Hot air is cheap but wind power isn't. It is nothing but a subsidised shibboleth of the Left that, as has been seen in Adelaide has huge on costs not accounted for. Closure of Whyalla, death of Port Pirie, Loss of the Submarine contract and anything else that is manufacture.

There is no upside to closing down a cheap source of power. In a failing economy, it is sheer madness.

ttbn,
When the cost of the respiratory problems it causes are factored un, is it really so cheap?

_________________________________________________________________________

McCackie,
Everything is expensive when you include the cost of things that didn't happen.

Iser presents this statement, "However, experience in other regions such as the ACT, in countries such as Germany, and assessments by multiple analysts show that power demands can be fully met by a combination of wind and solar using interconnected networks, with power boosts being supplied by hydro sources, concentrated solar thermal and gas-fired turbines using biofuels."

But he does not justify it and it can now be shown to be completely wrong. Just look at all the trouble the isolated island of El Hierro in the Spanish canaries has been having trying to go all renewable. http://euanmearns.com/el-hierro-september-2016-performance-update/
Euros 80 million was spent on a pumped hydro system plus wind farms and they're still under 50 per cent average use for the year (rest is diesel). King Island in Bass Strait? It uses, wind solar and a very big battery. Look for yourself http://www.kingislandrenewableenergy.com.au/
Its an excellent system and can get to 100 per cent renewable at times, like El Hierro, but the average is around 60 per cent, after a capital investment of $18 million.. Kodiak Island of Alaska has gone 100 per cent renewable, but it was at 80 per cent hydro (which counts as a renewable) before the green energy craze..

As for Germany and Denmark, their stories are the result of being part of a larger network. When Germany's wind and solar plants kick in, for example, the grid managers don't shut down the country's brown coal plants they just dump the excess energy on their neighbours, who have complained to the EU.

As for the claim that the La Trobe valley has noticeable worse health outcomes than other parts of the state does anyone have a source on that? Its the first time I've seen anyone claim this.

On the daily cycle peak electrical demand is in the early evening when solar PV has retired for the day. On an annual cycle peak demand is in heatwaves when wind power is often useless. That's why we need dispatchable power, the cheapest being to work the remaining coal stations a bit harder and inefficiently or to fire up increasingly expensive gas power plant. Solar thermal, biofuel or gigawatt-hours of batteries are not only astronomically expensive but may never scale up to the desired level.

While Hazelwood provides 25% of Victoria's electricity combined Latrobe Valley power seem necessary to stabilise the SA grid and help Tasmania during droughts. The inverter-rectifier station for Basslink cable is next to Loy Yang A and B power stations. The losers from the closure of Hazelwood will be Vic ratepayers and to some extent SA and Tas. Emissions savings won't be that great when other coal and gas picks up the slack.

Ad hoc piecemeal decision-making.

Vic baseload to be replaced by intermittent renewables relying on interconnection to NSW and Qld baseload. SA now relying on thermal baseload from NSW/Qld when Vic can't help. So what if NSW or Qld decide to dump baseload for the green dream, or will they be constrained by the need of Vic and SA for baseload?

Meanwhile the Federation thinks it should have a censuring hand on anything nuclear, such as a dump in SA.

Before things get completely stupid and out of hand a national summit on where all this is going is needed and the nuclear option has to be on the table.

What's underpinning the general ad hoc direction being taken is the nonsense of ultimate goal of despatchable renewables without thermal baseload. Preposterously massive investment in this mirage, with all its required storage and backup redundancies, will land us short on carbon mitigation, with blackouts.

Every dollar spent on this chimera on the grid (renewables' place is off-grid) is wasted. The Green Pied-Pipers must be strongly opposed.

"Wind power is already cheaper and if coal subsidies and externalities are fully accounted for in the cost of electricity, solar would compare favourably with coal power."

What total rubbish. This is an example of intellectual dishonesty.

If "wind is cheaper" than coal, why are we having to subsidise it by $90/MWh? Why are the costs of the grid sky rocketing? Why aren't all the hidden costs that should be attributable to weather-dependent renewables included in their cost?

