Hi Bazz,

The issues are certainly complex.

Both China and India have signed the Paris Agreement
and are also taking action to address climate change.

It's a big challenge for countries like China and
India where hundeds of millions don't yet have
electricity at all, which is why their coal sectors
still wield much political power.

According to articles on the web,( Quatrz India,
March 27, 2019) and a new report
by the Paris-based International Energy Agency
(IEA):

As of 2018,
China had installed over 400 gigawatts of renewable
electricity, more than double that in the United States
and we're told that China has become the worlds
leading clean energy investor.

Meanwhile, we're told that India had made a national
commitment to deploy 450 gigawatts of renewable energy
across the country by 2030. That's equal to more than 800
US coal plants.

However India has continued building new coal plants, and
oil imports are only rising as its growing population
becomes more prosperous.

Australia will probably continue to embrace a diverse
mix of new often cleaner energy technologies.

I believe that our electricity system can become a
efficient and highly decentralised machine. The challenge
for us is to choose the future we want and try to work out
the best way to get there.

Thanks for the response Foxy,
Yes, indeed it is complex. So much so that it hard to get agreement
on what are the real situations as most look at it all with different
coloured glasses.
My glasses are coloured by the belief that solar & wind cannot provide
a 100% x 100% electricity supply mainly because Australia could just
be too small and the cost would be impossible.
My glasses are coloured because I believe that the science has changed
and the 600 to 1000 year cycle that is well established is what we
have seen in recent years as global warming.
According to some scientists in that group the peak of the warming
occurred around 1995. Also they believe that CO2 is a minor factor in
the warming and that the sun is the source of heating.
Re China last I heard they were still building coal fired plants.
Seems a bad policy for them as the Energy Return on Energy Invested
for coal mines has got down towards 7, especially their own, which is
the give it up point.

I think very soon, ie +5 years it will become obvious what needs to be
done and all those pointing at co2 will not admit it, but everyone
will finally line up on Nuclear is the only way.

Hello again Bazz,

I'm hoping that with our scientific organisations
like CSIRO - hopefully they can unlock value from
our country's unmatched energy resources in a way
that is both responsible and environmentally sustainable,
as well as building a cost competitive, lower emissions
domestic energy sector.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what that will be.

Bazz, you speak with objectivity and common sense.
The mainstream renewables camp only see through blurred glasses and therefore see what they want to,or think they see.
I agree that renewables are not yet and possibly will never be a viable power supply for all the basic reasons.
Unless some new and yet undiscovered technology is found or perfected, the current offerings are at best, USELESS and UN-RELIABLE not to mention the real and true performance/cost of electricity/reliability.
As much as the dreamers and those needing reality checks go, the truth is that many countries are turning away from renewables, and we know why.
So it is that they have gone back to the tried and true, and slowly turning away from the greens and air heads that have used political blackmail and serious virtue shaming to force the hand of govts, fearful of losing their seats and control of their country.
This GW thing will fade into the annals of history, just like ALL the other failed attempts at trying to manipulate the public with the sole purpose of stealing money as the agenda, like the Y2K bug, and the myriad of other attempts to do so, in the past and yet to come.
Those naive simpletons who can't see what is in front of them and all around them, will be the cause of our destruction as a species.
Best not take them seriously or bother with what they have to say, especially if it is just their opinion, and carry no viable or material information or truths.

How small can a nuclear reactor be and still generate useful and safe energy ? Many countries have nuclear-powered submarines and ships, which don't seem to be giving any trouble. France and Finland and many other countries rely on nuclear power for their electricity generation and don't seem to be having any problems.

Of course, there is a major role for renewable energy production, there always will be. But if nuclear technology has reached a point where nuclear electricity generation can be done safely, as in France and Finland (why do I keep thinking of those two ?), then why not use it to complement renewable energy production, and even a bit of fossil-fuel energy production as well ?

Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but maybe they can complement each other ?

Joe

Joe,

Well said. Our households and industry can embrace
a diverse mix of new, often cleaner energy
technologies. Our electricity system can become
efficient and highly decentralised machine.

As I stated earlier the challenge for Australia is to
choose the future we want and try to work out the best
way to get there.