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.

Aidan,

I see that once again your complete ignorance of a subject has not slowed your posting in any way.

Here are some facts:
1 Germany's % coal fired generation has increased to cover the decrease in nuclear,
2 Germany's power is one of the most expensive in Europe due to renewables (nearly twice that of France who is mostly nuclear)
3 South Australia's network reliability is entirely due to its strong connection to Victoria's coal generation,
4 Rolling blackouts are far more economically damaging than even the high cost of renewables.

Either you are a greenie or you ought to be.

Shadow,

I see that your prejudice has led to you dismissing my comments as complete ignorance despite my clearly knowing things you don't.

1. I suggest you recheck the figures: last time I looked it showed a lower % from coal. Still too high and I think they'd be better off retaining nuclear power, but the increase from renewables exceeds the decrease from nuclear. Not that that's of any relevance to SA.

2. Feedin tariffs do have that effect, and I oppose them. I think we should use concessional loans to fund renewables. BTW I think your figures for France are out of date.

3. No, not entirely, though it certainly helps.

4. Of course they are, and a reliable electricity supply is needed. My point is that brownouts are even worse.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Taswegian,

That empirical evidence is based on short term data, and does not take into account the closure of SA's coal fired power stations.

AIUI the Tasmanian figure is now above 90% but it does vary with rainfall. And they import power when it's cheap and export it when it's expensive.

"Baseload is not what's needed" is the cry of the supremely ignorant, and is so dumb that anyone with even the faintest understanding of power would be embarrassed. The holy grail of the renewable industry is to find a source of renewable baseload. Are they all wasting their time?

Supplying a country without baseload would result in rolling blackouts, the closure of businesses and industry on overcast windless days and poverty for all.

FYI SA's grid stability is due solely to the secure connection to the Victorian coal fired network.

You're demonstrating your own supreme ignorance there, Shadow!

"Supplying a country without baseload would result in rolling blackouts"
To understand how stupid that statement is, consider Tasmania: no supply problems even though none of its electricity generators are dedicated to baseload.

What's needed is sufficient dispatchable power. At the base, providing that is no problem; the peaks are when the challenge is. Baseload is not the holy grail; it's a red herring spruiked by the coal industry. I doubt many in the renewable industry are wasting their time on it, though some of the geothermal people may be.

FYI SA's grid stability is due to several different factors including:
The Heywood connector to Victoria,
The Murraylink HVDC connector to northern Victoria,
Gas turbines to handle peak loads,
Electricity market reform to ensure there's always an incentive to generate more in the peaks,
Solar and wind power being produced at the times when demand has traditionally been strongest.

Aidan,

I see that whilst you can google, it is a pity that you can't even do that properly. Tasmania has a connection to the coal fired network via the bass strait cable which recently has been providing 40% of Tasmania's power, without which Tasmania would be suffering from rolling blackouts or brown outs.

Notably Tasmania has the largest proportion of renewable base load i.e. hydro electrical power, and if the morons such as bob brown had not opposed the Franklyn Hydro project, Tasmania would have been exporting power.

Similarly, SA's power stability has relied on its connection to the Victorian power grid.

Shadow,

As this has been an unusually dry year, Tasmania has been a net importer of electricity this year. However I'm very suspicious about that 40% figure – I think that's much more likely to be the maximum proportion imported (at night) than the overall proportion.

If Tasmania didn't have the connection to Victoria, they'd still maintain a reliable supply by making much more use of their gas turbines. Indeed now a fault in Basslink has been detected, they'll almost certainly be doing that until it's remedied. But with Basslink operational and no carbon tax, it was cheaper to import electricity from Victoria than to make it from gas in Tasmania.

Bob Brown was many things, but he was never a moron. Some ecosystems are worth more than dams, and Tasmania has been exporting power even though it's a net importer this year.

"Similarly, SA's power stability has relied on its connection to the Victorian power grid."
Indeed it has, though that's not the only factor.