As usual a fundamental green is advocating renewable as the only ALLOWED energy alternative able to be considered or referred to ever! And react to the fundamental flaw in their economy harming rationale, with simplistic argument about energy efficiency!?

Like what, replacing all the elevators in all the high rises with stairs. Get out of those wheel chairs you lazy old reprobates!

It's like they live inside a bubble, so as to prevent pragmatism and practical common sense from getting in and forcing them to actually think!?

Those that can need to read Graham's latest Ambit Gambit on climate change and some of the, in reply posts!

Then ask these "fundamentalists" and their do nothing useful, support base to just get out of the way! And allow those who know what needs to be done and how! To just get on and get it done!

They remind me of willful children having to be dragged kicking and screaming to first day school, out of fear of learning to think!

The only thing to fear, is fear itself and the fear mongers who peddle it!

Know the truth and the truth will set us free! And indeed, usher in a thousand years of peace!

Which is what you buy with CHEAP CLEAN SAFE NUCLEAR ENERGY; and that energy is MOLTEN SALT THORIUM ENERGY! Which could if properly managed as our birthright! Cost the average household a $1.50 a year, as their total power bill! YES!

Turbocharge our domestic economy plus, end all war and want!

Seriously, that is what is at stake here and on the table!

Read Graham's latest article and all the following posts. Then do some fact checking on U tube, via google tech talks, where some of the planet's most highly credentialed experts will, IF YOU ALLOW IT, leave you fully informed, with short succinct bites, as long as 13 minutes and as short as four! Or just hit the snooze button and go back to sleep!?

Name your pleasure! Get educated or remain willfully ignorant/bored brainless? Given you can't do both!
Alan B.

Aidan,

Are you going to give us the costs of 'respiratory disorders'? Listening to you,one would think everybody lined up to suck coal dust regularly. Even miners, with open cuts, don't have problems these days.

Is he dumb enough to believe this crap, or just a lying conman?

What ever the case, wouldn't you hate to have to depend on someone for your medical requirements, who can talk such utter garbage.

"However, experience in other regions such as the ACT, in countries such as Germany, and assessments by multiple analysts show that power demands can be fully met by a combination of wind and solar using interconnected networks, with power boosts being supplied by hydro sources, concentrated solar thermal and gas-fired turbines using biofuels."

The author either has a very short memory, or else he is being deliberately misleading and unethical.

He conveniently does not mention the proven unreliability of the renewables-intensive SA power system that resulted in the disastrous state-wide blackout in SA on 28 Sep 2016, with miners and industry suffering revenue losses of at least $150million. If he wants evidence of the massive damage caused by the blackout, may I suggest he contact the Whyalla steelworks, BHP Olympic Dam, the Port Pirie lead smelter or Prominent Hill mine.

More SA blackouts can be expected as a result of substantially lower interconnected power becoming available from Victoria following the closure of Hazelwood power station.

Tasmania is another case in point, where renewable power availability was cut short by the drought, and the interconnect cable from Victoria failed.

Whyalla and Pirie may still be there but are dead., begging bowl in hand to Politicians and none silly enough to buy. The subs need highly specialised metals, sans Whyalla, sans subs.

In today's Advertiser: a Korean firm has shown interest in taking over the Whyalla steel works and also building a power station.

ttbn the proposed Whyalla mill could maybe send 110 MW to the grid generated from coke oven gas. The hard coal for the ovens mostly comes by ship from Newcastle I believe. That's 'dirtier' than natural gas. The natgas fired 400 MW Torrens Island A is supposed to close while the 485 MW Pelican Pt was mothballed until recently. If 885 MW natgas retires and 110 MW of coke oven gas comes online SA goes backwards for dispatchable electricity and unit emissions.

Given the proven unreliability of SA's power generation system, and its expected further deterioration through switching to more unreliable, higher-cost renewables, who in their right mind would set up a subs production operation in that third-world state known as South Australia?

In any case, it is irrational to settle for subs powered by obsolete fossil fuel engines, given that the nuclear powered version of the French sub is already available and in service.

I should add that SA has been made a third-world state by virtue of the proved unreliability of its power system.

