Mark Lawson here.

SteeleRedux
Your post assumes that renewables can be made cheaper than conventional plants. Sorry. You would have seen comparisons on a per-cost basis that may be interpreted as wind being cheaper than coal power but wind in a grid has completely different costs. Renewable and dispatchable (can be switched on and off) are in different categories and cannot be compared that way. As the article makes clear the retailers simply aren't interested in renewables unless they are forced.. look at the figures in the article.
Wind power is basically twice the price of conventional power but, as noted, they can't really be compared.

Cobber, I am interested in your off grid system.
A couple of questions,
Presuming your battery is near practical discharge.
Can your solar cells fully charge your battery in one sunny day while
supplying your normal usage ?
How many days can your fully charged battery run your normal demand ?

Thanks

Peter Lang,

Despite that report's inappropriately high interest rate, I agree that more nuclear power is the best solution for Britain. Australia, with far more sunshine and a much lower population density, is more suited to solar power. As our population increases, the case for nuclear power may or may not improve, depending on the rates of technological progress in the nuclear and renewable power industries.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,

It would be rare to have four overcast days in a row with little or no wind. But IMO the best solution for those times (apart from demand management) is to use ceramic fuel cells (colocated with solar thermal power plants) to generate electricity from gas.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Jon R,

China's investing very heavily in nuclear and renewables. Its coal consumption will peak soon; it was reported to have peaked already, but that report turned out to be based on dodgy official figures.

Australia's CO2 emissions are very important because other countries use our inaction to justify doing nothing themselves.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

mox,

The need to keep coal fired generators spinning but not producing power is a myth that some people (and the Murdoch Press) used to discredit wind power before it was widely used. But experience has shown it isn't needed at all. Nor is it that dangerous to birds (that was only true for early wind designed that used a truss instead of a tubular tower). And it's rare for wind power to produce enough infrasound to cause problems. And fossil fuel power also produces infrasound.

So let me get this right! Solar and wind is cheaper than fossil fuel as the Government pays millions of dollars of subsidy to the power industry? I have had 6 solar panels on my roof for many years and I get back less than $300 per year so what's all that about?
If solar is so cheap why is the Bridgewater solar array not working? Come to that the Mildura one has not got off the ground? I thought they were both scams by Greeny thieves working on dopey politicians but what do I know? I know Bridgewater has sat for some years without any power being given out.
My challenge is "What's happening to all that money taken off us and given to solar arrays?"

Cobber

So according to you, government subsidisation of energy was the worst mistake in the history of the world, and the solution is, more government subsidisation of energy? Just turn your brain on for a change, and actually *think* about what you're saying.

Doing things so as to make a loss means using *more* resources, not less, you fool.

What you are failing to understand is, if the government subsidises renewable energy, the effect is no different than shining lights generated by coal power onto solar panels so as to claim the subsidies. It's mere empty-headed foolery, which you would understand if you paid more attention to fact and less to squarking groupthink fallacies.

If you are right that renewable energy is more efficient than coal, then it won't need any subsidies; and the existence of subsidies for coal, makes an argument *against* those subsidies, not *for* subsidising renewables, so do grow a brain.

Aiden, I was in Bleak City earlier this year and counted five overcast days.
Admittedly late in the fifth day there was a little broken sunshine.
There was no noticeable wind but there could perhaps have been enough to light a few LEDs.