Aidan,

At least you have taken the first step in admitting that renewable power needs to be backed up by fossil fuel driven generation. Hydro electricity is the closest renewables have to a base load, and Tas uses it to export power at peak times. The backup is expensive gas generation.

Unfortunately, the opportunities for Hydro are limited, and obviously the greens would stop anything that looks like progress.

Shadow,

At least you have taken the first step in admitting that dedicated baseload power generation is not essential for a reliable supply.

Whether renewable power needs to be backed up by fossil fuel driven generation depends on how much (and what type) of renewable power there is. However a backup is essential whatever our energy source, and I expect us to retain the ability to use fossil fuels long after we cease to use them in normal operations.

More wind turbines would now be just as effective for Tasmania as another dam.

.." a backup is essential whatever our energy source"

Really? What backup do nuclear and FF based power need on grid?
Renewables have their place, OFF-GRID.

The idea that renewables will supply major grids with energy that is comparable in cost (including running and infrastructure) to nuclear and FF base-load is fantasy. "Free" energy is not free.

The cost of replacing the base-load fuel with renewables and storage is of a scale that is completely unaffordable.

If the aim is 50% renewables, why? Is this picked out of the sky? I see little value in replacing FF'ed grids with renewables plus backup. This can only REDUCE emissions rather than remove them virtually 100% by going nuclear. We haven't the time to bugger around with expensive fantasy half-measures.Let's go with what's worked in France, for 50 years!

Aidan,

In order to educate you I need to start from the very beginning with a few definitions:

1 Generation = electrical supply
2 Load = electrical consumption
3 baseload = the minimum level of demand on an electrical supply system over 24 hours.
4 Baseload plant is an energy station devoted to the production of base load supply
5 Peak load = short term high level demand over a 24hr period
etc

Baseload plant essentially has to be able to continuously supply a minimum level of power on a 24/7 basis, and can come in the form of coal, nuclear, gas, or even renewables coupled with gas. Large high efficiency turbines driven by coal or nuclear boilers are typically by far the cheapest suppliers of power, they have been used as base load supply.

Peak load supplies are typically those that can fired up quickly such as gas turbines, but cost up to 5x as much per unit of power required, but as the peak price for power can be as much as 20x, these generators can pay for themselves. Wind/solar already costs far more than coal generation, combined with gas this is vastly more expensive.

So a reliable power supply is theoretically possible with renewables combined with a vast network gas generators, but the cost of the power would eliminated virtually all industry and push the cost of living through the roof.

Luciferase,
"Really? What backup do nuclear and FF based power need on grid?"
Yes really. Normally fossil fuels are used for the backup even when the main supply is FF based.

"Renewables have their place, OFF-GRID."
Indeed they do. They also have a much bigger place ON GRID.

"The idea that renewables will supply major grids with energy that is comparable in cost (including running and infrastructure) to nuclear and FF base-load is fantasy. "Free" energy is not free."
It's not free, but it's cheap. And as long as the interest rate is sufficiently low, it's cheaper than any other alternative. It puzzles me why so many people have such trouble comprehending that.

Low interest rates benefit nuclear over FF, but nuclear's higher running cost means they benefit renewables more.

"The cost of replacing the base-load fuel with renewables and storage is of a scale that is completely unaffordable."
What do you regard as affordable, and why?

"If the aim is 50% renewables, why? Is this picked out of the sky?"
Progressing to 100% renewables takes time. 50% by 20xx is an interim target.

"I see little value in replacing FF'ed grids with renewables plus backup."
Then you should think about it more. How much do you expect the backup to be used? How much do you think the backup would have to be used for it only to be of little value? Could the backup be run on gas from biological sources?

"This can only REDUCE emissions rather than remove them virtually 100% by going nuclear. We haven't the time to bugger around with expensive fantasy half-measures. Let's go with what's worked in France, for 50 years!"
Even in France they haven't managed to remove their emissions virtually 100%.

