If you want to get an insight into why it is so difficult to get
viable renewable energy systems working at reasonable cost this
article on Energy Return on Energy Invested has a lot of information
that I never had a grip on. It is a very complex problem and is at the
heart of the problems we are seeing here in Australia.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/How-Misleading-Are-Solar-Yields.html

So after reading this you will be able to say "Well of course that would happen".

If that was the end of the price-hikes, SM, we could all live with it. However it's only the beginning, and all for no real impact even if every other state and nation followed suit. Renewables need thermal, load following generation, or baseload, with the CO2 abatement achieved cannot solve CAGW.

The eastern seaboard, incorporating SA, could run on a few reactors producing 100% of needs without significantly adjusting the grid.

In SW Australia, small reactors could deliver in place of coal. In NW Australia and NT, let gas reign while renewables compete where they can.

The EROEI issue is one that requires the scale of renewables with storage to be so massive and expensive as to be unviable in normal competition with nuclear.

Instead of decommissioning nuclear plants they should be refurbished and recommissioned. Cutting them into bits and burying them deep (after spent fuel is removed) is mad panic about the radiation risk they pose. The amortized cost of refurbishment of a plant at the end of its operating life would not add much to the cost of nuclear. The completely mad and unreasonable destruction of old plant is driven by Greens who want to expunge nuclear from history, so their ideology is at a public cost irregardless whether energy companies or the government carries out the madness.

The "honest" green advocates talk about the economy not relying on
100% available electricity but adopting a rationing scheme which
would mean that customers could use low power levels at night and
weather following during daylight hours.
So if the day is sunny and windy you can use your allocated maximum.
If it is overcast and still, your available power level is adjusted.
The internet of things is seen as the way to do it.

However that makes an assumption that in that sort of an economy the internet is still working.

Batteries do not solve the problem as you cannot use an allocation to
charge your battery, you have to have your own solar cells not
connected to the grid.
It gets back to the cost = n X solar & battery for one day where n = the number of overcast days + 1.

It really does get too hard.

So, Bazz, honest Greens believe Gov't should allocate an electricity allowance (fairly, somehow) and if you want more you provide your own?

Hair shirt, anyone?

Let me suspend my disbelief in the renewables approach to solving CAGW for one moment. The subsidy of residential or business PV installations on roofs is totally stupid. My neighbours have a large shading tree they love which limits sunlight and have found already that performance has fallen away due, they believe, to dust buildup in the dry months since installation. Rather than clamber up two storeys to clean them (more costly to install too) they just roll with it. Also, their roof setup means non-ideal panel orientation direction or tilt (tilting costs more and looks bad). They remain proud, however, of their reduced footprint (if only EROIE were not true).

If we are to subsidize the complete waste of money that are renewables, it should be mass installations attached to the main grid, correctly orientated and tilting mechanically to follow the sun for maximum efficiency. Cleaning and maintenance is then done at ground level. We've got enough space without needing roofs. Let's get the most bang for our subsidy buck we can.

No doubt this would offend the self-sufficiency ethos of the true hair-shirted, mung-bean, hair-shirted, protesting, anti-nuke, greenie who believes we must do with less of everything to save the planet.

Abundant, cheap, dispatchable, nuclear energy can be used to heal the damage we have wreaked upon the earth, but let's not go there

Luciferase, the problem we face is that large numbers of people still
believe that renewables can keep us in business as usual mode.
Then there is an increasing number of greens who are starting to
realise that solar & wind cannot do the job of business as usual.
They believe we must change our mode of living to one of a low energy
density economy.

I think that the first group will remain largely intact & grin & bear it.
Finally the 2nd group will be forced by logic and desperation to agree to nuclear.

Unfortunately I suspect we may see the collapse of our complex
society before we can get enough nuclear stations up & running and we
will all be looking for small farms.

I am looking at a net meter and have been watching the output of my cells.
At local noon I get over 1 kw from them and at 2pm it is down to
about 950 watts. By 4pm it is down to around 300 watts.
Now, our peak period is 2pm to 8pm so I miss the most productive
time to offset the peak rate. There is a good case to tilt the cells
to face the sun at about 3-30 to 4pm.
However if they face noon, I will get around four hours of 300 to
1000 watts to 300 watts, but at the shoulder rate.
I would like to install a sun follower so will work out the figures.
Do you know of a company that sells a sun follower ?
Would not be a major job to build one, two photocells an amp and motor.

Decisions decisions !

Hi Bazz, as a Green I for one do not believe "that renewables can keep us in business as usual", not if that business as usual means never ending growth in population, and the requirement that production keeps pace to compensate. The world cannot feed itself now at over 7 billion individuals, what does the future hold? Governments go into a flap every time growth drops off, even just a couple of percent. Knowing full well that without productivity growth disaster looms. The fact is the world is running out of resources rapidly, including fossil fuels. The time for real action was years ago, and we need to stop the politicking and get down to a united effort to solve these life and death issues. The present nonsense is not sustainable. 85% of people live in the third world, with little resources and no prospects for the future. The rest of us in the developed world are hell bent on conspicuous consumerism and imagine that through some magic of science all will be taken care of, all will be well! Not bloody likely!