Another card in the pack may be compensated demand reduction but that too is expensive. An Adelaide foundry will be paid $350,000 to forgo 10 MW X 4 hours in heatwaves. That's a whopping $8,750 per Mwh we'll all pay in our bills if that becomes the new normal.

It must be an eery sensation walking from the 100% renewable ACT across the road to the benighted dirty energy cursed Queanbeyan. I presume ACT lights go out in wind lulls, overcast weather, hydro droughts and broken interstate connectors. Or somehow they suck up all of the renewable energy otherwise used by the rest of Australia.

My prediction is that most of the predicted energy storage by 2030 won't materialise and we'll further restrict gas exports. It would be good if SMRs are on sale by then.

Talk, talk and graphs - boring as bat shite. We are paying too much for power. We are no longer competetive. No amount of jawing can hide the fact that we have been conned by shonky scientists, rent-seekers, the United Nations and domestic politicians. The only way left is to follow the U.S out of the Paris con, let the climate look after itself, and start bring the liars and crooks to justice. We might still be able the to avoid poverty and Third World status.

I see that in an apparent effort to prevent his critics from exposing his errors, Geoff Carmody has now resorted to failing to explain how his ridiculous figures were obtained!

more and more studies while the facts mock the warmist at every term. Anyone been to Canberra lately?

All charts and graphs to tell just one story, Just coal and then renewables.

Nothing else on the table, because that's where our alleged representatives have sunk their personal fortunes? You'd think!?

I mean, you'd be forgiven for believing these alleged representatives had never ever read a science book, never ever learned that thorium is the most ENERGY DENSE material on earth and so abundant and long-lived we can never ever RUN OUT off the stuff.

And promises power SO CHEAP that both coal and renewables could never ever get a look in!

And why our alleged leaders refuse to even mention the word thorium unless it is to, show me a current thorium reactor.

Knowing even as they pose the question, there are a few probably in Russia, China and India to mention places where this carbon-free, RELIABLE, DISPATCHABLE clean cheap and WALK AWAY SAFE energy is probably being deployed?

And with it, for as little as 2 cents per KwH!?

And the very reason these alleged representatives will NEVER EVER allow this vile name, to ever pass their lips, unless to denigrate or spuriously mock it!?

Look. The only source of U233 is thorium and U233 is the only source of cancer miracle cure, bismuth 213.

And without it, HUNDREDS will die ANNUALLY, entirely unnecessarily, at greater annual numbers than the annual road toll!

Our alleged representatives are surely putting vested or self-interest before that of the nation or those who elect them to SERVE!

How many more decades are we expected to tolerate this endless pretence to serve and or put the national interest ahead of all other vested or personal considerations? HOW LONG!
Alan B

Geoff Carmody correctly highlights the twin impediments of reduced energy supply reliability arising from increasing levels of renewable energy and the rapidly escalating costs of attempting to minimise the resulting uncertainty risk, concluding that the costs of maintaining the present standards becomes effectively impossible as we approach the 100% renewables target.

This surely raises the fundamental question: is the underlying assumption that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, soundly based?

It is certainly worth the time and effort to at least check the underlying hypothesis that man’s emissions of carbon dioxide are now the principle cause of the current warming period as claimed.

If such a study was undertaken it would be found that in fact there is no empirical evidence available to substantiate the hypothesis, which it why it remains just a hypothesis. This can be verified by noting the fact that if any evidence had been identified, it would be prominently highlighted by the IPCC in its Reports. Its absence there is compelling.

The basis for their assumptions is founded on circumstantial evidence and unverified computer models that do not include, (or may guess at), many factors that influence climate, because there is insufficient knowledge and confidence to include in the models.

There is much empirical evidence, observation, logic and science that disagrees with the hypothesis, which normally using the scientific method, would mean that the hypothesis needs to be amended to account for the discrepancies, or withdrawn.

To make matters worse, no attempt has been made to quantify the known substantial benefits to all plant life and biota, including mankind, from increasing levels of carbon dioxide.

A failure here to do our ‘due-diligence’ in this matter will continue to result in a litany of adverse unintended consequences.

Everything's a hypothesis in science, Ian, things are only proven in mathematics. Your idea of waiting to see if the worst happens before responding is not a tenable, precautionary approach.

Insofar as there being no empirical evidence, I disagree, but will not waste time going toe-to-toe when the arguments are well documented.

Re the article itself, I haven't responded because I don't quite follow this: "Generation plus storage capacity multipliers needed for given reliability standards, using 100% 'new' renewables as base-load and back-up, are shown in the chart below." I'd like the explanation and figuring teased out more. Somebody?

