There is another amazingly screwball aspect to the business of costly {to taxpayers) panels that also touches on the childishly bellicose attitude of China to our exports to them.

Apart from the costs to taxpayers involved in the supply of solar panels to some Australian consumers, a further $1.7 billion dollars of taxpayer money helps the importing of them, and subsequent enrichment of China.

Luciferase,
>Intermittent renewables are just a front for Big Coal, Oil and Gas to carry on business as usual,
In my state we've ceased to generate electricity from coal, and are using far less gas for that purpose than we used to. That's hardly a front, though fossil fuel companies will always carry on business as usual until it ceases to be profitable to do so.

>which is why they are in gleeful support.
Gleeful support? They're disparaging renewables even more than you are!

>Batteries have nothing much to do with grid-scale storage, unless you're down to counting out the minutes.
You're making it sound as if you don't know what "grid-scale storage" means! It's primarily about balancing supply and demand (and totally solving problems like the trumped up one this thread is based on) not replacing all other power sources for hours at a time (although although the Dalrymple battery does provide the latter capability for part of Yorke Peninsula).

>If batteries are so viable why aren't Germany and Japan, doyens of environmentalism, interested in them
Why do you assume them to not be interested in batteries? Both those countries are quietly investing in them, so don't assume they're doing nothing just because you haven't heard any big announcements!

>rather than preparing to burn massive amounts of fossil-fuels for decades to come?
Battery storage still requires the power to be generated in the first place. In both those countries, continued reliance on fossil fuels is a political result of the Fukushima disaster.

>Keep dreaming Aidan. Nuclear is here and its best days are coming.
I hope you're right - we need to decarbonise ASAP.
You seem to have forgotten I'm pro nuclear power despite recognising that it does not make economic sense in the Australian context.

A problem with batteries that no one is game to talk about is that the
recharging of the batteries after an extended period of relying on them
requires a high excess level of solar and wind over and above the
normal generation. It will always be at the most inconvenient time.
Assume two sequential days of low wind and say 50% of solar generation
under cloud. Want to bet this would not happen over our East Aus grid ?
So the batteries kept us up and running for two days but they are now
at the end of the second night 80% discharged.
From sunrise on the grid has to have enough wind & solar to run the
country PLUS recharge the batteries in no more than 8 to ten hours.
(in case the fourth day is windless & overcast)

That needs a supply 6 times the maximum grid demand as well as supply
that days demand. That is what 100% x 100% means.

Anyone want to bet that scenario would never happen ?

Bazz,
It's not that nobody's game to talk about such a scenario; it's just that it's a very long way off, completely irrelevant to our present needs, and not really a problem at all.

In the medium term, our gas turbine capacity will increase despite the gas consumption declining. The turbines will last for many decades, so supply will not be a problem. And it's likely our gas production will eventually shift to non fossil sources.

And eventually we WILL have a huge overbuild of renewable energy infrastructure. Much of the extra electricity is likely to be used for the production of hydrogen, but that can be switched off (or in some cases, actually reversed) when electricity is in relatively short supply. And other heavy industry will also schedule its operations to take advantage of cheap electricity but not use much while electricity's expensive. The use of batteries will give them plenty of time to plan ahead.

So this "problem with batteries" is almost certain to be as much of a non issue as surges from rooftop solar should be.

I agree with most of what you say Aiden, but those in our corner are
not running the political decisions.
Those that are mesmerised by one CO2 molecule in 12,000 extra are the
ones saying we MUST cut all co2 and are opposed to offsets.
Those ding-a-lings will demand it as they leave our schools and join
the electoral roles.
We simply cannot afford the multiplication of wind & solar & batteries
to give 100% 100% electricity.
One cold night sitting in the dark the penny will drop (in the meter).

Bazz, I can't even tell what corner you're in! You seem to be attacking strawmen and ignoring the severity of the problem... which means you have a lot in common with those making the political decisions!

I don't know where you got the 1 in 12000 figure from, but it's well known that human activity has resulted in a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over preindustrial levels.

Very very few people would seriously oppose offsets - ITYF the controversy around those relates to what should or shouldn't be included in them.

And we can afford far more than you think; the economics have changed a lot in the past decade, and even before that the claims of unaffordability were based on political point scoring rather than reality.