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.