« profile & posts archive

This author has written 591 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

6 responses to “Future renewables cost no more than fossil fuels”

  1. Val

    I’ve only looked at the summary in the SMH, so not totally across it, but it looks to me as if they’re saying that because of already rising costs in the sector, plus costs of carbon pricing and/or abatement measures, the resultant costs of renewables vs non-renewables is not much different. Is that your take?
    I will read the reports in more detail today.
    Can I just put in a pre-emptive appeal (demand?) to the pro- nuke people on this site: the evidence is mounting that we can successfully shift to renewables within a reasonable time-frame, so please don’t muddy the waters by banging on about bloody nuclear. We don’t need it, so it’s a distraction at best and a divide-and-conquer stratagem at worst.
    At the start of new technologies there are always doomsayers (it’ll never work) whether or not they have a vested interest. I’ve been one myself – when my ex, a telecom whiz, first talked to me about the possibility of mobile phones, I said but who’d want that? You’d never be able to get away from the phone! (Maybe there was something in what I said, but it wasn’t good futurology)
    My current research is strongly suggesting that a lot of people are keen on solar, regardless of whether they ‘believe’ in climate change.

  2. pablo

    John Quiggin mentions ‘the mishandling of market reform’ as one detrimental factor in achieving 100 percent renewables. I remain very pessimistic that the market will ever get us there in time …even more so in an age of Abbott.

  3. Val

    Mishandling of market reform is part of problem I guess but you can’t rely on market alone anyway. Have to work on all fronts including community action and advocacy ( partic areas of interest in my research)

  4. John D

    Mishandling of market reform is not the problem. Crude economic approaches that use tools like the ETS and emissions trading aren’t needed and lack the power to control important things like what gets built where, when power line upgrades are needed and how the shutdown of dirty power sources will be managed?
    What is needed is something more direct that is run as a normal, very large scale engineering project. (Think Snowy Mountain Scheme.)
    Let’s just get on with it. There is no reason why we couldn’t get close to 100% renewables by 2025.

  5. BilB

    US funding push to get new thinking into batteries


  6. Doug

    Redesign of the electricity market to deal with changing technological developments will help smooth the way forward and encourage the industry to shift its thinking about what business it is actually in. It is not the only thing that needs to be done but it will be worthwhile doing.