Shadow,

I'm glad you understand the definitions. But your statement about the cost of renewables is an oversimplification: The infrastructure for wind/solar costs far more than coal generation, but the running costs for wind/solar already costs far LESS than coal generation. Thus wind and solar have the potential to reduce baseload prices far more than coal or gas ever could.

A solar thermal plant could be designed to supply baseload, but it would be more profitable for its owners, and more economically advantageous to the customers if it's designed for peakload instead.

Aidan,

I understand the definitions, but clearly you don't.

Wind and solar in themselves cannot provide baseload supply, they need to be backed up by coal, gas or nuclear.

The running costs of wind power are a lot higher than you would imagine, as maintaining hundreds of widespread small generators 20 stories above the ground is not cheap. The cheapest of all running costs is nuclear. If you include the running costs of the gas plants required to fill the gaps in wind and solar supply, the running costs far exceed any other base load generation.

Of course it is more profitable to supply peak load, as prices during peak periods are up to 20x the price of off peak power. That is why the hydro schemes generate during peaks. However, industry, hospitals etc rely on continuous supply and need a reliable base load, which as yet renewables cannot provide.

Base-load power can, if called upon, deliver a major city's needs 24/7/365

Your position is solar and wind can do this with enough infrastructure storage and maintenance. These are at a massive cost, far, far beyond affordability. To have faith that this will change is simply hoping, along with the wait for fusion.

There is a feasible, tried, true and tested pathway to abate AGW. Spending what little time and money we have on this will bring guaranteed results.

Shadow, you understand the definitions but fail to understand that people disagree with you for reasons other than a lack of understanding. And worse still, when there's a lack of understanding of the facts, it's often on your part.

Solar thermal can provide baseload supply, but it makes a lot more sense to configure it for peak supply instead. That way there wouldn't be so much need to make use of OCGT plants to fill the gaps.

Where did you get the idea that "the cheapest of all running costs is nuclear"? In the comparisons I've seen, that only applies if the nuclear fuel costs are excluded.

Industry, hospitals etc rely on continuous supply. The base load is no more important than the load at any other time, and baseload plant is becoming far less important as more wind power is installed.

Designing solar thermal to supply peak load will push down peak prices. Also, peak demand often doesn't last long enough to exploit the greater efficiency of combined cycle gas turbines; enabling solar thermal to supply peak loads solves that problem.

To claim that as yet renewables can't provide a reliable base load is misleading. What can be done with renewables depends on what infrastructure we have installed. As with nuclear.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,

"Base-load power can, if called upon, deliver a major city's needs 24/7/365"
In most circumstances that is false. Although it is possible to build enough baseload power infrastructure to meet peakload demand, few would as it's unnecessarily expensive.

Although the cost of renewables is high, so are the benefits. It's far from unaffordable, and is likely to be cheaper than nuclear power in Australia, though in much of the world nuclear power is the cheaper alternative. The difference is because of our lower population density and the huge number of good renewable energy sites we have. And to a much lesser extent, also our lack of experience with nuclear power.

Reword title to: Feeble Quixotic power anti-crusaders...

Solar power systems increasingly generate power in Australia.
(Wikipedia: Solar_power_in_Australia )

- - - - -
" Australia has the highest average solar radiation per square metre of any continent in the world. "

" More than 2 million Australian households now have solar hot water systems or solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on their rooftop. Deployment of megawatt-scale solar electricity generation systems is still at an early stage of development in Australia. "

" The increased deployment of solar energy generation depends critically on the commercialisation of large-scale solar energy technologies. "

Source: http://arena.gov.au/about-renewable-energy/solar-energy/
- - - - -

Move is towards heating tanks of hot salt, insulated it can store heat for a week, ending cloudy weather or night problems.

A tank about 9 m (30 ft) tall and 24 m (80 ft) in diameter can power a 100-megawatt turbine for four hours.

More heat holding tanks, longer turbine operating time.

Spain's Andasol solar power station uses 200 ha of land with a 150-megawatt (MW) concentrated solar power station, while the solar collectors take up around 51 hectares.

Australia's ample supply of less arable land, is well suited to solar generation and storage.

