Try this too, Issy: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58254e216a496325c2d90145/t/58b80ccd9de4bbe99bd309cb/1488456957086/Blakers+et+al+review.pdf

This works better:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/58254e216a496325c2d90145/t/58b80ccd9de4bbe99bd309cb/1488456957086/Blakers+et+al+review.pdf

Bazz,

It has been estimated that we have enough coal for a thousand years. As for oil, we really need to start coal-to-oil operations. The fact that we don't even keep the agreed amount of fuel in reserve (there's a lot of pious palaver about keeping commitments that we sign up to, but it doesn't apply to the fuel agreement apparently) means that we would be in peril if China interfered with our supplies from Singapore.

Luciferase,

Thanks for that it's very informative; I was mainly pointing out that pumping water uphill is not only feasible but already in use.

Personally, I'm all for coal and gas.

I don't know.
I'm just not feeling it.
I can't shake the feeling that we're trying to push a square peg through a round hole by pushing for renewables.
I don't see the reliability.
I don't see the performance of all the old tried and true systems being matched or exceeded.
I certainly don't see any cost benefits, especially on reliability.
In all this time I have not read one word about 'duty cycles'.
The words are at the heart of ALL the things we use and take for granted.
So most of all I do not see the duty cycles of renewables matching or exceeding the old tried and true methods of old.
As for us running out of the old fuel sources, I think we have a long time to go yet.
So much time in fact that if we don't stop the govt and their thieving mates from stealing the money allocated for the development of 'real' and practical renewables, we will be using fossil fuels for much longer than the fantasists would like.
So let's begin by getting rid of the greens and work our way through the rest, one by one, until we end up with people who genuinely want to see a new source of power generation.
Not necessarily renewables or what is being pushed at present.
We know there are alternatives.
Forget the crappy wind and sun.
They're as reliable as 'tits on a bull'.
Give some research money to salt thorium.
Allan where are you?
Keep pumping your salt reactor concept, someone has got to get curious enough to either try it and go, or knock it back.
At least we will know once and for all.
I know the concept exceeds any and all the feeble and pathetic current offerings of wind and sun.

Anything is theoretically feasible within the laws of physics, Issy. Not everything is viable. Blakers claims both using PHES.

Is 100% renewables viable? Depends on priorities. Do you want to be internationally competitive, attracting sufficient investment, with strong health, education and welfare systems, strong defense, etc.?

It would cost this country a monza while countries we compete against, who go thermal baseload, eat our oats. We would sell enough furniture and dirt to keep our head above water, while our economic pie shrinks and sharing it becomes increasingly challenging.