They go on and on and never answer the question;
If you have one or even two days of low wind and overcast one morning
you will have flat batteries.
Where will you get enough power to recharge the batteries in case the
next night is cold & still ?
You need enough generation equal to two days demand just for battery charging.
What if the next day is overcast and windless ?
What another $2Trillion just for charging ?
On & on it goes !

Bezza,

I’ve answered the concerns you’ve raised more times than I care to count now; sometimes even in direct response to you.

Again, modern energy systems don't rely solely on a day or two of battery storage. They instead use a mix of storage solutions, demand response strategies, and diverse renewable sources to balance supply and demand. This includes not just batteries, but also pumped hydro, compressed air energy storage, solid-state batteries, and flow batteries, all working together to ensure a stable and reliable power supply.

Demand response programs can temporarily reduce energy consumption during peak times or when renewable generation is low, easing the strain on the grid. Also, having renewable energy sources spread out geographically means it's unlikely the entire grid area will experience low wind and overcast conditions at the same time. Energy can be transmitted from areas with excess generation to those with deficits.

Renewable energy is also complemented by other sources like hydropower, geothermal, and sometimes even nuclear power to provide a steady baseline supply. Countries like Denmark and Germany, which have high renewable energy penetration, have shown that with proper planning and investment in grid infrastructure, these systems can handle variability effectively.

The worry about needing massive amounts of extra generation capacity for battery charging overlooks the continuous advancements in energy storage efficiency and cost reductions. As I mentioned earlier, the cost of lithium-ion batteries has dropped by 89% over the past decade and is expected to keep decreasing as technology improves and economies of scale kick in.

Lastly, the financial argument often exaggerates costs without considering the savings and benefits. Moving to renewables reduces health costs related to air pollution, mitigates climate change impacts, and can lead to long-term economic benefits through job creation and energy independence.

The reliability of renewable energy systems isn't just about having enough storage for one or two days. It's about building a resilient and diversified energy system that can handle variability and ensure a stable power supply through advanced technologies and smart planning.

There is no doubt that the Albanese government is working against the best interests of Australia and Australians. Stupidity is no longer a reason. The Albanese government has evil intent. Nobody could be stupid enough to think that a country and its economy can be run on renewables.

Australians are slowly but surely waking up to the renewables scam, and will continue to do so as power gets more unreliable and expensive - with none at all at peak times. Pissy little batteries don't even get a thought.

An election is coming.

John your rebuttel is a collection of nonexistent sources of backup.
The idea of hydro backup is nowhere near doable in Australia.
Several may be installed as they do not need power to recharge them
and their large capacity in terms of hours is attractive.
Of course demand control and the car to grid schemes will fall over
the first time thousands of drivers go to work the next morning
and find they do not have enough range to get to work and home.
Demand control at 5pm to 10pm will cost a government their seats.

All in all I think your list of sources are pretty dodgy and most
would rely on unpopular government legislation.
They would all help of course but 100% x 100% I doubt it.

John,
Went back and reread your post.
A couple of points.
The idea of geographical spread has already fallen over as the cost
for the limited number of transmission line needed right now is
already into the $Trillion mark. CSIRO Figures I believe.
What you are relying on would be more $Trillions.
Re geothermal, I even put some small amount into that with shares in
Linc Energy but while it produced lots of steam in Queensland it
failed because of the short life of the plumbing. That made it an
economic failure. I do not know the cause of the corrosion but they
were well up in that field so they did not give up lightly.
Re pumpted hydro there was a proposal in Sth Aus for a row of dams
along a clifftop with turbines/pumps at sea level, but never heard
anymore about it. Perhaps it was not economic.
Sea windfarms are failing in Europe as the government cannot get
quotes for supply from the owners. The sea is the worse place for maintenance.
Nuclear is too far away even by 2030 so something has to be found
this year or next.
Do you think a solution can be found in time ?