Australia easily can generate, store then transfer enough energy to satisfy Australian market demands.

.

Aidan,

You have been retreating on your claims whenever you are challenged due to your complete ignorance. It is clear that your knowledge is only what you can google.

It is impossible to supply a city or country without baseload supply, and the only workable renewable base load supplies such as biogas and hydro etc are limited. There are no other workable renewable baseload supplies, and even the test sites of molten salts cannot provide continuous load.

Presently there is no workable country wide supply possible without either coal, gas, oil, or nuclear. Your comments that renewables are expensive but affordable are vacuous and unsupported.

Shadow,
"You have been retreating on your claims whenever you are challenged due to your complete ignorance."
I have not retreated on my claims. However when challenged I have explained them further, so that you're no longer able to make the false assumptions that you previously made.

" It is clear that your knowledge is only what you can google."
Like many things that seem obvious to you, it's not actually true.

"It is impossible to supply a city or country without baseload supply,"
If you mean baseload plant, that's false.
If you mean sufficient electricity to supply the base load, that's true but irrelevant because the limiting factor is the peak load not the base load.

"and the only workable renewable base load supplies such as biogas and hydro etc are limited."
Although they are limited, there is scope to use them in a much more intensive  way than at present.

" There are no other workable renewable baseload supplies, and even the test sites of molten salts cannot provide continuous load."
The purpose of a test site is to test, not to provide continuous supply. There is no technical reason solar thermal with MSS can't provide continuous load, but commercially it makes no sense to do so — it makes much more sense to design it to meet peak demand and fill the gaps in the supply from wind and solar PV.

"Presently there is no workable country wide supply possible without either coal, gas, oil, or nuclear. Your comments that renewables are expensive but affordable are vacuous and unsupported."
There is no technical reason why we can't install sufficient renewable energy capacity to meet demand. It would be expensive, but I think it would pay for itself in the long run.

Aidan,

The reason that I believe that you have no experience in electrical networks and get all your delusions from google is that you make supremely dumb statements like:

"because the limiting factor is the peak load not the base load."

The limiting factor is precisely that the power system has to meet the power demand 24/7 with 100% reliability which wind and solar technically cannot meet yet. Base load supply is renewables greatest weakness.

" it makes much more sense to design it to meet peak demand and fill the gaps in the supply from wind and solar PV."

There again is the issue, you cannot rely on wind and solar to fill the gaps, at least you need large scale gas to do that.

"There is no technical reason why we can't install sufficient renewable energy capacity to meet demand. It would be expensive, but I think it would pay for itself in the long run."

Yes there still is a technical reason that renewables cannot meet full capacity, and that is long winter nights with no wind following overcast days where you will need nearly 100% back up from fossil fuels. Paying for that massive back up along with the ridiculously expensive renewable generation, it will difficult to ever pay for it.

Shadow -

I am Civil not Electrical. But you're the one with delusions.

The statement "because the limiting factor is the peak load not the base load" is far from dumb. It is something I regard as obvious, though clearly it is not obvious to you.

"The limiting factor is precisely that the power system has to meet the power demand 24/7 with 100% reliability"
No, that's the objective. The limiting factor is the most difficult part of the objective to meet, and that's the peaks not the base.

"There again is the issue, you cannot rely on wind and solar to fill the gaps, at least you need large scale gas to do that."
That's no excuse for not trying to minimise the amount of gas needed.

"Yes there still is a technical reason that renewables cannot meet full capacity, and that is long winter nights with no wind following overcast days"
Rather rare meteorological conditions!

"where you will need nearly 100% back up from fossil fuels."
The gas doesn't have to come from fossil sources - it can come from biological sources and even be synthesised from seawater.

"Paying for that massive back up along with the ridiculously expensive renewable generation, it will difficult to ever pay for it."
The renewables have very low ongoing costs, so as long as cheap finance is available, they work out cheaper than fossil fuels. And much of the backup is already there so doesn't need paying for again. In sustained overcast conditions, gas can be an alternative source of heat for the solar thermal infrastructure. And one option that's certainly worth investigating is colocation of gas ceramic fuel cells with the solar thermal plants.

