I'm all for a 50% renewable target. The difference is my 50% non renewable plan would include new lower emission baseload generation whereas the renewable industry wants us to use old, unreliable higher emission existing generation. The current plans makes no sense to me and will result in higher emissions than would otherwise occur if more effort was put in discussing the 50% non renewable plan.
I disagree on using actual results to analyse risk. The renewable industry uses select data everyday to "prove" how he future will be so using that logic it is perfectly logical to suggest that current and past winter operating results are indicative of future winter operating conditions. If people want to "disrupt" the existing grid they need to present a plan, fully cost it and explain the risks of that change.
In some ways that is what the ANU study did and therefore we should be critically checking and improving analysis to ensure we get the best environmental and economic benefit from all future technologies.
Storage imo is a waste management system to compensate for the inability of supply to meet demand. A cheaper and more cost effective strategy is curtailment and capacity. This principle is one of the key themes in Lean manufacturing practice which has been adopted worldwide for many years.
On the last point I think everyone is entitled to an opinion and we all have a role to play in understanding what is happening to our energy system.
bw
