Craig,

Once again you play fast and loose with the numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Comparing the cost per capacity of wind and solar with coal is ignoring that solar only produces <20% of name plate capacity and wind about 30%. If you look at the levelised cost, coal is by far the cheapest followed by nuclear and closely after that by wind then solar.

The elephant in the room is that between 5pm and 9pm is the highest demand for which solar is useless and wind is wildly unreliable. The solar molten salt plants generate power for this peak but at a cost of >40c/kwh or $400/MWhr, and some of these plants are going bankrupt even with vast subsidies.

Shadow Minister,
That's a lovely reference, I think Wikipedia is an excellent resource. Sadly, it's also often out of date and sometimes wrong. As in this case.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0306261916309400

The paper is titled

For those who don't have institutional access, this is the abstract and summary:

"Highlights

• Competitive-bidding simulation of low-carbon electricity generation for Australia.
• Spatial optimisation used a high-resolution set of GIS for entire continent.
• Influence of carbon price and biofuel availability on the energy carrier mix.
• Less than 20 TWh biofuel generation required to plug wind and solar resource gaps.
• Low-carbon electricity supply possible at about 160 GW capacity and 20 ¢/kWh.

Abstract

We offer a simulation of low-carbon electricity supply for Australia, based on currently and economically operating technologies and proven resources, contributing new knowledge by: featuring a GIS-based spatial optimisation process for identifying suitable generator locations; including expanded transmission networks; covering the entire continent; and investigating the significance of biofuel availability and carbon price. We find that nation-wide low-carbon electricity supply is possible at about 160 GW installed capacity, at indicative cost of around 20 ¢/kWh, involving wind, concentrating solar, and PV utilities, and less than 20 TWh of biofuelled generation. Dispatchable hydro and biofuel plants are required to plug gaps caused by occasional low-resource periods. Technology and cost breakthroughs for storage, geothermal, and ocean technologies, as well as offshore wind deployment would substantially alter our assessment."

A good summary can be found at:

https://theconversation.com/renewables-are-getting-cheaper-all-the-time-heres-why-64799

In reply to Alan B

Just leaving aside all the other arguments about molten salt thorium etc - it's just TOO LATE, TOO SLOW - to have any impact on global warming, and to stem the renewables tide. Even if those designs were good, tried out in the past, cancelled - it doesn't matter now - they've missed the bus!

Craig,

The costing quoted in Wiki are from the government databases and best practise estimates from the some of the best technical and financial experts in the countries while your reference to a paper from UQ (which is not accessible the rest of us) is based on what?

On top of which the abstract included failed technologies (hot rocks) and unproven technologies and coming up with a cost of 20c/kWhr or $200 MWhr ex generation cost, which is 4x present generation costs, and 2x new nuclear costs.

Give me your email and I'll gladly send you a copy, Shadow Minister.

GY has my details.

shadowminister0@gmail.com