Is Geoff out there to help poor dolts like me?

Luciferase, this article is about what I have been waffling about for sometime.
To get 100% renewables you have to use a continent sized country so
that the wind/solar can take advantage of the weather differential in
different parts of the continent. ie no wind in the south, hope it is
blowing in the north. What Geoff is pointing out is that the more
uptime your performance standard requires the more wind and solar
installations you need.

You can get closer to knowing what amount solar & wind and where it
should be installed. You need a computer connected to AEMO to read in
the current demand continuously. Knowing the performance of wind farms
and solar farms for wind speed and solar radiation you can place
virtual wind farms and solar farms around the country, inputting
wind speeds from the BOM. Where wind data not available, install
cheap wx stations.

After a year or so you would have a pretty good idea whether the
number of wind/solar/batteries could be afforded.
As Geoff says it is very dependant on the reliability that you demand.

If you reduce reliability then all buildings above the third floor
will have to be abandoned. This is the nightmare that the greens
have been ignoring.

Sorry reduce reliability should be increase reliability.
I was thinking reduce the figure itself.
It appears that the reliability figure at present is .002%.

I believe Trumps decision to pull out of this farcical of a con, was the right thing to do.
Everyone should follow. With the technology we have today, we are nowhere near a renewable age.
The current technology is at best unreliable.
At worst incapable of doing what is required of it.
It will be some time before any real and affordable technology will appear, and even then, if we shoot every politician who dares go anywhere near it.
As long as the loony left and the garbage greens are allowed to breathe oxygen, we will all just keep on suffering and copping pretty much more of the same as we have been.

Bazz, thanks for trying, but I'm still no closer to understanding the graph, or its basis.

Take SA's 35% wind. I'm assuming if that were presumed to have sufficient "renewable backup" (an oxymoron if its batteries of any hue) to be guaranteed, then only need two times this, roughly, is needed in other guaranteed generation to complete SA's electricity needs, i.e to take generation to ~100%.

Geoff C?

Unfortunately Luciferase that 35% figure is the amount of power that
a turbine will typically produce in a year compared to its nameplate rating times 365x24 Mwhrs.
When I turned my computer on this morning Sth Aus was producing 28 Mwatts.
Their maximum is about 1200 Mwatts.
I do not know how many turbines they have installed so divide 28
by the number of turbines.
Because their output can be very low and all others be below their
rated output, you just cannot divide 100/35 = 2.85 and install three
times as many turbines and get 100% output.
Basically this is what Carmody's article is about.
He points out as you demand better reliability it becomes more and
more difficult to achieve 100% reliability.

You have to install more wind/solar farms over a physically larger
area to improve the chances of getting more wind.
Batteries would help buffer calming events on short time scales but
no one seems to understand that the batteries have to be recharged and
that takes away from the available power, probably the next day, if it
has been a night with not much wind.

I do not think anyone can work out theoretically how many wind and
solar farms would be needed to run the country with any reliability
percentage you can pick. I believe it could be done as I suggested
using realtime data for demand, wind speeds and time of year variations for wind and sun.

I suspect, just from a gut feeling, that the result would cost such
an enormous amount of money that we would need to build a printfarm
to house the printing machines to print the money.
I know, I know, it would all be done with pixel money and never be paid back.

Bazz, as long as we have ignorance and greed around us we will never really progress.
The proposals that are and have been suggested and trialed are failures, and should never have been allowed to get beyond the mouths of ignorant people like politicians, led by an even more ignorant mob; The greens.
I have preached ad nauseum how the technology is NOT VIABLE.
As has been pointed out again and again, the land required to harvest the amount of power required is greater than the size of the urban area it is supposed to service.
So we replace one pollution for another.
Then there is the absolute and certain lack of reliability.
It is a fool who will promote something they know in advance will NOT do what it was meant to do and at a price worth doing it.
The words, 'duty cycle' come to mind.
These fantasies will not come close to the duty cycles of coal, hydro and nuclear.
Don't even bother to try to compare reliability.
Not even close.
Wind is proving to be an expensive and maintenance horror story.
Their duty cycle must be about 5%.
So run them long and hard enough to simply create low level power, and they will still crash and burn as regular as clockwork.
That's the only thing you CAN rely on.
FAILURE!
One of the regulars on OLO has been pushing thorium salt as a basis of power generation.
From the early details, it appears to be a win, win, win situation.
It ticks all the boxes in reliability, residual nasties, (there aren't any. It's salt) base load power, and the list goes on.
Being that my background is engineering, it angers me to see good ideas sidelined because of filthy ignorant scumbags pushing a failed agenda just so they can get wealthier at the expense of the consumers.

