The other thing that seems to have evaded the renewables devotees, is that both wind and solar have a very limited useful lifespan, perhaps as short as 20 years, so by the time that 2030 comes around, a lot of roof top solar and also early wind turbines will need replacing.
David

John,

I checked the required area for 100% wind and solar and it isn't the size of Tasmania. It's several times the size, and that's just for solar (source: Net Zero Australia).

Overbuild relates to the low capacity factor, day to day and seasonal variability of wind and solar, as well as cost optimisation as a degree of overbuild is greater than storage. This study suggested an overbuild of 25-43% for California (equating to 5-6 times average demand for solar):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148121009599

I would suggest that you need a bit more than this to cope with natural events like storms and bushfires.

"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 "

If your solar and wind were generating at full output, that would equate to at least six times the average power demand. To carry the power output the grid would need to carry all the power and your batteries and pumped hydro would need to cope with a power input of about five times the average demand. The problem relates to making dispatchable power from intermittent, low capacity sources.

"Upgrading the grid to handle variable power inputs does require investment, but this also modernises our infrastructure, making it more resilient and efficient."

Yes, and at least double the cost.

"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 "

That's what the Germans thought before Putin invaded Ukraine. Developing nuclear would give Australians generating infrastructure lasting well over half a century as well as the possibility of developing a nuclear fuel industry with our abundant uranium resources.

"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"

The renewable rollout will be incredibly destructive for Australia's flora and fauna due primarily to the enormous area and sensitive habitats involved. What flora and fauna are threatened by nuclear power or have ever been harmed by nuclear power? Chernobyl has left a legacy of a pristine natural reserve, and modern reactor designs have passive safety features that prevent meltdowns. Are you referring to three eyed fish or three eyed koalas? With wind and solar you will have no end of environmental destruction with plenty of dead koalas, dead fish and dead birds.

Fester,

The claim that solar and wind farms would require several times the size of Tasmania is a gross overestimation. The land area needed for large-scale solar and wind projects is much less than often claimed. In reality, a significant portion of land within a wind farm can still be used for agriculture or other purposes, effectively reducing the overall footprint. More details can be found at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf.

Regarding the comparison to Tasmania, which covers about 68,400 square kilometers, claims of needing areas twice this size lack context. The actual footprint of infrastructure like solar panels or turbine bases is relatively small, with much of the surrounding land remaining usable. Utilizing rooftops and previously disturbed lands, such as brownfields, greatly minimizes the need for new land and mitigates environmental concerns. More information is available at http://www.brookings.edu/research/renewables-land-use-and-local-opposition-in-the-united-states.

Minimising the space required this is manageable through smart planning and technology. Much of the land is dual-use, and strategic site selection helps balance land use impacts. It’s important to consider these factors rather than relying on broad estimates that don’t accurately reflect practical implementation.

Overbuilding renewable capacity is a strategy to manage supply and demand fluctuations. While some overcapacity is necessary, advancements in battery technology and pumped hydro storage help manage these fluctuations effectively, reducing the need for excessive capacity (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148121009599.)

Upgrading the grid involves costs but also modernizes our infrastructure, making it more resilient and efficient. These investments are essential for any modern energy system and offer long-term benefits (http://www.brookings.edu/research/renewables-land-use-and-local-opposition-in-the-united-states).

Germany's challenges with gas imports highlight the importance of energy diversification. By investing in renewables, countries can enhance energy security and reduce reliance on imports. Local production of renewable components further strengthens this security. (http://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022)

Concerns about the environmental impact of renewables are valid, but overall, they tend to have lower emissions and less habitat destruction compared to other energy sources. Nuclear energy, while beneficial, also involves waste management challenges and high upfront costs. Incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima highlight potential risks, though modern designs are safer. (http://www.ipcc.ch/sr15)

VK3AUU,

Your point hasn't been lost on anyone. I've addressed it several times on this forum and there are many feasibility reports that address the issue, too.

Comparing the lifespans of energy sources involves considering several factors beyond just lifespan. For wind and solar, the lifespan is around 20-30 years for solar panels and 20-25 years for wind turbines. When replacements are needed, advancements in technology mean that newer systems are often more efficient, reducing costs over time. Additionally, materials such as metals and glass can be recycled, minimising environmental impact. While initial costs are lower, maintenance and gradual upgrades are part of their lifecycle, allowing continuous improvement in efficiency.

In contrast, nuclear plants have a longer lifespan of 40-60 years but require substantial investments in maintenance and upgrades, including replacing reactor components and cooling systems. These processes involve high costs and strict safety regulations. Maintenance and upgrades also generate radioactive waste, which requires careful long-term management. Furthermore, the mining and processing of uranium have environmental impacts that need to be considered.

Nuclear waste management poses significant environmental and financial challenges. Decommissioning nuclear plants at the end of their lifecycle involves complex and costly processes, including dismantling structures and managing radioactive materials safely. Additionally, nuclear power plants have high upfront construction costs, often taking years to complete, which can be much higher than the combined installation and replacement costs of renewable energy sources over their lifetimes. Operational costs, including fuel, security, and waste management, add to the overall expense of nuclear power.

Renewable energy sources benefit from rapid technological improvements, driving down costs and increasing efficiency. Replacement systems often outperform older ones, providing better returns on investment. The shorter construction and deployment times of renewables enable faster adaptation to technological changes and energy needs.

While nuclear power offers longevity and stable energy output, it comes with high costs for maintenance, upgrades, and waste management. In contrast, renewables like wind and solar, despite their shorter lifespans, allow for quicker technological adaptation and have lower environmental risks. This flexibility can outweigh the benefits of nuclear's longer operational life in many scenarios.

When Copenhagen Atomics get their equipment up and running in a few years time all your ideas will have to change. No waste, lower running costs, lower construction costs.
David