Aidan,

As I thought, you have no clue.

As background, I am an electrical engineer that has spent more than a decade as Group electrical engineer for a large multi site industrial corporation, and have spent years designing and installing generators, co generation, high voltage substations and networks, and integrating with the major power transmission networks, including bidding for power/ generation and demand/peak load control.

So when you have finished building roads and culverts, take some time to actually read up on power systems before making such dumb ass comments.

The limiting factor in power generation is actually to match supply to demand, especially when the demand is rapidly changing, as supply > demand will mean that voltage and frequency increases and supply < demand means that voltage and frequency decreases, and this happens relatively quickly. So gas systems are used not only to supply peak supply, but to help trim the system. As renewable power supplies are variable, and always put in 100% of the net power they generate, they contribute nothing to load control and are not available to fill the gaps, and only the supremely ignorant would claim that they could.

And as above there is no control over the renewable supply, their variability adds to the instability of the network requiring that the remaining supply become more flexible to accommodate the varying renewable supply.

Renewables require the back up of expensive gas supplies which adds to the already high costs. At the low cost of government bonds renewables are still far more expensive than coal or nuclear.

Similarly while some gas can come from biogas the vast majority comes from fossil fuels

We should do what the French did decades ago, and just nationalise electricity and mass produce nuclear power stations. Fast. If we listen to Dr James Hansen diagnose our climate problem, why not the solution? Modern reactors are much better and SAFER than even the French reactors. They *eat* nuclear waste, and convert today's nuclear waste into about 500 years of clean baseload reliable energy! They have passive safety, and require electricity to function, and automatically shut themselves down in a power failure. Dr Hansen recommends the world build out 115 nuclear reactors a year which is slower than the French nuke per GDP rate.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
We have the advantage of new assembly line reactors like the Integral Fast Reactor and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, both of which convert nuclear waste into energy. They also have passive safety systems impossible with older water reactors, which have cores well over 100 atmospheres of super-high pressure water. Older cores were like giant pressure-cookers, and when things went wrong, well, Chernobyl! Modern IFR's and LFTR's operate at much lower pressures, and so are cheaper, faster, and SAFER to mass produce!

It would be helpful if Hansen et al pointed out that renewables only make sense off-grid.

What is the point of being half pregnant with nuclear supplemented with renewables on grid? Nuclear is ramped up and down with demand while renewables add nothing to reliability, nor to affordability. Is Hansen just throwing a bone to politicians duped by the Green bandwagon to allow them to save face?

The sooner Greens come to grips with reality the sooner AGW can be properly addressed. They have to move through questions of genetic effects of radiation, which is seriously under challenge (*), and proliferation. Both have risk/reward aspects. Greens cannot be allowed to keep us fiddling while Rome burns. Hard questions must be asked and good sense must prevail.

* The original 1956 paper in the magazine "Science" that gave rise to the panic about radiation and the LNT (linear no-threshold) model for exposure that burdens us today is under challenge. The paper and an appeal to have it retracted, together with the response from "Science", is at
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/LNT.pdf

Shadow,
Considering your background, I'm amazed at some of the stupid claims you've posted.

It is simply untrue that all renewables contribute nothing to load control – indeed it's one of hydro's greatest strengths. Rather than resorting to dumb generalisations, you should look at each renewable source individually:

I accept solar PV supplies what it generates according to how much light it gets.
Generally the same is true for wind, though some wind turbines can reduce their output on demand.
But what we were discussing was solar thermal. Its output can be controlled. The capabilities obviously depend on the design, but there is no good reason why it can't fill the gaps. I'm saying that's what it should be designed for.

But you seem to think the holy grail is to instead put it to the low value use of generating baseload power!

And what is your evidence that "At the low cost of government bonds renewables are still far more expensive than coal or nuclear"?

