Hydro, the last bastion of a renewables scoundel. Where it is viable, it is viable, not withstanding the dislocation of human life involved. Everybody gets that, so stop with the "stupid claims" crap.

Your position is that renewables can, technically, meet all the energy needs of modern society. You live in a dream, along with fusionistas.

Your type is holding the world up with snake oil. Please get out of the way so sensible people can get on with solving our problems.

Happy New Year.

Aidan,

Are you going for a gold medal in deliberate ignorance? I guess as your technical expertise is non existent you need to try and nit pick.

As there nearly zero chance of new hydro or solar thermal plants being built in the near future, any substantive quantity of renewable power will be either wind or solar, and for these supply is governed by the elements and not by demand.

Secondly even renewables that can vary generation always generate at peak periods, and when additional demand is required cannot supply, so even your petty nitpicking is incorrect.

As solar thermal is only at the test stage and costs about 4x as much as normal solar to generate, there is little to no chance of mass production of this technology in the near future, and unless the technology improves drastically will go the way of the hot rocks debacle.

As for the silly goose chase you want to send me on to "prove" that renewables are more expensive that coal, or nuclear, I suggest you look it up yourself. Note that the vastly cheaper cost of power from nuclear France, and the need for vast subsidies for renewables will be a good starting point.

Shadow,

If in this discussion I were aiming for a medal in deliberate ignorance, the best I could possibly hope for would be silver! Though considering that Rhosty and Luciferase have also participated in this thread, I doubt I'd be a medal contender.

"As there nearly zero chance of new hydro or solar thermal plants being built in the near future..."
Your argument is based on a false premise.

The chance of a solar thermal plant being built at Port Augusta in the near future is far from zero. And although a lack of technically and environmentally suitable sites probably means there will be no new hydro plants, it doesn't rule out the possibility of adding more turbines to an existing plant.

"Secondly even renewables that can vary generation always generate at peak periods, and when additional demand is required cannot supply,"
That's the result of output power being the constraining factor. Your argument does not apply to situations where demand is the limiting factor, nor where storage capacity is the limiting factor.

The cost ratio of (dispatchable) solar thermal to (non dispatchable) solar PV is irrelevant except when considering electricity storage options.

As you're the silly goose who made the claim that "At the low cost of government bonds renewables are still far more expensive than coal or nuclear" I don't intend to waste my time hunting a dubious statement that could well be from a decade ago! Every recent comparison I've seen that shows fossil fuels to be cheaper relies on the need to make a commercial rate of return.

"Note that the vastly cheaper cost of power from nuclear France"
...is the result of most of their power plants dating from an era when the debt was quickly inflated away. Hence other countries with nuclear power can't get anywhere near France's cost figures.

"and the need for vast subsidies for renewables "
...And notice how they're all funded with feedin tariffs (which I oppose) not concessional loans?

Luciferase,
you don't approve of people hoping in fusion energy? OK, yes, I can understand wanting to progress with technology we already have that has been proven to work. So, do you believe in France? That it exists, has a modern, first world quality of life, and ... still uses electricity? Because it uses THE answer. Nuclear. As in, good old fashioned fission.

Modern breeder reactors like the Integral Fast Reactor eat nuclear waste, and can convert America's nuclear waste into 1000 years of clean energy for America and the UK's nuclear waste into 500 years of clean energy for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

It also has passive-safety, which means a power failure will shut it down.

Designs for modern breeder reactors don't use water, eliminating the requirement for the reactor core to be cast in a single go, like casting a round room 2 stories high out of steel 15 cm thick. It's like casting a giant super-high pressure cooker! Dropping water as the coolant means dropping super-high pressures. Liquid sodium or hot liquid salts means modern breeders operate at much lower pressures, and the reactor core can be assembled easily on the production line, bringing the price way down. It's the difference between buying a Rolls Royce or mass produced Hyundai. GE have an IFR ready to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor)
China are perfecting the LFTR, a reactor that cannot melt down as it is already a liquid.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

Aidan,

You have officially written the most drivel in any posts I have ever read.

Until such time as renewable power is able to meet demand 100% reliably all the time, back up from fossil fuels will be necessary and renewables will continue to be a major drag on the economy.

As far as the costing of renewable power vs nuclear and fossil fuels, if you are going to challenge me, the onus is on you to either put up or shut up. I suspect however, that you are not mentally up to the task as you seem to be deluded about the costs of maintaining and running any power system. (P.S. a good proportion of French nuke plants are fairly recent)

Until such time as you manage to demonstrate more than greenie slogans, I will heed the warning "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." and vacate this thread.

That something is possible in theory does not make it a viable solution. The unimaginable magnitude of the 100% renewables and the "how long is a piece of string?" timeline for fusion pushes these solutions off the table.

The time and money available leads to a single solution, which Hanson et al have come to almost fully grasp. We must remove the unnecessary obstacles in its way.