> Please enlighten us about where countries which have gone all-in on solar get their base power when the sun is not shining enough and there is no wind.
I.e. demanding real world done and dusted examples or it is impossible.
Then trying to find technicalities as to why the report is wrong or does not fit your made up example.
> I.e. demanding real world done and dusted examples or it is impossible.
Huh? No, the point is that today, countries which have gone all-in with solars use coal or gas for their base. Hardly clean.
I’m not finding technicalities. That’s literally the heart of the report: what makes sense for investment in Australia given the Australian context. That’s barely related to the heart of the discussion especially considering the caveat stated which I have exposed.
You seem to have trouble arguing in good faith when the discussion doesn’t go your way.
The cost optimal path (as CO2 taxes or the equivalent are imposed) will be to displace more and more fossil fuel generation with renewables, then short term storage, then (finally) some combination of very long term storage, transmission, and demand dispatch. At no point will adding more nuclear make sense. That fossil fuels are being used now is just a stage in the migration to 0% fossil fuel, assuming the world actually decides to do that (as it damn well better).
> Please enlighten us about where countries which have gone all-in on solar get their base power when the sun is not shining enough and there is no wind.
I.e. demanding real world done and dusted examples or it is impossible.
Then trying to find technicalities as to why the report is wrong or does not fit your made up example.