ChristinaMac1 - Did you actually read the link you provided, re what UK ministers told?

First, Quote "during the next 10 years we should get a lot more certainty about just how far we can rely on renewables.”
What state do you think the UK will be in if they wait that 10 years and the results are negative, good luck trying to pay your electricity bill unless you are wealthy.

Quote "Armitt said: “By that point we should be in better position on storage technology and presumably [will] continue to see a drop in price on renewables.”"

Notice he said "should be" not will be, that indicates uncertainty what if he is wrong?

Where is there evidence to support there claims

Quote "New figures released by energy analytics firm EnAppSys show renewables have already overtaken nuclear for electricity generation."

Have these figures been reviewed to see if they are accurate, people with an agenda tend to show figures that will support there argument and conveniently leave out things that are contrary to it.

Also what works in one country or location does not necessarily work in another.

Luciferase, you're right, I diss renewables because they are a 'forced' product.
All their benefits are overplayed and over-reported by the renewable-ists.
My reason for suggesting to cut yourself off the grid, was purely to punish the power providers.
Those who already have solar panels and are enjoying the benefit of the subsidies are committed to the scheme and cannot opt out without losing all their investment in the scheme.
My point was, seeing as how they have been conned or sucked in to the scheme already, just cut yourself off from the grid.
You will have to buy a means of power storage, but you are in this far that when the scheme runs out, you will still be getting cheap power but you will not be subsidising these arseholes so that they will make money from the power YOU generate.
If these pricks were reasonable people, and not greedy scumbags, they would have at least left the subsidy scheme going so you also shared in the profit, after all YOU spent the money to have this crap installed, 'to save money'.
So you're right, but I would not be suggesting this if they were not already committed.
Renewables are not there yet, and I fear that we are trying to trade one evil for another.
I for one do not like the visual pollution caused by these renewables.
The footprint of either solar or wind is many times greater than the area they power.
Then they want to add 'storage' as though the word implies some small little insignificant box, hidden away out of sight.
Does anyone have even a half a clue what the size of all this is, anyone?
I'm already sickened by the sight of the current renewable landscapes I see, but who am I to question the intentions of the greedy, mentally ill children and their mates, running this country.

ALTRAV: From my reading about a 6kW system together with a battery to ensure power on demand will provide the energy needs of an average Oz home. How big is the battery ensuring this works sufficiently to cut yourself from the grid? I say it's big, very big, and expensive, with replacement and maintenance also involved.

More on the the safety theme:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=solar+panel+fire&FORM=HDRSC2

The case for nuclear is building:
http://www.nei.org/voices-for-nuclear-energy?fbclid=IwAR3s8_uLONj0RicUh6zQmXt1enG-cQvkSNHq5QdJhS3bWxEM2ygnmPRpsNs

//The case for nuclear is building//

I dunno... I'm a bit suspect about the noises coming from the government. They're very keen on their 'fair dinkum' power at the moment. An absolutely meaningless phrase, which means they can make it mean whatever they want. Given their past form, I'm pretty sure one of the things that 'fair dinkum' means in the context of power generation is 'definitely not nuclear'.

But who knows... maybe one day we'll see one of these bumbling simpletons brandishing a lump of yellowcake in the parliament as proudly as they did their present from St. Nicholas.

Luciferase

6kW = 6,000 watts / 240 volts = 25 amps you would not use a battery a number of batteries would be better truck ones would do.

I cannot believe that in 2019 Australia is still considering the nuclear power option. Nuclear power [not thorium power, Alan B] has so many things going against it that ir beggars belief that this is still an option.
The whole process of exploration, mining, extraction and purification to minimum working level is expensive, generates a lot of radioactive waste, and produces many tonnes of carbon dioxide.
The construction of a nuclear power station takes a lot of time [10 to 20 years], is expensive and the processes invilved in making the material the power station is made from produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.
The operating life of a power station is below fifty years before the buildings become so radioactive that no one can work there.
The used fuel rods have to be stored until they can be reprocessed which generates more radioactive waste.
Once the station is no longer usable it has be secured for decades or centuries until its radiation levels have declined to a 'safe' demolition level.
In sum, nuclear power is extremely expensive, temporary in use but eternal in storage, and produces more carbon dioxide to set it up, fuel it, reprocess the fuel, and secure until demolition than the carbon dioxide produced by the coal/oil/gas power station which could have been built in its stead.
To top everything off, a nuclear power station uses the one thing this country does not have enough of = WATER.