Renewable power is not just “intermittent”; it is crazy, just as its advocates are crazy.

This country is crazy, going backwards from reliable, cheap fossil fuel to windmills and shiny panels cluttering up the environment. All on the lie about the essential-to-life gas, carbon dioxide. When asked for proof of the villainy of CO2, the climate shamans have been unable to provide it,

What's next? Something like the 17th. Century tulip mania in Holland?

History is littered with this sort of crap. At least we have stopped burning dissidents at the stake, instead just ruining their reputations and livelihoods.

Even the “good guys” are crazy; they don't stand against the climate change tripe as they should: they advocate nuclear, which would ‘save’ us a bit before we get those you-beaut nuclear submarines.

Anyone who believes Dutton’s latest ‘promise’ on Paris and emission dates is a fool. The National Party is already criticising Dutton’s glad-handing.

The dismantling of Australia's cheap, reliable coal and gas energy by idiot politicians on a whim is criminal. And emissions are just the same as they were two years ago when we copped Blackout Bowen.

It looks to me that being Green equals being a thorough hypocrite & a fool. How anyone can push one of the most polluting manufacturing & massive waste as is the wind/solar industry is beyond me. Zero emission is the catch cry but what can be produced & used at zero emission ?
Nothing ! Stop interfering with sensible progress !

PS. On this matter - and all other matters - Mr. Dutton needs to pull up his socks if he actually wants to be PM.

He was recently heard to say that it was his job to "question" the government. No, that is not the job of the Opposition Leader - his job is to oppose the government, particularly this particularly awful one.

But, perhaps he doesn't want to be PM. That's the way it looks, and has looked, ever since he got the job.

As one commentator said recently, being a ex-copper doesn't really set you up for high office.

The full spectrum of costs, benefits, and environmental impacts need to be considered when comparing energy sources.

While solar and wind are intermittent and variable, these energy sources utilise strategies developed to manage these issues effectively. Advances in battery technology, for example, allow us to store excess energy generated during peak times for use when production dips. Reliability can also be enhanced by integrating a mix of renewable sources across large areas. Modern grids also employ sophisticated demand response techniques to balance supply and demand.

Comparing the economic feasibility of renewable energy sources to that of nuclear energy over an 80-year period provides an incomplete picture. The costs of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries are dropping rapidly thanks to technological advancements and economies of scale. Unlike nuclear plants, renewable systems can be upgraded in a modular fashion, allowing parts to be replaced without overhauling the entire setup. Advances in recycling technology also help reduce the environmental impact and costs associated with replacements.

The argument that renewable energy leads to relatively high costs due to the enormous capacity and storage required to match the reliability of nuclear power overlooks several key factors. Combining different renewable sources with storage solutions creates a more resilient and reliable system, reducing overall capacity and storage requirements. Innovations in storage, such as more efficient batteries and methods like pumped hydro and compressed air, are driving down costs and increasing efficiency. Additionally, renewables have lower lifecycle emissions compared to nuclear power, which carries significant safety risks and long-term waste management challenges.

From a long-term investment perspective, the continuing decline of renewable technology costs makes them more attractive compared to the static high costs of nuclear power. Not to mention the significant and often-excluded expenses associated with nuclear technology such as the decommissioning of old plants, long-term waste storage, and disaster mitigation.

The cost of energy storage is conveniently glossed over by renewables spruikers. I have a $13.5k home battery so I know whereof I speak. For most of May 2024 Australia had dunkelflaute conditions ie overcast and low wind. Australia's 11,000 MW of wind capacity produced as little as 400 MW at times. That suggests as a minimum Australia needs a month of energy storage say 20,00,000 MWh. If I recall Hornsdale cost about $700 per kWh. You do the maths. On pumped hydro note Snowy 2 has gone from $2 bn to $12+ for 350 GWh. However Electricite de France has 5 pumped hydros which work well.

That's capex. I read in Watt Clarity that big battery owners want $200 or more per MWh to bid into the system. Yet we hear repeatedly that realtime wind and solar will get down to $50 per MWh. Not if they are balanced by batteries. Green hydrogen requires max $30. There's no way aluminium smelters can run continuously off lithium batteries. I also note the latest solar farm with batteries can only send 10% of its midday output for a couple hours at night. Storage is a helper not a saviour.

There is a major ommission in Geof Carmodys article.
He did not include wind turbines.
Also his calculations seem to assume that all the solar panels are
sun trackers. The difference here between midday and 3pm is about 40%.
As far as batteries are concerned, a cheaper and very long life would
apply if Nife (Nickle/Iron) batteries were employed as they last near forever and can be maintained.
However my experience with solar panels is very dismill.
My 1 kwatt solar panels are now 14 years old and at midday in early
January are down to 500 watts.
Why do you think the Germans are now considering restarting their
nuclear power stations ?