I don't think thorium is sidelined for nefarious reasons, I think it
is just a case of "Thorium ? what err is that, lets get back to discussing energy.
It is the pollies, I asked a minister how are you going to fuel diesel submarines ?
We import it all, what happens in a war.
Reply, "We have firm commercial arrangements for supply".
Duuhh !
And that was a minister of the Crown !

Bazz, this is what I speak of.
At best I call these people ministers of the 'Clown'.
It has always bugged me that these people know nothing about running a business, let alone running a huge business like a country.
The 'club' grooms them then puts them up for election.
Along come an even less informed and lax group of people, (the voters) and make completely un-informed decisions based on no actual solid criteria or experience even; and here we are today.
A bunch of mindless greedy criminals stealing and running amok with our money and all along with the consent of another mindless and lazy mob.
The consumer!

Altrav, I was just reading about the power problems in the US.
We seem to be having the same problems. They are in the situation
where no one is investing in new coal or gas power stations.
In California they are having six hour blackouts.
Imagine standing in a lift for six hours with 15 of your workmates at knockoff time !
If we continue down the same track and it looks very similar to here
we will be in the same boat.
I think I will start organising a 12 volt lighting system. At least I
would be able to get away from this m/c and catch up with my reading, hi !

Bazz, it saddens me to have to agree with you.
I wish I had the answers.
Having an ignorant public is bad enough, but couple that with a greedy self serving govt and you've got yourself chaos.
If only we could take a page out of China's history book, when the people rose up against the govt and academics.
Killed most of them, burned books, they simply had, had enough.
I'm not saying their any better off today but, at least they 'drained the swamp' and put the scum on notice.
I would wish that upon Australia.
Only something as decisive as attacking and killing the scum will it finally sink in.
At least for some time we would have some very scared pollies if anyone dared to take up the job knowing at any moment they could be extinguished.
I believe only action of this nature, will snap them back to reality and into doing their job.
If they have the courage of their convictions.

Well Altrav that is a dramatic solution.
I am hopeful that the blackouts will be so severe, as they must inevitably be, that the present parties will be overthrown.
When buildings above three floors are abandoned as homes and offices
there will be a real uproar.
As someone who has walked up 20 floors on a job in a new building
each morning and down each afternoon I can assure you it is no fun.

Bazz, "He points out as you demand better reliability it becomes more and more difficult to achieve 100% reliability."

Isn't GC talking about backup (not thermal) to go with wind generation, i.e. gravity, chemical etc. batteries, to guarantee the 35% is met? That leaves 65% from other sources to add.

I'm getting that the stronger the reliability guarantee, the greater must be the battery backup capacity, but I don't get the figurings.

Me "...to guarantee the 35% is met", I meant at ALL times, and at a minimum.

As far as I can tell, this article relies on three errors:
Firstly, although Geoff Carmody refers to "Generation plus storage" his calculations are based on a complete absence of storage.

Secondly, he then flaunts his lack of reasoning by assuming the cost of providing reliable electricity form non dispatchable renewables to be directly proportional to their market share!

Thirdly, he doesn't even understand the meaning of the terms he considers to be buzzwords. So for the benefit of those who failed to spot his errors, 'demand response' doesn't mean "rationing supply because we haven't enough"; it means temporarily reducing demand so we don't need to ration supply. And 'behind the meter adjustments' mean BUYING (rather than simply taking) electricity from those who generate/store their own.

He also seems a bit clueless about alternatives, being needlessly fixated on baseload despite the bases being the times when supply shortages are least likely to occur.

'Tis a bit worrying that someone with a résumé as impressive as his can be so bad at thinking. But he is an economist, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised.

ALTRAV,
Before taking a page out of China's history book, try reading the chapter!
One lot of politicians organised an astroturfed uprising against their political opponents and those who had the temerity to criticise them. They didn't drain the swamp; they invaded it and set about making it much deeper. The people may have thought they'd put the scum on notice, but they soon found the new scum had put the people on notice.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
Aren't California's current blackouts due to the bushfires? I know they had supply problems a few months ago (partly due to one of the generation companies going bust) but AIUI the resultant blackouts weren't anywhere near that long.

There's nothing inevitable about severe blackouts. Anyway, problems are generally better solved by evolution than revolution.

Aidan, no it is a market failure as far as I can tell and it is not
just California. One case that was discussed was Connecticut although
a lot of it was about California.
Trying to remember where I read about it.
It was a link from another article.
It sounded very much like here with some subsidies being involved but
they were paid to the coal stations. Also some stations are shut down
for whole seasons and paid a retainer then contracted to fire up as needed.

