nicknamenick,
There have certainly been lots of market failures in the NEM, and as I wrote on another thread, more government participation is likely to be the best solution.

That does not alter the fact that a market economy does not require central planning to determine what the next big industry will be.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
"It does not seem to be understood that have to have 100% base load
generators as well"
Why do you persist with this lie?

The amount of backup capacity needed is unrelated to baseload demand. And it certainly doesn't have to be from power stations so crap at varying their output that they have to be dedicated to providing baseload supply.

As for how much storage is needed: calm overcast days are rare, and they're certainly not the conditions with the highest demand. And there is scope for demand management as well. It's really a case of Cross That Bridge When You Come To It. We don't yet know what we'll require, but it's unlikely to be a significant constraint until renewables supply well above 50% of demand.

Aidan,

What drivel, you clearly have no idea. Given the huge damage done to the economy each time there is an unplanned outage, the minimum requirements for a network should be:

To meet peak load requirement under all normal circumstances assuming that at least one generation source is incapacitated or out for maintenance. Note that peak demand normally occurs between 5-8pm when there no solar and low wind conditions are considered normal operating conditions.

In this capacity SA failed miserably. SA labor created the conditions under which the cheapest and most reliable power generators had to run under conditions which maximised their costs and minimised their revenue forcing their closure. The inevitable result is that SA has the most expensive and unreliable power in the country, and probably the OECD.

There is no wonder businesses are fleeing.

All that you need is a wonderful Teslar Generator.

See:http://tesla-energy.org/

Here is the reality for the SA economy:

"The heads of some of the nation’s biggest companies have blasted the chaotic state of the power grid with one, BHP Billiton chief executive Andrew Mackenzie, warning the nation’s renewable energy schemes could raise costs and reduce power security while having no impact on emissions.

The head of the world’s biggest miner has warned that a long-term expansion of Olympic Dam may not go ahead if power security and costs are not ­addressed and this will probably need carbon capture and storage if emissions cuts are also wanted.

BHP Billiton took a $US105 million ($137m) cost hit at the Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine in South Australia after recent blackouts.

“Let’s talk about affordability, reliability and emissions reduction, as opposed to having some secondary target about just having more renewables, which might deny you all three,” Mr Mackenzie said in London last night after releasing a first-half profit of $US3.2 billion ($4.15bn).

“We have lost $US100m in this period because of the intermit­tency of power in South Australia, and also we are facing more ­expensive electricity, frankly, than we budgeted for at this time last year.”

Mr Mackenzie warned that the ­nation’s unreliable power infrastructure could stop a planned ­expansion of Olympic Dam."

Oh Aiden, don't be silly !
EVERYDAY at 5PM there is NO solar output. (winter of course)
If it is a still period, or even light winds then without 100% backup
there is not enough generation of electricity to avoid load shedding !
Do you understand that ?
I would have thought that was obvious !
This situation WOULD occur every day at sunset even if there was 100% solar & wind.
Ask a sailor, the wind dies at sunset EVERY day.
I have had to motor back to my mooring enough times to know that.

What a shame that SA didn't connect to the NSW grid as was planned years ago.

Instead the then-Government decided not to spend the $80million needed (now about a billion dollars) and privatise it instead to make a quick buck and just leave the problem for the new owners and consumers.

Also, the president of the World Bank recently stated that it was crazy that governments were still driving the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies.

Meanwhile Malcolm Turnbull subsidises the fossil fuel industry with (according to IMF estimates) $1,712 per Australian a year, or $41 billion of taxpayer funds.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-still-subsidising-fossil-fuels-at-rate-of-1712-per-person-a-year-33164/

This includes exploration funding for Geoscience Australia and tax deductions for mining and petroleum exploration.

The IMF calculates that Australians subsidisation of the fossil fuel industry account for hidden adverse costs spread out across the states and the ATO that ultimately come out of taxpayers’ pockets.

It's known that "clean" coal is just a marketing con but the idea that "cheap" coal exists as a permanent solution is also as misleading.