Is there a Fourth World? Looks as though we Third Worlders in SA will be going down further with the closure of Hazelwood in Vic. Prices are now expected to rise $100 pa - when there is power to buy!

Think of this, the first brown out! Emergency! Buggerlugs Andrews has to explain this and we know it will be all Tony Abbot's fault lol.
He will be another one term wonder for Victoria.
Seriously this author just carries on spouting the same nonsense. As the Nazi's proved, keep repeating a lie and people think it must be true. The Greens party are first cousins of the Nazi's.

The closure of hazelwood by Engie will reduce generation capacity in Vic by 25% and push up the wholesale price of electricity by about 10%. Alcoa's smelter that uses about 10% of Vic's power, and which is already losing money is certain to close costing more jobs.

Victoria, as the backup power supplier to South Australia,will now be a net importer of energy, and as it is also reliant on wind power, there is the very real probability is that a windless day will see Victoria importing very expensive power to meet its own needs and being unable to supply SA.

The only real winner in this is Engie, who by owning much of the rest of Vic's generation, will see its profits jump by about $400m p.a.

I would like to know how Hazelwood is supposed to be producing 25 percent of the Latrobe Valley's power. It might have been once upon a time when it was running to full capacity, but lately there has only been smoke coming from two of the eight stacks, so methinks someone is fiddling the figures. Can anyone out there give us the true figure?

David

Did I hear Josh Frydenberg suggest on ABC that more power disruptions may be expected as we transition into renewables, or some such comment.

That's an understatement. Looks like he's drinking the green Kool-Aid too.
How far up this dead-end road must we travel before it's obvious that we're lost?

ttbn,

I don't have the costs to hand, which is why my original response to you was a question rather than a direct rebuttal.

And "fourth world" means parts of first world countries that have third world living standards. Some of Australia's remote Aboriginal communities are the classic example.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Peter Lang,

“If "wind is cheaper" than coal, why are we having to subsidise it by $90/MWh?”
AIUIf we're not. Where did you get that figure from?

“Why are the costs of the grid sky rocketing?”
It's mainly the result of poor regulation. Also it came off a low base, as the utilities sweated their assets in the 1990s.

“Why aren't all the hidden costs that should be attributable to weather-dependent renewables included in their cost?”
Because we're not starting from scratch, so most of those costs are illusory.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Raycom,

The statewide blackout of September 28 was the result of a freak series of events, so stop dishonestly treating it as if it were an intrinsic problem with renewable energy! Procedures to prevent a recurrence can be implemented fairly easily, and I expect there will also be hardware installed to ensure it can never happen again. Meanwhile the long term trend is for a more reliable power supply in SA. Supply was at its most unreliable around the turn of the millennium, and has been steadily improving since.

SA has the generating capacity to meet its own needs, and there's also plenty of power available through the interconnector even without Hazelwood. Your scaremongering is illogical.

Aidan,

The costs of renewables are not illusory, they are being paid by households and businesses today, and are putting pressure on households and businesses.

I also think that two episodes recently, ie the 50yr storm (which is well within planning limits) and the zero wind day in both cases wind power dropped to showed that SA clearly is at risk with their high % of renewables. Now that Hazelwood is closing and Victoria is becoming a net importer of power, both states will be in deep trouble when the wind stops.

The "costs" of renewables are largely the product of paying people to do needful things...

Shadow,

I never claimed all costs of renewables were illusory. But most of the hidden costs of renewables that Peter Lang referred to are illusory, while the hidden costs of coal are real and all too frequently ignored.

Considering how many pylons were blown down in the September 28 storm, I think the claim that it's "well within planning limits" is dubious. And all that happened on the "zero wind day" was a rise in the wholesale price of electricity for a few hours, as power generation companies took advantage of an opportunity to bid high. Such opportunities were common before wind turbines made them rare.

Neither Victoria nor SA are likely to be in much trouble when the wind stops. SA has plenty of gas fired generators. Victoria has gas, hydro, a connection to Tasmania and multiple connections to NSW. Plus of course the two connections to SA, which could be very valuable as it isn't usually calm in both states at once.

