After 20 years of taxpayer/consumer subsidies, renewables have finally hit a mere 3.6% contribution to the energy supply (only when the wind blows and the sun shines, of course). Yes, the other 96.4% is still provided by fossil fuels, even though around $79 billion in subsidies has been wasted globally since 2012.

Why don't you post the link to your articles?

I come only to highlight I stay away from your threads, think so very differently than you on any subject and to ask once only, can we be civil to each other? can you please stay away from mine, and if we cross paths in other threads can you lift your game?

What a waste of money.
79 billion could've done wonders for our nation if spent wisely.

Oops my mistake 'globally', not 'nationally'.
It did seem like a lot...

It's not often I mess up but I surely did this time.

A couple of things. The fossil fuels are a finite
source. Sooner or later they will run out unless an
early start is made to develop and build solar, wind,
and wave energy provisions. Grim reality will hit us
probably in the next century. Doing this is of course
politically difficult as the economic interests behind
the fossil fuel industries as a powerful political lobby
that is reluctant of commit the necessary resources to the
task.However, the longer we wait, the more expensive it
will become.

"The fossil fuels are a finite source. Sooner or later they will run out "

Well perhaps. On the other hand, since we've never ever run out of a resource, history might tell us otherwise.

But at least we are making some progress. It used to be that we were told we'd run out of oil in 10 years time. Even the optimistic estiamtes in the 1970s said we'd run out by 2000. But, at the moment we have more known reserves of oil and coal than at any time in our history.

At least Foxy's on the right track..." Grim reality will hit us
probably in the next century." Well not us but peoples whose grandparents haven't been born yet. On the other hand, other estimates see us having enough oil to last to 2150 and enough coal to last to 2400.

Those who think that people from those times will be still using oil and coal by then, just haven't been paying attention to the last 300 years. I'd opine that by 2150 our descendants will be using some energy source that hasn't even been imagined yet and their kids will be giggling that their idiot ancestors from the early 21st century thought they needed to waste money on wind and solar for the good of their great great grandkids.

"However, the longer we wait, the more expensive it
will become."

Based on estimates from the IPCC, our descendants in 2100AD will be 6 to 8 times richer than us. Nigerians will be richer than present days Americans. Even if energy is more expensive then, (in total contradiction to our experience over the last 3 centuries ) they'll be easily able to afford it. That's provided we don't utterly destroy our economy and their future by allowing the carpetbaggers to take us for a ride.

Belly,

That's the fourth time you have said that you are not going to communicate with me. You can't be believed on anything. If anyone should 'lift' his game it is you. Your lack of ability to write English and make sense is embarrassing.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

"I'd opine that by 2150 our descendants will be using some energy source that hasn't even been imagined yet and their kids will be giggling that their idiot ancestors from the early 21st century thought they needed to waste money on wind and solar for the good of their great great grandkids."

And when gazing into that crystal ball of yours where do you see sea levels being?

Renewables plus gas will ensure sea levels continue to rise. Renewables plus storage, i.e. 100% renewables, is fantasy.

If we are serious about reducing emissions, enough to significantly mitigate matters, there is but one solution, nuclear, and especially SMR's. These will load follow existent renewables and displace their share as they fail.

Significant investment in new generation should be saved until mid-2030 for the first arrival in Oz of SMR's. There is no point in a non-nuclear approach in the interim, not renewables plus OCGT, not CCGT, not HELE, all are delusional. We must legalize nuclear within 5 years, IMO, to ensure its path is clear.

ttbn,
Firstly, what's your source?
Secondly, are you absolutely sure it includes all renewables? For example, I've seen hydro classified separately before - and likewise for biofuels.

Thirdly, your claim that "the other 96.4% is still provided by fossil fuels" is certainly wrong, because it ignores the contribution of nuclear power. I've read elsewhere that this supplies about 2% of world energy needs.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,
Renewables plus storage is no more a fantasy than reliance on SMRs. It is far more likely that in the Australian context, power from renewables will be so cheap by 2030 that SMRs will be uneconomic.

