Let’s be clear on this unseemly notion of excluding sources of climate-friendly energy in the face of the staggering challenge of replacing fossil fuels and averting the potential harm of climate change. Let’s be crystal clear on who wants to exclude what.
Maybe this paragraph is familiar? It’s authors won an award:
Heroic assumptions about future technology development are avoided: the only low emission technologies considered are those that are being deployed in large quantities (>10 GW per year), namely PV and wind. On this basis, nuclear, bio, solar thermal, geothermal and ocean energy are excluded.
(Unstated but quantitatively implied in this widely reported study: “wind” does not include off-shore wind.)
Needless to say, I disagree with the a priori dismissal of any potential low emissions source.
The following table of large Australian projects which are not photovoltaic solar or on-shore wind is included for reference and will be kept updated. It is up to individual readers to judge if they cost “too much” or take “too long”.
These reported and derived numbers are offered without prejudice against any energy source. This exercise is inspired by the tireless analysis at WattClarity. Comments and corrections offered in the same spirit are welcome in the reply field below.