Yes our target and more than half the world isone hundred percent renewable s
In the next 30 to 50 years
By then it will be easy
We will progress we will invent new fuels, new power
And the coal lobby will run out of reasons to rant about change

Aiden, well I see that you realise 100% renewables is impracticable.
From what I have read nuclear has become very high in cost.
Perhaps these modular reactors may solve that cost problem.
When its fuel runs out, send it back to the factory and connect up the replacement.
As far as hydro is concerned many would need dams and the greens
leverage on Labour would rule them out.
If we are to use coal for an extended period we will need to restrict
its export. China appears to be into peak coal already as some coal
mines have closed for economic reasons.
As Pres Xi said; "We will burn all our coal, then we will burn all yours !"

Belly, I think it is starting to dawn on some of the closed minds
that closed mines are not the answer.
I do not think there will be acceptance until there is some sort of
accident with a crowd of people in a lift or train or some housewife
gets really steamed up because the power went off while she was cooking
and spoilt her cake or something.
Very politically incorrect that but such things have moved mountains.

Bazz,
>Aiden, well I see that you realise 100% renewables is impracticable.
Not as most people would understand it to mean. There are no technical obstacles that would prevent us achieving it in a decade, though for economic reasons it MAY be better to wait slightly longer to do the last one or two percent, as we can't predict the rate of battery technological improvement.

But hypothetically if we were stupid enough to rely on a single technology, and used massive overbuild as a substitute for storage, of course it would be impracticable. Do you understand why that has no bearing whatsoever on whether we should install more wind turbines now?

>From what I have read nuclear has become very high in cost.
>Perhaps these modular reactors may solve that cost problem.
I think it depends what you consider solving the problem to be. I doubt they'll ever be sufficiently cost competitive to supply Australia's needs, but they'll be great for those countries with high power requirements that don't have our solar and wind resources.

>As far as hydro is concerned many would need dams and the greens
>leverage on Labour would rule them out.
Green opposition to dams is based on damage they'd cause to the ecosystem. That's usually much less with off river dams, and finding a few more sites suitable for pumped storage shouldn't be a problem. But the main improvements from hydro will come not from building more dams, but from changing how we use the existing ones.

>As Pres Xi said; "We will burn all our coal, then we will burn all yours !"
Did he really say that? It sounds like fake news.
Our coal mines need repurposing, to use as a chemical industry feedstock rather than an energy source. And we're not in any danger of running out of coal. I'd like to see Coal Export Duty (which was abolished by the Hawke government, despite Howard later promising the GST would replace it) reinstated for environmental reasons, but I don't see how any government could get away with that politically.

Bazz coal will be used for another 50 years
Deceased use but used
We know if we will let our selves say it, man will invent other power sources
It is called progress

There are hundreds of tidal flows under bridges and also wave motion that could be used as energy sources, Especially across the Top End.