Max you have clearly not read the article to which I referred. We can only generate a fraction of the energy required to replace the amount of energy that we currently generate from fossil fuels. This applies to where ever in the world we may be located. Essentially what many in this thread seem to be looking for is the ability to continue much the way we are without fossil fuels.
Micheaux's argument and that of other energy specialists is that the greenest energy is the energy we do not use. We do have technologies that will enable us reduce our energy consumption but that would mean investing in things like passive housing, reducing all travel by about 70%, constricting supply chains, painting our house white, developing vertical agriculture, and the rewilding of the planet.
The real problem is not base load renewables it is that we are expecting to transition out of our dependence on fossil fuels without making fundamental changes about the way we think about the world. Google any of these examples I have included and you will find a host of articles and research that sees them as part of a solution. There is no silver bullet and that is where the politicians and indeed much of the commentary in this thread to get it wrong.

Bazz

Now you have really done it: loosed Mad Max on us again.

There is only one solution - back to coal. If China can do it and get rich, so can we.

The promise of lots of employment has come true. Unfortunately the jobs are in China, where a third of a million workers are employed manufacturing panels alone.

China controls 95 per cent of global photovoltaic panel production and its grip on the market is increasing.

Our dependence on China for renewable energy infrastructure leaves us vulnerable to a geopolitical shock not unlike that faced by European nations because of reliance on Russian gas and coal.

An interesting read regarding the Blakers et al 'plan' to which Max adheres: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/07/future-solar/

Max with the ratbag activists infesting particularly ANU, but also Griffith Uni, and the CSIRO, only a fool would not argue with them.

Anyone who can't be bothered understanding the math regarding power generation has no right to expect those who have bothered, to listen to them. We are not interested in a fools paradise.

Sorry Fester, I was thinking about how I phrased it to you and I was misleading an unnecessarily harsh on renewables. (Sometimes I round things off in hyperbole when in a rush.)

To slow down, and be more specific, let me try this.

We don't have to make solar baseload to get a 100% renewables grid because most studies that have monitored the weather think a roughly 60% wind, 40% solar mix is adequate as there is always some wind running through the night. But studies show a rough patch in winter. So they overbuild THAT MIX of wind and solar out to maybe 170%, with enough PHES for 2 days, and then we're covered.

“If we built enough wind and solar to meet approximately 170% of demand over the year (ie, 70% over-generation), then supply and demand could have been matched on every day of the year with the help of existing hydro. It could eliminate all instances of ‘Other’ or long-term storage requirements. For comparison, this study had 18% of over-generation. Ideally a use would be found for all this over-generation, such as producing hydrogen or charging EVs, so long as they are able to reduce to near zero on the most difficult days of the year.”
http://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/

More on youtube as “Engineering with Rosie” interviews him here: http://youtu.be/lgxOlPu9kiM

Where they talk about 2 or 3 or even 4 times the existing grid usually has other assumptions, like replacing heating gas and / or transport oil. Different geologies require different overbuilds. Australia's resources are excellent, with one of the largest grids spread out over amazing resources that average out wind that's blowing and wind that's quite over huge distances. We'll be fine. Other countries? Maybe not. I'm a FAN OF NUCLEAR for them!

But in 10 years we'll be mostly done here. Then you'll learn to say what I've been telling people. "I never thought it was TECHNICALLY impossible (while I blush) - but now that they're cheap enough I get that we can overbuild."

That's my excuse for being wrong for the last umpteen years.

Hi Baygon,
I read the bit you quoted – and it stank of irrelevance and trite, ideological dismissal. When you quote something that’s actually on topic and of substance – I’ll try to reply more substantively.
“We can only generate a fraction of the energy required to replace the amount of energy that we currently generate from fossil fuels. “
Crap.

“Essentially what many in this thread seem to be looking for is the ability to continue much the way we are without fossil fuels.”
I love passive solar thermal homes, New Urbanism, walkable city designs with a real “Third place” in them, neighbourhoods operating a little like fractal patterns back in on the town square, and that itself a fractal out from a larger city square, etc.
But there is a silver bullet. It’s called “Electrify everything.” Sadly – because I really AM a fan of New Urbanism – walkable neighbourhoods are going to have to be a choice. They’re going to take the hard work of culture change. Because we really CAN drive EV’s charged from solar and wind! They’re abundant, they’ve got high enough EROEI’s, and we can scale up their material build. There’s no real limit.

Wind and solar can do electric – and EV’s and Janus trucks can do driving. Future hydrogen planes can do flying. It’s all ‘electric’ or derived from electricity. 10% of the world’s man made water reservoirs covered in floating solar panels would replace all our energy requirements – let alone rooftop solar – let alone wind.