nuclear debate in australia, page-12

jebr,
that article doesn't answer the question of energy storage apart from reference to a primitive storage model whatever that means. Presumably graphite block heat storage. It still doesn't get around the intermittency issues with solar and wind. HVDC lines may be more efficient but will be a considerable financial constraint if over several thousand km. The African thermal solar array project isn't likely to happen because of the political and geographical risks not withstanding the costs. Most ideal solar array sites are miles away from large populations because well, they are too hot and there's no water. Geographical distance is still a major cost consideration. It makes sense to have major electricity generation close to major populations and industrial users. Already there are significant environmental and esthetic objections to windfarms in many parts of the world. They need to cover large tracts of land to have any meaningful contribution to the grid.

His modeling is interesting, but I'm unconvinced using a HDVC grid to improve efficiency and allow solar and wind to substitute for flatline baseload is as robust as he infers. The ability of his model to carry over 90% of the electricity is not good enough when we get close to 100% now. The GFC has taught us that a bit of built in redundancy in systems (financial ones at least) is essential, and a focus on maximizing efficiency can have unintended consequences. Of interest, his company is now owned by Areva.

Now what happens if there is a shift of the domestic fleet to electric plug ins?
Overnight charging will be necessary for most. NP will be ideal for the increased baseload generation needed to support this, not solar or wind.
New solar technology will have a niche role for off grid use and for domestic users who have the money for microgeneration, if building a new house and can get a good price for selling back into the grid. Industrial microgeneration may become more interesting once costs drop.