At the spain site they can operate at full capacity for 16 hours in complete darkness before needed more sunlight - Distribution companies have to manage load across the network anyway - this is just one more variant, not a problem at all

John, there are no "fossil fuel subsidies", despite the frequent repetition of this line.

Perhaps this furphy arises because there is exemption from the fuel excise for export exposed industries.

I would like to see the argument mounted by those who want to make our export industries less competitive. Indeed, the emphasis now should be on preserving our import-competing industries so that they are still viable, and employing workers, when the mining boom starts to slow.

As you correctly imply, one of the major advantages of solar thermal over wind and wave power production is that it can be managed (to some degree) to match demand.

In addition, maximum power demand is from 2pm to 8pm on weekdays, so solar thermal power is a good fit with the actual demand.

Nevertheless, even with this advantage, it still has to stack up economically if it is going to survive in our very competitive world. I look forward to seeing how this CSIRO project pans out.

Graham, subsidies do exist in the form of fuel tax concessions, accelerated depreciation for the FF extractive industries and compensation payments to the major polluters. Referenced costs from EV: http://environmentvictoria.org.au/fossilfuelsubsidies calculate the subsidies at $9B PA.

Our exchange rate largely driven by the extractive industries is the primary driver of our lack of international competitiveness. Whilst abolishing the subsidies would affect exposed industries, other tax concessions could offset increases so the net take was maintained and further drive a reduction in consumption.

Firstly here is a link to the fossil fuel subsidies claim

http://www.acfonline.org.au/fossil-fuel-subsidies

Secondly, Solar Thermal technology can store energy, so the old overcast or rainy weather furphy doesn't stand up. Also, I have solar panels on my roof and even on overcast days they are delivering energy to the grid.

The issue isn't "do solar panels work" but "do they scale?"

What happens if we put 3kw on all 7.6m households? Do the math... It will clean up just 3-4% of our energy consumption.

A tax concession is not a subsidy. To receive a subsidy is to be receiving government funding.

if every house had 3kw PV systems on their roofs we certainly would need a lot less fossil fuels to make up the balance.

Our energy consumption is 16% less than what it was anticipated to be. As more people become energy efficient and replace old appliances with more energy efficient ones, households will need less and less grid sourced energy.

Through strengthening the Carbon Tax (cue lib/nat outrage i.e. big business/coal ) industry would be forced to follow the household example and improve it's efficiency also.

As old infrastructure in terms of coal fired power stations need to be replaced, we would need less of them and hopefully replace them with renewables.

Once you cut out the fuels needed to continually operate fossil fuel generators, and as the initial cost of the investment is depreciated, you end up with relatively free energy.

Also re just the deisel fuel rebate, if we no longer need to mine coal or gas to provide energy, that in terms of todays costs would be a saving of taxpayer funds that could be diverted to expanding renewable capacity.

Look to the future people, we are going to need renewables on a commercial scale, clinging to the old models for the sake of profit would be suicidal for the species over the long term.

No Robert ... not "a lot less". A totally trivial amount less. The Copenhagen Diagnosis (2009) calculated the the long term sustainable emissions for each of the 9 billion people on the planet by about 2050 is 1 tonne per person per year. Australia is running at about 25 tonnes. You can't achieve the gains required with incremental shifts, you need a game changer. We currently generate over 800 gms-co2/kwh. Germany is at 468 gms-co2/kwh.

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,32870,en.html

France has been at 80 gms-co2/kwh for two decades. Her path to decarbonise is technically simple. Just add more nukes and electrify everything in sight and slash meat intake to allow reforestation and reduce methane. Germany shows the total failure of the tinkering with toys approach.

The article, like so many assumes that cost is the only issue. It isn't. Supposing I calculated that the cost of shifting our grain harvest using roller skates and back packs would halve with suitable high tech wheels and lightweight packs? So what? The issue is scalability. You have to shift the grain before it rots. You have to get hoards of people buying skates ... etc etc. Shifting back to energy systems ... we don't need a dangerous tinker toy industry like rooftop solar (any industry where people use ladders is demonstrably really really dangerous) when we have much safer and more easily scalable technologies like nuclear which we know work. Switzerland, Sweden, etc. Everybody who built nuclear in the 70s/80s succeeded in generating large amounts of clean electricity quickly. But NOBODY has achieved anything close to this build rate with renewables.

personally i would support nuclear, but only LIquid Flouride Thorium Reactors. Uranium solid fuel based reactors, although the risk of incident is quite low (and not addressing the issues with the waste and weapons grade bi-products) the impact of an incident is wide and incredibly damaging, e.g. Fukishima (and note radioactive materials from that incident are now washing up on the US coast).

Re transport of things like grain, domestically the answer is localised production, which in term creates local economic activity.

Instead of centralising and bigger operations, the answer there also is decentralising and smaller scale, the benefit of which is displayed through roof top solar. Sorry, ladders reaching a single story roof top really really dangerous? as in comparison with under ground coal mining how would that rate? God knows how we build any structure considering being 3m off the ground is really really dangerous.

