[goodSteveramos]

> we found that the total annualised cost (including capital, operation, maintenance and fuel where relevant) of the least-cost renewable energy system is $7-10 billion per year higher than that of the “efficient” fossil scenario. For comparison, the subsidies to the production and use of all fossil fuels in Australia are at least $10 billion per year. So, if governments shifted the fossil subsidies to renewable electricity, we could easily pay for the latter’s additional costs.

They are claiming that a 100% renewable system would be CHEAPER than a fossil fuel system. If that doesn’t stink like some grade A bullshit to you I have nothing more to add.

[ZeroGravitas]

That's an Australian academic in 2013 making that claim, and fair play to him, the official Australian cost estimates in 2024 say:

> ‘Firming costs’ is a term often used to describe the investments needed to make variable renewables a reliable source of electricity for our power system. In the GenCost report our preferred term is ‘integration costs’.

> Integration costs include investments in storage, peaking generation, transmission and system security devices such as synchronous condensers. Modelling determines the most cost-effective combination of these investments.

> ... renewables were still found to have the lowest cost range of any new build technology.

> For more detail go to the GenCost 2023-24 report section 5.2.1 Framework for calculating variable renewable integration costs on page 65.

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gen...

[goodSteveramos]

What cost of storage do they use in their model in dollars per kilowatt hour?