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