Nice strawman, No said wind generators alone are the answer.
I also find it funny how some people are saying wind farms are a blight on the landscape, as if a coal mine and power station are not.

I have farm that is off the grid, far away from the grid join even if i wanted to. i use, wind,solar and a genset. A large battery bank ensures that the genset if run two or three times a year.

It is a simple task to pick out a day or week in a month when discrediting renewables. However when one combines two or more renewable technologies together, wind/solar/wave/hot rock; one gets a more balanced outlook. In the long term, coal is finished, and nuclear is downright dangerous. For me renewables is far the best investment...

There's no doubt that wind power can save x% of emissions whatever x is. However since it is unreliable (and some say visually oppressive) I question whether we should pay a premium price for it. The cheapest price for new wind power seems to be about $82 a Mwh which I gather includes the LGC subsidy. In contrast coal power is usually under $40 a Mwh but is available anytime. In the typical heatwave wind is in the doldrums yet 75% of buildings run air conditioners with just a fraction having rooftop solar to offset grid demand.

I suggest we get rid of the RET and work on the basis of emissions targets, not favourite technologies. As the target gets tougher wind and commercial solar become more competitive. With say a 50% national emissions reduction wind could get bigger than what it currently is, about 3.6 GW nameplate capacity I believe. At least we'll know it got there on its merits.

Maybe the arguments over renewable energy could include the benefit of making the majority of electricity distribution systems redundant; i.e. having the source of electricity generation and battery storage localised at the site of the user.
The centralised distribution of services has become a standard practice nowadays, but why?
Why should not end-users of electricity generate and store their own from solar, wind turbine, geothermal, tidal (for seaside dwellers), or even very small domestic nuclear plants.
The need for base-load generation could thus be reduced greatly if high capacity battery storage continues its current development to a point where nearly all the power needs of consumers could be supplied on site, and only topped up using existing centralised generating systems.
Perhaps we should consider wind or other renewable energy systems analogous to the farm or village well that supplied all needed water on site, rather than via a massive, albeit reliable, dam and pipe system.

Cobber the Hound, Petrochemical and Ponder

You guys have repeated all the myths renewable energy proponents have been saying for years and which have all long been disproved, apparently without you guys noticing. Note the period often wind doesn't blow? Late at night. So PVs are out. Wave power? They've been talking about it for years with very little result, mainly because its so expensive.. Batteries? Not on the scale we're talking about. Pumped hydro? Again they just can't build to the scale required. Whenever they talk about a fossil-free grid they have to chuck in very big biodiesels (diesels working on biofuels).

I could go on but you get the idea. The article was excellent but I would also point out that because the output of conventional generators have to be varied so much to accommodate all the renewable stuff (when it does kick in) that it leads to considerable wear and tear on the plant, and further inefficiencies.

While there are some sites where wind power works, like in the roaring forties i.e., I find myself mostly agreeing with curmudgeon.

What we need is alternatives available 24/7!

For mine that include large scale solar thermal, with vacuum towers assisted to retain useable base load heat, for up to seven days, with the addition of thorium and fluoride salt!

Next comes thorium reactors connected to microgrids, which have the added advantage of effectively halving the power bill!

Finally we must learn not to waste our waste, which can be converted into methane used in ceramic fuel cells, which would halve the power bill yet again; and thanks to the energy coefficient of 80%, for this combination of scrubbed biogas and super silent ceramic fuel cells!

All of the above also happen to be carbon neutral or carbon free; and moreover; available 24/7 and not costing an arm or a leg.

Large scale solar thermal's already been rolled out for a cost comparable to coal fired power stations; with the fuel forever free!

Thorium reactors can be mass produced as bolt on modules in factories, then trucked onsite to begin generating power almost immediately; decommissioning just as simple!

Producing biogas for a high rise, say from its biological waste, can be done smell free in a two tank closed cycle digestion system. With the tanks not a lot larger than shipping containers.

Almost every family produces enough waste to meet their energy needs 24/7!

With the subsequently scrubbed gas stored in simple bladders and available 24/7!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, despite the fact that I've pointed out your mistake before, you're still conflating two different molten salt technologies. Thorium fluoride can be the basis for molten salt nuclear reactors, but it's NO USE WHATSOEVER for molten salt storage, for three reasons:

Its melting point is far too high.
It's radioactive, so costly precautions would be needed.
Its heat capacity isn't particularly high.

Brownies flight with the wind turbine on top displayed quite clearly the economics of wind farms.

runner - your post was so clever I didn't understand it.

Although I would mostly agree with Rhosty, leaving aside the salt issue, the holy grail of renewables has been a renewable base load plant but that ideal is a long way from being achieved.

Activists will often mis-represent the small Gemasolar plant in Spain as base load - it isn't, although it is able to generate power 24 hours a day at times during the year. I have also seen claims that this or that solar plant has a 75 per cent capacity factor (base load is typically 85-90 per cent), but there is still a difference in that base load you can (mostly) plan your outages and output. With those solar plants you can't - you get what you're given, when you're given it and in isolated spots.

