In his report on the Federal Energy and Environment Minister, Josh Frydenberg’s, address to the National Press Club on April 11: https://reneweconomy.com.au/frydenberg-takes-the-low-road-its-a-weak-neg-or-nothing-78470/, Giles Parkinson wrote in the RenewEconomy yesterday that, “The economics, the engineering, and the environmental arguments are quite clear. They point to a modern, smarter, faster, cleaner and cheaper grid that is based around renewables, storage, smart software, distributed energy and dispatchable power”. Discuss.

Please post supporting links, papers, peer reviewed research etc to support your responses out of respect for those wanting to learn from this debate. Thanx.

It appears that many Australians do want the government
to focus on renewables even if it costs more according to
a poll done last year by the Lowy Institute:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/07/australians-want-government-to-focus-on-renewables-even-if-it-costs-more-poll

And here's another link on what South Australia should aim for:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-should-aim-for-100-renewables-by-2025-not-50-34320/

Mr Turnbull may have a problem implementing policies towards this end
due to the conservative (and vested interest) side of politics in
his party.

If we are going to be fair dinkum about not using coal to generate electricity and if we really want to see a cleaner planet then, as a first step, an ethical step and a compassionate step, we should immediately ban the export of coal and cease mining it.

There may be economic repercussion but what the heck, doing the right thing is its own reward.

Last time I checked, uranium didn't count as a renewable resource. I assume that's still the case. Despite the fact that it lacks the advantage of being renewable, it is still carbon free. It's also capable of producing of a reliable baseload power supply.

We have a lot of yellowcake in Australia. Why the hell aren't we 'burning' uranium? Or even thorium, if only to shut Alan B(ollocks) up.

It's hard to believe people can be so stupid.

Issy, I am not sure if you were being sarcastic with "we should immediately ban the export of coal and cease mining it." in an ideal world that would be achievable. Unfortunately we are in the real world, and yes I agree we should cease mining and exporting coal, but we have to do that in a way that is practical, and that is going to take time.

It shows that Turnbull has no policy, and is out of touch on power generation, when he made the ridiculous demand that AGL keep the 50 year old Liddell power station in NSW open past its well and truly use by date of 2022. The plant is a worn out dinosaur that is incapable of producing high output without risking a catastrophic failure.

http://www.afr.com/business/energy/electricity/the-fight-about-agls-liddell-power-station-explained-20180409-h0yju5

As long as other nations want to buy it to put power in their people's homes and raise the standard of living for them and their families we should sell it, until the last coal fired power station closes for good.
Of course we should move to better cleaner means of energy production, but we can't shut the country down over 'the right thing to do'
Is mise, if you had to choose between schools, hospitals, or welfare for the aged being the losers in your plan to kick coal out (and associated economic loss) which would you choose?
The answer is none you fool, it's treason to deliberately impact on those lives for pie in the sky ideals.
Misguided morals and poor priorities sorry.

G whatever! Firstly "peer reviewed BS" the chief scientist of the UK told the government (backed by peer review) diesel was the way to go! Years later says he just parroted what the car companies told him and it was dangerous rubbish. So diesel is poison and now let's get rid of it. Peer review, he should be in jail and excuse me if I stick two fingers up at you and all the idiot, lying frauds.
I remember coal costing us much much less than renewables. Since government intervention it keeps going up. We need at least two very big HELE coal plants and the immediate abolition of renewable subsidies, you know what China, Germany and Japan are doing.

GJOESQ is obviously an academic involved in the global warming research scam, or a gravy train rider, making a quid from the scam. It is obvious, if for no other reason than Josh Frydenberg & Malcolm Turnbull promote it, that you the global warming scam, as demonstrated by the Climategate emails is not only garbage, but some of the most dishonest research ever published.

That they are not game to reveal their reasoning to general scrutiny says it all. The scream now that the EPA will no longer accept secrete research proves they are not game to submit their garbage to general scrutiny.

