Looking at NemWatch a while ago (breakfast time) I see of 29,132 MW demand some 337 MW or 1.1% was met by batteries. The average spot price was $293 per MWh yet some solar farms bid just 10% ($30) of that around midday. The rewards for storing energy are considerable yet it barely makes a difference.

Energy retailers are offering credits to owners of bidirectional EVs and compatible home batteries to suck some juice out when it helps them. Unsurprisingly many battery owners decline. Who wants to start the day with less in the battery? Thus much touted virtual networks may not go prime time.

That's electrochemical batteries. Malcolm Turnbull tells us realtime nuclear is too expensive yet his pet energy storage project Snowy 2 has gone from $2bn capex to $12bn plus $5bn for HumeLink. Another political favourite is making hydrogen to fuel gas fired plants. The economics are woeful, as in you only get back 26% of the electricity you start with. Welcome to a future world of rationing, oops 'demand management'.

Are we talking about the batteries that last only hours or minutes, and have a tendency to catch fire?

No ttbn,

I think it's the cheap safe and reliable batteries and other storage technologies that the CSIRO say will be available in the near future.

I think it fitting that people near wind farms have the red hue of Hell to send them to sleep.

Yep, save the environment by destroying it. Smart people, and well rewarded by taxpayers for killing koalas and wallabies, and we get a hopeless electricity system in return.

As detailed as Geoff Carmody’s look is at the costs and challenges of wind power and battery storage, a few issues render it too misleading and simplistic for it to be a balanced contribution to the debate.

Firstly, Carmody relies heavily on worst-case scenarios for wind power intermittency and storage needs without considering technological advancements or improved grid management. This results in an overly pessimistic view, ignoring how modern energy systems use a mix of renewable sources and strategies to balance these challenges.

The article also overlooks the rapid advancements in renewable energy technologies and falling costs. Historical trends show significant cost reductions in solar and battery technologies, which are not accounted for, leading to an outdated assessment of future possibilities.

Carmody’s focus on wind power as the sole renewable source is another critical flaw. In reality, energy systems increasingly use a diversified mix of solar, hydro, geothermal, and wind, along with advanced grid management and storage solutions. This diversified approach reduces the risks and costs associated with relying on a single energy source.

Moreover, the author uses current costs for battery storage without considering future reductions due to economies of scale and technological improvements. This assumption inflates future expense estimates and undermines the feasibility of renewable solutions.

Carmody also neglects the impact of policy measures and market dynamics. Government policies like subsidies, tax incentives, and carbon pricing can significantly alter the cost and adoption rate of renewable technologies. Market forces, including increased competition and innovation, play a crucial role in reducing costs and improving efficiencies.

The article dismisses critical strategies like demand response and distributed generation, which help balance the grid and reduce the need for extensive storage. Additionally, the tone suggests a bias against renewable energy, leading to selective presentation of facts and a lack of objectivity.

Lastly, Carmody simplifies battery life and replacement costs, assuming frequent replacements and high costs, while overlooking advancements in battery technology and recycling. The article also ignores energy efficiency and conservation measures, which can significantly reduce overall demand.

The stupidity in the decision-making circles is multiplying at far too alarming a rate !

Now after the advertisement;
The size of the battery would have to be VERY large to be able to
accumulate the small excess each day, but still keep 100% for several
cold still nights in a row.
it is just impractical.
No one looks past lithium batteries when a nickle iron
battery will last forever and can be maintained.
Still we are beset by stupid people who think that solar and wind
will do it all for us all.
I say stupid advisably because who stood by and clapped and cheered
while the coal fired stations were blown up ?
They did not have the intelligence to think, should we have built
the replacement first ? DUH !
No they said we can install 22,000 solar panels a day for eight years.
We can build 90 wind turbines a month for eight years !
That will do the job.

No politician or bureaucrat picked up his calculator and though just
what that meant in daily work.
Is there any doubt they are REALLY STUPID !

The stupidity in the decision-making circles is multiplying at far too alarming a rate !
Posted by Indyvidual, Tuesday, 9 July 2024 1:48:32 PM

Answer-

They are showing their desperation.

I am glad someone agrees with me. When I express those thoughts in a
gathering I often get responses that I am political biased.
I point out the Liberals also just stood by, even as late as the Liddel closure.
I usually respond to those who object to my comments that are also
demonstrating their own stupidity.
I ask them if they had to move would they burn down their present
house before the bought their new house ?

I am afraid that it is all too late now we cannot build enough new
generation in time to avoid an economic collapse of some magnitude.

Plagiarism-Free Work:
jameswilliamson,
Forgive me but isn't just about everything Academics know the knowledge of others ? So, when they then repeat that knowledge from books which are actually the words of others it somehow becomes their work ?
Our resident fact/copy-paster is living proof of getting her 'Facts" from articles written by generations of academic perpetual copiers ? She leaves no doubt about her reliance on what is literally plagiarism. When I & others here comment from personal experience it gets dismissed as something that can't be taken serious because we're not Academics.
All the repeat waffle about Zero emission from "renewables" is not based on fact, only on repeat copy/paste ! A folly driven by an industry based on parasitism !

Indyvidual said "When I & others here comment from personal experience it gets dismissed as something that can't be taken serious because we're not Academics."

Answer- Yes take the Academic Authoritarian Dictators down!

The Centre for Independent Studies claim that Australia could provide 90% of its electricity from nuclear for the same cost as the supporting infrastructure for wind and solar generation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw_AX9WaJ08

Wind and solar are a complete con. The nuclear power ban needs to be removed.

Correction. 90% of Australia's electricity could come from nuclear for the same cost as home storage batteries required to support wind and solar.