Graeme Weber –
When you say wind turbines do not work, what you actually mean is wind turbines do not do what you want them to. But nor were they designed to do what you want them to, so to claim they do not work is at best a bit misleading. It makes sense to build on the strengths of renewable energy and go for the low hanging fruit (reducing coal use) first, and concentrate on overcoming the weaknesses later.

When you claim...
"Almost no output as a high pressure system dominated over Eastern Australia. This occurred for a period of over 24 hours. No backup battery system could be recharged during this period. So the logical conclusion is renewable generation needs to have a constant backup of (load following) base load electricity. In Australia this is electrical power from coal generators emitting CO2."
...you're missing three key points:
• While it is logical to conclude that a backup is needed, it doesn't need to be constant. Australia has significant weather forecasting ability; we have a pretty good idea of when the winds will blow and how fast. The Murdoch Press's fiction that wind turbines require fossil fuel generators on hot standby has for a few years been constantly disproven by events.
ª If it's load following than it's generally not base load.
• Load following is usually done with gas rather than coal, because of gas's faster response times.

(tbc)

(continued)
And what is the source of your claim that...
"Also early this year in January the German wholesale prices had dropped to 3c/Kwhr. Because of 80 GWe of heavily subsidised solar and wind generators were producing considerable electricity. At this price nuclear and gas generators are not price competitive so are being replaced by brown coal generators. Germany the great clean society has rising CO2 emissions!"?

Wind power certainly does depress the wholesale electricity price when it's windy – indeed that's one of its great strengths. But at that price I'd expect brown coal to be hardest hit: using more expensive fuel than nuclear, and not able to respond to price fluctuations as quickly as gas. If I'm wrong on this, why?

Germany's phaseout of nuclear is politically imposed, not a reaction to the rising share of renewables. But last time I checked, the rise in renewables was resulting in a decline in emissions and in coal use. Do you have evidence that's ceased?

Aidan

sorry but a few problems with your post. Last time I looked, although weather forecasting had been improved, it in no way offset the problem that wind simply does not blow (or blows too hard) for long periods. So back-up capacity is certainly needed, but do those forecasting systems reduce the need for spinning capacity - plants that are working but off the grid and available for instant backup? At the present low levels of wind on the system (the figure they quote always includes hydro) its not so important. Just adjust the output of generators already on the grid. some angst and losses but all is fine. Yes I know about the much higher levels in SA, but just think of all as one system of which SA is a small part.

Once wind power gets to something like 10 per cent of total supply, however, there will be serious problems. Remember that the Aus grid is not part of the dense European networks, or Denmark which can export wind energy across the Baltic to be stored in dams in Sweden and Norway. Ours is an isolated, spread-out grid. Spinning capacity will be essential.. The renewables policy is lunacy..

Curmudgeon, I'm well aware backup is needed - indeed I said it would be logical to conclude that. Regarding your question, YES those forecasting systems reduce the need for spinning capacity! When we know what's coming, it reduces the need for an instantaneous response. And it doesn't take long to get a gas turbine going (except maybe if it's the single shaft combined cycle kind).

SA's connection to the grid is rather limited: just 2 limited capacity connections to Victoria and nothing to any of the other states. Thinking of "all as one system of which SA is a small part" is rather misleading as the wholesale price differs significantly between regions.

The notion that wind power reaching 10% would result in serious problems is misleading. It would not result in any problems that aren't easily solved.

Aiden,

The standard systems used to have two forms of generation. Base load which provides cheap reliable load 24/7, but takes time to ramp up or down and typically was coal or nuclear, and peak load generators (typically gas) that were expensive to run, but could provide power within minutes.

The wholesale power market would vary between $20/MWhr or less at low demand periods and could shoot up to $700/MWhr for the highest peak periods. The high cost gas plants would kick in for the 5-7hrs per day of peak load and make their money then. What has been happening in Germany is that the peak load generation plants have typically been small suppliers that have relied on regular peak demand periods every week to cover their running and capital costs.

What has been happening in Germany who generates nearly 30% of average electrical power with wind is that during peak demand times when these small operators make their money, there are frequent periods when the wind turbines are generating well above average, and because the wind energy gets priority, there no need for the gas plants, with small gas plants losing up to 30% of their income.

The result is that nearly half the small gas plants have gone bankrupt while the coal and nuclear plants are far less effected. This means that when there is a peak demand with no wind the networks are in serious trouble, resulting in network failures being roughly 4x higher than even a decade ago.

Any further % increase in wind generation without significant state investment in gas standby plants will lead to catastrophic network failures.

///Next comes thorium reactors connected to microgrids, which have the added advantage of effectively halving the power bill!///
Go Rhosty! I couldn't have said it better myself. Not sure if they will *halve* the power bill, but they will probably come in cheaper than coal, especially if we consider the *total* power bill from coal.

But yeah, being room-pressure the core can be mass produced on a factory line and a LFTR come off the line one a day, much like Boeing jets. That will be when we finally defeat climate change!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4