The State Governments that have allowed existing coal generators to be closed down indicates that it is not an orderly transition to renewables. The case of South Australian Labor brain snap to diesel generators is how South Australia is going two steps back then one forward. Ararat in western Victoria had a diesel generator to supply energy to locals up until it was connected to the cheaper Victorian grid in the early 1970's. Diesel generators are expensive for the supply of energy compared with even old coal fired generators. The future for Australia is clean coal and nuclear energy. I always remember how a school near Canberra was supplied with Solar panels.Unfortunately the first hail storm that hit the area smashed all the panels. Luckily the State Government has unlimited money and instead of these panels saving money over a ten year period.They will now see their school pupils going on the aged pension before the cost is fully recovered. It is time for the rich to admit they do not care about the average Australian but rather see a chance to get ahead of the pack with subsidised roof top energy along with negative gearing. Australia is a great place to live for the rich.

Another link that may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-15/renewable-energy-investment-bonanza-coming-to-australia/9328638

“The economics, the engineering, and the environmental arguments are quite clear. They point to a modern, smarter, faster, cleaner and cheaper grid that is based around renewables, storage, smart software, distributed energy and dispatchable power”

Great to see the word "storage" in there. Show us the money. What scalable, viable storage makes renewables sufficiently despatchable for modern civilization on the main grid? (I'll cede off-grid applications in Australia, which is where renewables belong, but even there great compromises are made and viability relies on large subsidies, as it does on-grid).

Despatchable renewables, but for hydro, is nothing at this stage but a figment of some motivated modellers imagination:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118300485?via%3Dihub

So at this point in time renewablistas are trying to park us with wind and solar with gas backup as an emissions producing interim stage towards scalable, viable storage that hasn't been invented and is unlikely to be.

They require us to adopt their blind faith and pour all our effort and resources into a non-solution to AGW while they spread FUD around the one true solution has been working for decades.

They spread FUD around nuclear, of course, while failing to inform the public that scalable viable storage is a figment of the imagination.

I wonder if BJOESQ meant 'transition' and not 'translation' as he/she actually wrote. Not very academic, Hasbeen. I think he/she could be a kid, brainwashed at school, but not taught the English language and the meanings of words. The 'discuss' at the end of the first paragraph gives a hint; and, how about 'thanx' for 'thanks'.

I was particularly amused by his/her invitation to “.... post supporting links, papers, peer reviewed research to support your responses...”. Definitely an unformed, childish brain, I would think.

Does it always have to get personal?

https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/horizon-power-extends-off-grid-solar-storage-trial-remote-wa-customers/

Heavily subsidized and promoted poster-child stuff like this in the outback is touted as the way forward everywhere. A consideration of all factors going into decision-making surrounding such a project makes it clear it is not what would be considered scalable and viable on-grid.

Given the subject matter contains most of the answers, see: http://reneweconomy.com.au/frydenberg-takes-the-low-road-its-a-weak-neg-or-nothing-78470/

When we read the words "low road and weak neg[ative]" one can only believe that the incumbents and opposition have the same agendas afoot. One thing is certain, we won't see any inroads into renewable technologies until the last cubic metre of coal & litre of crude oil has been auctioned off on E-Bay for some ridiculous amount. The "Fossils" behind the fossil fuel mentality will see to that.

Pro renewable or anti Global Warming, no matter, we won't be seeing a change in the status quo with the LNP/ALP, there are simply too many vested interest groups with either party.

NEG = National energy guarantee

Frydenburg's "middle ground" requires renewables providers to provide reliable electricity supply, which they hate, of course!

I don't think conservatives are as wedded to coal as much as they are to reliable electricity, which coal ensures. I want Malcolm to broach the source which dare not speak its name lest he unleash FUD and fury that may undermine re-election. Perhaps he'll butter us up after it. I live in hope

Apologies to all. A typo managed to get through when I formulated the title for this discussion. Thanx, ttbn, for spotting this. I have emailed the Administrator to request a correction. :-)

Hopefully, one day, renewable energy generation will be cheap enough to make wind towers and solar panels in China using renewable energy instead of coal. Or, if they were made here, maybe even without the subsidies.

And shouldn't the amount of CO2 generated by one method or other include that produced in the production of those forms of renewable energy ? How long would, say, a wind tower have to operate before it's countered the amount of CO2 used in making it ? Or would this great day never arrive in its lifetime ?

In the meantime, say the next century, why not built nuclear energy systems, using uranium or thorium ? And with no subsidies ?

Just trying to be helpful.