Hydro, the last bastion of a renewables scoundel. Where it is viable, it is viable, not withstanding the dislocation of human life involved. Everybody gets that, so stop with the "stupid claims" crap.

Your position is that renewables can, technically, meet all the energy needs of modern society. You live in a dream, along with fusionistas.

Your type is holding the world up with snake oil. Please get out of the way so sensible people can get on with solving our problems.

Happy New Year.

Aidan,

Are you going for a gold medal in deliberate ignorance? I guess as your technical expertise is non existent you need to try and nit pick.

As there nearly zero chance of new hydro or solar thermal plants being built in the near future, any substantive quantity of renewable power will be either wind or solar, and for these supply is governed by the elements and not by demand.

Secondly even renewables that can vary generation always generate at peak periods, and when additional demand is required cannot supply, so even your petty nitpicking is incorrect.

As solar thermal is only at the test stage and costs about 4x as much as normal solar to generate, there is little to no chance of mass production of this technology in the near future, and unless the technology improves drastically will go the way of the hot rocks debacle.

As for the silly goose chase you want to send me on to "prove" that renewables are more expensive that coal, or nuclear, I suggest you look it up yourself. Note that the vastly cheaper cost of power from nuclear France, and the need for vast subsidies for renewables will be a good starting point.

Shadow,

If in this discussion I were aiming for a medal in deliberate ignorance, the best I could possibly hope for would be silver! Though considering that Rhosty and Luciferase have also participated in this thread, I doubt I'd be a medal contender.

"As there nearly zero chance of new hydro or solar thermal plants being built in the near future..."
Your argument is based on a false premise.

The chance of a solar thermal plant being built at Port Augusta in the near future is far from zero. And although a lack of technically and environmentally suitable sites probably means there will be no new hydro plants, it doesn't rule out the possibility of adding more turbines to an existing plant.

"Secondly even renewables that can vary generation always generate at peak periods, and when additional demand is required cannot supply,"
That's the result of output power being the constraining factor. Your argument does not apply to situations where demand is the limiting factor, nor where storage capacity is the limiting factor.

The cost ratio of (dispatchable) solar thermal to (non dispatchable) solar PV is irrelevant except when considering electricity storage options.

As you're the silly goose who made the claim that "At the low cost of government bonds renewables are still far more expensive than coal or nuclear" I don't intend to waste my time hunting a dubious statement that could well be from a decade ago! Every recent comparison I've seen that shows fossil fuels to be cheaper relies on the need to make a commercial rate of return.

"Note that the vastly cheaper cost of power from nuclear France"
...is the result of most of their power plants dating from an era when the debt was quickly inflated away. Hence other countries with nuclear power can't get anywhere near France's cost figures.

"and the need for vast subsidies for renewables "
...And notice how they're all funded with feedin tariffs (which I oppose) not concessional loans?

Luciferase,
you don't approve of people hoping in fusion energy? OK, yes, I can understand wanting to progress with technology we already have that has been proven to work. So, do you believe in France? That it exists, has a modern, first world quality of life, and ... still uses electricity? Because it uses THE answer. Nuclear. As in, good old fashioned fission.

Modern breeder reactors like the Integral Fast Reactor eat nuclear waste, and can convert America's nuclear waste into 1000 years of clean energy for America and the UK's nuclear waste into 500 years of clean energy for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

It also has passive-safety, which means a power failure will shut it down.

Designs for modern breeder reactors don't use water, eliminating the requirement for the reactor core to be cast in a single go, like casting a round room 2 stories high out of steel 15 cm thick. It's like casting a giant super-high pressure cooker! Dropping water as the coolant means dropping super-high pressures. Liquid sodium or hot liquid salts means modern breeders operate at much lower pressures, and the reactor core can be assembled easily on the production line, bringing the price way down. It's the difference between buying a Rolls Royce or mass produced Hyundai. GE have an IFR ready to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor)
China are perfecting the LFTR, a reactor that cannot melt down as it is already a liquid.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

Aidan,

You have officially written the most drivel in any posts I have ever read.

