On Tuesday, in a press conference with Malcolm Turnbull to announce his appointment, the new chief scientist of Australia, Alan Finkel, said something very interesting.

“With enough storage we could do it in this country with solar and wind,” Finkel said. By “doing it”, he meant making Australia’s energy system zero emissions. In other words, 100 per cent renewable.

It’s not the sort of claim you often hear outside of some energy research faculties, environmental NGOs, and the wind and solar industry itself.

The phrase got surprising little play in the mainstream media. Here was the new chief scientist, an electrical engineer among his numerous qualifications, telling the country that it could harness the plentiful resources of the wind and sun and power the economy.

Some people, though, just don’t want to hear.

The Australian trotted out what could be termed as the “anti-renewable” establishment line again in an editorial on Wednesday.

The newspaper described a “class war against the poor”, because some people favour wind and solar over coal. It quoted the usual suspects, the Australian mining lobby and its favourite climate confusionist, Bjørn Lomborg. Both parties like to tell people that wind and solar serve no useful purpose.

“The IEA says that about 0.4 per cent of global energy now comes from solar and wind power,” The Australian said.

“By 2040, and after massive public subsidies, solar and wind power will contribute just 2.2 per cent of global energy.”

So where does the merde-och press gets its information? Answer: Lomborg.... In fact, even the IEA presents a better picture:

And in coming decades, it [solar and wind energy supply] will likely grow significantly. Indeed, the IEA believes that by 2050, if the world is to meet climate targets, solar will become the biggest single source of electricity in the world, providing a minimum 28 per cent of the world’s energy needs (16 per cent from solar PV, 12 per cent from solar thermal).

Combined with wind, that could mean nearly 40 per cent from “variable renewables” – just a little bit less than the current share in South Australia. But on a much, much, grander scale.

Importantly, the IEA says that renewables (primarily wind and solar), and energy efficiency, will likely account for three-quarters of emissions abatement out to 2050.

So, where would Lomborg get the 2.2 per cent wind and solar scenario? Probably from the IEA’s catastrophic 6°C scenario, where the world ignores climate science, goes on to extract as many fossil fuels as it can, and puts the world on a path to 6°C of warming, rather than 2.7°C it has so far narrowed itself down to, if the Paris pledges mean anything.

read more: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/wind-and-solar-does-australia-have-a-blind-spot-51768