The current use of natural gas fired electrical plant to balance variable wind output is short sighted. There are many higher priority uses for natural gas and coal seam methane; these include nitrogen fertiliser production, CNG diesel substitute in buses and trucks, industrial process heat and domestic use. Export comes after electricity generation and I think there should be some official policy setting this out. Over to you Martin Ferguson.

I suspect several sites on the Tasmanian west coast could use unregulated wind electrical output to pump hydro outlet water back uphill again ie a continuous loop. While this could produce say 300MW of smooth power it is small compared to current black coal, brown coal and gas generation. Solar does not fully balance wind power and is too expensive. Cheap thin film solar may or may not happen. Current generation nuclear power plant doesn't like rapid throttle changes to accommodate a wind surge or drop. At say $3m a kilometre high voltage direct current lines (HVDC) plus $200m apiece converter stations will be too expensive to join up all States so wind and solar can be shared.

I think Canberra should present an energy outlook white paper that canvasses all these issues including desalination, electric transport and population growth. In theory the ETS and MRET are not supposed to pick the best technologies in advance but they should all be broadly consistent. In my opinion we should start building nuclear power stations, retire coal plant, conserve gas and find other ways to balance wind power.

I can't believe this. The author talks about storage of energy as though it's a difficult problem.

At home about half my electricity usage is for a hotwater storage system. At present it runs off-peak. It is governed by a clock. But a generation ago my parents off-peak hotwater system was converted from a clock to being switched on and off by a signal sent through the lines from the power supplier.

That is to say, the technology is there to switch hotwater systems on and off according to whether the wind is blowing or not. And the "storage infrastructure" (ie storage hotwater systems) are also present in may homes already.

It's hard to take the article seriously (likewise, especially, for the cited report by Lang), when it doesn't take this sort of thing into consideration

Jeremy - you raise an interesting point I did not quite get around to in the article. Yes, you can store energy as hot water, and this is done for individual sites. there may also be some application on a system wide basis but my point is that no-one has done the planning for this or put in any thought.

As an aside, on the grid design issue, the off-peak part of the day is when the coal-fired base load plants are still running, and its probably better to use those for energy storage, as they are best left running at the same speed. Wind might just get in the way, or it might not - either way, the distresing part of the business is that, as matters stand, these things will be simply expensive symbols..

You will note that there are numerous reports making exactly the same points, not just one.

The problem with the variability of wind energy is so easy to fix.
Make all electrical equipment able to work on any voltage between 110
and 240 except heaters (the biggest consumers) which cut out if the voltage is below 220.
If wind is low then the voltage drops a little (brown out)and heaters automatically switch off so reducing the load.

I have a few pieces of equipment that work from 110V to 250V and at 60Hz or 50Hz.
Modern electrical stuff can handle large voltage swings easily.
Lights can maintain their brightness and color during a "brownout".
You will not even know it is happening

"As has been confirmed in a series of reports by different bodies, renewables, particularly wind farms, are a lot more trouble and far less effective than those who support these targets realise."

Not according to the following report:

http://www.issuelab.org/research/global_wind_power_capacity_reaches_100000_megawatts

If Australia is sincere about reducing GHGs (which I don't believe it is!) then we should further investigate the glowing report provided, to verify the windpower achievements it boasts of. The US now services 4.5 million homes with windpower. Considering our significantly smaller population, 4.5 million homes, supplied with wind energy in Australia could make a remarkable difference to our carbon emissions:

Yet Mr Lawson's article suggests it can't or shouldn't be done. I suspect Australia will wear more egg on its face before it's dragged kicking and screeching into the 21st century.

Mark,
You never fail to disappoint me with your lack of insightor to adress a topic objectively.
Let me guess you are one of those confused individuals that is really a closet conservatives masquerading as an *”independent journalist”*. When * independent journalist is code for Political/special interest axe grinder or the print version of talk back radio.

Simple question: Why can’t our energy needs be a blend of technologies.
It is an erroneous that various areas could vary their sources of both base and peak loads.

The argument that big is necessarily better is at best sleight of hand. In truth as it stands today If big power were compelled to charge the true cost of power including amelioration of environmental damage it would non viable.
If this wasn’t true then why has these same polluters demanded (sorry negotiated) a ridiculous negation of the carbon tax in freebees?

One wise poster said that “knee jerk negativity (myopic spin) simply extends the life of ideas beyond their useful use buy dates”. Your mind set is no different.

This whole line of thinking belongs to the 1950/60.

Ask yourselves the outcome if the green sources were offered the same levels of research stimulus and freebees (level playing field) would they still be as “un- viable”?

Ask yourself “Can the public afford to be so profligate with it’s power demands?”
As for employment I would posit that a connected hub system would simply diversify jobs though out the nation including areas where there is not enough employment now.

Likewise it is preposterous to suggest that if the wind stops here that the wind in other areas has too. Again the technology exists to grid switch.

We need solutions not more of the same pro big power (vested commercial influence abuse) spin that is contrary to national interests