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.