Sylvia,

Power consumption can be averaged out. The average is called baseload (for Victoria it’s ~4000 MWe), the daily variability is called intermittent load (for Victoria it’s between 4,000 and 5,500MWe) and then there’s peak load (for Victoria it’s between 5,000 and 5,900Mwe – 2002 figures).

I’m saying that enough wind turbines, spread out far enough, can deliver this power. Needless to say though, this will never actually be 100% required as wind will only be a part of an energy mix.

My point was not that “there was significant wind at a couple of places” at all. My evidence demonstrated that only at the time and places you cited were there wind speeds according to your argument.

I have provided evidence that sufficient wind did exist at the time you chose and, I suggest to all, that this wind did not exist exclusively around the anemometer that measured it but also for hundreds of kilometers around these different points. Obviously the towns you checked on the date you selected did not experience these winds.

The forecasts for Bass Straight are not as much misleading as just inconvenient for your argument. Wind farms don’t want a snapshot, they want a significant period of wind.

You say the issue then is how to cope with significant deviations; I am doing my best to say that enough wind turbines over a large enough area will average out these variations. You say it is not sufficient to say "oh, then we'll use coal." I say it is. During the next few decades coal will sell power at the market price. If the market price becomes insufficient for coal to be viable then the market will either find a replacement for coal or raise the price to acquire coal derived electricity.

I agree with your most basic point but it seem you are unjustifiably down-playing the economic viability of renewables.

Martin,

Clearly we're not going to agree. You think I'm overstating the cost of using wind power, and I think you're not fully understanding the implications of variability of wind and the financial impact on existing capacity of using it as a backup for wind power.

One thing is abundantly clear, then, which is that trying to have a public debate on the merits would be an exercise in futility. The same sorts of disagreements would arise, together with other hammers thrown into the works by those who do have their own agenga to pursue, even if we do not. Most of the general public would simply not be in a position to form a view as to who was right.

The nearest to a solution that I can see is to ask either CSIRO, or the NEMMCO (the operator of the electricity market in SE Australia), to do a study of the likely cost of electricity with and without nuclear power, but without any further increase in CO2, and for the results to be offered to the public to decide whether or not they want to go with the nuclear option.

Sylvia.

I think the energy debate can be 'dumbed down' by using the benchmark figure of 50%. That is, after a 10 year all-out belt-tightening effort on renewables and conservation we will still replace only 50% of our current energy use. Beyond that business and consumers are going way out of their comfort zone. To quote Darryl Kerrigan, those who think it will be easy 'are dreaming'. So where's the other 50% going to come from?

Taswegian do you bother reading other people's posts?
The point about looking at a combination of energy sources has already been acknowledged.

Sylvia that's what I said from the start.

Maybe Pollie can fill us in on the big energy and resource effeciency drive the gov is going to start to make business more competitive, so it can compliment energy CO2 reductions from generation sources.

Lets not forget that we are talking about “nuclear power”. People have been totally focused on the Fission form. There is another option, FUSION which if can be made to produce power in sufficient quantities is undoubtedly the power source of the future. Just recently a FUSION plant has been producing 10 MW equivalent. It is early days yet and there are still hurdles to jump but nobody mentions it. What worries me is the narrow focus that governments, especially Australian, take to these issues. I have not heard of any Australian involvement in this research or even investigation of the cold fusion (yes cold fusion) that the US Navy just finished studies indicating that there is something going on (New scientist article. Date unsure?)

While Fusion is some 30-40 years off getting to practical implementation for power generation, is it not sensible to be involved? Yes I know that it could be further away but should we not keep a finger in this pie? Obviously the BIG, advantage for fusion is the environmental benefits with insignificant green house impact or long term waste management issues compared to other alternatives. I think it is obvious at this stage that renewables alone will not solve power generation problems. And with fission with all the technical and environmental issues mainly with waste storage and decommissioning and the public backlash it might not get off the ground sooner than fusion anyway.

So my point is governments and private interests should be in ALL technologies. Sometimes Australian gets left behind these big advances. Pity since the scientists and engineers are as good as anywhere in the world.

Reasoned debate, yes, but also a broad minded debate

Hi Bigfish. I am well aware of the fusion research. By way of background, before I got into politics, I was a research scientist. My background is physics and materials science (to PhD level).

I have been thoroughly briefed on fusion research by a group from ANU, Flinders, Sydney Uni, ANSTO, and AINSE on the ITER fusion project. This is a US$10b project, and looks very promising, having a Q-factor of around 5 (meaning 5 times energy out to energy in). They are not assuming any breakthroughs, this is a conservative project. Of course, advances would probably raise the Q-factor more. I am supportive of this work.

Dennis