The other thing not mentioned is the amount of energy and pollution that is required to a) mine the uranium b) process the uranium which is an ongoing dangerous (much more dangerous than a step ladder) risky and damaging activity. When you look at the waste and the amount of raw material needed to provide the fuels for Uranium solid fuels, as well as the massive costs of creating the infrastructure, renewables are the more sensible option.

"radioactive materials ...washing up on the US coast" ... so what? You can detect Sydney pollution in Antarctica ... you can detect carcinogens from the cattle industry bush fire burns (or any other bush fires) in northern Australia anywhere you'd care to put accurate enough monitoring equipment. But can you detect actual illness? No.

Ladders, not dangerous? 40 people per year with major trauma and 1000 presenting at emergency departments from ladder falls ... and that's just in Victoria. Ladders are far more dangerous than Fukushima radiation and far more dangerous than the zero radiation from normally operating nukes of any description.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2007/186/1/ladders-revisited

Sorry, but your claims about the energy and pollution from mining and processing are just plain wrong. Please go and look at actual data. The incredible energy density of uranium and reactors make them far less polluting than anything else. Consider the Moree Solar Farm (proposal). 7,200 B-Double truckloads of material going 600 km to the build site over 4 years (see the EIS) (and driving back empty). And it's just 400 GWh/yr. A single small modular 100 MW reactor would generate double that energy and the Chinese and Russians and the US are planning to make these shipable on railway trucks. These will be game changers that will make a massive difference compared to the hugely polluting and land destroying solar farm proposals.

sorry geoff, i guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I guess we see/hope the world develops along different lines, time will tell.

just on another point. does the single small modular 100mw you refer to use uranium solid rod fuel or liquid flouride Thorium?

Uranium - I would never support, nasty dirty poisonous process (imho)

Liquid Flouride Thorium - support whole heartedly

still cant stop laughing about you how you refer to solar being hugely polluting and land destroying, but your entitled to your view

Australian cities/town occupy about 1.4 million hectares. Moree Solar Farm is 1120 hectares for 400 GWh/yr. So to provide all our 240 TWh/yr, we'd need 600 ... about 660,000 hectares of land levelled and largely wildlife free. To entirely decarbonise our energy would require about 3,000 of these on about 3.3 million hectares of habitat destruction and 21 million B-double truckloads of stuff. The MSF is about double the efficiency of most solar because of its tracking systems. With more conventional solar, you'd need far more destruction. And don't forget the silane explosions. What's silane? A rather nasty chemical used in the manufacture of solar cells.

Lastly, the ladder example is deadly serious. People take all kinds of really dangerous things for granted, but mention radiation ... ooohh aahh. When I first changed my mind about nuclear, I went for Gen IV, but the more I learn the more relaxed I am about any old nuclear. Compared to ladders and BBQs, even Gen II nuclear is incredibly safe. Compared to BBQs, even Chernobyl reactors with no containment are incredibly safe ... but I'd certainly draw a line there and demand containment.

For example, the Moree Solar Farm estimated 7200 b-double truck loads of material transported on a 1200 km round trip over 4 years to cover 1100 ha with panels to generate 400 GWh/yr. So to provide all our current 240 TWh/yr, we need 600 of these and to decarbonise all our energy we need about 3000. So 3000x7200= 21.6 million b-double trucks driving 1200 km = 26 billion km. This would occupy ALL our articulated trucks for 4 full years. and so far we haven't built even one large solar PV/thermal power station.

same could be argued about some of your arguments.

Face it, Fossil Fuels (yes even JetA1) are LIMITED. there is a FINITE amount of it. With tremendous externalised costs not included in their cost equations.

Renewable power is also finite, but with a life expectancy of around another 8 billion years or so.

Given the pollution, degradation, health and environmental impacts (not talking about AGW) of fossil fuel use, surely it is far more intelligent to develop those technologies that will eliminate these impacts as far as practicable.

The only reason for closing your eyes and arguing against the development of these NECESSARY technological advances is self interest.

Well Mr McDougall

You agree with me that JetA1 fuel is finite. The pity is that many others who believe in the reality of climate change and the need to cut fossil fuel usage choose to burn it to fly to Europe for pleasure.

Funny old world, isn't it!

Gerard Dean

Why are you so angry?

Of course costs can be be cut by 50% in 7 years, if there is a breakthrough in the research.

It is in the nature of research projects that the outcomes cannot be put in a prospectus: your assertion is a strawman, and should be treated as such.

Yes, the Spanish experience does not fill us with great confidence, but research is relatively cheap (compared to trials and demonstration plants). Going to trials too early is where Spain went wrong. Similarly, BZE are on the wrong track promoting a trial when their project has a projected cost of $250 MWh (against even wind of $100 MWh).

Please, everyone, take a Bex and lie down! It will all come out in the wash: http://australiancarbonprice.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/doha-failures-will-not-end-climate.html