What I always find striking in these anti-renewable articles is the utter failure to talk about what none renewable power has been bought on line and the cost.

One would think reading these that coal or gas fired power stations are popping up all over the place with cheap energy and no government support. Why does the author not want to talk about the massive funding that all power gets rather then just the renewable sector.

Cobber

Provide proof of how much you have invested in renewables.

Thousands of bodies lost jobs all because of Abbott’s idiocy. That will now come back +.
Who would feel comfortable investing in anything while you had an against everything govt; Wind turbines did not appeal to Abbott’s eye balls, for reasons only known to him.
That era has passed, thankfully . We are now in a progressive cycle and a much more stable climate for investment. Coal is on the outer, it has had its run even oil use is in decline.

Mark Lawson here

Cobber the hound - what new power plants, what govt support? Demand has been almost flat in Aus for some years so there's been no need for new conventional plants. There has been some retirement of old plants. There is no government subsidies or support for power plants that I'm aware of. Perhaps you can enlighten us? the article was not anti-renewables as such. It merely pointed out that no-one was building more capacity and why.

This excellent new analysis of the UK electricity system shows that the cheapest way to reduce emissions is with nuclear power and little of no weather-dependent renewables (such as wind and solar) http://erpuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ERP-Flex-Man-Full-Report.pdf .

It's an excellent analysis. Well worth reading carefully. Study the charts because that's where the real information is. The text has been carefully worded to attempt to keep the wide range of stakeholders inside the tent. There are many important lessons in this analysis.

I have been reading the AGW driven solar & wind articles and I am
certain they are all away with the fairies and I wonder what they are smoking !
The whole renewable energy field has run riot with RETs, RECs etc etc,
wind farm sunsidies, solar farm subsidies etc etc etc.
It has become an unfathomable alphabet soup.

None of it seems to have addressed the problem of four overcast days
in a row with little or no wind.
Don't tell me it does not happen everywhere at the same time.
Even if it does not happen everywhere will there be enough generating
capacity in say Sth Australia to supply all of NSW & Victoria ?
Even if there was enough excess capacity in Sth Aus is there the
transmission line capacity to back up NSW & Victoria ?
Another question, if there was who pays for it ?
To cover four overcast days there needs to five times as much
generation and storage capacity. Who pays for it ?

Backup real base load power is essential, and it needs to be everywhere.
And on tap immeadiatly.

If we do not comply with those conditions, sell your 5th floor home
unit & get a job on the ground floor.
Oh & do not go into hospital for an operation.

I had an argument on here recently with someone about how a large
office building could not use solar, even just for the lifts. I have
obtained the figures via a relative who has access to that sort of info.
The power needed for a large office building, say 15 floors with six
lifts requires 500 to 600 kwhrs per lift per day.
This is not something that can be supplied by solar cells & wind reliably.

If these demands are not met all buildings over three floors will
have to be abandoned.