Renewable power is not just “intermittent”; it is crazy, just as its advocates are crazy.

This country is crazy, going backwards from reliable, cheap fossil fuel to windmills and shiny panels cluttering up the environment. All on the lie about the essential-to-life gas, carbon dioxide. When asked for proof of the villainy of CO2, the climate shamans have been unable to provide it,

What's next? Something like the 17th. Century tulip mania in Holland?

History is littered with this sort of crap. At least we have stopped burning dissidents at the stake, instead just ruining their reputations and livelihoods.

Even the “good guys” are crazy; they don't stand against the climate change tripe as they should: they advocate nuclear, which would ‘save’ us a bit before we get those you-beaut nuclear submarines.

Anyone who believes Dutton’s latest ‘promise’ on Paris and emission dates is a fool. The National Party is already criticising Dutton’s glad-handing.

The dismantling of Australia's cheap, reliable coal and gas energy by idiot politicians on a whim is criminal. And emissions are just the same as they were two years ago when we copped Blackout Bowen.

It looks to me that being Green equals being a thorough hypocrite & a fool. How anyone can push one of the most polluting manufacturing & massive waste as is the wind/solar industry is beyond me. Zero emission is the catch cry but what can be produced & used at zero emission ?
Nothing ! Stop interfering with sensible progress !

PS. On this matter - and all other matters - Mr. Dutton needs to pull up his socks if he actually wants to be PM.

He was recently heard to say that it was his job to "question" the government. No, that is not the job of the Opposition Leader - his job is to oppose the government, particularly this particularly awful one.

But, perhaps he doesn't want to be PM. That's the way it looks, and has looked, ever since he got the job.

As one commentator said recently, being a ex-copper doesn't really set you up for high office.

The full spectrum of costs, benefits, and environmental impacts need to be considered when comparing energy sources.

While solar and wind are intermittent and variable, these energy sources utilise strategies developed to manage these issues effectively. Advances in battery technology, for example, allow us to store excess energy generated during peak times for use when production dips. Reliability can also be enhanced by integrating a mix of renewable sources across large areas. Modern grids also employ sophisticated demand response techniques to balance supply and demand.

Comparing the economic feasibility of renewable energy sources to that of nuclear energy over an 80-year period provides an incomplete picture. The costs of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries are dropping rapidly thanks to technological advancements and economies of scale. Unlike nuclear plants, renewable systems can be upgraded in a modular fashion, allowing parts to be replaced without overhauling the entire setup. Advances in recycling technology also help reduce the environmental impact and costs associated with replacements.

The argument that renewable energy leads to relatively high costs due to the enormous capacity and storage required to match the reliability of nuclear power overlooks several key factors. Combining different renewable sources with storage solutions creates a more resilient and reliable system, reducing overall capacity and storage requirements. Innovations in storage, such as more efficient batteries and methods like pumped hydro and compressed air, are driving down costs and increasing efficiency. Additionally, renewables have lower lifecycle emissions compared to nuclear power, which carries significant safety risks and long-term waste management challenges.

From a long-term investment perspective, the continuing decline of renewable technology costs makes them more attractive compared to the static high costs of nuclear power. Not to mention the significant and often-excluded expenses associated with nuclear technology such as the decommissioning of old plants, long-term waste storage, and disaster mitigation.

The cost of energy storage is conveniently glossed over by renewables spruikers. I have a $13.5k home battery so I know whereof I speak. For most of May 2024 Australia had dunkelflaute conditions ie overcast and low wind. Australia's 11,000 MW of wind capacity produced as little as 400 MW at times. That suggests as a minimum Australia needs a month of energy storage say 20,00,000 MWh. If I recall Hornsdale cost about $700 per kWh. You do the maths. On pumped hydro note Snowy 2 has gone from $2 bn to $12+ for 350 GWh. However Electricite de France has 5 pumped hydros which work well.

That's capex. I read in Watt Clarity that big battery owners want $200 or more per MWh to bid into the system. Yet we hear repeatedly that realtime wind and solar will get down to $50 per MWh. Not if they are balanced by batteries. Green hydrogen requires max $30. There's no way aluminium smelters can run continuously off lithium batteries. I also note the latest solar farm with batteries can only send 10% of its midday output for a couple hours at night. Storage is a helper not a saviour.