Luciferase, the whole storage thing seems to me to fraught with a
particular difficulty which I have raised previously.
How much storage you have depends on how many windless overcast days
you plan to cover.
When you decide to consume the storage and you say 75% exhaust it then
you have to recharge it, possibly overnight in off peak IF the wind blows.
Then you might get it back to 66%, but then what if tomorrow is again
windless and overcast ? Does that mean your storage needs to be twice
the size ? This why Malcolm's Snowy hydro 2.0 is attractive it will
be many days worth of some part of the generation backup.
As far as batteries are concerned I think they might be sucker bait
other than for wind lull filling. The UK would need 14000 like SAs.
Some will argue about that figure but the whole field is subject to
a lot of surmise like on here.
It will not be resolved until someone links a computer to AEMO and
uses a virtual network but with realtime load, wind & sun data.

SA wind at the moment 525 Mwatt.

Aiden, no need, my reference was as a lead.
My comment and point was to put more emphasis on the overthrowing of the ruling entities and that they come in many forms, not just as politicians.
They are more dangerous than the pollies as they hide behind the skirts of the pollies, only to make their sick and overbearing demands through the govt.
ALL of these scumbags need to be eliminated.
I care not who does the eliminating and by what means.
The more painful the better.
Thereby sending a message to all the scum waiting next in line to occupy the positions of previous scum.

ALTRAV,
I know what your point was, but I think you missed mine. Overthrowing is not a good strategy unless you can replace it with something better. 'Tis all very well saying you're sending a message to the scum waiting in line; you're unaware of the real message you're sending: you're an obstacle they'll need to deal with!

Reform is nearly always better than overthrow.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, what's the point of your last post? 525MW is a truly unremarkable figure! Indeed it's about double that now.

Why do you bother posting a blogger's 14000 battery figure when the calculations are based on achieving a flat output rather than anything even remotely related to Britain's electricity needs?

Paying to have power stations not running but available when needed is a good strategy even if its not working in America at the moment. But if there are (non fire related) supply problems in America at the moment, it would be good if you could post more information so we know what pitfalls to avoid.

Aidan, I understand but I am not suggesting I do it alone.
But imagine if, say, half the population actually took up arms against these people.
Even the military would be powerless, and even then, I don't think they would take up arms against their own, especially when the public would outnumber them many fold.
Look I know it's a far-fetched idea.
One can dream.
It happened once, so there is a precedent, even if it is not likely in a Western Democracy.
When I see so much ignorance, arrogance, greed, averace and so many other bad things going on around me it is all I can do to imagine a day when things will be better.
As I said, I can dream.

I've given up on trying to understand the graph and underlying figurings.

If intermittent sources provided 100% of annual electrical energy (MWh) consumption, by definition it could not do so at a constant rate. Peaks above 100% must charge storage for when the sources deliver less than this.

Because the round trip of using over-peak to top up under-peak energy production is only partially efficient, about 75%, the loss must be compensated by producing 25% in excess of the energy consumption.

The generation build may be cheap enough, but what about its regular replacement. Does its longevity and efficiency remain sufficient to call it cheap generation? And what about storage? How much will it cost per unit stored, and, how much storage is enough given that weather doesn't run like clockwork, not just over short periods but over longer ones, and with climate change throwing up further surprises?

These uncertainties do not fit with modern civilization's reliability needs. The belief it will be scalable, feasible and viable, especially given the need to electrify so much more than we already have (e.g. urban transport and synthetic fuel production for shipping and long-range transport) is fantasy when compared to existent and imminent nuclear options.

Aiden, the reason for mentioning the current wind o/p in SA is because
many people have never seen the variation and it is generally a
surprise to them that it varies over such a wide range.
Re the 14,000 figure it is the first I have seen anywhere and did not
really surprise me. You tend to poo poo anything that does not fit
your conception without even making a valid criticism of their effort.

ALTRAV,
It sounds like you want a civil war!
http://youtu.be/akIHev3cb1E

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
As that statistic was less than half SA's maximum wind output, but it goes a lot lower, it did not give any indication of the variation you mentioned.

I don't applaud effort for its own sake, and I make no apologies for recognising that calculations based on false assumptions often have negative value as they dissuade people from pursuing the best alternatives.

Using batteries to completely level the output from Britain's non-disatchable renewables is a totally worthless objective. Traditional baseload power is not what's needed. The 14000 battery figure was completely unrelated to any genuine requirements (demand is far from flat) so it appears to be an attempt to unfairly discredit battery storage and/or wind and solar power rather than examining the circumstances in which they could be of use.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,
I think my Sunday, 29 July 2018 6:45:37 PM post is the best explanation of the graph etc.

