Fukushima failed because the backup diesel generators and pumps were not properly designed. Had they been the nuclear reactors would still be functioning.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx

Hello Peter,
I have read the one on the costing of scenarios 1 & 2 and
found it very interesting.
I have no experience or real knowledge of these systems.
I have no idea what is the cost of a single wind turbine.
I must say I was surprised that the grid for your "system" was as low as $B180.
You mentioned a group of solar farms in Sth Australia.
I would have thought that Sth Australia would be too small to get the
advantage of geographical spread.
I had thought about that factor for wind farms and thought reliable
output would decrease to an inverse exponential rate of the decrease in size.

As for solar I have a small 1Kw system and I have noted 5 overcast
days in a row. Any such storage system has to store six days and still
be able to supply the first sunny day and recharge the battery + losses for 6 days.
So needs about 7 days capacity in one day.

Reading your article I think I have reached the same conclusion as ypu.
As a rank amateur I think the whole wind & solar stunt is the greatest white elephant ever !

This is relevant to discussion http://4thgeneration.energy/systematic-exclusion-of-nuclear-power-in-decarbonization-models/?fbclid=IwAR0aj_hTcW1UbGJF9KsT3z4GchUUXqL5Os6zc4ciMxY1dYeDjh1LGRmOga0

Also, as I pointed out on another thread in relation to http://www.csiro.au/~/media/News-releases/2018/Annual-update-finds-renewables-are-cheapest-new-build-power/GenCost2018.pdf , this report also questions the the LCOE calculation basis, saying that as share of renewables rises, more firming capacity is needed. It also raises "very different climate policy risks" by various generators (i.e fossil fuels), to which a carbon tax should be applied. So, CSIRO is effectively saying the cost of carbon-taxed, fossil-fueled firming should be included in LCOE calculations for renewables in the interim towards their 100% anticipated attainment firmed with storage.

The supposed lower cost of renewables in the CSIRO paper, from my reading, also doesn't mention RE certificate sales, so presumes generation income to operators as being the only cost of renewables to consumers.

Furthermore, the Blakers Lu and Stock article on PHES is given unquestioning credence without it being a peer-reviewed paper. This reflects very poorly on CSIRO which has become another gov't institution infected with "The Transition" group-think. Below are other non-peer-reviewed articles CSIRO might have consulted, were it less infiltrated with ideology:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/58254e216a496325c2d90145/t/58b80ccd9de4bbe99bd309cb/1488456957086/Blakers+et+al+review.pdf

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/07/future-solar

More people were killed in the Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick accident than in US nuclear power plant accidents in the past 60 years.

Peter, I think our problem is that the public, the media and the
politicians have a simplistic view of 100% reliable electricity.
They do not take into account the large multiplication of renewable
generation & storage equipment needed to attain 100%.
They never take into account that the batteries/hydro etc have to be recharged.
They never seem to consider that there might be a week of overcast
still days spread over a large area.
I cannot see it taking less than hundreds of trillions of dollars all up.

The upshot is they have to be told;
YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY !

Bazz, not only do they not have the money but they don'i have the brains to comprehend the impossible difficulties and hardships they are imposing on the population.
David