The author presents an inaccurate and misleading picture of the CIS and the potential for renewable energy in Australia.

Firstly, while the variability of solar and wind is a valid concern, the 32 GW capacity target is just one part of the government's broader energy strategy, which also includes investments in transmission infrastructure, energy efficiency, and demand management. The article also ignores the rapidly declining costs of battery storage and the potential for other forms of storage like pumped hydro and compressed air energy storage.

Secondly, the article provides no evidence to suggest that the CIS is inefficient and will waste taxpayer money. The CIS is a competitive bidding process designed to incentivise efficient projects, and the government has stated that it will only provide support to projects that are financially viable and offer value for money.

Thirdly, the article conveniently ignores the government's existing investments in storage, such as a commitment to investing $1 billion in new grid-scale storage projects, which will help to smooth out price fluctuations. Moreover, renewable energy prices are declining rapidly and are expected to continue to fall.

Fourthly, the government has released a detailed public consultation paper outlining the key elements of the CIS, and have committed to providing regular updates on the progress of the scheme. So it is incorrect to claim that the CIS lacks transparency. The final costs of the CIS will depend on the outcome of the competitive tender process.

Finally, the article suggests nuclear energy as an alternative solution despite its own set of challenges, including high upfront costs, long construction times, and waste disposal issues. Furthermore, the cost of nuclear power has historically been high, and there is no guarantee that it will become significantly cheaper in the future, nor anything to suggest this.

The article is biased against renewable energy and fails to acknowledge the significant progress that has been made in recent years. It focuses on the short-term challenges of transitioning to a clean energy future while ignoring the long-term benefits, such as reducing air pollution and mitigating climate change.

"Furthermore, the cost of nuclear power has historically been high, and there is no guarantee that it will become significantly cheaper in the future, nor anything to suggest this. "

You conveniently ignore that French nuclear energy is a third the cost of German renewables, and note that the cost of stand alone renewable energy would be vastly higher with the cost of storage to make the power dispatchable.

Nuclear power stations can operate for many decades longer than renewable generators, and produce energy at very high capacity, allowing minimal duplication of supply.

As for what a stand alone wind/solar dispatchable system would cost, I think the question moot as I think that the chaotic power output problem with wind and solar will precipitate its demise, and the sooner the better. Australia has been damaged enough by the cultish pursuit of renewable energy.

Fester, you are absolutely right. The cost estimates put up by the anti nuclear mob are all based on the cost of old technology. New thorium based molten salt reactors which are still under development, will be built in a factory and transported to wherever they are needed. Long transmission lines and wind turbines will not be blotting the landscape. Expensive, fire prone batteries will be a thing of the past.
David

"Moreover, renewable energy prices are declining rapidly and are expected to continue to fall."

This is by far the biggest lie (wind energy is not longer becoming cheaper), as the raw energy cost of renewables is only part of the cost of making renewable energy dispatchable. The following link gives a comparison of Germany, which pursued renewable energy, and France, which has a nuclear foundation augmented with renewable energy.

https://carboncredits.com/nuclear-education-how-germany-lost-another-world-war-to-france/

The disastrous consequences of pursuing wind and solar as base load power is being heeded by many nations, but unfortunately not by the zealots in Australia's cult government.

Fester,

Germany’s renewable energy sector is still relatively young and faces higher initial investment costs. France, on the other hand, has a long history with nuclear energy and has benefited from economies of scale and technological advancements. So, while it’s true that Germany’s pursuit of renewable energy has led to higher energy costs, the reverse will almost certainly be the case in the not-too-distant future.

As for storage, again, advancements in battery technology are rapidly reducing costs and increasing capacity, and other forms of storage, such as pumped hydro and thermal storage, are also being developed and deployed. The costs must also be weighed against the environmental benefits and the decreasing feasibility of fossil fuels due to climate change.

While the cost of wind energy has stabilised somewhat in recent years, it's not accurate to say it's not becoming cheaper. The IRENA reports that the global average cost of wind energy has fallen by 57% since 2010 and is expected to continue declining in the coming years. This decline is driven by various factors, including technological advancements, economies of scale, and increased competition in the market.

Furthermore, your statement about "the biggest lie" overlooks the decreasing cost of solar energy. IRENA reports that the global average cost of solar energy has dropped by 89% since 2010 and is projected to continue declining. This dramatic cost reduction makes solar energy increasingly competitive with other generation sources.

Technological innovations like smart grids and microgrids are enhancing the efficiency and flexibility of the electricity grid, too, making it easier to integrate variable renewable energy sources. Also, the rise of rooftop solar and community-based wind projects is contributing to a more decentralised and resilient energy system, reducing the need for expensive grid upgrades.
While the France-Germany comparison you provide offers some insights, it's important to note that the two countries have different energy landscapes, policies, and cost structures. Relying solely on one specific comparison can be very misleading.

Clearly this is a very emotional topic for you.

Syoksya No one seems to be factoring the replacement costs of all this so called renewable energy which will all ramp up in 20 odd years time.

MSR thorium reactors will keep going for a lot longer before their critical elements need replacing.

David