In reply to John Bennetts

I would certainly put my real name - Noel Wauchope. I have registered it with Online Opinion, but because I previously registered as ChristinaMac1 - its technology always comes up with that name.

I agree with you, about The Conversation. That publication also has a particular requirement - contributors have to hold an official position. Which is fine. There is also scope for complete nonentities, such as myself, to be able to publish articles in online journals, - at the discretion of the editors.

Mia, I think you need to acquaint yourself with some of the cold hard facts about power generation.
First of all you need to understand that the system provides power to the consumer as alternating current at a frequency of 50 Hertz and 240 volts. In order for this to be accomplished, all sources need to be able to connect at both the right frequency and just as importantly the right phase. The reference for these two parameters has to to be a system of base load power stations which make up a sizeable proportion of the total interconnected system. It doesn't matter whether these sources are gas turbines, hydro, diesel or coal fired. They are all capable of doing the job.

With this solid base, you can then introduce wind turbines which can then lock into the base system. Because wind speed is not constant, you can't run wind powered generators as an independent system because you have difficulty in maintaining constant frequency, voltage and phase.

Now you can also add in solar power. While the sun is up this can also be added to the system fairly easily, but it isn't available 24 hours a day and battery technology or other means of storage are a long way off producing practical solutions.

If the percentage of these intermittent renewable sources becomes too great, then the intermittent use of back up base load power stations make these stations uneconomic and that is what has happened in South Australia. As you might have observed, had you been awake at the time, the system then had to draw on coal fired power from interstate, at a considerable cost. With the imminent closure of Hazellwood in the near future, this power will not always be available, so what is your suggestion as a viable alternative to Victoria building another 1 gigawatt brown coal station in the Latrobe Valley.

cont.
As our population expands, this will be a minimum requirement. Remember that for every Megawatt of wind power you build, you need to both build and finance an equal amount of base load power.

Nuclear power might appear more expensive, but that is a cross we are going to have to bear if you want to reduce carbon emissions.

David. (if you want to know my real name, do a Google search.)

Thanks, David.

When considering South Australia's particular circumstances, it is a good idea to acquaint oneself with the three AEMO reports which relate specifically to their recent islanding event which resulted in loss of electricity for up to four days.

They are available from the AEMO site, so I won't clog up this thread with specific references unless requested to do so.

The third, issued only this afternoon and 107 pages long, considers the transmission system upgrades that will be necessary in order to keep the national electricity grid stable and reliable to and beyond 2030. It is based on deep knowledge of the current generation plant and transmission systems, as well as the probable future scenarios based on state and federal objectives as announced publicly.

"At least two large synchronous generating units must be online in South Australia to maintain a secure operating state."

The author and all others who contemplate 100% "renewable" (ie, unreliable) generation must read and understand this necessity. One truth embedded in it is that South Australia's power system was not secure before the wind event which resulted in loss of a large number of wind turbines even before the transmission towers collapsed. Generating plant without adequate inertia simply must be supported by synchronous plant of one kind or another.

If this goes over any reader's head, I suggest studying the final 10 pages or so of the report first, because they contain succinct definitions of all terms and abbreviations used in the report.

Today's report is available at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3235211-2016-AEMO-2016-National-Transmission-Network.html

Those who know me will recognise that I support considering nuclear power because it is the cheapest, safest way to provide carbon-free electricity which has the necessary inertia, but this isn't the place to argue the merits of nuclear power. Let's understand the terminology and the minimum engineering requirements first.

Mia you state:-

"The national nuclear waste problem in Australia has zero to do with x-rays and everything to do with spent nuclear fuel from the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney – material that is far more serious and long lived."

Do you even have a basic understanding of the decay of nuclear materials? Here is something you should learn to understand, material which decays in say three weeks, three days or months is what is dangerous to human health. The other stuff which decays, with say a half life of 125,000 years is pretty much harmless, put it in your pocket and your body will hardly know it is there.

You obviously don't understand the issues at the most basic level, so why the rush to condemn something you basically know nothing about?

Get an education before going into print please!

Cheers
Geoff

David, the Sth Aus wind turbines are cheapies. Did you see what I
wrote on the other thread about European turbines.
They have some, perhaps not all, capable of a black start.
Must have a 50 cycle standard oscillator and build up from that to drive the choppers.
They also have synthetic inertia to lock the network on frequency.
Very interesting read that interum report.
Do you have a WIA email address ?
73 Bazz