Actually I can see a real advantage of this shutdown.

Obviously both South Australia & Victoria will suffer severe disruption to their power supply, we could even have the southern part of Oz as dark as north Korea on a regular basis.

As this will mainly affect the 2 southern rust bucket states, this is not too important. However it should finally wake up the population of NSW, Queensland & WA, causing then to bring enough pressure on the ratbag politicians in those states to not follow the lemmings over the cliff of alternate power generation.

Now that we can see the Europeans, particularly Germany, running away from windmills just as fast as their little legs can carry them, it can only be to buy ratbag fringe votes that leads our pollies to keep building the things.

When our Labor government has proven they can't run a hospital pay system, or more recently a railway, the last thing we need is for them to try to develop a new power system. The coming catastrophe in SA & Vic should stop this stupidity from spreading too far north.

Perhaps Tasmania is lucky to have suffered their recent failure of the Bass Straight link, as it has forced them to improve their planning, & buy some diesel back up. It might be the only bright night-time dot in a very dark areas, south of the NSW border.

A delicious thought. The ABC, in Vic & SA will have to buy back up diesel generators, if they wish to keep the global warming propaganda flow going. Now that is hilariously. It would be the first time in recent history that they spent any of that billion of ours on anything useful.

Aidan, you are a dreamer.

The intermittency of renewables (wind and solar) causes supply reliability to decline with increasing reliance on renewable energy. Statewide blackouts were completely unheard of when there was 100% reliance on fossil fuels. However, SA now has phased out all coal power stations, and relies partly on gas. But on 28 September, not even the gas power station could be relied on to produce any power.

Wind turbines are ineffective in the absence of wind, and -- as we saw on 28 September – have to be closed down when the wind is too strong, hardly a freakish event.

Sadly, the SA politicians are also in dreamland. They too believe fancifully that the “freak series of events” would not be repeated, and that Victoria, and eventually NSW, would be good neighbours and allow SA to draw power from them.

If the SA pollies continue to be unrealistic in their thinking, not only would new industries not be attracted to SA, but the existing ones would go elsewhere.

Aidan, go back to dreamland.

Raycom,

"The intermittency of renewables (wind and solar) causes supply reliability to decline with increasing reliance on renewable energy."
False. Supply reliability is increasing.

"Statewide blackouts were completely unheard of when there was 100% reliance on fossil fuels."
True but misleading – firstly because there has only ever been one statewide blackout so it's far too small a sample size to draw any statistical conclusions, and secondly because IIRC there were statewide brownouts in early 2001 when there was 100% reliance on fossil fuels.

"However, SA now has phased out all coal power stations, and relies partly on gas."
SA has always relied largely on gas.

"But on 28 September, not even the gas power station could be relied on to produce any power."
There were unforeseen technical problems. With hindsight they should have been foreseen. Now that we're aware of the circumstances that can cause a shutdown, it's quite easy to prevent it happening again even as we become more reliant on renewables.

"Wind turbines are ineffective in the absence of wind, and -- as we saw on 28 September – have to be closed down when the wind is too strong, hardly a freakish event."
But that was NOT what we saw on 28 September. What we saw were transmission lines blown down. The wind turbines were shut down not because it was too windy for them, but because the wind had caused power line failure. The problem was that they were shut down too abruptly (solution: next time shut them down more slowly) and the system couldn't cope with that (solution: upgrade it so it can cope).

Aidan,

Two incidents highlighted the unreliability of renewables in SA, firstly was the zero wind day, which at peak demand saw SA paying record prices for power and the second was when all the wind turbines tripped due to faults on the lines (while the gas generators rode through the faults and only tripped after the interconnector tripped.)

The closure of Hazelwood is a problem for renewables, as SA and Vic are neighbours, a very low wind in one state is likely to be accompanied by a low or very low wind in the other.

Shadow,
Far from highlighting the unreliability of renewables, your two examples highlight the extraordinary lengths to which you try to stretch the truth in order to fit your own predetermined conclusions!

The zero wind day saw SA still able to meet demand despite the lack of wind power. It's strong evidence of the reliability of SA's power supply.

