Two wongs don't make a white, y'know.

plantagenet,
A huge component of the regressing Progressive Left disagrees !

Just the usual hype, Poida, but thanks for trying.

It's no example of going off-grid with 100% renewables (except locally for an hour if fully charged, according to the claims) but has, among other functions, an arbitrage role through charging through sunshine, or coal, then discharging to take advantage of market distortion created the RET, while soaking up grants and subsidies. Another rent-seeker's paradise.

It did create a bit of an economy around its build, of course, but so too would building a nuclear power-plant or any other investment stimulus.

Just the usual spin, Luciferase, but thanks for trying!
>It's no example of going off-grid with 100% renewables
Of course it isn't - have you forgotten you'd requested examples of grid scale storage?

Going off grid is likely to become profitable in a few remote areas where the usage is too low to justify the infrastructure cost, but everywhere else it's a silly idea as it destroys the economies of scale.

>(except locally for an hour if fully charged, according to the claims)
Why are you so quick to dismiss a great boost to reliability?

>but has, among other functions, an arbitrage role through charging through sunshine,
>or coal, then discharging to take advantage of market distortion created the RET,
>while soaking up grants and subsidies. Another rent-seeker's paradise.
A very inaccurate description there! Its arbitrage role taking advantage of PRICE FLUCTUATIONS rather than market distortions. And of course price fluctuations have long predated the RET

If the RET is distorting the market then it's the good kind of distortion that makes it more efficient! Currently the most profitable strategy for existing generation companies is to fail to add capacity, as this results in higher electricity prices and hence higher profits. But the RET forces them to add capacity, ultimately bringing prices down. It does exacerbate the fluctuations, hence the need for storage, which is why the NEG is needed.

Remember the economics now are not what they were a decade ago. Renewables are no longer the expensive option - they work out cheaper then new coal.

Nothing is worth investing in if money is the sole aim !

Well said Aidan

1. Noting "RET" is Renewable Energy Target http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/About-the-Renewable-Energy-Target

Problems with the coal power station pundits:

- being trapped in the economic assumptions of the 250 year old coal power station BUSINESS

- refusal to accept that not even Australian Banks will finance coal power stations because they see such stations as a high risk and being replaced by renewables.

Nuclear is currently a public-political dead end in Australia and likely to remain so for the next 20 years.
_________________________

2. Only large scale conventional nuclear power stations are commercially viable overseas - not hope/faith based nifty ideas of Thorium or Modular reactors.

The celebrated nuclear electricity case of FRANCE relies on constructing ever larger conventional electricity reactors - most recently of 1,650 MW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#1650_MWe_class_(EPR_design)

________________________

3. But also note the French nuclear sector is only viable because this sector is DUAL CIVILIAN-NUCLEAR WEAPON USE http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340212470817

The same is true of the military-civilian UK, US, Russian, Chinese and Indian nuclear sectors.

Japan and Germany have/are/will so easily dispense with their nuclear sectors because they are purely civilian use with no military-national security incentives.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2014/01/iranian-nuclear-program-iranian.html

How is the Kerang installation relevant to my question? You highlight one part of my sentences, Aidan, and ignore the rest like a weasel.

Again, and as I have asked every which way in the past, show me feasible, viable grid-scale storage that makes renewables THE solution to emissions while powering a modern civilization with growing energy needs.

http://www.gemenergy.com.au/lalbert-solar-farm-at-kerang-is-expected-to-create-150-jobs-for-northern-victoria/

How many of these installations will power the touted 220,000 households 24/7/365 without emissions? How much will it cost, including all the subsidies? The facility is not designed to achieve this, which is why it is not a response to my question.

One more time Aidan, why isn't Germany, which has access to the same batteries, building storage and wind and solar charging capacity and infrastructure instead of gas reticulation and gas and coal-power? Could it possibly be because it's just not viable, even with all the political power and will behind it that exists there?

This Little Battery That Could is doing little towards the big picture. It has its functions, of course, while subsidies flow and the RET marginalizes baseload sources, but achieving much towards emissions reductions isn't one of them. It doesn't even claim to, but nothing will stop you and the Poidas believing it should be rolled out everywhere.

http://www.spectator.com.au/2018/09/are-renewables-more-or-less-expensive-er/

Poida, conventional nuclear is affordable, as South Korea shows, and other countries that are getting on with it, even third world countries like Bangladesh. Mass produced SMR's, and MSR's, are the cream on top and imminent.

As for Australian public opinion about nuclear, that is always in process. Before Fukushima, more supported than opposed it. That disaster, and a lot of the misinformation surrounding it (see Wade Allison) must be put into perspective, especially with the acceleration of climate change concern since then. The nuclear ban will be challenged within this parliament, and we'll see what the public thinks after the facts are aired.

It's a bit far fetched to suggest that France's drive towards nuclear energy was a mask for weaponary aspirations. But far-fetched is your forte, as your belief in 100% renewables suggests.