As so often, you're right. South Australia hadn't happened.

P&H looked at future technical improvements in PV's and found EROEI still wallowing.

Nuclear could improve tecnically too, before even going Gen IV, but let's not let ourselves go there. I mean, just look at the horror of France over the last 60 years!

You can carry on about renewables for as long as you like, but for an electricity grid to function reliably, you must have a considerable percentage of power from a large synchronised source otherwise you get the same result as what happened in South Australia. In Victoria, some unrealistic naive people are talking about closing down the power stations in the Latrobe Valley by 2050. The only way you are going to do this is by substituting some form(s) of nuclear energy. There is no other way.
David

There's more than one way to provide a syncing reference David.

It's just a signal with a particular voltage/current phase relationship, there's nothing special about it.

Large generators provide some inertia to the system but there's nothing special about that either.

Gerrard,

Nearly all generators are synchronous. Most have wound rotors and the injected current controls the phase angle of the current and offers some power factor correction. Wind turbines are usually permanent magnet generators that cannot regulate the phase angle.

Given that the entire grid runs in sync, it is up to the generator connecting to the grid to sync its voltage speed and phase angle to the grid before connecting. (it is easier than it sounds). Each wind turbine would require its own sync equipment.

Storage is the Achilles heel of the renewables industry, and it has been worked on for at least 4 decades with very limited results. Until there is something that can be built without the need for mountains, can provide peak power reliably and does not cost an arm and a leg, the renewable industry will need to rely on very expensive gas fired generation to provide reliability.

Sadly, many groups quote Dr James Hansen on the problem of climate change, while ignoring his stated *solution*.
He says:
1. Believing in 100% RENEWABLES is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. (Yes, he's aware of all the 'studies' that say we can, but still thinks storage is ridiculously expensive and cannot do the job).
http://goo.gl/8qidgV

2. The world should build 115 reactors a year*
http://goo.gl/Xx61xU
(*Note: on a reactors-to-GDP ratio the French *already* beat this build rate back in the 70's under the Mesmer plan. 115 reactors a year should be easy for the world economy. France did it *faster* with older technology, and today's nukes can be mass produced on an assembly line. Also, GenIV breeders are coming that can eat nuclear waste and covert a 100,000 year storage problem into 1000 years of clean energy for America and 500 years for the UK with today's levels of nuclear waste).

Oz renewablistas point to the German transition experiment as a major success story, not mentioning nordic-hydro and franco-nuclear propping up appearances, or the high cost affecting German big businesses even after subsidy by small business and household users.
(Re nuclear, Germany says "not in our backyard" but hypocritically accepts the French offering)

A massively expensive renewables and gas turbine backup proposal here will not adequately lower emissions enough for a fair and effective share of mitigating AGW. Why bother? Current arrangements leading to the SA blackout must be fixed with adequate storage for load balancing or other approaches that further diminish economic viability.

From every angle renewables are pointless on the main grid in Australia. Let's get nuclear by replacing F-F plants with reactors as they need rep[lacement, or before in cases.