And in the September 28 incident, four wind farms reduced their output and then (seven seconds later) another two of SA's wind farms tripped because of multiple transmission line failures. The gas generators (most of which are in the Adelaide area) AND SEVERAL OTHER WIND FARMS rode through the faults and only tripped after the interconnector tripped.

Apart from slowing the response of wind farms to damaged powerlines, I can think of three possible ways of avoiding the interconnector tripping: a faster load shedding response, maintain frequency at the expense of voltage, or add a bit of short term storage capacity. I'd guess the latter (in the form of asynchronous flywheels) is the best solution, but I'm civil not electrical.

Just because SA and Victoria share a border doesn't mean they share the same weather in most of the state! If you look at http://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/RenewEconomy/ over a few days, you'll see a very low wind in one state is UNLIKELY to be accompanied by a low or very low wind in the other. And importantly, Victoria has hydro power and high capacity interstate connections, so supply should be easy to maintain even in those rare exceptions.

Aidan,

The zero wind day saw SA meet just demand in what was not a particularly special day, and this was achieved only by a massive ramp up of the gas generators and the use of the interconnector. A year from now when Hazelwood has closed, the question will be whether Victoria can supply enough to keep SA afloat, or will we see another renewables blackout.

Hasbeen, the ABC already has backup diesel generators.

Aiden, in a perfect world, what you hope might happen, is somewhat unrelated as to what will actually happen in the real world. This was so aptly demonstrated when you look at what happened in early September.

In the long run, as the population increases as will the demand for electricity, Victoria will have to build another brown coal fired power station in the Latrobe valley because the greens will not let us build a nuclear power station.

David

Shadow,

You seem to be implying that SA's gas fired generators were running at capacity on the zero wind day. But in reality they were nowhere near capacity. Indeed once the Pelican Point power station was running, prices returned to normal levels. So a more sensible conclusion is that the market doesn't always work very well; when the electricity companies get the opportunity for profiteering, they take it.

I have already indicated I'm in favour of solar thermal at Port Augusta to help address this problem. I also support construction of more interconnectors including a second one under Bass Strait.

____________________________________________________________________________________

David, in an ideal world, failures would never occur. This is simply a matter of how to deal with them so they don't create much bigger problems. Even if they don't go with the solution that's technically best, the problem is solvable.

In the long run, as the population increases as will the demand for electricity, another brown coal power station in the Latrobe valley is totally out of the question. Nuclear is an option but renewables are likely to be better value.

Aidan, I've no issue with anything you've say about connectivity solutions. Flywheels for load balancing purposes would do it, amongst other things.

What represents "better value" is the problem. If renewables are not despatchable 24/365 at an affordable price, i.e without thermal energy backup, they are pointless in the battle against AGW (with gas backup, there is barely be an emissions effect, with nuclear backup, they are redundant)

For this you need affordable, storage, preposterously humungous amounts of it, and placing faith in something economically viable magically appearing is where we part. A wing and a prayer is a road to a dead-end.

You say nuclear is not "better value". If Green-Dreamers would let it compete, and if massive subsidies were removed from renewables, we'd soon see. And let's not forget the main game, attacking AGW.

...where I said "there is barely be an emissions effect..", please read "emissions reduction effect", of course.

Aidan,

The fact that a fair portion of Pelican point had been mothballed and the Labor government had to beg Engie to restart their plant is solid proof that there was a desperate shortage of generation capacity.

Pelican was mothballed because as a combined cycle plant it is not designed to stop and start rapidly as the demand caused by renewables dictated. The low wind caused prices for power to peak higher than $10 000 /MWhr 24 times in 2 weeks.

The labor government had to throw money at the generators to maximise power supply as the alternative was the $2bn price tag of the blackout.

Electricity is now well and truly "Politicised".
The price is hidden but our bills keep going up and only the public service idiots could work out a system that is not understood by anyone. To illustrate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejaWq2TXRXE.
Why not the solar array? Of course they keep being built and then closed as they do not work but only after we have been well and truly hammered with "Green" subsidies.
Roll on the brown outs and the demise of Daniel Andrews.

