>These tell us about power costs (and reliability?):
>The green line shows the share of wind power above which multiplied generation and the need for multiplied battery storage is required for reliable power.

This statement looks very dubious. But it is also ambiguous - so before I call BA on it, I'd like to know what exactly is meant by "multiplied generation" and "multiplied battery storage", and why the green line is at the level it is.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Taswegian,

The Wheatley study was conducted over too short a timescale so did not factor in the closure of any coal fired power stations.

The point of the RET was to encourage renewable energy, and in that it was successful. The Guardian link you posted showed that electricity sector emissions peake in 2008 and are now on a downward trend. Without the RET or some equivalent measure, it's likely they would have continued to rise.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.,
>Renewables win when they are very local and not subject to the combined 75% transmission and distribution losses.

According to http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/EG.ELC.LOSS.ZS/rankings Australia's transmission and distribution losses are less than 5%. Admittedly that's 2014 data, but that data is sourced from the IEA.

Where does your 75% figure come from?

Luciferase Quote "Norway, with its hydro, is used as the example of where (very nearly) 100% "renewables" is already working, so we should aim for 100% too!" Where do you think we can get the amount of water and the terrain they have that makes it feasible?

Alan B Quote "Renewables win when they are very local and not subject to the combined 75% transmission and distribution losses." Especially when they are highly subsidized and I suspect figured are exaggerated like a lot of Government statistics.

Aidan the point is whatever are the magic cures for emissions (e.g. RET, Direct Action) they are so far not doing enough to drag down the all sectors total. Proponents were saying at one time that wind and solar would do most of the heavy lifting.

To be on track for the Paris pledge we should have lost about 70 Mt power sector emissions between 2005 and 2017 instead I think the reduction is about 12 Mt. We haven't seriously started on electric car charging or compulsory summer aircon for seniors. The RET has overpromised and underdelivered.

Quote "We haven't seriously started on electric car charging"

Good luck on a weekend going on a trip to the beach or country when thousands are also doing it and on the way you need to charge, it will surpass the debacle years ago with KM long lines to get rationed petrol.

Quite a rant John Ryan!

Do you have any argument or evidence to show that you are not just an emotional twit, with no idea of anything but your foolish dream?

Looks like the subsidy scam raising bills is out of the bag.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5941165/ACCC-report-reveals-consumers-paying-538-year-subsidise-solar-panel-users.html

Electricity users who don't have solar panels are paying $538 a year to subsidise Australians who are benefiting from green schemes, a government report says.

Rooftop photovoltaic solar panels typically cost about $6,500 to install, with those fortunate enough to afford them receiving financial help from their poorer neighbours.

Under a feed-in tariff scheme, households are given generous rebates from their electricity provider for putting energy back into the grid, with utility companies passing on these costs to consumers.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said it was unfair how consumers without solar panels were paying higher power bills to subside those with household renewable energy.