Dear Philip S,

Lost? Lost what? There is nothing to win or lose here. You see if I were to properly engage in the article you would simply not answer my points of contention but would instead go off on a completely different tack.

Even when I ask you to back up your own claims you say they are self evident therefore not requiring a response.

So old chap sharpish retorts are all we are left with. They can certainly be fun but ultimately with little substance. However since this is the bed you chose to make for yourself faux indignation about the result is quite laughable and shows you to be a bit of a nob.

Actually 'Piss off yah bloody nob head' does seem a more fulsome and appropriate response don't you think.

SteeleRedux - Quote "shows you to be a bit of a nob. Actually 'Piss off yah bloody nob head' does seem a more fulsome and appropriate response don't you think"

Why would anyone want to get into a discussion with someone has nothing tangible to retort,BUT all that person can do is a lot of nothing word and the quote above

Hi Joe,
>Thank goodness ! Now we can start slowly reducing the subsidies on renewable energy projects.
We already have. But with decreasing wholesale prices, there will still be a need for more wind and solar farms, so don't expect the subsidies to drop to zero unless we find a way to exploit all the excess energy produced.

>Do you mean just in Australia, or everywhere else ?
Australia and some other places, but not everywhere.

>Clearly then, there is no need to mine for coal or gas
Coal and gas aren't just burned to produce electricity - they have direct industrial uses as well.

>or uranium, since they involve more expensive forms of electricity generation ?
As I said, costs are different in other parts of the world. So there's still plenty of demand for our uranium, and that's likely to increase.

>So why wait for ten years or twenty years or fifty years ?
We certainly shouldn't wait fifty years! I think a twenty year transition is reasonable.

>Why not close up every non-renewable energy generation source and rely totally on renewables ?
Three reasons:
Firstly, implementation takes time, both with the solar panels and the other associated infrastructure. Projects like Snowy 2.0 don't just build themselves!

Secondly, the costs of renewables are still falling. And the cost of big batteries is also likely to fall substantially as improving technology enables them to be made from cheap elements such as sodium and aluminium instead of more expensive ones like lithium and vanadium.

Thirdly, the subsidies that would be required to attract the necessary investment would attract a lot of opposition, both from existing power generators and from people ideologically opposed to subsidies. And unless there's a change in the way they're paid for, there'd also be a lot of opposition from power consumers.

>As well, why not plant vast areas of trees, crops and natural vegetation,
>to soak up the CO2 that is already in excess in our atmosphere ?
There are carbon farming activities occurring, but without a carbon price it's not economically sustainable.

"Now the Saphire [wind farm] has bright red lights atop its towers but the farms to the South of the highway do not and I've wondered why; is it just some form of bizarre advertizing or is there another explanation?"

Does no one know?

Aircraft safety is the best bet,at least the light uses renewables

Belly,

That can't be it as the lights are 25 to 26 metres below the topmost point of the arc of the blades.

Or maybe that is it and some hapless lost pilot is supposed to know of the added hazard?