The pivotal point of this article is this paragraph:

"Firstly, night-time demand is low compared
with daytime demand. This base-load demand
could be further reduced by improving efficiency
of energy use and by the forthcoming phase-out
of electric off-peak hot water and its replacement
with solar hot water and instantaneous gas. This
is the reverse of previous policies, which
deliberately encouraged an increase in night-time
demand to allow inflexible coal-fired stations
to generate 24/7."

The point upon which I take issue with the article is its claim of encouragement of night-time demand having 'allowed' inflexible coal-fired stations to generate 24/7. Was it not he case that the practicalities of coal-fired electricity generation meant that even if there was minimal night-time demand, generation had to proceed around the clock?

In this circumstance, would not ANY sale of electricity during this low or non-existent demand period, no matter how little the price per KWh, have made the most sense? And is this not exactly the (logical) pricing regime that was adopted by Australia's respective State-operated publicly-owned electricity generation and distribution industry prior to all this buzzword-infested 'privatisation' mania?

Is not the myth as to base-load generation capability a diversion from the undeniable fact that whilst Australia may well have huge renewable energy resources, so too does it have immense cheap coal resources ALREADY INTEGRATED with a coal-fired generation capacity largely built by taxpayer investment, a capacity which, in the absence of attempts at sidelining it via legislative fiat, would have decades of productive life still to run, and with that residual productive life the feature of cheap off-peak electricity an embedded feature of the electricity market?

How, on the face of it, encouraging that there is to be a Royal Commission into the attempted fire-sale divestment of the NSW component of that carefully built up capability, and even more so, that the sell-off, to the extent that it has proceeded, may yet be reversed.

Off-peak tariffs are the 'bogeyman'!

i agree with most of your post forrest
except that last line

[i gone fully onto off peak]
you trying to double my power costs?

i realised those people
getting solar cells for near free
[paid for by the muggins paying normal rate]

yet they..feed-in [solar during the day]]..
via the day tarrif meter
[recieving double and near tripple normal rate]

and draw off..all their use..
via off peak..[@..half price]

its a double scam

but squeers got it right too

""ark Diesendorf could have made a much more compelling argument about the viability of sustainables if he'd coupled their exclusive usage..with cuts in consumption of energy.""

""There are umpteen examples of where electricity
is just wasted and could be radically cut
as well as made more efficient.""

""We could easily cut our usage by half""
he he..like me and those getting free solar

""without any real depreciation of living standards""
yes i was ready to accept 18 hours a dat acces to power
but find its 24/7...lol

""it's demand that has to be cut
rather than energy having to meet demand.""

i like to think
use whats available...*better

""scarcity of energy""
mate thats a myth
its the haves allways want more for cheaper
and the mugs getting second class value..
while the rich get spoiled..cause they know how

itsd time we all got wise
and govt allowed the poor paying for all of it
to simply get the same as those 'in the know'

[like web acces..i pay $10 bucks a gig
500 meg a mth...via dodo..50 bucks a year]

yet other [people get their gig ay a gig a day
for a dollar a day]..and free phone

i dont use phones
""But it won't happen""
never say never

mate its about ripping off the poor
become rich in wisdom

[but dont tell no-one]

ooops

Some of Mark's statements are extremely misleading. For example, whilst the lowest demand is between 12pm and 6am, the highest demand peak of the day is between 5pm and 10pm when the majority of people return from work have their meals and fire up their TVs.

The consequences to small businesses such as restaurant of a power failure at peak time is many times greater than the cost of electricity, and the Achilles heel of the renewables is the inability to guarantee supply at this point.

No renewable supply presently available can deliver guaranteed supply at any where near the cost of gas, coal or even nuclear power.

Mark Diesendorf makes sense. The situation is even better than he explains as he has left out the use of electric car batteries as load leveller. Because of its reduced complexity electric cars will cost significantly less than combustion engine driven cars once they are in mass production. Most new cars sold in ten years time will be electric because they will be cheaper and the per km cost of electricity is cheaper than burning carbohydrates. Most cars are only used a small proportion of each day and plugging them into the network allows demand to meet supply through the battery buffer.

Electric cars will also prevent the existing base load system continuing to waste large amounts of power when the demand does not match the supply.

Responding to Shadow Minister of 3 May:
1. The power station type that is the biggest user of water per kWh is nuclear. Coal and solar thermal are currently large users, but wind uses no water. All inland thermal power stations can and should be air cooled for a small loss in efficiency and a small increase in price.
2. The additional cost of energy in c/kWh arising from adding thermal storage to concentrated thermal power (CST) is quite small, because storage results in an increase in capacity factor (average power divided by rated power). In addition, the economic value of CST is increased by storage, which provides an increased ability to provide reliably high-value peak-load power between sunset and midnight as well as low-value base-load power.

Responding to Curmudgeon of 3 May:
By repeating your original misrepresentation that the studies on grid integration I cited are “activist publications”, you are demonstrating that either you are too lazy to check the references or that you have checked them out and are deliberately lying about them. Let me draw your attention specifically to the two studies I cited on the integration of wind and solar into the eastern and western USA grids. These are detailed computer simulations prepared by teams of engineers for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. In no way can these be described as 'activists'. In particular the 400-page report of the Western Grid study finds that it is operationally feasible to integrate 30% wind and 5% solar into the grid without additional storage and without any additional long-distance transmission lines going out of the region. However, some strengthening of internal transmission lines would be required. The study did not investigate larger than 35% penetrations of renewable energy into the grid.

air colling isnt as sensable as it may appear
[nor water cooling]

so whats left?
we hear that things arnt energy efficient
we need high voltage..to go accross distance
but often the stuff we run..could run on 12 volt

industry on 24 volt...but unlimited amps
there is so much our experts dont know

but i feel the point is being missed
we cool water into the air..
[ie add in warm air/..at its most simplistic level]

instead we should run say a flow of steam...
[ignoring for now how it was heated]..
and run its motion[heat energies]..like a river
with paddle like wheels...generating 12 volt

figuring out [precisly what energy inputs
re heat it along its...long winding course]

i often wonder why we dont return to water power/gravity
ie water sluces..and coffer dams...water wheels
the proven HYDRO-power..[till bigbusiness stole the concept]

sure were the dry cuntry...but mate
canals are great[were the most flat earth continent there is
if we cant fully manage our water power,,we all doomed

water
works

at non peak energy
we store its weight[mass]
times the clear thinking that sees magnets
driving magnets[within a coil]..is what makes power

magnets can drive the 'other magnet..'
se magnetic moters link

then there is the joe fuel cell
which makes a gass[that IMPLODED..ie dosnt explode]
it generates suction..to suck water up hill
more efgicient that blowing it up hill

thing is the joe fuel cell costs 100 bucks
of stainless steel cylenders..that generate this gas
orgon gas...HH gas...

who knows...but it also can burn
and neutralise radio-activity..!
search for joe fuel cell

but so much more
never put all your eggs in the one basket
dont just have glass windows on ya roof..
when insurance says...its not coverd for hail damm-age