You diss renewables plus gas because of rising sea levels, but then advocate the far more carbon intensive policy of freezing significant investment in generation until mid 2030. Such a freeze would result in a large increase in electricity prices. We have to start tackling these issues now - we can't wait for SMRs.

https://www.masterresource.org/wind-power/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-v-calculator-update/

The above interesting article concludes, "What emerges from this analysis is that in electricity systems that must choose among fossil fuel-fired means of integrating wind volatility, no plausible scenario seems to exist where wind can play a positive role as the means to achieve fossil fuel or greenhouse gas emissions savings."

It's saying that wind and gas must be paired for reliable electricity dispatch. Because load following makes for inefficient gas-burning in OCGTs, the emissions are more than burning gas in CCGTs alone, i.e. gas alone can produce less CO2 than wind energy plus gas.

Presumably the situation doesn't improve for solar.

Those claiming the renewables plus gas package to be the bridge to 100% renewables, believe in feasible storage solutions that haven't been invented. Any step on this path is a completely pointless act and a waste of resources that can be expended on the only true solution to mitigating AGW.

An article (below) concludes,"Replacing coal by gas for energy production will not solve the climate problem. At best it is an interim measure, and even then of dubious benefit for the climate system..."

https://www.atse.org.au/content/publications/media-releases/2015/warming-will-increase-by-transitioning-from-coal-to-gas.aspx

If Labor wins the next election it will push down the pointless 100% renewables path. If the Coalition wins there is some possibility for nuclear as I do not believe it is wedded to coal so much as it is to energy affordability. SMR's will bring clean energy and affordability, and the Coalition is the only party likely to tackle legalizing nuclear.

Luciferase,
Your first link is just another example of GIGO. We can see it's possible to contrive a negative overall effect from wind power by assuming it sends everything else into load following mode. But in reality there will always need to be some generation in load following mode even without any wind or solar power connected - and connecting it won't increase that much and may not increase it at all.

There will be some effect on efficiency, as there is a slight shift in favour of OCGT, though nowhere near enough to negate the benefits. But if storage is added, it will shift the balance in favour of CCGT.

Your second link is far more sensible. Ultimately renewables plus gas won't be enough (I think we can both agree to that) and we have to be carful that gas leaks from increased gas usage won't destroy the benefits. Don't forget, though, that coal mines are a major source of methane leaks.

Your claim that "Those claiming the renewables plus gas package to be the bridge to 100% renewables, believe in feasible storage solutions that haven't been invented" is at best misleading. It is very likely that in future we will make use of storage technology that doesn't even work in the lab at the moment. But such technology isn't a technical requirement to get to 100% renewables - it's just a way of making it cheaper.

Nearly half the Libs, and more than half the Nats, are wedded to coal, but new build coal power is no longer cost effective. And nuclear is not a cheap option either.

SR,

"And when gazing into that crystal ball of yours where do you see sea levels being?"

In the sea.

...oh you mean height.

Well IPCC says worst case is around 1 metre higher than 1990. That's possible if temperatures continue to rise as they project...but their projections have so far been woefully inaccurate.

So let's say somewhere between 0 and 1 metre.

On the other hand, there are any number of scientists who are predicting a return to LIA conditions during this century. Such a scenario pushes us into negative territory vis a vis sea levels.

Anticipating your response, let's point out again that the IPCC projections include the projection that our great grandkids will be many times wealthier than us and will therefore be well able to afford to mitigate whatever small sea level increases occur.

Dear mhaze,

You say;

“Well IPCC says worst case is around 1 metre higher than 1990. That's possible if temperatures continue to rise as they project...but their projections have so far been woefully inaccurate.”

I know it is temperature rather than sea levels but I was looking at a site the other day which did a bit of hindcasting on the various climate predictions over the last 50 odd years and found they had been pretty accurate, particularly Hansen given what he had to work with.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

For all the flack these guys get they have done a really solid job.

