Unreliables are more about flopping than firming

Unreliables are more about flopping than firming.

WTF?

The author states:" It's fair to say that GenCost is not easily digested."

Yet on the first page of the CSIRO website we get:
"Key points

The report found renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build electricity generation technology, while nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) are the most costly.
Electricity systems rely on a mix of technologies, because no single option can deliver all the capabilities required for a reliable, secure and flexible supply.
Rising construction costs in Australia and supply chain constraints for some technologies remain a challenge for reducing costs".

Probably hard to accept rather than hard to digest.

Later on I read: " According to ChatGPT....."

That won't go down well with the "do your own research " mob as they look to advice from crazies on youtube.

To WTF?
The 2025-2026 GenCost report by the CSIRO is deceptive as it deliberately avoids mentioning anything about the costs of renewables that are additional to the actual initial cost of building and operating wind and solar. But the 2024-2025 GenCost report does not try to hide these additional costs (although it doesn't give a $ figure), so look at figure 6-7 and read section 6.3 on pages 79 to 81 of the 2024-2025 report. These pages show that a renewables-based energy system must have back-up generating capacity at least equal to the total peak demand: in other words, spend tens or hundreds of billions on a renewable energy system capable of meeting peak energy demand when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing and then build a fossil fuel energy system of the same peak demand capacity to provide electricity for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Here in Australia, we are still many billions of dollars away from completing out transitioning to a renewables-sourced electricity grid, so expect electricity prices to continuing to go up!

Bernie,

GenCost doesn't "hide" system costs, but its headline figures are often quoted as if generation cost equals system cost, which is not what the reports actually say. Reliability, backup, storage and integration are discussed in the body of the modelling, even if they're not collapsed into a single headline number.

The step from that observation to claiming that a renewables-based system requires building a full fossil system of equal peak capacity alongside it is not supported by the modelling. What's required is sufficient firm capacity, which can be delivered through a mix of storage, dispatchable plant, transmission, demand response and, during transition, gas. That mix is costly, but it is not the same thing as duplicating the existing fossil fleet.

Conflating firm capacity with a parallel fossil system overstates the case and muddies what should be a straightforward system-cost discussion.

To John Daysh
Can you explain why neither of the two most recent GenCost reports fail to give a dollar estimate of the cost of what you call firming capacity? The 2024-2025 report talks about the need for firming capacity and the 2025-2026 report makes no mention of it whatsoever. Why is the government hiding these costs from the public? Really, there's only one reason - because the costs are ginormous and would scare the living daylights out of taxpayers and users of electricity.