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.