Thanks Max.

It looks a lot cheaper than battery storage, but trying to power Australia selectively with low capacity, chaotic low carbon energy sources seems foolish and ideological, especially as renewable energy has not met expectations thus far.

How do you mean it has 'not met expectations'? Who's expectations? Wind is the cheapest power source by far. But solar has also gone down in price much faster than many imagined, is now 4 times cheaper per unit of electricity than comparable nukes - and this fact offsets the intermittency problem and consequent requirement for overbuilding.

Nuclear is a great energy source, and we can burn the waste in breeder reactors and get 90 times the energy out of it. The main problem? It's expensive. The next problem? Aussies hate it, and despite talking about nuclear for the last 14 years I've only convinced a handful of people that it's worth it. Renewables are now just too cheap!

While we were late starters politically on climate action, renewables are being built 10 times faster in Australia than the global average. http://theconversation.com/australia-is-the-runaway-global-leader-in-building-new-renewable-energy-123694

Also, "Wind and solar are being built three times faster than everything else combined. It follows they will dominate future energy markets as existing fossil fuel generators retire and electricity use grows rapidly...

...Sceptics point out you need more land or sea to produce the same amount of electricity as fossil fuel plants. While true, solar farms can happily coexist with livestock and cropping to create a double income for farmers. The solar electricity needed to power the world and eliminate all fossil fuels can be generated from about 1% of the land area devoted to agriculture."

Also, this fact blows my mind! We were so slow coming out of the blocks, but we're going to win this thing! "In Australia, solar and wind are booming while coal is rapidly falling. We’re already on track to reach 80-90% renewables by 2030. Remarkably, our per capita solar generation is twice as large as the second placed countries (Germany, Japan and the Netherlands) and far ahead of China and the USA."

http://theconversation.com/theres-a-huge-surge-in-solar-production-under-way-and-australia-could-show-the-world-how-to-use-it-190241

Basically by the time we convince enough Aussies that nuclear might be OK, renewables will have already done the job - cheaper and safer.

Wind is variable, solar is affected by rain, cloud and snow (and hail) but tidal is utterly reliable 24/365 and 366 in leap years.

Hi Is Mise,
I don't know as much about tidal as I do peak oil - so I'm curious why you think tidal power's capacity factor is so high? Where did you hear that? As far as I can tell even the FANS admit it has a low capacity factor.

"A drawback of tidal power is its low capacity factor, and it misses peak demand times because of 12.5 hr cycle of the tides... Tidal energy schemes are characterised by low capacity factors, usually in the range of 20-35%."
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/tidal-energy/

That's worse than most wind turbines which average about 40% but some are even higher. But solar is SO CHEAP the 20% capacity factor doesn't matter when you can build 200% or 300% times the Australian grid with it to make up for it! (Build the grid 2 or 3 times and use pumped hydro and you're still ahead of today's high gas prices).

Also, we were talking about the environmental concerns about damning the Franklin river and other pumped hydro concerns? What do you think happens when we put massive barrages across esturies and river fronts?

Maybe you were talking about tidal streams - like wind turbines out in the ocean being driven by tidal rivers like "Welcome to the EAC baby!" ("Finding Nemo" reference.) My understanding is the ocean is ROUGH on the toughest turbines. It's hard to make turbines, which spin around, strong enough, cheap enough.

"The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of TSE projects is expected to be about $74/MWh to $330/MWh higher than offshore wind projects through 2050. Only with optimistic LCOE projections, small TSE projects (20 MW) may be competitive (when including increased net social benefits) with small offshore wind projects by 2020."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0301421517306900

Hi Max,

I like your enthusiasm, but think about what you have said. You say that solar is a quarter the cost of nuclear, but the important question is "How much is 24/7 solar?". To answer that question you would need to know how the capacity factor for solar varied throughout the year in order to work out how much excess generation you would need. I have heard estimates of six to eight times average demand, which would make it 50% more expensive than nuclear power before any other costings for 24/7 renewables are considered. That might be why French nuclear is a third the cost of European renewable energy, and there is the suggestion that a well maintained nuclear plant can have a service life of over a century. How long will your solar and wind generators last?

Max,
Because the tide is utterly reliable, no other natural source of power is as reliable except geo-thermal, I didn’t say anything about efficiency but reliability.

On a lighter note.
Sometimes motivation is a deciding factor; I visit one alternative community where the battery power for the TV depends on a pedal generator, TV addicts have a roster of pedalers.
Other power comes from an alternator driven by a floating wheel in the nearby stream.
Batteries are recycled 12 and 6 volt motor vehicle ones.