Fester,

The claim that renewable energy would destroy a land area the size of Tasmania and greatly impact native flora and fauna is exaggerated. Realistically, solar energy would require only about 0.1% to 0.3% of Australia’s land, much smaller than Tasmania (http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/optimalsites). Wind farms often coexist with agricultural land, minimising the actual area used. Many projects are placed on degraded land, and techniques like agrivoltaics help reduce environmental impact (http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resources/technologies/wind-energy).

The assertion that we need to build renewable energy capacity six to eight times greater than average demand is overstated. While some overcapacity is necessary, effective grid management, including demand response and diverse energy sources, mitigates the need for excessive overbuilding (http://www.energynetworks.com.au/projects/modern-grid).

In terms of storage, the claim that a system capable of handling six times the average power demand is needed is inaccurate. Advances in battery technology and pumped hydro support grid stability effectively, without requiring such massive capacity (http://arena.gov.au/projects/large-scale-battery-storage-guide).

Upgrading the grid to handle variable power inputs does require investment, but this also modernises our infrastructure, making it more resilient and efficient. Smart grid technologies enhance overall efficiency and manage variability effectively (http://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/industries/energy/our-energy-future).

Concerns about energy security due to reliance on foreign infrastructure are misleading. Diversifying energy sources and local manufacturing of renewable components boost energy security and reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, mitigating geopolitical risks (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/332201085_Energy_Security_in_Australia).

The notion that renewables are more expensive and environmentally destructive than nuclear power is incorrect. Renewable costs have dropped significantly, often being cheaper than nuclear. While nuclear has low emissions, it faces challenges like long build times and waste management. Renewables offer substantial environmental benefits, including lower emissions and less habitat destruction (http://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-the-numbers, http://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-environment-outlook-6).

Transitioning to renewable energy provides substantial environmental, economic, and security benefits.

Critics make some telling points about the capital cost and slow arrival of nuclear. Then they're off with the fairies on several side issues. First is the bizarre findings of the GenCost study. If a generator needed $641 per MWh of electricity they wouldn't get any business. Upthread I gave the example of costings for the General Electric SMR but it seems CSIRO knows more than the manufacturer. Apparently if you disagree with CSIRO you are anti-science.

Next is waste disposal an issue which is non urgent and largely a beat up. Uranium comes out of holes in the ground in the outback and the fission products can go back there until needed for reprocessing. Some quite nasty stuff is in a shed on the outskirts of Sydney but somehow we're coping.

Other petulant howlers include that battery banks will have to be dismantled for nuclear. We'll need both and more in an all-of-the-above effort to double electricity output. The all renewables cohort needs to have excuses ready when we fall vastly short of 82% by 2030 and big industry threatens to leave.

John Daysh says that subsidies have not been important re renewables. I ask, if renewables are so good, why do they need subsidies. Does he know that in 2023 China accounted for 56% of coal emissions? Why did they do it? Because it was cheaper. When reality is too hard to bear, a lot of people make their own reality. Another one of John's make believe reality is storage. The fact is that, for the moment, at least, there is NO satisfactory large-scale storage for electricity. If there was, they would be bragging about it. John should get away from ideology and look at fact.

John Daysh says there are modern ways to overcome the intermittency of 'renewables". None of his explanations have anything to do with the present, just a future fantasy. The inconvenient truth is that intermittency not only means unreliability but also cost, big cost. Why don't people understand that?

Contrary to what John Daysh says, LCOE is invalid for comparing dispatchables with renewables. He should re-read the paper where the author gives a quantitative example.

Chuckles,

Subsidies for renewables are common as part of the transition to cleaner energy, similar to how fossil fuels have historically been subsidised. Renewable energy costs have dropped significantly, making them increasingly competitive without subsidies.

Regarding China, their coal use does contribute significantly to emissions, but they are also the largest investor in renewable energy, recognising its long-term benefits.

On storage, there are indeed advancements in large-scale solutions, such as grid-scale batteries and pumped hydro, which are proving effective in various locations. These technologies are improving rapidly, addressing the intermittency issue of renewables.

The concern about intermittency and reliability is valid, but modern grid management and diverse energy sources effectively mitigate these challenges. Intermittency doesn't equate to unreliability when properly managed, and the costs of renewables are decreasing, making them economically viable.

Finally, while LCOE isn't perfect, it remains a useful metric. It's important to consider all costs and benefits when comparing energy sources, including environmental and health impacts. Overall, the shift to renewables is a strategic move toward a more sustainable energy future.