Our living standards depend on energy density

There are many more examples.

Terrestrially, nuclear fission is the most energy-dense practical, peaceful, power source.  Substantial terrestrial fusion so far has been achieved only in H-bombs.  Fossil fuels’ energy density comes a distant second.  But they are still far, far ahead of renewables.

Batteries are not power generators at all.  They are inefficient power storage receptacles.

The more policy drives us to the least energy-dense power sources in Australia and elsewhere, the more our living standards are likely to suffer from our own intellectual density.

For what?  Australia is 1 per cent or so of greenhouse gas emissions production, and falling.  If we shut down our economy completely, what global emissions difference would that make?  (i) At best, almost none, or (ii) global emissions increase as supply shifts to more emissions-intensive alternative energy sources.  Northern hemisphere experience says the latter is more likely.

What should we do? 

‘Gaslight’ rational analysis?  Very popular today.  

Ensure power’s all-day, all seasons, reliable and affordable? 

Should politicians/advocates, and short term perceived political considerations, choose the power sources we use? 

At present, in large measure, they’re trying hard to do so, directly and indirectly.

Whether advocates succeed in accelerating closure of existing base-load power generation, and/or in accelerating expansion of intermittent low-density renewables, one thing is clear. 

As now, power customers will pay for less reliability, more intermittency, and more batteries.