What is environmentally sustainable is up for debate

Almost 30% of the EU's generating capacity comes from natural gas. Ironically, as the USA takes advantage of shale gas, they are exporting coal to the EU at prices which make its use very competitive despite its higher carbon emission cost. As a result demand for gas has decreased by a third in the last three years. 39% of gas is imported from Russia.

In Australia, Richard and his Greens have called for 100% renewable energy. The ALP aims for 50%. These are substantially above European targets, and have to be achieved, if both parties stick to their policies, without nuclear, gas or hydro.

Worldwide, coal accounts for about 40% of electricity production, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In innovation, research and job creation, Australia is in a position to be a world leader. Imagine the potential of creating methodologies for producing clean coal power! Redirecting some of the funds from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to research in this area could be far more rewarding than further subsidizing the well established solar and wind industries.

Such research is being carried out by the CSIRO and other bodies. This research, and similar research into natural gas technology, currently receives subsidies of less than $1/MWh, compared to $412 for solar, $42 for wind and $18 for other renewables.

The ACT has announced ambitious targets for RNE – 100% by 2025. They are of course part of an interconnected system, and their backup will continue to be the national grid, generating about 70% of its power from fossil fuels. Meanwhile costs will rocket, as the ACT government has contracted for twenty years to purchase solar power at $184/MWh, and wind power at $92/MWh. NSW wholesale prices are $30-40/MWh. I wouldn't want to be a lower income earner in Canberra in winter! Perhaps they'll be like Germany and revert to fossil based fuel stoves for their heating, like Richard and me.

Can we achieve our targets with wind and solar?

Electricity of Tahiti (EDT) generates and distributes energy in over 20 islands throughout French Polynesia. These islands have adequate sunshine and wind that should ensure that they could be a major source of power, but this has not proven to be true. 66% of their power is diesel generated, 33% hydro, about 1% solar.

According to EDT: "Production of photovoltaic or wind generators can vary instantly and significantly, with fluctuations of up to 90% of the peak power on PV installations and 100% on wind generators. Therefore, they are often qualified as 'intermittent' or 'fatal' energy sources. These variations will cause inevitably voltage drops or surges that would impact the quality of the distributed power.

"To preserve stability of the system, share of intermittent energies must be limited to 20-30% of demand at all time. Beyond this limit, use of batteries is required. Renewable energies like wind or PV do not provide generation guarantee... it is necessary to have at all times enough generation capacity to guarantee the supply of energy, even if some generators are out of service or in maintenance, or to compensate variations caused by intermittent energies."

It's the same old problem. To ensure continuity of supply, systems require backup, and in Australia with existing technology, that means fossil fuelled, mainly coal, generators.

I don't know of any countries approaching 20-30% input from wind and solar.

The Green's 100% is clearly a pipe dream and should be dismissed. The ALP's 50% will seem achievable to some, and might prove to be a vote winner, as long as they don't have to come up with a plan that identifies and overcomes the obstacles.

At the moment the Abbott government's less ambitious target of 26% renewables looks to be at the outer limits of what is possible, but perhaps is achievable. It is in line with European targets. Certainly the decision to redirect the funding provided by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation away from wind projects should have the approval of everyone except the highly subsidised wind farmers. Solar power should similarly be excluded from such funding, so that money can be directed to technologies that might help us to bridge the more than 70% gap between our dreams and reality.

Richard Di Natale and I do have a lot in common. I think we both want to minimise our footprint on the planet, and ensure a bright future for our children – well grandchildren in my case. I'd like to sit down and discuss the appropriate use of all the available technologies, and plan a transition that doesn't threaten our economy and thousands of jobs. Unfortunately that's not possible when you have a constituency to worry about. We differ because he has another objective, and it's political.

If Richard is fair dinkum about sensible, achievable energy policies he'll renounce his party's ridiculous stance, and buy bigger batteries for his farm.