Shadow,

I don't think any of Pelican Point had been officially mothballed, but the fact that it wasn't running at full capacity is proof of a market failure. Pelican Point power station is the state's most efficient, and contrary to your assertions, it was designed for load following. But leaving it off was apparently more lucrative.

It's time for you to abandon assumption that utilising waste heat to drive a steam turbine prevents a gas turbine from varying its output; there are a small subset where that applies, but for the vast majority of CCGTs it doesn't.

Anyway, the lack of wind was forecast days in advance.

What's this about the government throwing money at the generators?

___________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,

I don't know why you think there's barely an emissions reduction effect if renewables have gas backup. Do you share Shadow's illusions about the poor performance of CCGTs? Are you basing your opinion on Joseph Wheatley's analysis that ignores the effects of closure of coal fired power stations? Or the Murdoch Press's baseless claim that renewables require extra turbines on hot standby all the time?

We do need more dispatchable renewables (and just as importantly, a change in how the existing ones are used). Economic viability won't be hard to achieve as long as there's access to cheap finance.

In some parts of the world, nuclear power is better value; in others it's not. I think Australia is more likely to be in the latter category due to our low population density, our sunniness, and our dearth of prior experience with nuclear power. But if we do go for nuclear power, the Latrobe Valley is a good location for it.

It has been suggested that Premier Andrews should buy back the Hazelwood station and refurbish it. Instead of employing the current workforce, under a government run system, that could easily be doubled. That would solve the unemployment problem in the Valley and would be paid for by supplying the power to Tasmania and S.A.

How about that Aidan?

David

Aidan,

Once again you have only half the facts. Combined cycle plants use gas turbines that use less air than non combined cycle turbines and thus run slightly less efficiently. This is more than offset by the heat energy of the exhausts which is used to produce steam and more electricity and achieve a higher efficiency than non combined cycle generators, but comes at a higher capital and maintenance cost.

However, if the combined cycle plant is run in load following mode (which it can do) the stop start cycle produces little to no steam and therefore the plant produces electricity less efficiently and at a higher cost than simple back up generation. The moth balling of the plant was a commercial decision.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/mystery-as-south-australia-pleads-with-gas-generator-to-switch-back-on-51097/

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/pelican-point-power-station-revival-likely-under-state-government-electricity-plan/news-story/2cfb67eb88d6d54f4b73eef76c1371d3

Now the labor gov is having to pay Pelican point to remain available.

Aidan,

Of course there is emissions abatement with load following gas turbines c.f. FF baseload. However, it is nothing like you would have it and certainly not enough to have the potential to achieve anything meaningful on AGW, even if the entire world adopted renewables with gas backup.

This interim goal towards fully despatchable 100% renewables, would be quite acceptable if there were a viable scalable storage solution. There isn't, so you simply hold faith. You're a member of a religious cult.

Furthermore, the journey you wish us to embrace with you is so very, very expensive (and puleeze spare me your economics), however far along it we travel, and I'm not even including transition costs.

It is only recourse to cheap thermal baseload that gives SA and Germany any illusion the goal is achievable. The Green Pied-Pipers, would lead us happily along their journey only to pull the rug of thermal baseload from under us upon gaining sufficient power, forcing us to wear their hair-shirts.

Nope, give me abundant, cheap, energy. Give me what is tried, true and tested. If only Greens would stop finding ever new ways to nobble it.

Really don't want to revive this thread, but:

Where you say, Aidan,

"In some parts of the world, nuclear power is better value; in others it's not. I think Australia is more likely to be in the latter category due to our low population density, our sunniness, and our dearth of prior experience with nuclear power. But if we do go for nuclear power, the Latrobe Valley is a good location for it.",.....what is the difference between what FF-power currently services and what nuclear might? SA and the eastern seaboard could easily be serviced by a few reactors. The FF generators could be mothballed for backup.