Looking at the wild oscillations in the 5 minute electricity wholesale prices, I'd be surprised if batteries weren't economically viable already. Of course batteries would affect the market by reducing those oscillations, so their economic viability of many more batteries is a separate issue.

Existing nuclear power options are expensive. Imminent ones promise to be much cheaper, but so do renewable sand storage. Synthetic fuel production is best done at times when there's excess power, whether it's from renewables or nuclear.

Aidan, that would be a good place to start.
Any previous attempts at trying to get the system back to where it should be, has failed, because the system does not want change.
The pollies are doing quite nicely the way they have set it up and I believe a concentrated and violent physical attack will do the job, as vocal attacks don't hurt scumbags, as they have the thickest skin and the lowest ethics known to mankind.
I have always found that people who suffer a physical lesson and end up with a physical reminder of their folly, are reminded of their wrong doing on a daily basis and actually learn from it.
Talking is the gutless and useless way to achieve nothing when faced with someone who will not listen to reason even though he knows he is wrong.
I doubt it would be civil war.
If there is a section of the population who agree with the govt, let them side with the govt.
As far fetched as it may seem there are always those who have to oppose, because they can.
No I don't think it will be a civil war.
Those against will simply stand back and let those for get on with it, as they know that ultimately it will be good for them too.

Dear ALTRAV,

Alright mate, I have raised your mental state several times on this forum and I'm doing so again now. Are you really that far off kilter that you are now advocating shooting people? You have a political beef and you want to resolve it with violence and death? You would be very much at home in Syria with a beard, a flag, and a mantra. What makes you any different to any ISIS member?

Or indeed a mafia member. Are you trying to import the old Italian ways of getting rid of politicians you disagree with? Trimbole certainly did when he disposed of Donald Mackay.

We really can do without that kind of thinking here. We Australians are pretty proud of the fact that we allow our democracy to help solve issues without resorting to violence. If you want to advocate for the type of violence that has pervaded the homeland of your parents then migrate now. We all know what you think of Australians anyway.

SR, so you've just made my point for me, AGAIN.
Seeing as how you drag me off topic again, I am obliged to respond in kind.
Now if your saying that the Aussie way of doing things is so good, then why are we still being abused and assaulted.
Your way is the way of fools.
If you are typical of Aussies, you can suffer like the rest.
I see a problem and if it needs fixing, I set about to fix it.
You and your lot sit back and say, 'Ah that's the way it is, it's someone else's problem, that's what we pay them for'.
So while you've been banging on about not fixing the problem we continue to have money and rights stolen from us without any checks and balances.
Your type of thinking is the kind that keeps these scumbags alive and well.
Where-as my kind of actions are for the good and right the wrongs you and your lot believe in so much.
You are part of the problem but typically will never see it.
As for the mafia and such.
They have been here for decades.
Their Aussie names are Unions and Labour.
So SR, to recap.
Your method is a failure.
My method is a conclusive one which will succeed.
It all comes down to what kind of a lifestyle you want to have.
One where you are being lied to and fleeced more and more by the day or one where you can enjoy the fruits of your labour and not have to pay 'protection' money to the scumbags.
Money that is rightfully yours and you would be spending on yourself if the scum wasn't stealing it from us.

Aidan,

I'm not the least interested in the ability of expensive batteries to take advantage of high spot prices caused by the RET, enabling their paydown. It doesn't advance AGW mitigation one jot.

I am interested in whether expensive batteries, at the usage they would be needed to provide anything approaching 100% renewables reliably enough to power civilization, are viable. No truly plausible case has been put up for this, just the dreams and aspirations of fantasists.

Synthetic fuel production is a must for society, if we are to fully tackle AGW, not an afterthought to find some use for excess energy. It will need reliable electricity to meet a constant need for fuel on demand. Then there is the electrification of urban transport, desalination, fertilizer production, industrial heat etc., requiring constancy of power to meet demand.

No amount of hoping storage prices to fall can replace the certainty that nuclear dispatchability has provided more cheaply than the examples renewablitsas chose to cherry-pick, and will imminently provide .

Bazz, thinking about the simulation you suggest, the degree of intermittency determines the storage required to run 100% renewables. Let's say, in an extremely hypothetical scenario, that an entire year's consumption (excluding significant losses and inefficiencies) is generated in the first six months, and nothing over the next six. This would leave the requirement to store six months of energy.