Good, Aidan, you've come along, acknowledging the terminal deficiency of renewables plus gas to beat AGW while clinging like a limpet to your feasible storage dream.

Keep believing in the Storage Fairy while remaining studiously blind to SMR applicability to Oz quite soon. And look, no leaks!

I wish people would stop over stating things in an attempt to make their point.
All it does is turn people away from them or their comments as they might be seen as not worth reading.
One such claim keeps appearing, much to my frustration.
That is the claim on sea levels rising.
I have listened to, and read, many comments on how the ice and glaciers will be the biggest contributors to this assumption.
I have had to refute such claims as,'the oceans will rise to heights of 6 or 7 metres'.
I have explained why this is not possible and yet we still get these outrageous numbers.
After having as close a look as I dare, to the numbers, I am pressed to imagine that the oceans will rise any more than a coupe of inches.
People say there is a lot of ice and snow.
I say there is a 'massively greater amount of water', and I don't mean volume.
I mean area.
So even though renewables is a wonderful fantasy, for the time being, it is still a fantasy.
We cannot afford to wait any longer.
As I do not follow the flock of climate change believers, but follow the facts, I do not shy away from the fact that mankind has been a contributor to this situation, but, I will never agree to the arrogant assumption that it is ALL the fault of man.
If we go they way of nuclear, we stand a chance.
If we go the way of hydro, we also stand a chance, except not the way of Snowy II.
If we go hydro, it must be a true gravity fed system, not one that uses more energy to pump the water back up to the reservoir than it produces when the water comes back down through the turbines.
Snowy II is such a great con, it is on the same page as all the renewables.
Renewables might play a role in FUTURE power generation, but not now and definitely not with the means on offer at present.

SR,

Believe CarbonBrief if that's your want but they are so heavily ensconced in the alarmist camp that accepting what they say is tantamount to accepting what the Vatican says about the possibility of putting two of each species on a boat.

They are fudging to convince those who want to be convinced. Just some of the tricks. Throughout they compare the projected data to various official temperature records and also to some of the more creative adjustments to official temperature records. But not once do they compare with satellite records which aren't even mentioned. This is because doing so would weaken their perceived conclusion.

Additionally they pick and choose which projection to use. For example the IPCC makes 4 summary projections based on their 4 RCP. But they say they've used the mean. Which mean they don't explain but its certainly not the mean of the 4 projections. Without spending an hour or two I can't identify the fudge. But that there is a fudge is clear.

But this is par for the coarse in climate alarmism. When the projections are made they shout about the scariest of those projections. But when the projection is checked they use the least scary to claim they were right. eg AR4 made all sorts of scary claims in 2000 aimed at keeping the scare going. But in fact temperatures have barely moved since then and so they now use the least scare to compare and say they were right. But what would have happened had they, in 2000, come out and said there'd be a barely measureable increase in temperatures over the next two decades. End of scare. We'd have saved a hell of a lot of money not bothering to subsidise so-called renewables and the round-robin of PMs might have been avoided.

Global warmers climate scammers please explain this.

Around the coastline of Australia are rocks marked at the highest tide by a British scientific expedition at the start of the 1900s at points remain exposed at highest tide today.

High tide marks at Port Arthur Tasmania and in Sydney Harbour at Fort Denison too.

I doubt if anybody denies that the planet has a finite
amount of resources or that it can tolerate only a
limited amount of pollution. If we continue doing
what we're currently doing - changes may not happen
within our life-times bu they will happen. If world
population continues to grow rapidly, if industrialisation
spreads around the world, and if pollution and resource
depletion continues at an increasing rate - we need to
ask ourselves - where is human society heading?

I've stated previously that the most optimistic answer to
these questions would be that, one way or another,
sweeping social changes await us.

