You are right on that one Belly, but for the wrong reason. The elites wanting world government have no interest in supplying the masses with electricity.

They obviously feel we have it far too good with cars, & houses with electricity, central heating & air conditioning. They want us back in windowless mud huts, with no windows, & our only transport our feet.

They are scared to death of us having the opportunity to do a Paris, & force them to give us what we want. With no power, communication or transport we couldn't frighten them.

The whole global warming hoax is the vehicle they are trying to use to that end.

“Renewables are no longer expensive; fossil fuels are”.

So why don't they stop subsidising renewables?

“Wind and solar power are actually very reliable”.

That's simply untrue. No wind: no power No sun: no power.

“What they aren't is dispatchable”.

Can't dispatch it: it's not available, let alone reliable.

“Haven't you noticed Australia's investing in batteries and pumped storage to overcome this problem?”

Yes. I have. We still haven't seen whether they will do the job or not. I understand the SA batteries will provide electricity for 8 minutes.

Aidan is ideologue and dogmatist. He also yabbers about 'sovereign debt’ and printing money! Not someone to be taken seriously. Rather than call other people's posts stupid, he needs to look in the mirror to know what real stupidity is.

Quote "Wind and solar power are actually very reliable." That statement is misleading, when taken broadly it is false.

It needs to be more geo specific in certain locations it may be so but in others it is not.

Solar power in Antarctica not very reliable, wind turbines in the middle of Australia probably not so good.

ttbn,
>So why don't they stop subsidising renewables?
As (I hope) you know by now, I have long been a critic of the system of subsidies. However they do have one extremely important effect: by ensuring more renewable generation infrastructure gets built, they drive down wholesale electricity prices. This effect now exceeds the cost of the subsidies. The more renewable electricity infrastructure gets built, the more it drives down prices, so if we're going to get anywhere near 100% renewables, some sort of economic incentive for more infrastructure will have to be provided.

>That's simply untrue. No wind: no power No sun: no power.
And we can rely on them to produce power when the wind's blowing and the sun's shining. Whereas old power stations are increasingly unreliable.

>Yes. I have. We still haven't seen whether they will do the job or not.
Yes we have. Pumped hydro has been working in Australia for decades, and the Hornsdale battery is already performing much better than expected.

>I understand the SA batteries will provide electricity for 8 minutes.
Then you completely misunderstand. It was never ever intended to be the state's sole power source.

>Aidan is ideologue and dogmatist.
No more than you are. But there are two big differences between our approaches: firstly, instead of instinctively dismissing big tasks as impossible, I look at how they could be done. Secondly, I'm willing to change my position if the evidence doesn't support it.

>He also yabbers about 'sovereign debt’ and printing money!
We often discuss economics on this board, and in those threads it is sensible to mention that Australia has almost none of the most hazardous kind of debt (sovereign debt) and the widespread belief that printing money is sufficient to cause hyperinflation is just a myth. Do you really think I should stay silent while others advocate harmful economic policies based on false assumptions?

>Not someone to be taken seriously.
Because my views contradict your biases?

My reason for today's post was an article I read by a US engineering
group who has done something like I suggest.
I reason that the way it is going now companies are installing
windfarms and solar where they THINK they will get good yearly output.
However that is not the objective. The objective is to have a network
of generators that can supplement each other as the wind varies in
different geographical areas. The solar farms need to be spread out
east to west to lengthen the days output and cloud records permitting
they should be a little north of the Tropic of Capricorn.

The way they are being installed now we will have either a feast or a famine.
The US study decided that to take advantage of the size of the US &
get the best wind output they would need 15,000 wind and solar farms.
While the load is greater in the US other parameters are about the
same except Australia is closer to the equator,
So while not taking into account that wind patterns may be different
in the US it is a reasonable assumption that we will need 15,000
wind & solar farms and a grid capable of servicing all parts of
the country. The cost of such a grid may exceed the cost of the
wind & solar farms.
However we will never know if we continue on this suck it & see course.

Hasbeen there is a force wanting and working toward one world
But silly conspiracy's stop most from believing it
Aiden yes got it wrong
But if it was possible to go 100 percent right now? an over night collapse of the economy as fossil fuel owners went bankrupt.
In any case it is not
do not under estimate battery storage
A group of like minded ham radio operators, my self included, are proving it works
Armchair critic, our first battery's came from remote telecom sites, after being replaced, some are still good ten years after we got them [second hand then]
Storms have seen power outages all around, I switch on my inverted and have power for TV lights and a bit more from six 80 am hour battery's
plus my roof top eight panels feeding back in to the grid