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?