The problem with this article is that it is unlikely to be understood by anyone without a strong scientific background, and the noise from the ignoramuses in the green movement drowns out rational thought.

That the % renewable energy in the mix today is the same as it was in the 1970s is a testament to the technical and financial problems that renewables pose.

Baseload and peak power supply can only come from coal gas or nuclear. With anti nuke movement, the % of power generated by coal continues to rise.

Not quite, Shadow.

The problem with this article is that its flaws are unlikely to be understood by anyone without a strong scientific background, and the noise from the ignoramuses in the anti-green movement drowns out rational thought.

That the % renewable energy in the mix today is the same as it was in the 1970s is a result of the multi decade gap between running out of good sites for hydro and wind and solar technology reching the stage where it becomes economically viable. During that time Australia's population and energy demand rose substantially.

Baseload is not what's needed: there is no good reason for a substantial proportion of our power to come fromconstant output sources. As for peak power, it can come from any dispatchable source.

And where exactly does the % of power generated by coal continue to rise?

Excellent erudite cogent article, that summarizes the problem very well!

We know from practical working examples that very large scale unsubsidized solar thermal may have a future, given the rollout costs compare favorably with coal fired options; they also present as being peak demand options, thanks to recent technological innovation. (liquid thorium/lithium salts in the vacuum heat retaining towers!)

We lose 11% as transmission line losses, and another 64% as distribution line and effectively double power relate carbon output

And the best reason to invest in and build thorium reactors, which given their relatively small size must lend themselves to very local power options; and therefore at half the cost of current coal fired options.

And means we can save on poles and wires and then inevitable storm related blackouts, or the inevitable wildfires caused when old poles fall or are blown over.

Cheaper than coal Industrial power at half today's cost, might well resuscitate our energy dependant vehicle manufacture/energy reliant ship and sub building/very low carbon steel and aluminum smelting!

Then as another very low cost local power option, we could if we were intelligently led, Utilize our problematic wasted waste,and build digestors in almost every basement and low point in the suburb or village and turn this stuff into methane, which when scrubbed is suitable for use in ceramic fuel cells.

Which after providing endless free hot water and a significant salable surplus; Produce an energy coefficient of 80%, 4 times better than current reticulated coal fired power, and the very reason the power they produce is 4 times less costly!

Produced onsite by the body corporate of citizens co-op, for even less as the profit demanding price gouging middleman is removed; and the very reason these things aren't being rolled out en masse today?

We don't need ultra expensive renewables, just the brains we were born with and several very low cost carbon free or carbon neutral alternatives!
Rhrosty.

SM, it is not necessary to be a scientist to understand this problem.
Certainly a knowledge of electrical techniques is necessary and helps.
I have been banging on about this for sometime.
I gave a talk on energy at a meeting once and the greenies there were
adamant solar & wind are all that is necessary.

They did not seem to understand that overcast skies can cover whole
smaller states and or the wind stops blowing everywhere.
Those sort of problems were just brushed off.
They had no idea of the cost to have a network that could supply NSW
if Victoria & Sth Australia were called upon by NSW.

They did not understand that all buildings over three floors would
have to be abandoned if the supply was unreliable.
Oh no they insisted ! Yes well OH&S laws would not allow buildings
to be occupied if lifts could not be guarenteed.
Would you be happy to travel in a lift if the supply was unreliable
and you may have to sit in the lift until the sun comes up tomorrow
morning ? Provided it was not an overcast day !

No ! they say that is fanciful.
Well not really these are the bottom lines and is what would happen
if an unreliable grid came into existence.
In any case the lift mechanics would release people they say.

How many lift mechanics are there anyway ? Nowhere near enough to
raise or lower lifts to the nearest floor for the hundreds of lifts
in say Sydney.

Solar cells and batteries they cried out.
Goodness me each lift needs of the order of 300kwhr a day from the
figures I have seen. Could a building of 25 floors have enough roof
space to install that many cells for six lifts ?
The weight of the batteries might be a problem also.
The batteries could be in the basement but the lift motors are above
the roof in the lift house.

All that without even thinking about lighting etc.
Frankly the greenies are stark raving mad !

SA had unreliable electricity supply around the turn of the millennium. Having more renewable energy has resulted in improved reliability. There are still technical issues that must be overcome, but they're not insurmountable obstacles.

The claim that "Pumped hydro (a big dam) is the only possible solution to the energy storage problems" is false, as it can be stored chemically (for instance by producing hydrogen). But perhaps the most important storage technology is molten salt storage (as part of solar thermal power production). The limitations of the Gemasolar pilot plant are not necessary features of solar thermal; they're more a result of Spain's feedin tariff arrangements. A solar thermal plant in SA would run at a much lower capacity factor, as what SA needs more of is peakload power, not baseload.

If activists have their way and renewables take over the whole market, it does not follow that there will be energy poverty or job losses. And if there's one thing there definitely won't be, it's brownouts. If they're unable to generate/import enough power, and the shortage can't be addressed by demand management, they'd resort to load shedding, as blackouts are less economically damaging than brownouts. But there is no reason why renewable energy has to ever mean insufficient energy.

Notice that negative prices never exceed the LGC subsidy now about $73 per Mwh. That is there is still money coming in at say -$40. Tasmania used to get 90% renewables without reliability issues since hydro is dispatchable. Now they are dusting the cobwebs off the long idle gas generator as well as importing Vic coal power just like SA.

Apart from voltage and frequency problems there is another issue with high penetration variable renewables.. the emissions reduction effect declines. Empirical evidence suggests that for every 1% increase in variable renewable penetration the emissions displacement reduces nearly 2%. Ergo there is no benefit in 50% renewables which SA is heading towards.