Aidan,

<<why resort to gas rather than wind?>>

The answer is simple. Gas is readily available, 24/7. Sometimes the wind doesn't blow, so 24/7 supply is not possible.

There's a cohort regularly commenting here and in every form as a small if extremely vociferous minority who claim to be green and antinuclear?

The best friends of coal ever, given in their advocacy, we are left with coal as our only affordable option!

Disregarded is the fact that wind turbines need to turn for thirty years, to offset the carbon created during their manufacture.

And the mountains of toxic waste, piled near the solar voltaic factories in China, as we are lumbered with the coal-fired production even as China invests billions on MSR thorium?

Clearly, some of these "greens" are earning incomes as installers or shareholders of their preferred renewables/their manufacture?

Otherwise, would follow their contemporaries to embrace and advocate for the nuclear option as the only means currently available to draw down carbon without also creating an economic catastrophe.

Ignored is the amount of mercury now polluting our oceans and comes from heavy industries/dumped toxic waste, coal-fired smokestack emissions etc.

Still, these "friends of the earth", keep waffling on about nuclear dangers and waste that is less dangerous than coal-fired power and the toxic waste that finds its way down streams, valleys and major river systems to eventually end up in the ocean.

Much of it from the unregulated disposable of the highly toxic waste created by solar voltaic manufacture and little or no environmental controls, in hidden from our view? Vast Chinese manufacture?

If they were serious about actually addressing climate change and GW!? Would be first among equals advocating for the nuclear option!

Thorium is the most energy dense material on the planet and four times more abundant than lead. And MSR technology doesn't require the massive 150 atmospheres plus, that almost alone make the nuclear option less than ideal. But instead operates at near normal atmospheric pressure.

MSR thorium delivers everything fusion promised by couldn't deliver!

It's time to get real on climate change, GW and drought proofing Australia. And putting people before profit!

Can't die in a cornfield over a century ago!
Alan B.

Taswegian,
So you're expecting sustained high pressure conditions? It sounds like you could do with some more solar power!

Unwittingly you are providing yet another example of the false conceptions the anti renewables crowd have. We do not need a single power source to power the state through the hot day - we just need to make up the shortfall. And if you read the document you linked to, you'll see AEMO ordered the load shedding because they wanted Murraylink to run below capacity because of system constraints. The battery could have removed the need for contingency there, allowing them to run Murraylink up to full capacity, so the load shedding would not have been needed.

Of course all though the battery is already proving its worth in alleviating SA's power supply problems (including power companies manipulating the price) it won't solve everything. Hence solar thermal is being constructed at Port Augusta (something that really should have been done a decade or two ago) and there's pumped storage and more batteries on the way, as well as a direct connection to NSW.

OzSpen,
That's not applicable in Tasmania, which sources most of its power from hydro even at times of low demand.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.,
Thorium's not the most energy dense material on the planet: hydrogen is. But what you don't seem to understand is that it's expensive to develop. Some day it may produce power at 2c/kWh, but it won't be the early adopters who get it at that price.

"...as well as a direct connection to NSW."

Really, that's all that matters. The batteries, solar thermal etc are a sideshow offering the the possibility of a little expensive time-shifting of supply and demand.

The LCOE of non-hydro renewables should include the cost of the FF backup.

Hydrogen is not the most energy dense fuel, not by many orders of magnitude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials

Tiresome bollocks. Ho hum.

Luciferase,
The connection to NSW certainly matters, it will help ensure the state's north is never isolated from the national grid again. Plus it will enable SA to get a better price when trading electricity with other states. But that doesn't justify dismissing everything else as a sideshow. The battery as already proven itself to be a good investment. Pumped storage and solar thermal will ensure there's more power available when it's needed.

The NSW connection will reduce the generation companies' opportunities for profiteering, but so will the batteries, pumped storage and solar thermal.
The NSW connection will help keep the power on in the unlikely event of SA ever being unable to generate enough, but the batteries, pumped storage and solar thermal will make that event unlikely.

It is impossible to use a single measure to get an honest comparison of the cost of electricity. There are some situations where FF backup is needed, and others where it isn't. "Tiresome bollocks" is an apt description of what you post when you fail to recognise that.

But I concede the point on energy density. Obviously I was thinking of specific energy. And I notice the table you linked to shows thorium to be inferior to uranium in both.