John, how do you get past the problem of several days of low wind
flat batteries followed by several overcast days ? Or a wind drought ?
You need a backup solar & wind system larger than the main system to
get your enormous batteries recharged on the next sunny day.
Batteries will kill the economics of your system.
There is another catch, solar panels and wind turbines have a life
expectancy around 25 years, then we start again !
Has anyone done it yet ?

Just saw this on the Net, I hope it's ok with the author to post it here. It is just so to the point !

To be clear, we subsidise renewables to force coal out, subsidise coal to keep coal in, subsidise industry not to use power so we can reduce demand, and now subsidise all consumers to help them pay for the expensive power the subsidies have produced. And this is all done in the name of transitioning to renewables because they are the “cheapest form of energy” so we can become a “renewable energy superpower”.
CHRIS KENNY.

It gets worse; the Labour party is demanding that Dutton tell all
where the power stations are to be built.
That they ask such a question now indicates why their own energy plan
is in so much trouble.
Anyone with a scrap of knowledge on energy would know that no one in
Parliament would have a clue on how to answer that.
It will decided by engineers designing the system when they know how
much generation will be funded.
They need a lot more information than can be available NOW !
Blackout Bowen reveals his ignorance just by asking that question.

Hi John,

Yes, the economics of renewables look wonderful for the Chinese selling the stuff, but what are the consequences for Australia?

Did you know that Australian taxpayers are subsidising renewables to the tune of $15 billion a year? As for fossil fuel subsidies, those are mostly fuel excise tax breaks for primary producers, not subsidies given to fossil fuel companies as with renewables.

Yes, $15 billion a year from taxpayers, and for what? A dysfunctional power grid with generation systems that will need replacing every 20 to 30 years? Don't believe me? Well have a look at France going nuclear compared to Germany going wind and solar. After fifteen years the French had to stop building new reactors as they had fifty percent more generating capacity than they needed. After fifteen years Germany is generating less than fifty percent of its power from renewables and pays hundreds of millions of Euros in fines each year for its carbon emissions.

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

Australians need to wake up to the renewable energy con and the economic train wreck it is leading toward.

Germany is generating less than fifty percent of its power from renewables
Fester,
Germany has renewables ? No Nation has renewables because renewables only exist in the imagination of Leftists who never produced a single Watt without emission & never recycled a single component !

Well Individual, about half of Germany's renewable power comes from burning biomass, so it's under 25% from wind and solar after fifteen years. Compare that with 150% with nuclear for France done way back in the seventies and eighties. It doesn't matter what you call it, it's still a con.

And SA is currently generating seventy percent of its power from gas and importing 200 megawatts from Victoria. What a renewable energy superpower!