Well, given that solar *halves* during winter...
http://arena.gov.au/files/2013/08/Chapter-10-Solar-Energy.pdf

...you either have to build double your summer capacity, or you have to try and build enough storage to last *seasonal* fluctuations. So what's it going to be? I'm arguing for something that has already been done. The French electricity sector showed us the way decades ago, and that's with nuclear reactors that (just quietly) freak me out a bit. I'm not a fan of Gen2 LWR's. But I'd much rather live next door to one of today's Gen3.5 AP1000's than a coal plant. Coal is a Chernobyl every single day! So what's it to be? You going to double solar capacity during winter, and have it just sitting there spilling excess in summer, or have you got some other scheme for wasting all our money?

At least if we build nukes we can charge about half our fleet of cars at night. (NREL study for America, but same probably translates roughly equivalent here in Australia).

But... when you're too busy trying to deal with the national power emergency a solar economy calls "Doomsday" (sorry, that's this thing the rest of us call night time), I don't think there's really going to be the same energy flowing down the same wires charging my EV at night. Is there? So by sacrificing baseload power for unreliables, we have to then upgrade the daytime capacity to allow for both charging *all* our EV's during the day *and* upgrade the electricity grid for superspikes in daytime demand as we try and wean off oil as well. But the French? They could just charge all their EV's at night, and continue to have the lowest carbon electricity sector in Europe.

Ummm, Max, You are comprehensively and trivially wrong.

I live in Brisbane, well below the Tropic of Capricorn, and had moments today I desired an air conditioner. I would conservatively estimate that my total solar reception in Belbowrie on a 4.37 kW array was 97% of nominal, given that I optimised my array to support summer aircon rather than winter-heating/battery-charging requirements. Your figures are an order of magnitude out without even using a calculator.

In short, you are desperately in need of a laxative.

My (step) brother in law is in London. I assisted him and his partner in placing an array seven months ago in Acton Green, London. In the middle of winter we immediately got better returns than you suggest, you can guess how much better, but cost-effective (to save you calculation, which you are not good at). Regardless, a sample of One exceeds your predictions. A sample of two in two continents exceeds your predictions of solar effectiveness prodigiously and trivially. Have you anything more to say except your apology for misinforming us all?

Rusty.

The PDF I quoted was discussing Concentrated Solar Power which tries to make solar 'baseload' and actually deal with this horrific, mysterious thing we call *night* time. Now, unless you're willing to pay double to triple the cost of the average grid for a Powerwall + extra solar system to go 'off grid', you're replying to the wrong subject! While you might be able to angle your Solar PV in a different angle and get some OK electricity in Brisbane, if you're drawing down from a coal fired grid at night you're being a goose and giving coal another reason to exist!
( BTW, I'd still love to see you quote a peer-reviewed journal that shows how much insolation Brissie receives at this time of year because Page 272 of this ARENA government PDF shows significant losses.)
http://arena.gov.au/files/2013/08/Chapter-10-Solar-Energy.pdf

Let's look at other countries that might *really* struggle in winter!

In Germany solar is 3 times more expensive than nuclear: and it doesn't run on a cold German winter night.
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/doing_the_math_comparing_germa.shtml

Secondly, to back up renewables seasonal fluctuations in northern countries like Germany could bankrupt any nation that tried it. You can *either* buy Tesla Powerpack batteries to back up *one week* of winter in Germany (at a hypothetical 30% penetration of wind and solar, and these wind and solar farms must still be bought), OR you can just buy safe modern nuclear-waste eating nukes that will do the whole job for 60 years. Again, *backup* a third of a renewable grid for just one week, or nuke the whole grid for 60 years! That’s the economics of renewable storage V nuclear.
Point 2 below
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/renewables/the-grid-will-not-be-disrupted

Third, in some places like Germany, Solar PV + STORAGE may not even be much of an energy source!
Nuclear, on the other hand, can have an ERoEI* of about 75 to 100 or more.
(* ERoEI = Energy Return on Energy Invested: or how much energy you actually get after all the energy to build it).
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

Perhaps, Max, you are not considering a "responsive" system. A few moments attention helps people decide it's time to sleep, rather than stay up. I guess you are willing to subsidise the unresponsive. Fair enough, you may be a great humanitarian, and teenage playstation time is worth more than your time at work (almost certain I suspect). Maybe some some night activities are truly worth the extra cost....let the investors bear them.
Yes, your averages may *even* be sound......why would *anybody* who can do better them be bound to them? Perhaps you have not considered the ramifications of a "market" where the disadvantaged purchasers are not bound to continue as purchasers?

Rusty

Hi Rusty,
imagine having to buy 6 cars because each car was only 1/6 reliable, and you still might have the rare day when all 6 simply refused to work and had to catch a cab. That’s renewable energy for you. So we overbuild capacity that is, fortunately, becoming cheaper and cheaper, in an attempt to arrive at a reliable grid. As you can see, I can admit that wind and solar are both becoming cheaper: as long as we’re not comparing them to baseload electricity. I’m not against renewable energy outright. Far from it. I actually celebrate Labor’s decision to go for 50% renewable electricity by 2030.

But what I’m against is ruling out any safe, clean, cheap alternative to coal, especially one that can be reliable 24/7 instead of unreliable like the 6 cars above. One that can run not just playstations at night, but hospitals and police stations and transport and some industries that might have night shifts. I note you didn’t mention charging electric cars overnight? Pro-renewable anti-nukes like Dr Mark Diesendorf simply dismiss overnight baseload power as wasteful, unused spare capacity. But an American study by NREL shows that a baseload grid could charge 84% of family cars and trucks and SUVs, especially when considering that 45% are charged overnight! Page 10 below
http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/ei/pdf/PHEV_Feasibility_Analysis_Part1.pdf

This is on the existing grid infrastructure, without adding a single extra power station or powerline. So if we simply replaced today’s coal stations with SAFE green LFTR technology, we could be some way towards weaning off oil as well. Who can disagree with that? Renewables not only struggle to replace coal, but would have to build almost double the daytime grid to try and wean us off oil as well!

Try the following video about LFTR’s. You may find yourself HATING older Gen2 reactors like the Fukushima power plants even more, but strangely warming to the LFTR concept. The first 5 minute summary is a little rushed, but everything is unpacked in more detail later on. I know anti-nukes that love the LFTR concept!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

(from Noel Wauchope)
Nuclear power "safe' clean, cheap" ? Oh give us a break from these deceptive mantras!

Chalk River 1952- 58
Rocky Flats 1957
Windscale 1957
Mayak 1957
Soviet ice-breaker Lenin 1966
Three Mile Island 1979
Chernobyl 1986
Tomsk 1993
Hanford polluting site 1986 and continuing
Fukushima Daiichi 2011 and continuing
Many other nuclear and radiological accidents 1942 - 2015

As for "cheap" - I don't think there are any examples.
Even when "cheap" excludes the uranium industry and its health and environment toll too, and the transport of toxic radioactive trash plus the security costs involved, and the temporary and eternal storage of radioactive trash, and the costs of security for that - even without all those costs - nuclear still ain't cheap!