Those only interested in their own life-spans and
not in our future generations - keep supporting the vested
interests to continue to do what they are doing. The hell
with the future. You won't be around to see it.

meanwhile Michael Moore and Flannery have scammed the public and continue to make idiotic false and failed predictions.

Luciferase,
"Keep believing in the Storage Fairy..."

That sums up your arrogance and stupidity! You make heroic assumptions about the cost and capability of SMRs, while simultaneously likening the belief that there will be improvements in storage technology to belief in fairies!

Renewables plus gas was aways going to be a transitional arrangement rather than the ultimate solution (except maybe if excess electricity is used to synthesise gas). And we do have to be careful to avoid gas leaks (which are easily detectable with infrared laser technology). But it need not even result in more gas being used than is at present. And it has great potential for big reductions in emissions sooner - but it's not your favoured solution, so you assume it to be worthless.

_________________________________________________________________________________

ALTRAV,
You seem to be unaware of the reasoning behind claims that the oceans will rise a few metres. Regardless of how much water's in them, thermal expansion will increase their volume, causing them to rise. It's a slow process, but that also means it's slow to stop.

Well, I say it's a slow process, but that's relative. It's still faster than the melting of ice sheets, which (due to their great thickness) could result in a much bigger rise in sea levels if they ever melt.

WTF do you mean by "a fantasy" when you describe renewables?
Your dismissal of pumped storage indicates you're totally clueless as to what our requirements are.
Renewables are ALREADY playing a major role in power generation, and that role is increasing rapidly.

"I doubt if anybody denies that the planet has a finite amount of resources "

The world's resources are finite in only the most esoteric sense. There is no chance that we'll run out of any resources in even the long term future. Even at current rates we have coal and oil and gas enough to keep us going for centuries.

We've never run out of a resource. there's no reason to think we ever will.

" that it can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution."

The solution to the perceived pollution problem is economic growth. Pollution isn't a problem in rich countries. Its only a problem, and probably a passing problem, in poor and developing countries. Beijing 2018 is LA 1968. Beijing 2058 will be LA 2018.
Unless they fall back into economic stagnation.

So if you fret about pollution, cheer economic growth.

"and resource depletion continues at an increasing rate"

What resources are being depleted?

I'm no hero. Here's one of many SMR's coming that one municipality is already planning to load follow renewables. Read all about it, and more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/06/22/nuscales-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-reliable-resilient-and-flexible/#5cf6a12c1139

Enough piss'n'wind. Show me the money. Where is the great storage hope? You've got nothing, and there is nothing in the wind that's viable in the timeframe we have to mitigate AGW.

Come out of the closet, Aidan, you're just another antinuke, nothing special, who believes in the Storage Fairy.

"Only politicians could think it’s a good idea to spend billions of dollars pumping water uphill to generate electricity in a land with enough coal to last 1,000 years. Yet that is exactly what the federal government is doing" (Daniel Wild,researcher, CIS).

//I have listened to, and read, many comments on how the ice and glaciers will be the biggest contributors to this assumption.
I have had to refute such claims as,'the oceans will rise to heights of 6 or 7 metres'.
I have explained why this is not possible and yet we still get these outrageous numbers.//

You have explained sweet FA, ALTRAV. Remember the last time we danced this little waltz, and you ended up admitting:

//Look I accept that your math's seem to corroborate your position.
I cannot and therefore will not attempt to justify my mine.//

and

//I suppose it ultimately, (I know you will scoff), comes down to it simply being my opinion based loosely on very 'loose' information.//

Because I do. Look, here's the link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8299#259618

Toni just because I don't have actual knowledge of the ocean levels in the future, does not mean I am wrong.
I've said previously, that I choose not to believe the science.
You can do all the numbers you want and in the end they could turn out wrong, as has always been the case.
Science is not a real and actual proof of anything, until it is proven.
Now as you fail to subscribe to the OLO mantra, which is 'On Line OPINIONS', I stand by my opinions and refute YOUR alleged facts.
Apparently you are on the wrong forum.
Until ALL the experts agree, there is no way I'm going to jump off the cliff because some un-informed, mis-informed people think I should.
No I need consensus.
Toni, surely even you must have some reservations about all this.
There is just too much money being bandied around for it to be a 'done deal'.
But anyway carry on and time is slowly debunking various CC claims.
While we are trying to mitigate CC we just might see things are not as bad as they are being promoted.
Here's hoping.

