You realize that you two have opposite ends of the same stick. Don't you?

Bazz,
What's being missed in all the discussion of this topic is that the technology is improving so rapidly.

At present silicon is the solar PV model of choice because it has the highest energy density and the lowest cost. However, newer technologies, especially those based on perovskites and various forms of organics will supplant it during the course of the next generation or two of development. Then there are other technologies, such as dye-sensitised cells (in which Australia is a world leader) which are useful in applications that Si can't be applied to.

The same thing applies to storage technologies and to demand side technologies. On the demand side, the UK has already shut down some generation capacity because demand has reduced as a result of more efficient lighting and display technologies. My 24" LED/LCD monitor uses 30W max; an old 17" CRT monitor I have lying around uses 200. My house has LED lamps throughout that each use about 5-9W, compared to the 15-23W of the CFLs they replaced a year or so ago and the 60-100W of the incandescents they replaced about 3 years before that. My power bill has been almost constant for the past 5 years despite rising unit cost.

Any extrapolation to future situations has to include those developmental factors which change the whole picture. What I:'m hearing here is the same argument that was used to try to stop deployment of the automobile: building roads will ruin us; they're noisy and smelly and break down; horses are a proven technology that can never be replaced; cars cost too much; etc, etc, etc.

ttbn,
I agree that the blame game must stop.

Jayb,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

You might also check out the theory of martingales.

Craig,
"I made the claim deliberately with a specific intent and made the fact known when it was challenged."
Deliberately or not, you've burned your own credibility. And you failed to make your intention known as soon as you were challenged.

____________________________________________________________________________

Shadow,

"Just for a moment consider that the model of an island country where demand is a constant 10 terawatts and supplied only with wind, solar and standby gas generation."
OK, but remember a constant demand is itself not a realistic scenario, 10 terawatts is enormous, and nowhere with a demand that big would have no pumped storage.

1) Solar thermal with molten salt storage could provide power after dark.
2) Because fo that ther'd be no need to provide quite so much wind power capacity.
3) Stationary turbines don't consume much power. And saying it would require the construction of that much gas capacity assumes there's none here already.
4) An alternative is to put the excess eanergy to productive use.
5) 20 years is an extremely pessimistic estimate for average wind turbine life. And if one does fail within that timespan, rebuilding it's a lot cheaper and quicker than building one from scratch.
6) Not if solar thermal with molten salt storage is used.

Aidan,
Perhaps you might tell me what else I've said that you think lacks credibility? I'm always keen to learn.

Craig, both you & Shadow are right, there is nothing wrong with either argument. Both arguments are different sides of the same coin.

I will say though, Coal fired Power stations can live with out renewables but not visa versa. I believe that getting the mix right is a job for the experts in the Heavy Electricity Field. The Politicians should stay right out of it & just give the nod when they have come up with the best possible solution without bickering. (Like that will ever happen) Some things are well above Politics & this is one of the most important.

Hi Jayb,
of course, that's the point I've been trying to make.

Whether coal is currently viable isn't at issue, what matters is planning for the future and it is clear that across the world hardnosed people who are doing that have come to the conclusion that we must move to a non-fossil fuel energy economy.