There is a major ommission in Geof Carmodys article.
He did not include wind turbines.
Also his calculations seem to assume that all the solar panels are
sun trackers. The difference here between midday and 3pm is about 40%.
As far as batteries are concerned, a cheaper and very long life would
apply if Nife (Nickle/Iron) batteries were employed as they last near forever and can be maintained.
However my experience with solar panels is very dismill.
My 1 kwatt solar panels are now 14 years old and at midday in early
January are down to 500 watts.
Why do you think the Germans are now considering restarting their
nuclear power stations ?

So much hassle - why don't we just get rid of electricity?!

Yawn….

A better measure of storage would be hours of average grid demand. The French got to 150% of demand in fifteen years with nuclear. Over the past fifteen years Germany has barely got to twenty-five percent with wind and solar. Meanwhile the prospect of South Australia getting to 100% with renewables by 2027 looks slim.

"So much hassle - why don't we just get rid of electricity?!"

Maybe because nearly everyone would die in a year or two?

Perhaps the Marxist's (including Green's, Labor) and the Arab's are using propaganda against nuclear for geopolitics. There are dangers with any technology and possibly the US needs different rules and people of better integrity (perhaps the CIA needs to vet the character of certain executives not all but some). Fascinating.

Technology is no danger but when accessed by people with poor mentality it can be as bad as armageddon.
It beats me why so many educated aren't smart enough to use their education !

For anyone believing Australia's grid can go 100% renewables, Stephen Wilson gives sound technical and economic reasons why it won't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZT5WjnT4fE

Fester,
good video, shame the indoctrinated won't look at it !

Fester,

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, emotional appeals and personal anecdotes undermine Stephen Wilson's arguments, and his reliance on strong language and generalisations weaken his credibility.

By dismissing established research on the potential of renewable energy and focusing on challenges without acknowledging solutions, he presents also a skewed view. Additionally, inconsistencies in his arguments regarding nuclear energy's compatibility with renewables, and overlooking advancements in grid management and storage, further weaken his arguments.

Wilson's point that renewable energy cannot save the planet from climate change oversimplifies the issue. Renewable energy is merely a crucial component of a broader strategy to combat climate change.

Integrating renewables does increase the complexity of maintaining grid stability due to their intermittent nature, increasing the risk of blackouts. However, advances in grid technology, battery storage, and flexible energy resources are increasingly capable of mitigating these risks. Many countries successfully manage high levels of renewable energy without frequent blackouts.

Renewables can initially increase costs due to infrastructure upgrades and balancing requirements. However, the levelized cost of electricity from renewables like wind and solar has been decreasing and is often lower than that of new fossil fuel generation. The overall system cost depends on various factors, including technological advancements and policy frameworks.

The claim about the need to overbuild capacity to ensure sufficient energy supply during periods of low renewable generation is valid. However, this inefficiency can be mitigated with improved storage solutions, grid interconnections, and flexible demand management. Careful planning minimises these inefficiencies.

Renewable energy has received subsidies to support its development, similar to the historical subsidies provided to fossil fuels. These subsidies aim to correct market failures related to environmental externalities. As renewable technologies mature, many countries are phasing out these subsidies. Subsidies have played a crucial role in reducing costs and promoting innovation in the renewable sector.

Renewable energy projects do have ecological impacts, such as land use and habitat disruption. However, these impacts are generally less severe than those associated with fossil fuel extraction and use. Proper planning and regulatory frameworks can minimise the environmental footprint of renewable energy projects.

This is interesting...

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/businessman-dick-smith-blasts-rmit-abc-fact-check-for-spreading-misinformation-and-lies-in-a-flawed-fact-check-on-nuclear-power/news-story/edd47ac29aa2df492593400f07f9e73e

The major problem with renewables seems to be the fact that renewable energy isn't it's own storage mechanism. Oil is it's own storage mechanism so is nuclear. Also the proposed storage mechanism's may not be environmentally friendly either. You start to suspect that there might be some other reason such as political why certain groups are pushing renewables. A form of political power redistribution on an assymetric battlefield- if it's not possible for businesses to profit from renewables they won't be able to follow the insurgents. Either way the public should remember to punish the renewables lobby when their electricity and vehicle costs grow exponentially.

It's possible that converting renewable energy to some other storable form could make renewable more viable. A couple of ways to do that is by 1. purifying uranium in a cyclotron using renewable energy 2. creating and storing hydrogen from electrolysed water.