Shadow minister,
Xoddam is correct;
> I would expect the contribution from wind to be higher than 20%.

Twenty percent is near the maximum although I believe some systems are
achieving nearer 25%.
The limitation is caused by network stability problems.
However that is not the only figure of concern.
Over a year most systems are only getting 15% of their rated output.
That is a very big capital expenditure for such a low productive
output.

You did omit one of the most promising systems, Thermal Solar as
applied at Liddel in an experimental installation.
With an attack of money and engineering it could perhaps solve
many problems and can be retrofitted to existing coal fired stations.

There is a link to it on the NSW government web site.

The following wind energy proposal is one I shall follow with interest particularly when it promises to supply power to over one million homes:

http://www.renewable-energy-world.com/display_article/293212/123/ARTCL/none/NEWS/UK-to-build-%E2%82%AC43-billion-offshore-wind-farm-in-the-Atlantic/?dcmp=REW_ARCH

No doubt the pro-nuke, recently deposed Federal government must take some responsibility for forcing our geniuses off-shore. Will the following solar proposals, in the near future, retire the coal and nuclear industries to where they belong - in the dusty archives of history?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm

Here's another one:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44725/story.htm

Or how about this?:

Million Solar Roofs

"U.S. Department of Energy seeks to place one million solar energy systems on U.S. roofs by year 2010. This initiative will use existing grants to help communities, businesses, governments, and utilities increase solar energy systems sales. One key feature involves the use of solar systems in federal buildings."
Local Contact: Jamie Evans, 303.275.4813 jamey.evans@ee.doe.gov.

Yes indeed, exciting times ahead and the word "luddite" has a totally new connotation for the 21st century! Nuclear advocates = luddites!

Dickie,

The first article you cited left out some words after "could supply electricity for over 1 million homes." The missing words are "on average." Appliances don't run well on average power, and this is no trivial issue.

The second cited article says "... within two years it will be able to economically store its hot water for more than 16 hours." Which is fine, provided the energy to heat the water was there in the first place. Not so hot after an overcast day, though. Again, not a trivial issue.

Those of us who are opposing the introduction of wind and solar power are doing so because we do not believe that it performs as advertised, and that in consequence significant amounts of money are being wasted that could be better used to deal with CO2 emissions in other ways.

Shadow Minister,

Long-distance, low-loss transmission of electric power is a problem solved long ago. A 570km line has operated between the main islands of New Zealand since 1965. Hydroelectric power is exported 1200km from Mozambique to South Africa, and a 1700km line exists in Congo (formerly Zaire). The new 3GW high-voltage DC line from the Three Gorges Dam to Guangdong in China is over 900km. The longest such link in Australia to date is the 390km-long Basslink opened last year. I am somewhat surprised Australia hasn't exploited this technology more extensively before now.

Most reactive power losses with HVDC are in the conversion stations at either end; line losses are very low and increase only logarithmically with distance; total power loss is typically just over 10%.

An ambitious European, Middle Eastern and North African project envisages transmitting solar energy on a large scale from the Sahara to Europe:

http://www.trecers.net/

There is absolutely no reason why 1000km and greater distances should not be covered by HVDC transmission lines from geothermal and solar thermal power stations in the Australian outback to the sites of demand in our coastal cities. It's not free, but it's not prohibitively expensive either: one day we might export our abundant renewable electricity by cable to Indonesia and beyond.

The biggest part of existing power transmission costs is actually thermal wear-and-tear on substation equipment (transformers between AC long-distance transmission and local distribution voltages) during peak hour. It is in order to reduce these substantial costs that utilities are prepared to subsidise otherwise-uneconomical rooftop solar panels in aircon-peak-constrained suburbs like Blacktown.

Wind farms compete with power stations as remote sources of electricity, not with retail prices at local sites. Consumer-scale wind turbines are hopelessly uneconomical by comparison with 200m-tall utility-scale turbines costing several million dollars each and generating between 2 and 7 megawatts at capacity factors above 35%.

Rooftop solar PV panels are a better bet on the consumer scale, and they're not there yet. Give them 8-10 years. By that time I'll wager batteries, electric cars and other storage technology will have improved out of sight as well.

ARTILLERYMAN: We're gonna build a whole new world for ourselves. Look, the global oil giants clap eyes on us and we're dead, right?

So we gotta make a new life where they'll never find us. You know where? Underground.

You should see it down there - hundreds of miles of drains - sweet and clean now after the rain, dark, quiet, safe. We can build houses and everything, start again from scratch.

And what's so bad about living off solar&wind trickle power? It's not been so great living up here off coal power, if
you want my opinion.

Take a look around you at the world we've come to know
Does it seem to be much more than a crazy circus show
But maybe from the PEAKOIL madness something beautiful will grow
In a brave new world

With just a handful of men we'll start - we'll start all over again - all over again - all over again - all over again.

One day we might even export our abundant renewable electricity by cable to Indonesia and beyond ..

NUCLEAR POWER DUDE: In the cellar was a set of solar panels scarcely ten feet long, that had taken him a week to prepare. I could have done that much in a day, and I suddenly had my first inkling of the gulf between his dreams and his powers.

ARTILLERYMAN: It's doing the workin' and the thinkin' that wears a feller out. I'm ready for a bit of a rest. How about a drink eh? Nothing but champagne, now I'm the boss.

KAEP,

How does nuclear power "mass-synthesize liquid fuels"?

I bet you that plants will *always* provide more combustible liquids for transport fuel than nuclear fission.

As for oil giants, either they're with me or they are doomed. Nuclear energy, including gas-cooled pebble-bed reactors, may have a role to play, but without some serious evidence I won't believe it can "bridge peak oil". Keep on digging.

Sylvia,

Sunshine and wind were never advertised as continuous energy supplies; intermittency is universally acknolwledged. Your claims that they require equal (and expensive) backup capacity at low penetrations are grossly exaggerated.

A portion of intermittent capacity can be considered every bit as reliable as thermal generation capacity. Conventional turbines are available for dispatch 85-90% of the time. A fraction of wind power is equally reliable, depending on penetration but typically between 10% and 25% of nameplate capacity.

At low penetrations, existing variability of demand exceeds variability of intermittent generation. Because the two are positively correlated, intermittent sources displace peakers rather than requiring any additional backup at all.

At higher penetrations, the variability of intermittent generation may exceed the variability of demand, and require *modest* additional peaking or storage capacity to ensure demand can always be met. The expense of most peakers is more in fuel than capital, so running them at a low capacity factor is ideal, not expensive.

It is entirely appropriate that intermittent power suppliers be required to fund this additional peaking capacity.

Overcast days *are* "a trivial issue" for solar thermal power in the wide brown land; approximately as "trivial" as nuclear reactor scrams, for instance.

Older solar thermal power plants in California and Israel keep their generators running overnight with fossil fuels; the same is an option in Australia for rare cloudy desert days when thermal storage proves inadequate.

You should however note that days that are overcast across inland Australia are also likely to be days of above-average regional wind energy supply and reduced demand to run cooling equipment.