Joe

We are paying for the government to broadcast how they are bringing down the price of electricity (non-stop ads on radio). I check the price per kWh on each bill I receive, and that price never reduces. On my last bill, I paid $59 less than the full amount for merely paying on time, which I have always done anyway (paid on time). This does not make electricity cheaper and, if I can be given a discount of 15% for no real reason, then I am being charged too much in the first place. It's all about 'mark up'. And, like most goods and services in Australia, the mark up is too high, and there is nothing governments can do about it, short of introducing price control which has been a dirty word since the ousting of arch-socialist and economy wrecker, Gough Whitlam.

Further, the cost of electricity is not the worst of it. Reliability is a big problem, as is the fact that most of the windmills are just about worn out; and guess who is going to bear the tremendous cost of replacing them!

What's this nonsense: there is no such thing as "renewable energy" - that would go against the laws of thermodynamics!

The main way to combat global warming is to depopulate. We simply can't keep growing. Changing the way we generate electricity is less important than reducing the amount of electricity we need.

Dear Benk,

Though there is no such thing as "global warming", I still support your conclusion wholeheartedly. Overpopulation squeezes people and turns them into numbers. When there are too many people in a given area, regimentation is required in order to prevent them stepping on each other's foot - and this diminishes the quality of life and in fact defeats its purpose.

I came across an obscure American publication called 'Investors Business Daily',which ran an article called “Going Green A Luxury For Rich At Expense Of Poor”. This article claimed that while “socialism (had been) the opium of the liberal intelligentsia” the “drug of choice” for these elitists is now “environmentalism”. The “dirty little secret” of the modern green movement has become a “luxury good for he uber-rich”, who espouse all sorts of policies from carbon taxes, to renewables, to closing down coal plants – thereby imposing high costs on poor people who can least afford to pick up the “green tab”.

The article cited an oil pipeline that would have created 5,000 jobs for $70,000 pa workers that was opposed by Democrats on more that $100,000 a year. 51% of these people had PH.Ds.

These elites thought that the pipeline would inevitably be blocked; they also thought that it was inevitable that Hilary Clinton would be elected president. But, along came Donald Trump, and the pipeline plus another one has been given the go ahead.

The sorts of things that you think are inevitable just might not be anything of the kind.

Thanx to everyone who has posted links to support their viewpoint. I'm sure that the readers who want to learn more about this topic will appreciate that.

I note, with some sadness, that those who agree with the premise of the topic tend to post supporting links. Would people of the contrary view please do likewise so that all readers can be better able to form their own conclusions. Otherwise, they may perceive a paucity of depth in those comments and may even dismiss them.

ttbn, here's an article that reveals a windfall (excuse the pun) for communities that have invested in wind turbines in Australia, contrary your quote that environmentalism is a “dirty little secret” of the modern green movement that has become a “luxury good for he uber-rich”: https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-farms-on-track-to-deliver-10-5bn-back-to-host-communities-86989/

I particularly like the final paragraph, "In terms of jobs, the report finds that the 2GW of new wind farm capacity currently under construction have created an estimated 1,950 in direct local jobs and a further 4,500 indirect jobs in local businesses that supply to the projects." Sound like a win from wind to me. :-)

Gee that's great GJOESQ. Just one problem.

Remember the statistic from Spain, when it was the poster boy for alternate generation, before it sent them broke.

Yes, they found that for every job generated in expensive subsidised alternate power, they lost 2 from the real self supporting economy.

Great for those communities, if it is true, but those 1,950 in direct local jobs and a further 4,500 indirect jobs have cost about 9000 in the real world.

Any idea how many have been lost just in the car industry?

So the one question that will remain unanswered is, where will the jobs come from for those lost.

Hasbeen,

Now you're talking history, mate; and to someone like GJOESQ that only goes back to breakfast this morning. Still, after we have carked it, he and his little friends are going to have to clear up the mess they are getting themselves into. Not our problem.

rehctub and ttbn, here are a few links for you to learn about the great job opportunities and job growth in the renewable energy industry:

http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/solar-wind-renewable-jobs/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-investment-kills-jobs.htm
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/renewablesreport
https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-industry-provides-far-more-jobs-in-australia-than-coal-69251/

Finally, here's some great breakfast reading for you both, "RENEWABLE ENERGY JOBS: FUTURE GROWTH IN AUSTRALIA" : https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/9bbeec4336c0f87f7e04205516b3cfa7.pdf

:-)

So let me get this right. We adopt a non-solution to AGW and get wet with excitement about jobs will generate? What about nuclear, a real solution that employs world-wide? (tho' not an army of window washers to clean dust and bird-crap daily).

