but we should not waste resources
on known failures. Australia should ban the export of coal & gas and
keep it for our use only as we have no idea how long it may take to
find the new energy regime, it could be 100 years or more.
Fusion is one possibility but it has always been 60 years away.

Dear Bazz,

We don't have any set government policies as yet
on renewables -
so we have to wait and see what will be on offer
prior to the next election. All we can hope for
at the moment is that they will present us with
sensible policies designed to reduce pollution over
time with minimal impact on households and
businesses. But we shall have to wait and see.

As I stated earlier - the decision to go hard on
climate change sets an intriguing political contest
with the Abbott government in the next federal election.
And Labor's 50 per cent renewables mandate would
propel Australia towards the top of the list of
environment-conscious economies (with Denmark
committed to the same target but by 2020, California
by 2030, New Zealand aiming at 90 per cent by 2025, and
Germany 55 to 60 per cent by 2035).

Foxy, the problem is that there are no viable renewables in sight.
At the next election we will go to the polls with unacheivable goals on wind and solar.
We need to go to the election with a program of research objectives on some
realistic projects such as geothermal and tidal generation electrical
transmission research to see if we can get the voltage high enough to make it viable.

That is the sort of energy program I would take to the election if I were PM.
Forget global warming, the eroei of coal and oil will solve that.