Until such time as renewable power is able to meet demand 100% reliably all the time, back up from fossil fuels will be necessary and renewables will continue to be a major drag on the economy.

As far as the costing of renewable power vs nuclear and fossil fuels, if you are going to challenge me, the onus is on you to either put up or shut up. I suspect however, that you are not mentally up to the task as you seem to be deluded about the costs of maintaining and running any power system. (P.S. a good proportion of French nuke plants are fairly recent)

Until such time as you manage to demonstrate more than greenie slogans, I will heed the warning "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." and vacate this thread.

That something is possible in theory does not make it a viable solution. The unimaginable magnitude of the 100% renewables and the "how long is a piece of string?" timeline for fusion pushes these solutions off the table.

The time and money available leads to a single solution, which Hanson et al have come to almost fully grasp. We must remove the unnecessary obstacles in its way.

Dr James Hansen himself said:

"Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansen-energy-kool-aid/

This is the way I see it.
Any new generation system capable of being backup will require many
years of development and proving.
We do not have that time.
Therefore we must adopt anything readily available.
With nuclear the only question is can we afford to build say, my guess,
5 large nuclear stations ?
Can we afford not to build them ?

To me that seems to be the only argument worth spending time on.

Can we afford *not* to Bazz? The retail price of coal electricity is only half the total cost of coal to society: the other half is in the health bill. Nuclear doesn't do that. Various prices are quoted for nuclear, and most of them are the one-of-a-kind builds.

What we need is to let GE start building their PRISM reactors ASAP. It's a GenIV nuclear waste-breeding reactor that will eat nuclear waste and convert (most) of it into hundreds of years of clean energy. (We do have to bury the real nuclear waste, fission products, for 300 years, but that's child's play compared to 100,000 years!)
http://gehitachiprism.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor)

Once GE start building their PRISMS on a production line, we'll probably see nuclear come down under $2 billion per GW, maybe even down closer to $1.5bn or even $1bn per GW power station? Nuclear power is like cars. We *could* build expensive Rolls Royces one at a time, or we can put them up on the production line and start pumping out a reactors every quarter. Then all that reliable abundant electricity can replace oil at night as we charge EV's or recycle boron pellets or split water for hydrogen to put on our cars. Then we'll find less smog in our cities, less people in our hospitals, less money flushed down the public health bill and more credibility on the international stage as we finally stop our carbon emissions. Sounds good to me!

Could be Max, but we have to leave oil & coal before they leave us.
The ERoEI of coal has fallen from 80 in 1930 to around 25 now.
Oil is worse as its ERoEI has fallen from 100 to around 10 now.

So we need to get ahead of the decline so we can use them to build the new regime.
Tried to explain this to my MHR but they just do not want to know.

Hi Bazz,
are you the Bazz that used to be on yahoo's ROEOZ? If so, we've chatted before, I'm also Eclipse Now. There's no way peak oil or gas or coal are going to hit us before we can build out enough nukes. Sadly (and catastrophic from a climate point of view) we have centuries of coal we can easily get at a high enough EROEI. We can't even burn all the remaining oil alternatives (like tar sands and shale oil) from a climate point of view. So we've got to do what James Hansen recommends, and start mass producing 115 reactors a year.

Cheers!

Max, that was a long time ago and I only was there a short time.
Well peak crude oil hit us 10 years ago last month and is the cause
of the low GDP everywhere and the fall in demand together with the low price.
Most people are surprised at the low price but it was exactly as predicted by Kenneth Deffeyes and others.
Tar Sands and tight shale oil are in the process of winding down now
but may start up again as the price rises at the start of a third cycle.
A lot will depend on whether the Wall St financiers get sucked in again.
Currently we are in the second volatile price cycle.
We will need a backup of some sort but only nuclear is immediately ready to go.
The problem is that the highest price the economy can afford is
lower than the well head price that the tight shale and tar sands
producers can break even at.
They are still producing but just to pay interest.
The well count has fallen from 1600 to under 600. That tells its own story.