Jobs, another furfy in the litany of BS spouted by renewablistas. GJOESQ, links at ten paces is not engaging. Answer this, what scalable, viable storage solution exists to make the "Transition" anything more than blind faith and trading old coal for gas or HELE?

Stop swallowing reneweconomy Kool-aid and show us the money!

Luciferase, you provide no evidence to support your claims. Frankly, it is unreasonable for you to expect a response if you post a baseless opinion. Indeed, you can research that question yourself. I look forward to reading what you find, with links so I can verify it myself. :-)

You're asking me to prove something doesn't exist? No, the onus is on you, who claims the transition to 100% renewables is inevitable (you wrote the title to this thread), to demonstrate the existence of something fundamental to this.

Modelling that fails to address scalable, viable storage, amongst several other parameters, is twaddle. The following article is saying just that in very understated terms: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118300485?via%3Dihub

Perhaps you would also explain why after so much has been spent in Germany, the poster child for renewable energy, its emissions are rising even tho' it has extension cords into French nuclear and Nordic hydro power.

Thanx for the link, Luciferase. I appreciate your goodwill there. :-)

After reading the text, I'm very encouraged by it, even though it is UK centric. Here's a very good primer article published by Australia's Alternative Technology Association early last year: http://renew.org.au/articles/100-renewable-grid-just-how-feasible-is-it/

I concur with their conclusion that there is, "A reliable, 100% renewable electricity grid is entirely possible, using a mix of technologies beyond current wind and solar farm designs. A coordinated, far-sighted approach is required, which will be challenging under the current energy market design and regulatory regime."

I suppose one could say that, where's the political will, there's a practical way. Let's face it, without significant government investment in the fossil fuel industry, it would have struggled remain competitive as renewables became cheaper: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/public-financing-oil-gas-coal-2017-7?r=US&IR=T

Here's another article that shows the huge extent to which public money is spent supporting fossil fuels worldwide summed up nicely here, "A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Oh, and Luciferase, the reason for Germany's CO2 equivalent emission had increased in recent years is because of its transport industry: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-emissions/vehicle-pollution-still-rising-in-germany-agency-idUSKBN1H31F6

I quote, "The energy industry, which is undergoing a staged transition to renewable technologies, saw its emissions fall by 4.1 percent, or 13.7 million tonnes, in 2017, UBA said.

But transport sector emissions rose by 2.3 percent to 170.6 million tonnes, as car ownership expanded and the booming economy meant more heavy vehicles were on the road."

Luciferase, last Saturday, you posted, "I don't think conservatives are as wedded to coal as much as they are to reliable electricity, which coal ensures."

Here's a report on the recent poor reliability of fossil fuels and how renewable energy and battery storage have prevent that unreliability from causing serious problems in Australia's NEM: http://www.tai.org.au/content/coal-and-gas-reliability-liability-heat-report

I quote from that report, "New analysis released today by The Australia Institute’s Climate & Energy Program shows that coal and gas failed to provide energy security during the February 2017 heatwave. Additionally, it found that solar prevented far worse disruption and load-shedding."

My figuring re Germany was not a current as yours, GJOESQ. If emissions fell in 2017 it was on the back of two years of rising. The following link reports the facts as they stood prior to 2017 (for which figures will be released this May):

http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/1/13/breaking-german-emissions-increase-in-2016-for-second-year-in-a-row-due-to-nuclear-closure

More on storage (which you are keen to ignore). If Germany with all its integration into the EU grid (with nuclear and hydro) can't make a difference to its own carbon footprint that is a significant contribution to AGW mitigation, how do we do it here on an island continent? We must be thankful to Germany for showing us what is NOT the way, at its own great expense.

http://www.hanswernersinn.de/dcs/2017%20Buffering%20Volatility%20EER%2099%202017.pdf

What’s entirely absent from the policy discussion of environmentalists is any acknowledgement of their class privilege. Much of the cost of environmental policies falls on the poorest households. The poor subsidise the solar panels of the rich through their ever increasing electricity bills. When government mandates higher environmental standards it’s the poor who are disproportionately harmed by higher prices.

