John

"The constant assurance that cheaper prices are just around the corner, only to face continued delays and rising costs, is frustrating. However, I see this more as a long-term investment rather than a scam."

Assurances like that are always a red flag. According to the CSIRO, wind and solar are the fastest and cheapest, so a higher priced transition makes absolutely no sense when you consider that projects can be amortised over their economic lives.

The problems that I see with wind and solar are fundamental to the technology, insoluble with technical advance or requiring unrealistic cost reductions. The primary problems stem from capacity factors below 30%, which combined with seasonal variability means that your wind and solar generation must be up to six times the average demand (or higher depending on location) to make them dispatchable. This has three major consequences:

One is that you need a huge amount of infrastructure overbuild to make the supply dispatchable. For example, if your wind and solar were six times the average demand your transmission infrastructure would need to cope with six times the average demand an your battery and pumped hydro would need to cope with at least five times average demand. Given that transmission infrastructure accounts for 40% of power costs, this alone guarantees a much higher cost from transmission and storage before you consider generation cost.

A second problem relates to the generation overbuild inherent with wind and solar, guaranteeing that a quarter to a third of the energy is curtailed (wasted), increasing the cost of your generating infrastructure by up to fifty percent.

The third problem relates to the market effect of oversupply, which would mean that generators would not get an economic return. Fluctuating prices would also make project financing impossible.

Fester,

First, the issue of capacity factors and infrastructure overbuild do lead to higher upfront costs, particularly for transmission and storage. But as we continue to invest in storage technologies, and as these technologies improve, the need for such massive overbuild decreases. So while the initial phase of transition is expensive, it’s not a permanent situation. The costs associated with overbuild and curtailment are expected to decrease as our energy systems become more sophisticated.

On the point of curtailment, where energy is “wasted,” it’s a current challenge, but it’s also a challenge that’s being actively addressed. For instance, better grid management and demand response programs can reduce curtailment by matching supply with demand more effectively. Additionally, innovations like converting excess electricity into other forms of energy (such as hydrogen) are on the horizon, which would make better use of what’s currently curtailed.

Regarding the market effects of oversupply, you’re right that fluctuating prices can make it difficult for generators to get a good return on investment. However, energy markets are evolving. Mechanisms like contracts for difference (CFDs) and capacity markets are designed to stabilise these returns, ensuring that renewable projects can be financed and remain viable despite price fluctuations. These tools are not theoretical; they’re already being implemented in various markets with success.

It’s important to recognise that the transition to renewables isn’t just about replacing one form of generation with another; it’s about transforming how we manage and distribute energy. Yes, it’s expensive and complex right now, but that’s what happens when you’re building something new and innovative. The long-term trend is moving toward lower costs and more reliable energy as technology improves and economies of scale are realised.

So while the concerns you’ve raised are grounded in the current reality, they don’t doom the transition to failure. They’re challenges that are being met with ongoing innovation and strategic adjustments. The idea that we’re forever stuck with high costs because of these issues doesn’t hold up when you consider the trajectory of technological progress and market adaptation.

The road is rough, but it’s far from a dead end.

ttbn,

Promises will only get them so far and will be fast undone when people see the failures. The reliance now is on saving the planet and "it's too late to change". Hopefully the destruction of the natural environment will make people realise that the wind and solar solution is far worse than the problem.

Haven't seen Alan B. in the main forum for a while.
Shame he isn't around to see this:

China to build first thorium molten salt NPP in Gobi Desert
http://www.neimagazine.com/news/china-to-build-worlds-first-thorium-molten-salt-npp-in-gobi-desert/

How Innovative is China in Nuclear Power?
http://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/

>>As Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), observed, “China is the de facto world leader in nuclear technology.”1 Indeed, China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of where the United States is in nuclear power (referring especially to the ability to field fourth-generation nuclear reactors). China’s government has assigned considerable priority to domestic nuclear reactor construction as part of Beijing’s broader energy strategy. Looking ahead, China appears likely to use this established domestic capacity as a foundation for competitive reactor exports, much as its “dual-circulation” strategy has accomplished in other areas, such as electric vehicles and batteries.<<

As Japan Semiconductor Sales To China Soar, Beijing's Nuclear Power Plants Triggers US Panic
http://youtu.be/-5e_ExHNRsI

I said 300 MwH. All reactors SMR size are 10 KwH, 100 KwH or submarine reactors, None of which can produce 300 MwH capacity. They are classed as the non lethal fuel sourse. They are sealed tanks containing radio active light water. Lucas heights is a sealed tank reactor. There is no 300MwH reactors ever been completed let alone constructed.

We do not need 24/7 nukes
.
There is no difference in the way power is sold every power generators power is sold spot pricing. You have to bid to supply power to the grid . If you are accepted you then get allotted an amount of power to be supplied to the grid. That is to assure no excess power is put into the grid. Wasted electricity does not get paid for. Some large scale users buy by wholesale chunks of power to be used at later dates.

Wind, Solar, Hydro, will get first priority supplying to the grid and discharging stored power to the grid. There about 10 privately owned generators of electricity. And they all get a share of supplying to the grid when the need arises.

AEMO are electricity generator regulators according to demand that varies every 5 minutes day and night. They say who supplies power to the grid.
Solar and Wind has no off switch, all other generators comply with AEMO.

There is no space for 24/7 nukes.

Power demand keeps rising year on year, as long as our population increases power supply will rise.

Why have something against Renewable, sun shine and wind and water are free. Some block heads say solar panels only last 10 years, they are warranted for 25 years.

The supply of electricity is very involved guess work does not happen.
That is why you will not see nuclear in Australia.

doog,

Much of what you are being told is untrue.

"There is no 300MwH reactors ever been completed let alone constructed."

That statement is false. The CNP-300 has been in use for over thirty years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNP_/_ACP_nuclear_reactors

"Why have something against Renewable, sun shine and wind and water are free."

So are Uranium and Thorium. The expense comes from building the infrastructure to capture the energy. But if wind, sunshine and water are free as you point out, then why are we paying for power from those sources?

"Solar and Wind has no off switch, all other generators comply with AEMO."

Exactly, and because wind and solar are both below a 30% capacity factor, you need several times the average demand in generating capacity if you want to go 100% renewables. The consequence of this is that you will waste up to a third of the energy generated in an optimal system.

"Wind, Solar, Hydro, will get first priority supplying to the grid and discharging stored power to the grid."

The output from wind and solar is highly variable, so firming the output is extremely challenging, wasteful of resources, and costly. That is why wind and solar are such a terrible idea for the grid.

"There is no space for 24/7 nukes."

24/7/365 supply contracts are very attractive for energy retailers and industry. I suspect that the wind and solar industry is terrified of the prospect of nuclear as they are incapable of competing.

The ban needs to be removed.