100% Renewable
There is much talk of this objective and indeed it will in the
long term be very necessary.
If Labour wins the election there will probably be a variety of
irreversible commitments made to implement 100% renewable electricity
generation.

So far as I have been able to ascertain there has been no
study to determine how many wind and solar farms will be needed and
where they must be located. Before even determining how many wind
generators and solar panels will be needed we need to determine where
they should be located.

What needs to be done to achieve this task is a major study of
wind systems over all of Australia. Then it will be necessary to
establish where the best locations are for solar farms taking into
account the differences imposed by time of year.

Once that data is obtained then it would be possible to test
virtual wind farms in all locations taking into account yearly
variations. While Bureau of Meteorology data would be a good starting
point only real data from weather stations installed for one or two
years would be valid.

This could be modeled in realtime and after a virtual network
of windfarms and solar farms was tested that gave a 100% availability
of electricity then the number of wind generators in each farm could be
established and also the number of panels in each solar farm could be determined.

To undertake the project this way would show that weather
stations in all the locations would be a lot cheaper than installing
the farms in the wrong locations anyway.

I am surprised that the importance of such knowledge to take advantage
of the size of Australia is not already underway. Countries such as
France had to turn to nuclear as France is too small for a 100 % renewable.
Once the information is available then the capacity of the required
grid can be calculated.

It all seems to be fundamental knowledge needed before spending money.

If manufacturing is to be maintained, there can never be 100% renewable energy; it simply isn't reliable enough. Yesterday, I read that manufacturers in Germany, which has been big on expensive and unreliable wind and solar, are moving their operations to the U.S where they are not as stupid as Germany has been.

There will never be 100% renewable energy, and whatever Labour comes up with CAN be overturned. Base load supply of coal, gas or nuclear will always be required

Bazz,
I think a few such studies have been done, but there are limits as to what central planning can do. Most of the time it's better to just let the market decide (as it already is) because it has the ability to react rapidly to changing technology and changing needs.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Renewables are no longer expensive; fossil fuels are.
Despite Germany's power being expensive, it is actually very reliable.
Wind and solar power are actually very reliable. What they aren't is dispatchable (but nor is the base load supply you stupidly claim we need).
Haven't you noticed Australia's investing in batteries and pumped storage to overcome this problem?

Bazz with true honest respect and I do respect you, this thread your view ANY WORLD GOVERNMENT will actively seek 100 percent renewables is fantasy
For the present time, and some time in to the future coal will have its [reduced ]part to play
Even if we let the truth about Nuclear power be heard, and used it, it could not, for decades be the only power source

Belly,
>your view ANY WORLD GOVERNMENT will actively seek 100 percent renewables is fantasy
Isn't Iceland a counterexample?

I think what we need to do secure the nations energy future goes beyond what our leaders are capable of achieving and we leave such a big and important task to the 'government of the day', little will be achieved.
We need a bigger better plan.

Firstly though, I want to explore a smaller plan.
Lets say I was to make a $5000 investment in a new energy business.
I'll fix the problem myself, starting with second hand panels and inverters.

Lets say my plan was to take all the old panels and inverters in the country when people upgrade their solar systems and put them to 'end of life' use - that is generate as much power out of that panel until it's output is so low it needs to be recycled.

$5000, from what I understand you can get second hand panels that still produce 90 - 95% power for around $40 each.
So 100 panels would cost about $4000
100 panels at 250w panel is a 25Kw system, and you'll need inverters, say 5 x 5kw inverters at $200 each.

Don't believe that's what they're worth, look.
http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/tewantin/caravan-campervan-accessories/solar-panel-inverter-for-5-kw/1202967985
http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/tingalpa/other-home-garden/21-190w-solar-panels-5kw-inverter/1200587135
http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/drewvale/other-home-garden/solar-panels-and-inverter/1201270634

If you get 10hrs sun a day, that's 250kwh worth of daily output.
Lets say we sell that power at 25c a Kwh, that's $62.50 day
- Enough to cover the costs of another panel / inverter; every day.
So in 10 days you dont have 100 panels anymore, you have 110 making 275kwh daily or + $68.75 day.

After a few weeks; 2 new second-hand panels a day.

What do you think the compounding effect is after a year?
Don't you think the government could start some initiative to get all these panels back?
- Tax deduction, paid per watt.
Don't you think we could find a way to make these systems portable and secure, taking them where they are needed and where infrastructure allows?
Don't you think we could put people on work for the dole doing something useful?

I think it's all incompetence; either we haven't tried hard enough, or haven't tried at all.