Luciferase,
Yes, you're no hero. But you assume SMRs to be heroic. It's possible everything could go your way and SMRs could come as soon, and be as cheap and reliable as you expect. But nuclear power has a long history of overpraising and underdelivering, so it makes sense to be skeptical of proponents' claims. FWIW I'd like to see them succeed; there is a great need for them, particularly in Europe.

>Where is the great storage hope?
Kidston (Queensland) will probably be the next significant one, but there are several others planned.

>You've got nothing,
Shouldn't you wait for answers before making that accusation?

>and there is nothing in the wind that's viable in the timeframe we have to mitigate AGW.
And what do you think the timeframe is? I ask because you seem to think failing to take action before 2030 is acceptable!

__________________________________________________________________________________

ALTRAV,
If you ignore the science, and instead base your opinions on what you would like to be true, your opinions are worthless.

Aidan, I can't remember but their has been enough debunking of past theories that should make people question the science.
Vested interests have made a living out of scaremongering and they do it well.
They know the public's weaknesses and so they prey on them to their advantage and profit.
The Y2000 bug, to name one.
It's a shame there is not a department that comes back after something has been debunked and punishes those who have pushed a false agenda, and profited from it.
As for nuclear, I have no memory of overpricing and under delivering.
It must have been while I was away, on a parallel universe.
Now I've left the best till last.
As it appears I am not as smart as I believe I am, I would like someone to explain to me why it's not a moronic idea to use power to pump water up a hill, just so it can be allowed to flow down and power a turbine.
I'm only employing basic technology, but as I remember you cannot get more power out of something than you put in, if not just through friction and other losses.
So spending money to supply the power to pump water up a hill just so it can flow down through a water/turbine powered generator.
It's ridiculous.
The reason Snowy I turbines are so successful is that nature puts the water in the reservoir and therefore it costs nothing, gravity or nature, again does the rest.
All for free, and that's why it's viable and Snowy II is not.

dear dear Belly feeling a little delicate

Altrav,
"... I would like someone to explain to me why it's not a moronic idea to use power to pump water up a hill, just so it can be allowed to flow down and power a turbine.
I'm only employing basic technology, but as I remember you cannot get more power out of something than you put in, if not just through friction and other losses.
So spending money to supply the power to pump water up a hill just so it can flow down through a water/turbine powered generator.
It's ridiculous"

I believe that the water is pumped uphill during times when there is less demand for power, and the available power is, therefore, worth less than the energy obtained by pumping the water up and creating a reserve of water power.

ALTRAV,
By all means question the science - but don't ignore the answers! And don't assume the scientists to be ignorant of what you know - if you investigate further, you'll almost certainly find either that the scientists have known about it for decades, or the reason why what you think you know is wrong.

And remember, the scientists were not the ones scaremongering.

I suggest you watch a documentary on the nuclear power industry if you've no memory of them overpromising and under delivering - it's been that way from the start, and tends to repeat every time a new type of reactor is developed.

If you look at http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#price-demand you'll see there are huge variations in electricity prices throughout the day. Pumped storage consumes electricity when it's cheap, and produces it when it's needed. You could say it turns cheap electricity into expensive electricity while making the expensive electricity much cheaper!

The Vale Point coal powered plant, built in 1978, is still making a profit; it has a capacity of 1320 MW. People in the know say that a $750 million makeover would see it still producing electricity in 2049.

In South Australia, however, Labour blew up the last coal powered station, and spent $650 million on a solar that produces a mere 150 MW SOME OF THE TIME.

