There is no "one solution" to this thread topic. It starts with the premise that we need to reform our current energy systems because
There's really four aspects to the overall dilemma:
1. Need to meet the technical (electrical) requirements. Fail that and the lights really will go out, no question about it.
2. Financial cost both in terms of the actual costs and the price charged to consumers.
3. Use of natural resources. 50Hz AC power does not exist anywhere in nature, it is a completely man-made thing, and in order produce it requires that some source of primary energy be used. Some of the available sources of primary energy are plentiful and with minimal consequences to their use but others are physically limited, or entail broader implications such as importing from unstable or unfriendly sources, and a valid question exists as to whether or not is is sensible to use these resources to generate electricity? That is particularly so in the case of relatively limited non-renewable resources which have important uses for other purposes.
4. Environment. The mainstream environmental movement is often associated with trees and whales but it's a matter of historical fact that in the Australian context the movement had already tackled issues relating to hydro-electric schemes versus the wilderness, pollution and the use of limited resources at gas-fired power stations and the generic concept of building a nuclear power station several years before the movement focused on anything relating to trees.
The above are in no real order but ultimately they're all critical factors in the modern era noting that point 4 is subject to international agreements and to a minor extent so is point 3.
Tied up in those are many sub-issues and complexities. Eg point 3 potentially brings in matters of national security and strategic issues. Point 4 involves many issues not just the well known CO2 one.
Which brings me to a point. I've heard many argue to the effect that Australia had an energy policy under a previous government, that being the carbon tax.
My response is simply that no, a carbon tax or an ETS is not an energy policy. It is one aspect of an environmental policy which involves energy but it is not an energy policy. It does nothing in respect of any technical matter. It does nothing in respect of the use of natural resources or supply security. It does nothing about environmental issues other than CO2. It's an energy policy in the same way that a ban on showing M rated programs on TV before a certain time is a media policy. It's not - its just one minor component of a policy but it sure isn't all that's required or even half of it.
So far as I'm aware we've really only had one serious attempt which could really be described as an actual energy policy in Australia's history and that was introduced during the Fraser government. Don't remember it? Well that's probably because half the current population wasn't born yet but for anyone not aware Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister 1975 - 83 (Liberal). CO2 didn't get a mention in that but to be fair it wasn't widely considered as an issue at the time, the focus being on not squandering limited resources, reducing other forms of air pollution, security of supply and some concern about other environmental issues such as wilderness.
My focus is primarily on the technical side but I most certainly acknowledge the other issues including the environmental and natural resource ones.
Of particular relevance technically is also the financial side. No matter what we do the reality is that some capacity in the system will earn far more money than other capacity and there are very valid reasons for that. It is also true that at various times over its lifespan an individual generating unit will range from highly profitable to a drain on finances.
From a technical perspective I don't particularly care how it comes about but one way or another we do urgently need to come up with a way that keeps that "unprofitable" plant in the system. Removing it being the specific, exact cause of the problems we now have. Unprofitable for the owner but not unprofitable for the overall system and most certainly necessary.
I'll leave that one to finance people but ultimately it needs to happen and could be considered a non-negotiable. If the model of competing companies and a market can't deliver that, because nobody's putting their hand up to hold the bits that produce stuff all revenue, well then we need to change the market. Simple as that and if the game's killing you then changing the rules is indeed the rational thing to do. It's not as though countless other industries and investors haven't had the rules changed at some point.