Interesting isn't it.

When Steely can't refute the solid facts from a poster, we find him attacking the messenger for not referencing where the facts came from.

Steely appeals to authority are an acknowledgement that the poster doesn't understand the subject. Perhaps that is why most lefty posts are full of them.

Fester,
In terms of refusing to let facts cloud their ideology, the right tend to be even worse than the left.

Regarding your baker analogy, why limit yourself to one baker? If one fast baker is a hundred times as productive as one slow baker, wouldn't a better comparison be between one fast baker and a hundred slow bakers?

Which SMH article are you referring to? If it's the one abut the CSIRO study, it said the exact opposite of what you're claiming, as you're wrongly applying capacity factors to the figures (whereas if you'd bothered to read the study, you'd see that the figures relate to output not capacity.

If it's the one about the proposed offshore windfarm for South Gippsland, please note the following:
•Offshore wind farms are more expensive than their land based counterparts, but tend to have much higher capacity factors.
•The $8 billion price tag sounds a lot, but 2 gigawatts for 8 gigabucks is only $4/W.
•It's only a proposal. If it's not economically viable, it won't get built.
•You can find a bit more information about it at: http://www.starofthesouth.com.au

___________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,
>Green logic is that since Iceland (geothermal) and Norway (hydro) run on a constant supply of
>renewable energy the rest of the world should be able to run on intermittent renewable energy.
No, that's not green logic, that's anti green propaganda.

>Great to see Iceland getting a mention again, thanks Aidan.
It was the answer to the question that was asked. Do you think I should've lied or ignored the question? If you read my answer properly, you'll notice I commented on the irrelevance of both the answer and the question!

And failing to mention Germany's primary objective when discussing the success or failure of their renewables policy is a bit deceptive IMO.
___________________________________________________________________________________

SteeleRedux,

Stop whinging about Luciferase's research. Nuclear industry lobbyists are better sources of information than the politicians that many others here blindly swallow the lies of. If you object, challenge the content not the source!

<why limit yourself to one baker? If one fast baker is a hundred times as productive as one slow baker, wouldn't a better comparison be between one fast baker and a hundred slow bakers?>

That is 100 CSIRO reactors using 100 times the quantity of hydrogen as one Haber plant to generate ammonia at the same rate. Which company do you think will survive? If you had the capital to build 100 plants for the same output, you would not have it for long.

<it said the exact opposite of what you're claiming, as you're wrongly applying capacity factors to the figures (whereas if you'd bothered to read the study, you'd see that the figures relate to output not capacity.>

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/renewables-to-be-cheaper-than-coal-even-without-climate-policy-csrio-says-20181221-p50nnq.html

Capacity is the average output. When you look at rooftop solar and compare it to coal for example, you need to match the capacities. That means multiplying the cost of solar by about three(more than that in reality, but I am treating renewables kindly). To match coal around the clock solar would also require batteries. Is that cost accounted for in the article? Not to my knowledge. Similarly with wind you have to combine probabilities to calculate capacity. It is not additive as you cannot guarantee maximum output from one plant when another is idle. BAZZ suggested you need 12 times the number for constant output. Suppose you needed six wind farms to match the output of a coal generator. On that basis the cost of wind would be almost twice the cost of nuclear. Maintenance and capital depreciation would exceed the cost of maintenance, depreciation and coal for a coal plant.

Far from competitive at present Aidan.

Fester,
I said; BAZZ suggested you need 12 times the number for constant output.

That only applies to a country about the size of Australia.
As you reduce the country size or for that matter the administrative
area it increases by a factor which I THINK is inversely proportional
to the square of the area reduction.
It may exponential.

Fester,
>That is 100 CSIRO reactors using 100 times the quantity of hydrogen
>as one Haber plant to generate ammonia at the same rate.
How so? Isn't the amount of hydrogen used directly proportional to the amount of ammonia produced?

>Capacity is the average output. When you look at rooftop solar and compare it to coal for example, you need to match the capacities.

So you looked at http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/renewables-to-be-cheaper-than-coal-even-without-climate-policy-csrio-says-20181221-p50nnq.html and assumed that CSIRO actually meant the opposite of what they said?

>Capacity is the average output.
By whose definition? It's usually taken to mean maximum output!

>When you look at rooftop solar and compare it to coal for example, you need to match the capacities.
I wouldn't call it matching the capacities (I'd call what you're wrongly assuming they're doing "matching the capacities") but you certainly have to look at it on a like for like basis, as CSIRO have done.

>To match coal around the clock solar would also require batteries. Is that cost accounted for in the article?
OF COURSE!

>Not to my knowledge.
Because you're wilfully ignorant!
Instead of reading an SMH article, assuming it to be deceptive, and manipulating the conclusions to "fix" a problem that was never there in the first place, try reading what CSIRO actually wrote:
http://www.csiro.au/~/media/News-releases/2018/Annual-update-finds-renewables-are-cheapest-new-build-power/GenCost2018.pdf

>Similarly with wind you have to combine probabilities to calculate capacity.
>It is not additive as you cannot guarantee maximum output from one plant when another is idle.
If wind were being relied upon exclusively, that would be a problem. But wind is quite well anticorellated with solar. And when the two are combined with storage, it's really not a big problem.

Okay Aidan, how would you cost 2 gigawatts of 24/7 solar? I would think you would need at least 12 gigawatts of generating capacity (I'm happy to use your definition here as what really matters is the bottom line, not semantics). You would also need about 40 gigawatt hours of battery storage.

For the solar: 1gw at 1.75 billion per gw generating capacity * 12

That is 21 billion dollars for the solar installations.

For the battery: 40gwh of storage at 250 million per gwh

That is 10 billion dollars for the batteries.

The total so far is 31 billion for 2 gw of 24/7 solar power with many costs and contingencies still to be factored in.

How would you cost it Aidan (I would appreciate it if you could provide your estimate without personal abuse)?