"The base is then easy part to supply; we certainly don't need dedicated power stations to provide it. It's the peaks that are more difficult."

In Europe it is a different story, with the supply of power from woody biomass greater than that of wind and solar, and essential for providing base load power.

https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/the-backslide-on-renewables-europe-cant-afford/

Repeating a lie might convince more of the gullible, but it wont stop the lights going out.

Fester,
In Europe it is indeed a different story, as there's quite a lot of baseload nuclear power.
Europe does have a lot of biomass power, partly because some of the power stations were converted from coal fired to wood pellet fired. But where did you get the idea that it's baseload power? The report you linked to doesn't claim it is, and I consider it far more likely to be load following - not least because nuclear power has long made baseload coal unviable!

I see you're trying to convince the gullible by repeating the lie about the lights going out. I know the gullible are the majority on this site, but why don't you try telling them the truth for a change?

The author makes the same error as many scientists.
Because we started burning coal in large amounts starting around 1800
and that the earth temperature started rising at that time which is
known as the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum they thought the
increase in co2 was the cause of increase in temperature.
That is known as the sensitivity of temperature to co2 levels.
That error has been pointed out a number of times and J Kauppenin
showed that the fossil fuel burning since 1800 amounts to 0.1 deg C.
The rest is due to the natural cycle of sun, earths orbit, sunspots
and cosmic rays and their effect on cloud cover.
It is a well known cycle and has been know for yonks.
There is now too much money and reputations tied to the co2 story
for it to be allowed denial.
To save face we will be driven to destitution if the mob does not revolt.

Aidan,

Okay, what should you call it then? How about on demand power, dispatchable energy or reliable, non-chaotic energy? Whatever you want to call it, it is essential for patching up the chaotic energy shortfalls from erratic energy sources.

My concern is that the debate is so politicised that scientific/engineering/economic considerations are no longer a priority. The link I provided gives an example of this, with woody biomass, the main contributor of renewable energy in Europe, at risk of being pulled as a consequence of political agitation. And look at the debate here about nuclear power. The climate council lists illegality as its primary reason for not having nuclear power in Australia. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat moronic? I mean, here we are supposedly on the brink of catastrophe and we cannot consider a solution because it is unlawful here. Yes, unlawful because of the commies. It is garbage arguments like that from greenie/commie zealots that make me fear for the future of Australia.

Well there is hope for us all.
The German Greens Party is advocating for more nuclear energy !
How is that for a turnaround ?

NuScale a US company has had its Modular nuclear power plant approved
by the US government. It produces 924 Megwatt at a cost of $3.3 billion dollars.
Construction time is 36 Months.
The article claims that is competitive with renewables if battery
backup is included in the renewables cost.
It is in tomorrows Australian.