Why would SA need more renewables if it could buy nuclear generated electricity from the Latrobe valley (as could almost the whole eastern seaboard through interconnectors)? Aren't we thinking ad hoc and small? Why should borders hold up nuclear transmission via existing HVAC while renewablistas dream of extended networks across state boundaries via HVDC?

forgot to add this
https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/Maps/Network-Diagrams-pdf.ashx

Shadow,

Yes, of course I know that CCGT are less efficient at ramping up and down than OCGTs. Obviously if the objective is to cover a short term surge in unmet demand, you'd go for OCGTs. But for covering the extended periods when output from renewables is low, CCGTs are far superior. So I couldn't understand why they weren't more profitable.

I think I have the answer now: Engie (the company that owns the Pelican Point power station) doesn't have a large retail customer base like its competitors do, so commercially it is far more exposed to market price fluctuations.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,

"Of course there is emissions abatement with load following gas turbines c.f. FF baseload. However, it is nothing like you would have it and certainly not enough to have the potential to achieve anything meaningful on AGW, even if the entire world adopted renewables with gas backup."
That would depend on how much renewable capacity the world installed (and what they did with nuclear). 100% is NOT the limit.

"This interim goal towards fully despatchable 100% renewables, would be quite acceptable if there were a viable scalable storage solution. There isn't, so you simply hold faith. You're a member of a religious cult."
On the contrary; I'm a Christian, and very much opposed to blind faith. But I look at what's going on and I comprehend the implications. It's increasingly looking as if you don't.

I recognise the need for more dispatchable renewable power, and am very much in favour of building CST with MSS at Port Augusta (which I hope will be the first of many locations in Australia). I also recognise that battery technology is also rapidly advancing. And significantly, I recognise the existing dispatchable renewable power is not filling its full potential. For example, much of Tasmania's hydro power is used to provide low value baseload.

Everything, including nuclear, is very very expensive. But interest rates are low at the moment, and there's a strong economic case for the Federal government to make concessional loans available.
(tbc)

Luciferase (continued)

"Why would SA need more renewables if it could buy nuclear generated electricity from the Latrobe valley (as could almost the whole eastern seaboard through interconnectors)?"
SA's interconnector capacity is not (and never has been) anything like what's needed to supply the whole state.

"Aren't we thinking ad hoc and small? Why should borders hold up nuclear transmission via existing HVAC while renewablistas dream of extended networks across state boundaries via HVDC?"
As the file you linked to makes clear, one of SA's two interconnectors is already HVDC. Future interconnectors will also be HVDC, whether or not we opt for nuclear power. The main issue is where to build new interconnectors. Rather than just augmenting capacity, I'd like to see new links made to improve reliability and create new trading opportunities. For instance a Port Augusta to Broken Hill connection would enable SA to sell more electricity to NSW and buy more electricity from NSW, plus it would improve the reliability of Broken Hill's power supply, and would directly connect northern SA to the national grid.

Firstly, I reiterate that none of my comments on renewables ever refer to hydro. It works where applicable, which isn't much here in Oz, and can't be more while Greens stand in its way anyway.

I don't understand this comment, "That would depend on how much renewable capacity the world installed (and what they did with nuclear). 100% is NOT the limit."

I'm saying that if nuclear is universally eschewed for renewables with OCGT load-following backup, or with CCGT cogeneration, there will be little impact on AGW. I am saying that without scalable storage that guarantees the despatchabity of renewables 24/365, there will be little impact on AGW.

Working on the sensible assumption that there is no scalable, affordable storage in sight (which you don't), I also raise the matter of transport fuel. Presumably you would have us running vehicles on gas, or, running enough renewables to meet normal load plus manufacture of sufficient transport fuel (assuming, for the argument, this is viable). Providing energy for fuel production is the only valid reason all that could exist for renewables meeting more than instataneous 100% of load requirement in SA.

Apart from the fact that the scale of your proposed enterprise is simply preposterous, so will be its cost. Talk about whether there are sufficient interconnectors has nothing to do with the points you fail to sensibly address. Your entire argument is based on there existing scalable storage for 24/365 despatch of renewables, and, there being some financial arrangement that should be extended to make this more economically viable than any alternative. The former is a mirage through yours and Weatherill's rose-coloured glasses, while the latter is what we effectively have already in the LRET.