I don't know what the intermittency level is anywhere and, of course, I don't suggest it is anywhere so high as to require storage for six consecutive months of consumption. However, I do suggest that the level would be very large, and nobody can know how large it will be enough to be confident a high level of civilization can viably exist on 100% renewables.

The more geographically diverse the generation the lower the intermittency, but the more dispersed becomes the generation, storage and transmission infrastructure from consumption centres. Your proposed simulations must accommodate all such factors and a multitude of losses and inefficiencies. Who would you trust to do them, AEMO?

Luciferase, Probably it could be run by CSIRO as I think they have
experience of computer modelling. Actually it would not be modelling
but simulation. The real time grid demand is fed into the computer.
I would visualize that a virtual wind farm could be setup using a real
wind farm as a protype.
Then all real existing wind and solar farms would have their real time
data fed into the computer.
Then using real time wind speeds in a site to be tested the virtual
o/p from the virtual wind farm is generated into the grid simulation
as theoretical supply.
To obtain the real time wind speeds for the testing site cheap wx
stations can be set up.
By having real time wind data for the virtual windfarm it would give
quite accurate input to the simulated grid.

The same as above would be done for solar farms.
After two or three years and adding required virtual wind farms to new
sites should give quite accurate performance of a real grid.

The cost of this would be minimal compared with making a mistake in
judging what is required.

Lucifease,
Forgot to mention storage, whether batteries or hydro etc.
They could be added and the effect of adding them at various points
in the grid could be trialed.

Luciferase,
Apologies for the obvious typo!

The huge five minute spot price fluctuations I referred to have very little if anything to do with the RET. They seem to be the result of turning gas turbines on and off. But as they impact (and greatly increase) the viability of batteries, you should take an interest.

You seem to be taking the wrong approach to investigating viability, as it's not digital. It's not a question of whether they're viable; the real question is what capacity will be viable, in what locations, and what factors will increase/decrease their viability?

I agree synthetic fuel production is needed. It's not an afterthought but nor is it best suited to continuous operation - energy cost will be such a high proportion of total cost that it makes sense to schedule the bulk of operations to when electricity's at its cheapest It has enormous potential for load balancing when we're relying on renewables.

Whether nuclear has been cheaper than renewables in the past is really a red herring as there has been, and continues to be, a rapid drop in the cost of renewables that has not been matched by nuclear power. It's better to examine under what circumstances (note: not whether) each mode will be cheaper in the future.

Aidan or anyone,
Do you know exactly what is meant when it is said that wind is
cheaper than a coal fired generating system ?
Do they mean the nameplate KW rating is cheaper than coal fired electricity ?
or
do they mean that installed and operating over say a year it is
cheaper than a coal fired station over a year.

As you are aware they are two different ratings.
When such statements are made it is NEVER made clear what is meant.
That is what makes me suspicious that it is the first definition
that is being pressed.

My comment stands on batteries. The RET is responsible for the degree to which spot prices have fluctuated and risen. If that makes batteries viable it is for the wrong reasons.

Insofar as renewables costing less than nuclear, comparing an intermittent source with a dispatchable one might make it appear so. Why shouldn't the need for storage factored into LCOE, and how much storage is required to make renewables dispatchable ('how long is a piece of string?' seems to be the answer to that question). Also, are we talking nameplate or actual delivery in cost calculations?

South Korea et al are building plants cheaply enough. In the US fracked gas is putting even natural gas producers out of business, let alone old nuclear and new construction. Meanwhile, renewable subsidies are at staggering levels. At all times my remarks are in reference to main-grid application, not remote locations, but these too will be serviceable by nuclear batteries in the future, in all prospect. Nuclear is only going to get cheaper, unless the zealots succeed against it.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

...and LCOE should factor in that nuclear plants can keep on for 3 to 5 times the life of windmills and solar panels. In fact the multiple can be far greater: https://a.abcnews.com/images/US/hurricane-maria-virgin-islands-5-rd-jt-170929_16x9_1600.jpg

I just at present wish to get a grip on what is meant by the statement
"Wind and Solar are cheaper than coal fired power".

It is a blunt statement that is made to stop discussion.
I think all discussion is meaningless until it is defined.
This may not be the place to ask this question.

Dear ALTRAV,

“abused and assaulted”?

Who is abusing you and assaulting you? Indeed what drugs are you on?

You say I'm the part of the problem. Does that mean I should be lined up like the rest of the suspects you want to eliminate?

You haven't answered the question about what makes you any different from an ISIS member. They strongly advocate violence as a solution just as you appear to be doing.

