I suspect there are more unobvious costs to wind and solar than we realise. I read that one solar farm loses 15% of its revenue to frequency correction fees (FCAS) under the causer pays rule. If the LGC subsidy currently about $28 per MWh that renewable operators get is paid by coal and gas generators then we're paying twice for backup. Since transmission is supposed to be about 40% of electricity bills then new power lines will greatly add to them. Snowy 2 requires the $5n Hume Link so it should be included in the all up cost, say $12 + 5 = $17bn.

That pales compared to the cost of enough electrochemical batteries. My home battery cost $13.5k. For say 3 weeks energy storage for the whole of Australia the cost would be trillions, a lot more than 7 nukes. CSIRO say SMRs could cost over $600 per MWh of electricity. General Electric say their model will cost the same to run as combined cycle gas fired, say about A$150 max. The gubmint's cocksureness is like the rest of us being forced to travel in a bus with a drunk driver.

Charles Hemmings in wrong on a number of counts.

Firstly, the claim that renewables are unviable without subsidies and cost more than fossil fuels is incorrect. Over the past decade, solar and wind energy costs have dropped significantly. According to the IRENA, the cost of solar photovoltaic electricity fell by 82% from 2010 to 2019, and onshore wind by 39%. Renewables are now the most affordable new power generation option in many regions, even without subsidies.

While solar and wind power are intermittent, modern solutions like energy storage, demand response, and grid interconnectivity mitigate these issues. Advances in battery storage technology enable the storage of excess energy for use when production is low. Additionally, using a diverse mix of energy sources and spreading them geographically reduces the impact of intermittency.

The article's dismissal of the link between extreme weather events and human activities ignores clear scientific consensus. Human activities, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, are major drivers of climate change. The IPCC has provided extensive evidence of how human activities contribute to global warming, increased extreme weather events, and long-term climate shifts.

Arguing that only dispatchable sources like fossil fuels and nuclear power are essential overlooks renewables' potential when combined with modern technologies. While dispatchable sources currently play a critical role, renewable energy, together with storage solutions, grid enhancements, and smart technologies, can provide reliable and sustainable power. Countries like Germany and Denmark have successfully integrated high levels of renewables into their grids, proving this system's feasibility.

Criticising the LCOE for renewables due to intermittency is flawed. Renewables often become more cost-effective over their lifetime compared to fossil fuels when considering lower operational costs and rapid technological advancements. Additionally, the environmental and health costs associated with fossil fuels make renewables even more economically attractive.

While nuclear power can be part of a low-carbon energy mix, it comes with challenges like high capital costs, long development times, and issues related to waste disposal and safety. Renewable energy, combined with storage, efficiency improvements, and demand management, offers a more flexible and rapidly deployable solution. Transitioning to renewable energy is economically and environmentally beneficial.

Demand management is another hidden cost of a fickle energy supply. A couple of years ago a foundry was to be paid $8,750 per MWh to forego electricity use. Households are told they will get a bill credit if they refrain from aircon use on hot afternoons. If taken to the limit this could have a high economic and human cost eg all the aircon you want at 35C but not 45C.

Pundits say the limit of demand management is 15% of consumption. A couple of years ago Australia consumed 271 TWh of which 15% is over 40 TWh. To take a conservative figure suppose compensated demand reduction cost an average of 80c per kWh or $800 per MWh. That 40 TWh foregone would add $32bn to power bills. For that price you could buy several SMRs without the social and economic disruption. It's like WW2 rationing only just for electricity.

Creating a power grid with wind and solar will require the destruction of an area the size of Tasmania, which make it neither fast, cheap, nor environmentally friendly compared to nuclear. Also, renewables entail a substantial overbuild, with a transmission grid, generators and storage capable of carrying or supplying multiples of the average power demand. Maintaining such a large infrastructure is not cheap.

Technological change may improve the economics of renewables as it would for nuclear, but according to Idel:

"the effects of a substantial decrease in storage costs are examined,
which would heavily benefit intermittent generation and is used by proponents of renewables to
economically justify a faster transition and a higher share of renewables.5 However, even a storage
cost reduction of 90% would not make wind or solar PV competitive on a LFSCOE basis."

https://iaee2021online.org/download/contribution/fullpaper/1145/1145%5C_fullpaper%5C_20210326%5C_222336.pdf

Perhaps the biggest detraction of renewables is that their adoption has not brought competitive power prices, as has the adoption of nuclear power. Some positive real world examples would help renewables greatly.

Now that the Coalition has a policies, at last, not only on energy but also on cost of living, immigration and housing, there will be clear cut differences between the parties for voters to chose at the next election.

Charles, you haven't told us anything that we don't already know and you didn't really offer us much in the way of viable solutions.

I received a Diploma of Applied Chemistry from Swinburne Technical School in 1960 before it became a university. In 1966 I became Chief Chemist at Rum Jungle uranium mine so I know a good deal about the nuclear fuel cycle. 

I also know about a company called Copenhagen Atomics which saw light in 2014. They have been methodically developing a Nuclear Reactor using Thorium as the fuel instead of Uranium. I suggest you educate yourselves how this new technology works as it is far superior to using Uranium, producing far less hazardous waste which has to be stored only about 300 years.

David