It's not hard to pick the idiots.

ttbn,
Unlike Vale Point, SA's coal fired power stations were economically marginal, and the coal mine had reached the end of its economic life. And it was Alinta, not Labor, which blew up the last one. Labor's big mistake was failing to get a solar thermal power station built at Port Augusta before the last coal fired one closed.

And where did you get the $650 million and 150MW figures from?

Kidston Schmidston, a hugely subsidized rent-seekers' paradise with hundreds of K's of transmission lines required to get electricity anywhere. Its projected success is also predicated on higher peak power prices to be brought about by base-load closures. If viability depends on gullible public policy, and a nuclear ban, Kidston's a winner. Furthermore, Kidston's happenstance through mining and topography, is not a template for mass application.

Not one renewables project, but for a bit of solar on rooves of sufficiently wealthy enthusiasts and/or the isolated, would get past first base on viability grounds but for the taxpayer and cross-subsidies.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“But not once do they compare with satellite records which aren't even mentioned.”

What on earth are you talking about?

Here is a comparison of surface and satellite data that Carbonbrief did.

They are hardly hiding anything.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-surface-and-satellite-temperature-records-compare

Their graphs appear to have hover data points which is something I never see on denialist sites.

Nothing I have read so far reveals them to be anything but straight up.

Quote "I would like someone to explain to me why it's not a moronic idea to use power to pump water up a hill, just so it can be allowed to flow down and power a turbine."

In times of drought what will you pump up hill NOTHING.

There is another version which is not prone to this problem, it has train lines going up a hill at a on the tracks are large motor/ generators motor up the hill on excess output of electricity when you need electricity send it down the hill.

Here's something readable by all.....

https://epc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ReliableAffordableElectricPowerGeneration_Booklet.pdf

I think pumping water up hill probably went with Turnbull. It would have worked as well as pushing sh-t up hill with a pointy stick.

I heard a podcast this morning with Alan Jones interviewing the Resources Minister. Canavan assured Jones that the Paris agreement DID NOT 'bind us to anything'. But, when asked that if that were true,why don't they rip the damn thing up, he didn't have an answer, but just said that it can't stop us building coal powered electricity plants. Unfortunately, we have climate hysterics to stop that happening.

A couple of points;
Foxy is right eventually oil, coal & gas will not be available.
In early 20th century ERoEI of coal was 80. Today around 10.
In early 20th century ERoEI of oil was 100. Today around 10.
It will take quite a while before there is no point in getting it out
of the ground. That point is ERoEI around 7.

Hydro pumping is like a battery with about the same 30% losses.
100% renewable seems like fantasy land.
It would cost too much because of multiplication of wind and solar
installation to cover wx variations. On top of that a very high
capacity grid is need to cover Australia 100%.

ttbn,

"I think pumping water up hill probably went with Turnbull. It would have worked as well as pushing sh-t up hill with a pointy stick."

Pumping water uphill is alive and well and is already in use in Australia and has been for years.

"Pumped storage is the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage available, and, as of 2017, the United States Department of Energy Global Energy Storage Database reports that PSH accounts for over 95% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide, with a total installed nameplate capacity of over 184 GW, of which about 25 GW are in the United States.[3] The round-trip energy efficiency of PSH varies between 70%–80%"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
see also:

"Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) is a hydroelectric energy storage system that utilises gravitational potential energy of water. In its simplest form, it will involve two reservoirs, one at a higher elevation to the other. During periods where low-cost energy is being generated, usually through wind or solar generation, energy is used to pump water up to the top reservoir. At times, where energy costs are highest, or otherwise when energy is required, water is released back down to the lower reservoir through turbines, thereby generating energy.

ANU engineering professor Andrew Blakers has conducted a study looking into pumped hydro sites and has concluded that there are at least 22,000 suitable locations nationwide

Professor Blakers said if storage was built at just a tiny fraction of those places, Australia could transition to 100 per cent renewable power within two decades.

