It seems the BZE folk are also using the tagline "Zero Carbon Australia" - part of what seems to be a loose global alliance of zero carbon groups like Zero Carbon Britain :

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/011289.html
http://www.zcb2030.org/

This is faith based thinking and I am sure the true believers will be all happy clappers for this report.

There is zero chance of Australia replacing fossil fueled electricity generation by 2020(magic number)even with a build of infrastructure at a wartime(magic word) level of commitment.This is pie in the sky stuff beloved by many in the environmental movement.

Why is it airy fairy? -

(1)The proposed time frame is impossible in the engineering,political and economic framework we have in reality.
(2)Renewable sources such as solar thermal have still got a long way,technologically, to go before they can provide base load power (if ever).
(3)Wind can't provide base load power without some massive build of storage sites,like pumped hydro.
More dams means more environmental problems,not less.There are other storage systems,unproven on scale up at this stage.
(4)Tidal or wave power has to operate in an extremely harsh environment so is extremely expensive and vulnerable.
(5)Hot,dry rock geothermal is still in the experimental stage.It may make a significant contribution in the future.
(6)All of these options require the building of massive extensions to the existing distribution system.This is at a cost in resources above and beyond building the generating units.
(7)If,not when, all this is built there is still the task of producing reliable base load power by a delicate and technologically complex balancing system.This has fragility written all over it.
(8)The concept of efficiency and conservation in electricity use is a good one and needs to be pursued regardless of other decisions.There is quite a lot of fat to lose but there is a limit to what can be gained.
(9)Electrification of significant parts of the transportation system is a good thing.However,this increases power use so it is a double edged sword in the early stages of a shift to non-polluting electricity generation.
(10)The current ideological blindness to nuclear power in Australia has grave repercussions for the future of Australia.Nuclear power generation is a 50 year old proven and advancing technology used widely throughout the world.It is the only practical technology presently available which can provide reliable,base load non-polluting electricity generation at a realistic cost,both in money terms and in environmental footprint.
(11)There are plenty of opportunities throughout remoter parts of Australia for the application of solar thermal and solar PV in order to get diesel generators off line except for back up.Currently,this is the ideal application and makes a good smaller scale testing ground for improvements.

For those who are not religiously devoted to the Hate Nuclear Church I recommend Professor Barry Brook's (Adelaide University) website - www.bravenewclimate.com - for some practical ideas and discussion about nuclear energy,climate change and related subjects.

Not sure about 100% but the major renewables crowd seem to have an ally in Ms Gillard from the tone of her speech. I think Australia will get just token wind and solar relying on gas backup. Coal stations will be kept on til well past their use-by date then replaced by gas fired generators. That is to say renewables will remain as a minor fraction of the generation mix. As we flog more gas overseas the price of that increasingly gas fired electricity will keep rising. Frankly I don't see either electric cars or the smart grid making that much of a difference.

Meanwhile thanks to our coal fired internet and our oil driven food and transport system we kid ourselves it can all be turned around quickly. I think the reality check will come quickly e.g. $2 a litre petrol, 30c per kwh electricity, $5 a loaf of bread. The answer must be a form of round-the-clock low carbon but unobtrusive generation and distribution that provides energy on demand. The zero carbon proposals so far fall way short.

I'm pinning my hopes on cold fusion, and my plans on a yacht.

What I am particularly fond of is the idea of taxing carbon as it comes out of the ground.
This money is distributed per capita throughout the nation.

If you use carbon you will pay for my retirement.
Economic entities will quickly grasp the fundamentals.

Vote for the carbon tax.

So has Geothermal dropped off the perch? (Admittedly it's not yet "commercial".)

I thought the Aus. Govt was touting Geothermal as a major renewable?

To get to 100% renewables we need to combine political and economic power.

To combine the two forces all our tax revenue is raised from carbon as it sees the light of day.

The money gathered must be redistributed to the voters. (Therefore they will vote for the law)

This cost will be passes along to the End Consumer.

If Joe sixpack has a carbon rich lifestyle he will end up supporting me.
This will make him competitive,when it is explained to him.

And I, being a conscientious citizen will be rewarded by not having to work. (Work/growth generated by debt is the problem)

The economists and accountants will see the light and turn it off.

The one ingredient that is vital for any sort of move is willpower. We collectively must want to do this; and we don't. We could do it, we have the technology and finance, we just don't want to do it. We must also close down the coal export business; and that isn't going to happen either. It will only be possible when serious parts of Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne (and other places too) are flooded by high tides. By then it will be too late anyway.