PS Presuming sufficient interconnection and that you have no ideological problem with nuclear in the Latrobe, wouldn't nuclear to the SA grid make renewables redundant?

The ideas that nuclear is unsuited by population sparseness (when the existing FF infrastructure already accommodates this) and that we couldn't adequately man the installation(s) to meet the needs of SA and most of the eastern seaboard, seem to be clutching at air, IMO.

Aidan,

The problem is mirrored in what is happening in Germany. Where there is a large proportion of renewables, the generators that are closing down are not the coal fired ones but the CCGTs who are less adaptable to the swinging load, precisely because under these circumstances they become the most expensive generators.

SA labor has had to make a heap of financial promises to Pelican Island to encourage them to come back online, this is one of the reasons that SA has the highest electricity costs in Aus and why their businesses are collapsing.

Luciferase.

You miss my point about hydro: turbine capacity can be increased without increasing dam capacity. Doing so would greatly decrease the storage requirements for wind and solar PV.

And your working assumption that there's no scalable, affordable storage in sight is far from sensible. Batteries have already started being used on the grid. There is a lot of battery R&D that's bringing the price down. And there's no good reason to assume prices won't continue to fall. And as there are different competing technologies, scalability shouldn't be a problem.

Providing energy for fuel production is NOT the only valid reason all that could exist for renewables meeting more than instataneous 100% of load requirement in SA. Fuel synthesis is certainly a worthwhile load balancing activity, but there are other heavy industries that could operate in a similar way. Furthermore, even without demand for the excess supply, occasions when it's both very sunny and very windy are rare. Having to curtail wind power 1% of the time wouldn't really be so bad.

Asserting something to be preposterous merely because of its size seems to me to be a symptom of small mindedness. And I'm certainly unimpressed by Weatherill's performance, though the opposition are very often worse (as can be seen by their vehement opposition to a nuclear waste storage facility).

What we already see in the LRET is feedin tariffs making renewables more financially viable. While that has some economic merit (as it puts downward pressure on electricity prices) it is totally different to what I'm advocating. I want renewables to be made more economically viable by reducing the financiers' cut; removing a big inefficiency rather than compensating for it.

Making SA completely reliant on imported electricity leaves the state vulnerable to supply disruptions, and is also bad for the employment rate. Plus the running cost of renewables tends to be below that of nuclear. It's only when population density is such that the best sites for renewables become unavailable that nuclear has the advantage.

Shadow,

Since when have CCGTs been less adaptable to swinging load than coal fired power stations? The problem isn't the lack of technical adaptability; it's the relative price of gas and coal. Indeed SA's heavy reliance on gas is a much bigger reason for SA's high electricity prices than the high proportion of wind power. It's certainly a bigger reason than these alleged promises to Pelican Point which (if they are real) have not yet had any significant impact on electricity prices.

Pelican Point (which is on a peninsula not an island) is unlikely to need financial incentives once Hazelwood closes.

As for businesses collapsing, that has much more to do with federal government policy than what the state government does.

I won't debate hydro, Aidan. If you want to argue it's capable of load following wind and solar to make most of Australia emissions free, start another thread, and good luck.

Re "Asserting something to be preposterous merely because of its size seems to me to be a symptom of small mindedness".

Small-mindedness is secular thinking on electricity by each separate state.

Small-mindedness is failing to grasp how much RE with storage is required to meet current and growing world electricity needs, and do so without requiring as much energy input (with attendant emissions)to produce the infrastructure as energy it's capable of producing (with attendant emissions abatement).

The word "preposterous" is an understatement.

You envisage the day, no doubt, when renewable energy breeds all new renewable infrastructure. Meanwhile some of us are trying to avert CAGW.

Aidan,

Actually, the flexibility of the coal fired generators does hinge around their large scale efficiencies and low fuel cost. Keeping boilers hot and ready to go requires proportionally a far lower cost than for CCGT. As I said before, in Germany the CCGT suppliers are those going to the wall.

Secondly, having worked in heavy industry all my life, there is little to no room to be flexible on power consumption.