“No matter where you are in Australia, you will find a good pumped hydro site not very far away from where you, or your wind or your solar farm is located,” he said.".
http://www.energystoragedirect.com.au/renewable-energy/pumped-hydro-energy-storage-future/

Try this too, Issy: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58254e216a496325c2d90145/t/58b80ccd9de4bbe99bd309cb/1488456957086/Blakers+et+al+review.pdf

This works better:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/58254e216a496325c2d90145/t/58b80ccd9de4bbe99bd309cb/1488456957086/Blakers+et+al+review.pdf

Bazz,

It has been estimated that we have enough coal for a thousand years. As for oil, we really need to start coal-to-oil operations. The fact that we don't even keep the agreed amount of fuel in reserve (there's a lot of pious palaver about keeping commitments that we sign up to, but it doesn't apply to the fuel agreement apparently) means that we would be in peril if China interfered with our supplies from Singapore.

Luciferase,

Thanks for that it's very informative; I was mainly pointing out that pumping water uphill is not only feasible but already in use.

Personally, I'm all for coal and gas.

I don't know.
I'm just not feeling it.
I can't shake the feeling that we're trying to push a square peg through a round hole by pushing for renewables.
I don't see the reliability.
I don't see the performance of all the old tried and true systems being matched or exceeded.
I certainly don't see any cost benefits, especially on reliability.
In all this time I have not read one word about 'duty cycles'.
The words are at the heart of ALL the things we use and take for granted.
So most of all I do not see the duty cycles of renewables matching or exceeding the old tried and true methods of old.
As for us running out of the old fuel sources, I think we have a long time to go yet.
So much time in fact that if we don't stop the govt and their thieving mates from stealing the money allocated for the development of 'real' and practical renewables, we will be using fossil fuels for much longer than the fantasists would like.
So let's begin by getting rid of the greens and work our way through the rest, one by one, until we end up with people who genuinely want to see a new source of power generation.
Not necessarily renewables or what is being pushed at present.
We know there are alternatives.
Forget the crappy wind and sun.
They're as reliable as 'tits on a bull'.
Give some research money to salt thorium.
Allan where are you?
Keep pumping your salt reactor concept, someone has got to get curious enough to either try it and go, or knock it back.
At least we will know once and for all.
I know the concept exceeds any and all the feeble and pathetic current offerings of wind and sun.

Anything is theoretically feasible within the laws of physics, Issy. Not everything is viable. Blakers claims both using PHES.

Is 100% renewables viable? Depends on priorities. Do you want to be internationally competitive, attracting sufficient investment, with strong health, education and welfare systems, strong defense, etc.?

It would cost this country a monza while countries we compete against, who go thermal baseload, eat our oats. We would sell enough furniture and dirt to keep our head above water, while our economic pie shrinks and sharing it becomes increasingly challenging.

ttbn, ERoEI = Energy Return on Energy Invested.
It is about whether you have to put in as much or more energy than you get out.
It does not matter how much coal you have, if it takes more energy to
get it than you get out of it, then there is no point.
Australia is in a lucky position, but the rest of the world is not so lucky.
China is already there, and the US is getting close.
Interestingly updated info is hard to find.
With oil the fact that tight oil has become so important shows how
close the US is to 7.

Pumped hydro does work but there is one thing to remember and the
catch is in a renewable system the reservoir has,like a battery have to be recharged.
When and where do you get the electricity to recharge it ?
The system will be already under load when you need to recharge.
Like a two armed juggler with three balls in the air.

Yes Altrav you are right to doubt the feasibility of a 100% renewable
system. No one advocating 100%, or even 50% ever discusses how many
sequential overcast still days their proposal caters for.
The cost for catering for even two days makes the system very expensive.
That question results in a solution that requires geographical
distribution to take advantage of different weather systems, but that
dramatically increases the number of wind & solar farms.
Additionally it requires a very high capacity grid over the whole country.
Much money and high electricity bills, very high bills.