Luciferase, thanx for posting those links. :-)

Here's a couple of links that explain how Australia will be able to meet the storage challenge:

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/d4a4f17c09c83d03f13234051e3e77d8.pdf

https://arena.gov.au/blog/acola/

ttbn, here's an excellent Australian initiative that directly addresses access to rooftop solar PV by low income households:

https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/low-income-homes-offered-no-cost-solar-batteries/?utm_source=RE+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=241109ad1e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_04_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_46a1943223-241109ad1e-40450881

Furthermore, contrary to your erroneous belief that "The poor subsidise the solar panels of the rich through their ever increasing electricity bills", the opposite is true. In the year to April 2017, rooftop solar PV saved all Australians $3.3 billion by obviating the need to fire up gas peakers:

https://www.echo.net.au/2017/10/rooftop-solar-saving-billions-australians/

GJOESQ, like a zombie you just keep coming. Well, your lot is winning the politics, regardless of the true facts about renewables and of nuclear, so I'll leave my parting shot.

A glee sheet or two about remarkable storage opportunities doesn't cut it. The great German experiment demonstrates it is an expensive path to failure. Unless a remarkable storage discovery brings scalable, viable storage, 100% renewables is a mirage.

In failing to challenge the moratorium against nuclear in Australia and to open up a proper scientific debate about it, Finkel is a failure too, and an imbiber of renewablista Kool-aid.

Luciferase, thanx for your contribution to this discussion and farewell. I trust that a person of intelligence and goodwill, such as yourself, will continue to investigate the facts and, hopefully, draw a different conclusion in the fulness of time. At the very least, get some PVs on your rooftop if you haven't done so already. Frankly, to coin a phrase, it's a no brainer!.

Here are two articles that acknowledge Germany's mistakes but outlines ways for Australia to avoid them. I highlight this comment from the second article, "The German example is by no means a blueprint for Australia. Australia has different natural resources, existing network and generation infrastructure and the lack of neighbouring countries to connect to".

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australia-can-avoid-germany-s-renewable-energy-mistakes-20180312-p4z3zh.html

https://theconversation.com/what-can-australia-learn-from-germanys-remarkable-energy-transition-69648

Finally, to give you an upbeat sending off, please have a listen to this podcast emanating from the recent renewable energy conference held in Sydney. It's very illuminating and reveals the excitement and hope the breakneck development in renewable energy and storage is creating in both the business and domestic markets:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/podcast/solar-insiders-podcast-april-11/

How could one not want to get on board? :-)

No doubt of it: GJOESQ is rather thick. He is called a zombie by a poster, and he thanks that poster. There is some powerful stuff being drunk, snorted, smoked and injected these days. The entire climate/alternative energy/subsidise-me cabal all seem to be on it.

Loudmouth, in response to your question in your post on April 15, “And shouldn't the amount of CO2 generated by one method or other include that produced in the production of those forms of renewable energy? How long would, say, a wind tower have to operate before it's countered the amount of CO2 used in making it? Or would this great day never arrive in its lifetime?”, I am pleased to offer you an answer to these questions via this very informative article published late last year: https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-wind-and-nuclear-have-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints-study-finds-94129/

This quote from the article summaries its general drift, ‘"I continue to be amazed just how low the embodied energy use of solar, wind and nuclear power is, in comparison with others," study co-author Edgar Hertwich tells Carbon Brief.'

May I respectfully suggest that you use the great resources of the internet to research these issue yourself and post the results of your diligence here. :-)

ttbn, it's called polite respect. I refuse to engage in silly name calling. I generally find that it's a signal that the debate is lost by the perpetrator. :-)

One of the things that we need are modern coal fired locomotives, they can operate independently of any outside power source. Electricity power failures do not affect them, the availability of imported fuel doesn't affect them and they can travel through deeper flood water than a diesel-electric or an electric locomotive.
They are however labour intensive, which means more jobs.

Win, win.

Here's a link to a Google page that has a lot on the subject of modern steam locos.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=modern+steam+locomotive+developments&rlz=1C1CAFB_enAU718AU718&oq=modern+steam+locomotives&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.19048j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

GJOESQ.

I’ll tell you what I base my opinion of Global warming on, observation.
Ive seen nothing! in the weather around the world in the last 30years that I
havent seen or experienced over my lifetime of twice those number of years.

