$60-90 billion for storage and wind farms? The GDP of South Australia is $97 billion. Electricity accounts for around 40% of primary energy usage. So one could guess that getting to 100% renewables would need around $250 billion on batteries and wind farms - that's if all industrial, commercial and domestic activities could be electrified, which has yet to be shown. All such estimates turn out to be low, so let's call it a cool $trillion, ten times GDP. Never been piloted, never been demonstrated, hence unbankable. There's a long road ahead.

$90 billion for batteries and more wind farms? And when the batteries and photovoltaic cells need replacement in seven years or so, another $X billion? And when those batteries need replacement another $X billion, and when those batteries need replacement...

Let's ignore the environmental cost of the manufacture of wind turbines and photovoltaic cells, though it will be significant. How many billions will South Australia spend over, say, 30 years, compared to what would have been the cost of electricity generation and supply by coal?

South Australia is run by Labor incompetents, with subsidies provided by Turnbull's incompetents, entirely dependent on other people's money.

The Liberal Party, which used to be distinguished by its commitment to free markets, has helped to create a completely phoney system, where taxpayers' dollars are used to give wind and solar totally unjustified advantages over coal. South Australia's "market" is not a market at all, just a system of unjustified subsidies which cost taxpayers dearly. And for all that, what they'll get is blackouts and the loss of industry and jobs. The rest of Australia will then be subsidising SA's subsidies while heading down the same disastrous path.

I don't think it would take even the bozos who wrote this crap very long to comprehend that a lazy $90 billion (repeated every seven years or so) could be spent on many other essential services rather than environmental posturing.

South Australia may well be the canary in the coal mine. When it dies, it will be a warning to the rest of Australia to get the hell out of such arrangements. And the gormless politicians who have caused this mess will be deservedly vilified for the rest of history.

The PM's solutions trotted out although rejected by previous more precautious prejudiciary administrations. Moreover, trotted out to simply avoid enabling a nuclear powered future!

Strenuously avoided nuclear power can be implemented with no weapons spin off! Another reason to reject it out off hand!

Molten salt thorium reactors, demonstrably cheaper, cleaner, safer than coal, and the most compelling reason in coal producing coal exporting country to reject out of hand, absolutely untried!

Pumping water uphill, for an intended outlay of billions! Uses copious energy, and that cheap off-peak energy has to be available or supplied by, you guessed it, ultra reliable renewables!? LOL!

Those billions would build a humongous solar thermal project in our sundrenched outback! And given scales of economy, at comparable cost to similar sized coal fired projects!

And experience demonstrates, as privately funded power projects able to compete with coal on roll out costs, or as base load energy providers. The fuel component forever free!

Even so, unable to compete with thorium's roll out costs or the price of power, given comparable thorium power generation just doesn't have to rely on a grid or the doubled or trebled energy prices it alone delivers!

Given the cooling or heat transfer medium of molten salt thorium, is also salt, and turbines able to be turned by abundant gas, not needing to be located near a convenient body of permenant water, just where the power is needed/used!

The PM has had his (read the riot act) talk with our gas producers and trotted out previously rejected plans. I believe, for one reason and one reason only, to avoid doing anything that may harm the coal industry or its profitability?

A real leader would just put people before the profits of price gouging privateers!? [In days of yore, privateers, legalized pirates! How much has changed eh?]

Our PM is a former merchant banker, with a former merchant banker's mindset, (how to get rich using other folk's money) isn't he?

And forever personally quarantined, from any or all negative consequences of his decisions, isn't he?
Alan B.

Oh dear, Apart from the fact that the two authors are well known anti-wind generators.

The numbers just don't add up.
I could go through it but I'm sure I'd be wasting my time, as they have deliberately left things off to boost their argument.hint they have left large items out of their calculations and tried to make their scary numbers look really big. So I'll just make these observations.

No one is suggesting SA only have wind power.
Solar power, wind power, and gas with a power storage with batteries and water to smooth out peak demand is what is on the table.

Having a look at the author website shows that they are on the fringe even of the right wing, clinging on with the anti-vaxers and flat earthers.

From their website.....
"We’re not here to debate the wind industry – we’re here to destroy it."

So a balance view will not be coming from these guys.
for those of you commenting on the $90 billion figure. its a number pluck out of the air from these guys not based on any actual project that is planned or even dreamed of.

Once upon a Time....

'With $90 billion spent on batteries and 4,000 MW of more wind farms'.

They all lived happily ever after.(with nuclear )