"The fossil fuels are a finite source. Sooner or later they will run out "

Well perhaps. On the other hand, since we've never ever run out of a resource, history might tell us otherwise.

But at least we are making some progress. It used to be that we were told we'd run out of oil in 10 years time. Even the optimistic estiamtes in the 1970s said we'd run out by 2000. But, at the moment we have more known reserves of oil and coal than at any time in our history.

At least Foxy's on the right track..." Grim reality will hit us
probably in the next century." Well not us but peoples whose grandparents haven't been born yet. On the other hand, other estimates see us having enough oil to last to 2150 and enough coal to last to 2400.

Those who think that people from those times will be still using oil and coal by then, just haven't been paying attention to the last 300 years. I'd opine that by 2150 our descendants will be using some energy source that hasn't even been imagined yet and their kids will be giggling that their idiot ancestors from the early 21st century thought they needed to waste money on wind and solar for the good of their great great grandkids.

"However, the longer we wait, the more expensive it
will become."

Based on estimates from the IPCC, our descendants in 2100AD will be 6 to 8 times richer than us. Nigerians will be richer than present days Americans. Even if energy is more expensive then, (in total contradiction to our experience over the last 3 centuries ) they'll be easily able to afford it. That's provided we don't utterly destroy our economy and their future by allowing the carpetbaggers to take us for a ride.

Belly,

That's the fourth time you have said that you are not going to communicate with me. You can't be believed on anything. If anyone should 'lift' his game it is you. Your lack of ability to write English and make sense is embarrassing.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

"I'd opine that by 2150 our descendants will be using some energy source that hasn't even been imagined yet and their kids will be giggling that their idiot ancestors from the early 21st century thought they needed to waste money on wind and solar for the good of their great great grandkids."

And when gazing into that crystal ball of yours where do you see sea levels being?

Renewables plus gas will ensure sea levels continue to rise. Renewables plus storage, i.e. 100% renewables, is fantasy.

If we are serious about reducing emissions, enough to significantly mitigate matters, there is but one solution, nuclear, and especially SMR's. These will load follow existent renewables and displace their share as they fail.

Significant investment in new generation should be saved until mid-2030 for the first arrival in Oz of SMR's. There is no point in a non-nuclear approach in the interim, not renewables plus OCGT, not CCGT, not HELE, all are delusional. We must legalize nuclear within 5 years, IMO, to ensure its path is clear.

ttbn,
Firstly, what's your source?
Secondly, are you absolutely sure it includes all renewables? For example, I've seen hydro classified separately before - and likewise for biofuels.

Thirdly, your claim that "the other 96.4% is still provided by fossil fuels" is certainly wrong, because it ignores the contribution of nuclear power. I've read elsewhere that this supplies about 2% of world energy needs.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,
Renewables plus storage is no more a fantasy than reliance on SMRs. It is far more likely that in the Australian context, power from renewables will be so cheap by 2030 that SMRs will be uneconomic.

You diss renewables plus gas because of rising sea levels, but then advocate the far more carbon intensive policy of freezing significant investment in generation until mid 2030. Such a freeze would result in a large increase in electricity prices. We have to start tackling these issues now - we can't wait for SMRs.

https://www.masterresource.org/wind-power/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-v-calculator-update/

The above interesting article concludes, "What emerges from this analysis is that in electricity systems that must choose among fossil fuel-fired means of integrating wind volatility, no plausible scenario seems to exist where wind can play a positive role as the means to achieve fossil fuel or greenhouse gas emissions savings."

It's saying that wind and gas must be paired for reliable electricity dispatch. Because load following makes for inefficient gas-burning in OCGTs, the emissions are more than burning gas in CCGTs alone, i.e. gas alone can produce less CO2 than wind energy plus gas.

Presumably the situation doesn't improve for solar.

Those claiming the renewables plus gas package to be the bridge to 100% renewables, believe in feasible storage solutions that haven't been invented. Any step on this path is a completely pointless act and a waste of resources that can be expended on the only true solution to mitigating AGW.

An article (below) concludes,"Replacing coal by gas for energy production will not solve the climate problem. At best it is an interim measure, and even then of dubious benefit for the climate system..."

https://www.atse.org.au/content/publications/media-releases/2015/warming-will-increase-by-transitioning-from-coal-to-gas.aspx

If Labor wins the next election it will push down the pointless 100% renewables path. If the Coalition wins there is some possibility for nuclear as I do not believe it is wedded to coal so much as it is to energy affordability. SMR's will bring clean energy and affordability, and the Coalition is the only party likely to tackle legalizing nuclear.