Bazz,
Your obsession with EROEI is stupid. The arbitrary threshold of 7 holds no actual significance.

What really counts is net energy return on money invested.

____________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
The "enough coal for a thousand years claim is based on current rates of usage. If we turned large amounts of it to oil, it wouldn't last nearly as long.

But considering how much the burning of coal affects our atmosphere, it would be far better to leave it in the ground. We should instead use electricity (from solar power) to synthesise hydrocarbons from CO2 - or perhaps use single celled plants to produce oil.

Have a dekko at this,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6139773/Solar-farms-wind-turbines-Sahara-desert-increase-vegetation-rain-region.html

Wind and solar can solve all problems!!

Is Mise - Problems overlooked now not much rain so few clouds rain comes from clouds solar panels don't like clouds (don't work very good)

Also assume the change from global warming now climate change gee what happens to your power if that change was LESS wind oh no wind turbines won't work now.

Hundreds of billion of $ and no power.
Is Mise on a bicycle with a generator that picture will be priceless

Issy, not ALL problems.
In fact very few.
The example you link could work.
In the Sahara!
Wind and sun are too unreliable, normally, and will badly affect their duty cycle.
We need continual, constant power generation to have any chance at a system that even comes close to the duty of care and performance expected of it!

Sorry, correction, I should have added; the current suite of renewables are not yet fit for purpose.

One other factor many people advocating wind & solar at high percentage
do not take into account is the effects of unreliability.
They say that we do not need "Gold Plating" of electricity.
They advocate every house have batteries. Good idea actually.
However it means that EVERY building over three floors will immediately
be devalued by perhaps 75% or some even 100%.
Think think think, I can hear the cogs ticking over.

Philip S,

"Is Mise on a bicycle with a generator that picture will be priceless"

I already do, I have an exercise bike that drives a generator to help charge batteries for our 'night light' system.

Got the idea years ago at a commune in the Bellinger Valley (NSW) where they had a system that required those who wished to watch TV at night did a stint of pedalling on the generator bike during the day.

Their main power came from a bank of batteries (recycled car batteries) that were charged by a floating water wheel in the local river.

Bazz,
"One other factor many people advocating wind & solar at high percentage
do not take into account is the effects of unreliability."

There's a very good reason for that:
Unlike you, they're not so stupid that they assume that using wind and solar at a high percentage means having a less reliable electricity supply.

"They say that we do not need 'Gold Plating' of electricity."

Don't you even understand that the "gold plating" of electricity infrastructure meant its owners making it cost far more than it should due to the incompetent regulation authorities effectively letting them charge their customers on a cost plus percentage basis?

"They advocate every house have batteries. Good idea actually."

No, that's actually a bad idea. We certainly need more batteries, but having them in individual houses only really makes sense when it can be used to avoid infrastructure upgrades. Elsewhere it's better to pursue economies of scale.

"However it means that EVERY building over three floors will immediately
be devalued by perhaps 75% or some even 100%."

Struth, what a huge non sequiter! You seem to be assuming both an unreliable supply and a lack of batteries in the buildings.

//Their main power came from a bank of batteries (recycled car batteries) that were charged by a floating water wheel in the local river.//

Water wheels are wonderful pieces of technology, but they run on water and we live in Australia where water is less abundant than it is many countries.

We do have quite a lot of yellowcake, though... just sayin'. Also quite a lot of coal, but I'm of the opinion that mankind should save their coal so they have it to make steel with into the future, and look to nuclear (and hydro, where the geography is suitable) for baseload power generation.

Further to producing rain in the Sahara,

http://sciencing.com/average-yearly-rainfall-sahara-desert-5097814.html

Seems that if the rainfall in the Sahara was doubled it wouldn't make a measurable difference.

Don't show your ignorance Aiden.

You seem to be having a bit of pronoun trouble there, Bazz!