Look I get that the GW denying fraternity are pretty passionate and fearmongering but the existential threat is not from those seeking to mitigate its impact but rather those who would have us do nothing. There are always two camps especially within our elected representatives, that's democracy. It in no way requires violence to resolve it. For you to advocate it in such a direct way is unhinged, un-Australian and unworthy. Time to temper your language.

SR look around you.
The unhinged are everywhere.
Don't forget to keep looking around when you are 'out on the town' because you just might get 'king hit' or 'coward hit' and end up in a coma.
As for being 'abused and assaulted'.
This is what we are subjected to every day by the govt.
Every time we are stopped from doing something for some obscure reason, we are being assaulted and abused.
You have no idea of my life and background.
I am living proof of what I contend.
And it goes back for decades.
Now to answer your reference to ISIS;
They advocate violence to support personal gain.
I advocate violence to support PUBLIC gain.
And before you try to find a come-back; yes, you and I are part of that public.
SR if you are so taken by these thieves, by all means you follow them and give them all your worldly goods.
I will not!
Just know that what I believe in is good for all of US and none of THEM.
It matters not my explanation but my intent.
Now let's get back to topic, there's a good chap.

Dear ALTRAV,

You wrote;

“Every time we are stopped from doing something for some obscure reason, we are being assaulted and abused.”

No we're are not. Stop being an idiot. I'm not sure exactly what thought process allows you to think you are but they are likely egotistic and paranoid.

Now you have certainly shown a high degree of egotistical behaviour on this forum but the paranoia has not been as evident. ISIS may have some members striving for personal gain but the bulk of them are there for ideological reasons. Your ideology is cut from a similar cloth.

As you say it matters not what your explanation is but rather your intent. Well you have made it pretty clear that because of perceived slights and given the opportunity you would like to see certain Australians eliminated through violence, and you haven't been worried about expressing those views on a public forum.

Now I'm not sure what has happened to elicit these thoughts from you, an ugly divorce maybe or an adverse tax ruling etc and frankly it is none of my business but you certainly appear to be carrying a lot of unhealthy baggage and are directing it at those acting on climate change. The paranoia is treatable and the other issues you have would benefit from professional help. I strongly suggest you seek it.

SR, still off topic?
OK, firstly, if you know anything about politics in this country, you will be familiar with the words assaulted and abused, and how they are oversubscribed at every opportunity.
Before you shoot your mouth off again research the multitudes of meanings the alt left have created in an attempt to win some of their sick agenda.
My disgust for this country and it's govt has nothing to do with anything domestic.
It has everything to do with the govt crapping on about 'world's best practices' and stopping any and all attempts at creating new products and ideas.
Yes my beef is with them because they are mental retards and cannot see beyond their own greed and averace.
The people are also complicit as they are too lax to get off their arse and give a crap about their own well being and security.
So SR, if you ever find you have a particular talent or ability and are stopped from doing what comes naturally and you find the rest of the world, beginning with NZ, welcomes you, where your own country rejects you, you may speak.
Until then; SHUT UP, and get back on topic!

Bazz,
It is the latter measure. There is a lot of disagreement about what the most appropriate measure is, as relying on any single measure gives perverse conclusions. But I'm pretty sure that by now it's well accepted that nameplate capacity is not an appropriate basis for these sorts of claims.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,
Your criticism of the RET may be valid for the half hour market, but it's difficult to see how it could possibly be responsible for the wild fluctuations in the five minute spot price. These occur in all states in the NEM, including Queensland which doesn't even have any wind turbines.

LCOE is a rather crude measure that doesn't take into account real world requirements, and is usually calculated with an unnecessarily high discount rate.

When there is a shortage of dispatchable capacity, that needs to be addressed. But that does not directly correspond with installation of new wind and solar power, and there is a significant contribution from wind and solar on the days when demand is highest.

The file you linked to shows unsurprisingly that costs for nuclear power plants are lower in countries that have a lot of experience building them. Australia doesn't. What Australia does have is lots of good sites for renewables, especially solar. This should result in solar power being cheaper here than elsewhere.

There's a lot of hype about SMRs etc, and it's certainly a possibility that those could make nuclear power economically viable here. But with the cost of renewables continuing to fall, I think a more likely outcome is Australia being one of the few countries where nuclear power isn't economically viable.

As for lifespans, I've noticed you seem to make very pessimistic assumptions about wind and solar infrastructure while assuming new nuclear plants to last much longer than the old ones did.

Thanks Aiden, I suspected that, buy surely the proponents will have a
hard time proving it, without stipulating the amount and cost of
backup solar or batteries or battery simulators of whatever type ?
Indeed as Geoff Carmody says the result is affected by what
reliability standard you are prepared to accept.
In a city with a lot of high rise a very high standard is imperative.
Indeed it could become a life and death matter for ambos.

