How is anything that relies on storing solar going to be viable up against 24/7/365 despatchable electricity? You have to marry it with FF or nuclear backup, like every other unreliable source. All you're doing is saving a little fuel without making a useful difference in emissions (even if the whole world was doing it).

Like whack-a-mole, the same furphies just keep popping up to be bashed down. When will enthusiasts accept the game is up and clear the way for real action? The following is a good read: http://4thgeneration.energy/response-to-brown/

Luciferase,
>So, for unpredictable periods of "weeks at a time" FF generators can leave plant and personel idle while remaining on call for unpredictable periods of "days at a time",
Not entirely unpredictable, as we have the ability to forecast wind and solar power generation and electricity demand.

>and such inefficiency costs nothing?
I didn't say that.

Of course there's a cost. But the cost is trivial compared to the cost of fuel and of paying the workers to be there all the time. IOW what you regard as "such inefficiency" would be an efficiency gain!

>How is a private business case built around such an uncertain scenario that won't lead to high spot prices?
This would be a response to high spot prices that would bring them down. It's simply a case of optimising the use of existing assets. And when it comes to replace them, CCGTs are probably the best solution.

>Of course, socialists will make this a public enterprise and hide the true cost within the unworkable boondoggle the pursuit of renewables is, together its already hidden extreme of publicly subsidized support.
There's little publicly subsidised support at the moment - they tried to go with cross subsidies instead, which was a bad idea as it pushed prices up.

Having said that, a small levy on electricity bills to pay power stations to be available when the AEMO determines they're needed would probably more than pay for itself with cheaper electricity at times of high demand. It's certainly more efficient than requiring a certain proportion to come form dispatchable sources.

>It's working so beautifully in Germany, on both cost and emissions, isn't it just?
O course it isn't. They're not a sunny country, and they stupidly decided to phase out nuclear power.

>Renewables enthusiasts won't let reality get in the way of a good dream.
Renewables detractors won't let reality get in the way of a bad dream!

>GIGO indeed!
It is amazing how bad renewables detractors are at spotting garbage!

Luciferase,
>How is anything that relies on storing solar going to be viable up against 24/7/365 despatchable electricity?
By making power available when it's needed - for it is itself dispatchable, albeit at varying capacity.

>All you're doing is saving a little fuel without making a useful difference in emissions (even if the whole world was doing it).
What would you regard as a useful difference? And wouldn't it be comprised of many little differences? If so, would you regard those as useful?

Whack! to all of it.

All renewables require built in redundancy of of an entire working FF based extra/co-generation system. The total system runs so inefficiently as to result not only in high cost but high emissions. Your "it's simply a case of optimizing the use of existing assets" shows you know little of what constitutes a private business case. AEMO, or any other gov't instrumentality, cheaply running anything defies history and is a divorced from business thinking. Hiding true cost in the renewables subsidy boondoggle would result whether the providers were public or private, you can be sure.

The only thing fully predictable in advance is the sun goes down each day. Wind and solar vary year by year (let alone day by day or week by week) and we can't even get that forecast right, partly because climate is changing.

CCGT generation runs very inefficiently under this scenario so OCGT is the norm. But while fracked gas is cheap, and abundant (or could be) who cares, while all your "little differences" add up to a big fail against AGW. HELE would achieve the same insufficient result without all the boondoggle.

In the US nuclear is being closed down in favour of FF with renewables (strange bedfellows, frackers and renewablistas). This cruels the fight against AGW while viable storage remains a sweet dream. Your passive-aggressive stance against nuclear, together with outright opponents of it, is part of the detritus that must be cleared before any real progress is made.

That fight has a long way to go with the ideologues not keen to forsake their religion https://tinyurl.com/y9s4jtus
Without extension leads into French nuclear and Nordic hydro, as well as burning coal big-time, Germany would be even more of an energy and emissions basket-case, yet renewablistas plow on regardless.

The greenies are now understanding the problems of intermittant solar
and wind. So their new tack is to suggest that large countries can
use the weather difference over large areas all linked on the grid.
Europe has toyed for years with having sites in Africa.

The idea is that you know what the maximum demand peak over a year
is and then you install a multiple of that figure of wind and solar.

Now the trick is what is that figure ? The article that I saw said
for a very large country 12 times looks reasonable.
It admitted that this is a rough guess.
It seems no one has attempted to model a real country.
It is probably true that the smaller the country the X factor becomes
exponentially proportion to the smallness of the country.
Frankly I think it is madness and probably unaffordable.

Taking into account the falling Energy Return on Energy Invested of
coal, oil and gas over the years it will reach the point where nuclear
uranium/thorium is the only option left.

Luciferase,
Renewables certainly require redundancy. That doesn't necessarily have to come from FF, but it makes sense to use the FF infrastructure thats already in place.

'Tis simply untrue that "The total system runs so inefficiently as to result not only in high cost but high emissions." That's what FF advocates predicted fifteen years ago, but it has proved not to be the case. Even in Germany, emissions are falling.

What's the source for your claim that "In the US nuclear is being closed down in favour of FF with renewables"? I understood nuclear's share to be steady there, with renewables and gas growing at the expense of coal. I'd like to see more nuclear power in the USA, but AIUI the reason for their failure to construct more is not opposition but economics - they currently have a lot of cheap gas, and meanwhile nuclear safety standards had to be improved in the wake of Fukushima.

I'm not passive-aggressive against nuclear. I'm pro nuclear, but I will not support cutting corners with safety, and I'm very skeptical about the economic case for it in Australia. Those who spruik it typically greatly underestimate the capability or renewables while overestimating the cost.

Regarding predictability, it depends how far in advance is being forecast.

CCGT doesn't "run very inefficiently". I'm well aware that OCGT is generally better suited to backup. But as more storage is added to the network and the coal plants are decommissioned, CCGT becomes more viable. And forget HELE - its CO2 emissions are too high.