The article presents an interesting, oblique and logically defensible perspective. Worth pondering. I, however, will continue to adhere to the “irrational” position of stuffing as many eggs as possible, as fast as feasible, into the renewables basket. I am keenly aware of the risks, from political, economic and other-environmental factors, to the integrity of those eggs and even the stability of the whole basket. But we have seen, especially over the last couple of years, that, with a lot of potential wrecking balls in the air, the momentum for change has continued to find a way through. Thus, we had an oversupply of solar panels, largely due to subsidised Chinese production, and consequent demise of a number of developed-world panel producers. Hard times for them, but China suddenly ramps up its installation tempo, and the depressed prices arouse interest among consumers in the developed world and put renewables on the horizon for increasing numbers of political and corporate decision makers in emerging economies.

The argument for gas as an interim solution is consistent with calculus: a little step to the right or the left – Does the graph go up or down? Here, with CO2 emissions, we want down. That rationale has been the basis for the scientific and industrial revolutions; hard to argue against it. I’m arguing against it. My attitude is grounded in the theorem of the limit of polynomials: As x goes to infinity (in the long term), the limit of a polynomial is the same as the limit of the term with the highest power. Coal > gas gives us a nice, attractive coefficient of .5, but that’s as far as it can go. Renwables give us, not zero, no, but x to a very large negative number… Actually, that will be the smallest term, but you know what I mean.

The article only claims for gas an interim role. I am certainly not opposed to using gas instead of coal in so far as it’s a choice between only those two. However, the only instrument identified to facilitate that, or to prevent its reversal, is carbon pricing, and that is put forward as inversely linked to subsidies for renewables. It would seem extraordinarily ungainly policy that would not enable gas to be favoured over coal – and BTW, the dispatchability* of gas naturally advantages it over coal as a partner for renewables, while their inherent, involuntary variability remains an issue – and I don’t believe that policy failure can’t be corrected.

But suppose it couldn’t. The environmental damage we are causing now is a major concern. The necessity to transition to zero emissions within a very few decades is of vastly greater import. In a perfect world, where all parties were motivated to nullify what we are doing to the atmosphere, it might be at least notionally worth considering putting a larger proportion of the resources currently invested in production of renewables, instead into R & D in order to bring down the unit cost.

Three problems with that: 1) If we waited to produce renewables until the point when wouldn’t, beyond that point, be able to produce them any cheaper, we would never produce anything. 2) Real world, mass production and installation, and the experience and feedback from that, is in itself a crucial element of R & D. 3) In terms of interested parties, we live in just about the antithesis of an ideal world. The propaganda and misinformation churned out by Big Energy, in its various guises, almost makes the tobacco lobby look like a philanthropic foundation. Really, that no.3 is the clincher. The unenlightened, fanatical self-interest of Big Energy precludes environmentalists’ paying too much attention to etiquette. What is needed is a fair element the corresponding level of implacability.

One further observation: ” … a longer term contest between nuclear, fossil fuel with CCS and renewables.” The discipline of the market is an invaluable mechanism. It is not king. As nations, as the people of the world, we can make decisions according to our own precepts. We can decide that we don’t want nuclear because it is inherently dangerous and polluting. As for CCS, well… there will be a variety of opinion. At best, fossil fuels are not renewable. Where they can be mined with minimal environmental impact, then maybe. In any case, we shouldn’t cut it any slack for development time. Whatever countries decide, they can just decide. If they don’t want nuclear or fossil, they don’t have to submit that to the altar of the invisible hand. Having decided what they don’t want, they can then let the permissible remainder cavort and compete on that subordinated altar.

* “Dispatchability” may be a Russo-Germanism, in which case I apologize; or perhaps it is part of electricity generation jargon. I mean by it: suitability for starting, stopping and adjustment rapidly and at short notice.