Oh well I guess it will become obvious sooner or later.

Dear ALTRAV,

I'm not sure how you think advocating the killing of fellow Australians because you imaging they were metaphorically 'abusing and assaulting' you is in any way on topic.

I have only commented because such unhinged nonsense should not go unchallenged.

If you can bring yourself to pull your head in I'm sure I can bring myself to leave you to it.

SR if I must correct you once again, listen one final time.
My angst is both political and social, but if you care to read things and understand them correctly; I would eliminate the govt, but would incarcerate the public, for being so lazy, un-informed, arrogant and dis-interested.
There I can't make it any simpler for you.
Just for you.

"When there is a shortage of dispatchable capacity, that needs to be addressed."

Shortage? Straw-man. Dispatchable capacity must remain at 100% for the regular inevitability of intermittents/renewables failing to deliver. Fantasizing that 100% backup will be unneeded won't stop it being needed.

To the question of how much storage is needed for 100% renewables we get "how long is a piece of string?". Renewablistas happily talk, in raptuous detail, about "The Mix" and "The Transition" but never about "The Destination". This remains a figment of fantasy.

We're on a road to nowhere on AGW mitigation.

Luciferase,
Do you even know what a strawman is? What I posted was not, and did not even resemble, a strawman!

It's all very well saying 100%, but that figure is at best meaningless (our requirements are 100% of our requirements) and at worst misleading, as people will wrongly conclude that it somehow relates to installed renewable capacity. Indeed I can't be sure you're not making that mistake yourself.

We need more than 100% of forecast demand. Yet we need less than 100% of record demand, because record demand would not occur in conditions where it's neither sunny nor windy.

As for why we don't talk much about the destination, it's mainly because we don't know exactly what it is yet. There are multiple potential solutions, but as we don't know the state of future technology yet, we don't know which one will ultimately be best. And what criteria will we use to determine whether we've reached the destination? The obvious one is 100% of electricity from renewables - but as you've pointed out, that won't be enough.

Also, focussing too much on the difficult task of carbon neutrality (or better) makes it all seem too hard for some people, which makes them more inclined to oppose the easy part (i.e. increasing our use of renewables now).

Aidan,

Plot a hypothetical intermittent generation output (vertical, MW) versus time (horizontal, hours) curve for renewables, varying between zero and large peaks over a year. To achieve 100% renewables, the area under the curve is the energy (MWh) delivered over the year to meet annual consumption.

Now plot a flat line, cutting through the peaks and troughs, representing equivalent constant output over the year to deliver the same energy (MWh). The area above this line and below the intermittent curve equals the area below this line and above the curve.

Putting aside great losses/inefficiencies, for the sake of the argument, the energy above the constant output line is stored to provide for release when there is insufficient energy to meet the line.

How much storage is needed depends on the level of intermittency. I assert the level would be so high to guarantee reliability, and so expensive, as to make 100% renewables unviable by comparison with thermal, dispatchable alternatives that other countries employ who we compete with in the world. Your task is to refute such an assertion with a workable proposal about "The Destination", not peddle fantasy.

I further assert that the competitive situation wouldn't improve much at 80% renewables, or 70%, or 50% assuming inefficient OCGT would cover shortfalls (so defeating AGW mitigation, and gas isn't going to get cheaper).

My straw-man comment was in response to where you appeared (to me) to argue renewables will meet some false thermal shortfall. Also, LCOE is devised to compare apples with apples. What else do you suggest? Does it include regularly decommissioning vast tracts of renewables generation? I think the 20 year efficient life I've given the PV panels, windmills and storage package is quite generous.

You have an uncomplicated, rosey, fuzzy dream about "The Destination" and hold a stiff (shall we say) faith in what magic will turn up on the storage front along the path there. Enjoy.

I'll focus on what has already worked for over half a century to produce clean, reliable energy, and which is affordable and scalable to the challenge confronting us on AGW.

Silly moi, I ignored that industry would have its power costs subsidized by the taxpayer and small consumers, thereby maintaining its international competitiveness while hiding the true, massive cost of renewables to the country (a la Germany: https://energytransition.org/2015/08/small-german-power-consumers-subsidize-industry/ ).

What a boondoggle it will be and the NEG, which has been watered down to uselessness appease the zealots, won't improve matters for Joe Average.

Abbott's right when he says "pigs might fly".
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/pigs-might-fly-abbott-slams-turnbulls-energy-price-policy/ar-BBLnMLb