my cynical take on things is that the Canberra bureacracy is quite prepared to waste up to 20bn, maybe even a 100bn to show that solar isn't an answer. The Solar thermal has a remote chance in some special circumstances to have a few viable plants because it can store energy, PV is another niche technology because it can't store the energy.
Wind will get some better market penetration but at some point after a bigger roll out, there will be aesthetics that mitigate against in that there will be few vantage points you can actually see undisturbed countryside. Windmills on every ridge will eventually put people off.
Pumped storage...anybody notice that we don't have many mountains and for at least the last 20 years Greens have been violently opposed to hydro. Pumped storage means a dam, so we don't have the mountains and where we do they are National parks, so no pumped storage of consequence. We could do the Franklin thing again if someone wants perhaps. Not.
Whats left? Clean coal, gas and nuclear as the guaranteed heavy lifting secure energy sources.
Clean coal is an oxymoron, like military intelligence or happy feminist.
So that leaves gas as a transition. Arguements will float around about future developments in solar...maybe a Nobel prize or two will be awarded because of solar break-throughs. Failing that its nuclear. Not the big 4000 MW+, but smaller 25 MW modular for remote areas such as mining, and 300-500 MW units elsewhere.
I won't be disturbed by word tactic guys. The issues are perfectly capable of argueing for themselves, especially when it becomes evident from the price tags and short-comings of some of the proposed solutions. The biggest thing against nuclear is perception. Its biggest advantage is that the technology doesn't have to be invented. The task ahead is to get regulatory and paperwork issues organised and that is a whole lot easier than trying to invent something on the run, hoping that consulting engineers projections are realised.
