which states :- "New wind with backup could very well be very competitive with new coal, particularly if the cost of emissions is recognised. However, at present, the contention either way is unproven."
What is being overlooked is the cost of providing alternative backup for the intermittent renewables. Currently that is predominately provided by coal fired stations, and even if even if the present targets for renewable energy are ever obtained, coal is still going to be the major source of base load power, so stop dreaming that coal is finished.
The only other economical feasible backup is the construction of more pumped hydro such as Snowy 2.0. Coal has always been able to provide cheaper power than hydro but with the cost of power skyrocketing and the lack of political will in Australia to back coal, the next best is more pumped hydro.
Why we can't do without the power of Snowy 2.0
"To put it in perspective you would need the equivalent of 2700 of South Australia's big
batteries or spend $180 billion on Tesla power walls to match the output of Snowy 2.0.
Not to mention the longevity issue. Standard batteries big and small last up to eight to
10 years while Snowy 2.0 is expected to last at least 60 years."
So coal fired stations last 50+ years, pumped hydro 60+ years and the throw away batteries 8 to 10 years. That is $180 billion on 2700 new batteries every 8 to 10 years. Show me where that has been factored into your costings.
