Luciferase, the paper you referenced is over a decade out of date, although it does canvass some of the issues.

The game changer in distributed generation is so-called "smart grid" technologies, which allow for real-time coordination of supply and demand, as well as other grid parameters.

10-15 years will see the end of central generation as the dominant paradigm in the Western world. For many parts of the developing world distributed systems will be the first and only model implemented, with or without grid mediation.

I also suggest you investigate the trends in demand, as well as advances in technology such as additive manufacturing and distributed information.

Central generation is not just dying, it is already dead.

I'm not seeing a game-changer in a smart-grid, possible efficiency yes, but game-changer? If it is more efficient and less costly than ramping up and down coal or nuclear generation, it will have a place.

There is still the basic issue that a preposterously large investment in RE is required to replace fossil-fuels in world base-load delivery. Unless enough of the world adopts such a transition, requiring that many other necessary human endeavours be put aside to achieve it, it'll be under-capitalized failure. Why on earth bother, when the affordable solution is already successfully and safely at work?

Only with a morbid and irrational fear of nuclear technology can the bleeding obvious be rejected. Expectations about renewables and smart-grids is just noise. RE will only ever project fossil or nuclear base-load energy, not supplant it. It's sexy feel-good hype that makes you wanna conga.

Yes, it is more efficient; yes, it is less costly; yes, it is a game-changer.

One major problem for rolling out distributed generation has been integrating them into a grid that can supply demand that varies across time and space. The solution is to enable real-time feedback, which is what smart-grid technologies are all about.

The idea of base-load is antiquated and decrepit.

Nuclear will not be a part of the mix of next-generation power-supply systems. Rapid response stored energy systems will. These include gas turbine, battery (both fixed storage and mobile battery storage in transportation systems), thermal (especially solar thermal, but also geothermal), supercapacitors, kinetic energy (especially hydroelectric, but also magnetodynamic and other KE recovery) and other technologies both small and large scale.

But if you disagree, that's cool, join the conga and start spinning - every little bit helps

Don't leave out snake-oil from your sexy list.

"True costs of wind electricity

Wind turbines have become a familiar sight in many countries as a favorite CAGW mitigation means. Since at least 2010, the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) has been assuring NGOs and the public that wind would be cost competitive by now, all things considered. Many pro-wind organizations claim wind is cost competitive today. But is it?

[Figure 1]

Yet incentives originally intended only to help start the wind industry continue to be provided everywhere. This fact suggests wind is not competitive with conventional fossil fuel generation. How big might the wind cost gap be? Will it ever close? We explore these questions in four sections: incentives, lifetime cost of electricity generation (LCOE), system costs, and market distortions. We examine onshore wind, since EIA says offshore is almost 3x more expensive. For simplicity, we examine EIA national averages, rather than regional ranges."

Continue reading here: ... http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/12/true-costs-of-wind-electricity/

Luciferase,

I'm well aware that driving cars and flying have greater risk by multi-magnitudes than nuclear power production, but I don't think having a good safety record justifies abandonment of the policies that produce a good safety record.

Spencer's spoken for himself, but I'm certainly not a product of "mind-controlling education, which provided one-sided information and left no room for proper debate in most classrooms". On the contrary, I frequently question assumptions. And when I do I find that most of the arguments against renewable energy are bogus. The claim that "The benefit of nuclear energy is that is the only affordable way to mitigate AGW in the time we have" is dubious in most of the world, and completely false in Australia due to our great land area and low population. I can tell the difference between physical, political and arbitrary constraints. Unlike you I understand that an EROEI of over 7 is not actually a requirement of an advanced society. I also understand why Prieto and Hall's EROEI figures are wrong, whereas you accepted them uncritically.

And if I'm "scared witless by the prospect of nuclear power", why do I support it in England?

I haven't watched The China Syndrome and I wasn't even aware of The Day After. I have seen War Games, but that didn't affect my attitude to nuclear power. There was something that made me wary of it: the marine pollution the British nuclear industry was producing at the time. But that has now ceased. My objections to nuclear power in Australia are based on economics not fear. And though I think Germany would be better off not phasing out nuclear power, that too is an economic decision; there are no insurmountable problems that would prevent them from moving entirely to renewables.