I have watched the news for decades, so I see the weather events around the world as well and I dont see anything there, I havent seen before, either.
Plus the greens and left wing parties in Western countries, have seriously lost the plot,and their ideas are utopian and bizarre, which makes me sceptical of their extremist views. For example:-wanting to shut the grid down, immediately, in every state, if not sooner.
And, I have nothing against solar power, and I think eventually the right mix will come about naturally, without any help from the Greens, because new Australian homeowners, are putting Solar power panels on their roofs at a very fast rate since it became more affordable.
I dont believe,there is any urgency, whatsoever, to convert to solar, but that doesn’t mean I have anything against people having solar, to power their homes.
Talk to the big overpopulations in India and China if you want to reduce coal dependence. They are the ones driving world production of coal in such huge amounts. Not what the Greens want to hear, because it is Western countries they want to belt over the head, not the ridiculously, overpopulated countries, driving all sorts of environmental devastation. But global warming, I still dont believe in.

CHERFUL.

Thanx for your contribution. I’d like to respond (against my own rules) even though you supplied zero support for your opinions. :-)

I’m 60 and my conclusions from my lifetime of "observation" are the complete opposite. I have also "watched the news for decades" and I have reached the complete opposite opinion. I quote these references, "A new study finds human-caused global warming is significantly increasing the rate at which hot temperature records are being broken around the world”: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171108155504.htm

Did you know that, Including April 2017, there were "388 straight months in which the global temperature has been warmer than the 20th century average”: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2017/05/18/april-was-the-388th-consecutive-month-that-global-temperature-was-warmer-than-average/#.Wtw8l1OFPXE

CHERFUL, you say that the "greens and left wing parties in Western countries” have never wanted “to shut the grid down, immediately, in every state, if not sooner.” I can find no evidence on the WWW to back up this claim by you. If you have any, will you please supply it. Otherwise I’ll have to disregard your comments as a complete fabrication.

The uptake of rooftop PV will continue to boom regardless of amy government or party support.

The "big overpopulations in India and China" are actually using less coal than ever. I’m not sure from where you are getting your alternative ‘facts’ but it is clear from these articles that both China and India are actually transitioning quite well from fossil fuels to renewables: https://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/environment-and-safety/china-india-reducing-coal-dependency-faster-expected-reports-199061/ and http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/01/china%E2%80%99s-decline-coal-consumption-drives-global-slowdown-emissions I invite you to read these links to disabuse you of your false precepts.

I can’t do anything about your beliefs about global warming, CHERFUL. However, I’m pleased that you’ll benefit from any policy decisions made with the understanding that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. :-)

GJOESQ, research is not required. Coal. Find it, remove the over burden, extract the coal, move the coal to stockpile, transport the coal to ports, load the ships and ship the coal, unload the coal, then burn the coal. Most of these jobs are local.

Solar. Import the panels etc, install, monitor and service.

Wind. Import the components, erect, monitor and service.

What do we need to research?

rehctub, your plan is perfect for destroying the health of humans and the environment. I, for one, do not support it. Any jobs created by it are not not worth the costs of coal's extraction, transportation, processing, combustion, mine rehabilitation and health issues, all of which are the direct consequences of coal mining.

Currently, these costs are hidden as externalities and not included in the cost of coal that we see bandied about by coal supporters. However, electricity consumers actually pay for them indirectly through taxes, subsidies and other government funded programs, thereby keeping hidden the true, very high cost of coal:

Here's two, well researched, publications that will give you a thorough introduction to the topic of externalities: https://www.dea.org.au/images/general/How_coal_burns_Aust._-_True_cost_of_burning_coal_04-13.pdf and https://www.atse.org.au/Documents/reports/the-hidden-costs-of-electricity.pdf

You are blindingly wrong in stating that "research is not required". Indeed, the Union of Concerned Scientists decimate your 19th century solution to 21st century realities: https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/all-about-coal/how-coal-works#.WtxehVOFPXE

This article articulates a sound policy for renewable energy: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-29/szoke-no,-coal-is-not-good-for-humanity/6656184

In answer to your question, "What do we need to research?", my answer for you is everything, because what you have proposed is not based on any research whatsoever. It's just your opinion.