Many inferences can be drawn from this article; that we should quickly expand windpower to 20%, that nuclear or 'clean coal' must replace dirty coal and drought ravaged hydro, that electricity demand should be time matched to supply, that gas should not be used for baseload power. Perhaps some combination of the above. It doesn't look like there will be any imminent breakthroughs in cheap electricity storage at the megawatt-hour level. On top of that the Rudd government is supposed to introduce carbon trading by 2011 though I suspect it won't be too onerous. Meanwhile coal fired baseload will continue unchecked but electricity bills will go up, the glaciers will keep melting and we will watch with interest how other countries fail to deal with the same issues. Expect a muddle with no satisfactory way out.

People forget the magic words, "energy efficiency".

Add wind power and massive solar farms across our drought-ravged continent to reducing our unnecessarily wasteful use of electricity and what have you got? A damn good chance that we can manage with alternative and even possibly non-nuclear power sources. Pay our cockies to build solar energy farms instead of trying to grow sheep and cows on semi-arid desert. Would solve a number of problems, even if expensive at the outset.

And a PS. Whilst wind power is of course intermittent, as is sunlight, the electricity generated can be stored using several different technologies including the simple one of pumping water back up hill.

I have read the paper by Mark Diesendorf and his 12 fallacies. No where does he make mention of the costs involved in transmitting power over long distances. I sure the cost of building and maintaining lines will not be negligible.

More interesting to me is the physics of electricity transmission. I have not found a suitable “elementary text” on this subject, so I will make a few observations and would be very grateful for corrections and amplifications.

• AC transmission is subject to radiation and resistance losses. While high voltage DC transmission will only suffer resistance losses.#
• The conversion from high to low voltages (AC only) by transformers or conversion from AC to DC will lead to a loss of electrical energy. Indeed according to the second law of thermo-dynamics all energy conversions are subject to loss.
• Wind mill turbines generate AC power. Conversion to DC for purposes of transmission and re-conversion to AC for use must be wasteful of energy.
• I understand that when a small wind generator feeds into the grid there is a superposition of wave forms. That is the final wave form is the sum of all the multiple inputs.
• I would be interested to learn that if the frequency of the various inputs differs by small amounts is there the equivalent of “beats’ developing in the system.
• Alternative if the input frequencies match anddepending on the resistive properties of the system, is there the equivalence of resonance.
>>>>>>>>>
# An article in Scientific American talks about a new direct-current power transmission backbone. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

One factor in the "sustainable energy sources are intermitant" debate that is neglected is that it is possible to produce a link between power availability and power consumption.

That is, you create a system where the price the consumer pays per kWhr of electricity varies depending on the availability.

The simplest way I can explain it is give an example of how it might work.

You have a solar water heater with electric backup. You have set your heater to use power from the grid when the price is below 15c/kWhr and the temperature of the water in the heater is below 55 degrees. Now a controller on your heater (or in your meter box, wherever) switches on your water heater booster when power in the mains is plentiful and the price drops below 15c/kWhr. If you feel like gambling a bit more and don't mind the occasional cool shower you might set the switch-on-price at 13c/kWhr and save some money.

Other systems that could go on or off line depending on the price of power are things like desalination plants and electric car rechargers.

I believe there is renewable energy at hand if only government & industry took the initiative.There is wind ,solar and wave power all with proven technology as well as gas, so what's the hold up.With wave power it can also provide potable water,the government look to the cost but the longer they leave it the more expensive it will become.Why keep selling off the bulk of gas instead of planning for the future our state,it's an extremely sad state of affairs when a state is rich in gas but can't supply its on domestic needs.

Actually wind power is much cheaper than Conventional Coal power.

Lets take a look at Victorian Brown Coal power plant vs wind power.

Assumption - Coal Plant lasts 30 years - Wind Power Turbines last 30 years.

What is required to deliver 2000MW of 24x7 electricity 99.99% uptime from wind solution vs coal solution.

Coal solution
2000MW Coal power plant 4x 500MW Generation units.
1x 500MW Gas plant (5x100MW generation units) - to backup any of the 4 Generators during maintenance.

Annual Power from Coal 365*.95 = 346 then 346days*2000MW*24hours
= 16608000MWh @ $45 = 747 Million p.a * 30 years = 22.5 Billion

747 Million * 30 years = 22.4 Billion

Gas Backup = 330Million for plant 365-346 (5% of time it's running output 2000MW*24*19*30 @65 =1776Million

Total for Coal Solution 4.5Billion 2000MW plant + 22.5Billion Wholesale Electricity sale price + 330Million Gas backup plant + 1776 Million Gas backup fuel/operating cost (5% of time @ 500MW)

= 29.1 Billion Dollars

2000MW reliably delivered wind.

HVDC Grid upgrade 2 Billion Dollars

6000MW of wind = 9.6 Billion AUD
Geographically distributed Vic + SA + Tas + NSW 20% reliable.
6000*.2 = 1200MW

Maintenance of 6000MW wind over 30 years = 500Million

Build 800MW of Gas for backup 530Million

65% of the time Wind power delivers 100% of 2000MW

35% wind power delivers anything from 1200MW -> 2000MW

Much of the 35% of the time wind is delivering 80% 99% etc, the worst case is that wind is only delivering 60% of the 2000MW.

The total usage of Gas to generate the 54days * 24 hour * 2000MW reliable Wind solution for electricity is 15% * 30 years

5 Billion Dollars For Gas Fuel

So total cost of Wind/Gas solution is 9.6Billion + 530Million + 5 Billion + 2 Billion Grid upgrade

17.13Billion

Wind/gas solution is 12 Billion dollars cheaper than Coal solution

and produces 5% of the Carbon Dioxide.

http://beyondzeroemissions.org

The author, TQ, writes about Mark Diesendorf's article:
" ... The Base Load Fallacy ... explains how there is a real alternative to coal fired power stations. It is of course not nuclear energy but all the renewable energy sources of biomass, wind, solar, geothermal and gas."

"Unfortunately, present experience does not support this view."

TQ's argument is very rational, but it reminds me of the strong argument once mounted by an aerodynamic engineer, who successfully debated that The Bumblebee Cannot Fly. Indeed, the bumblebee flew in the face of every orthodox aerodynamic assumption of the era.

MD's article doesn't seem so fallacy ridden to me as it does to you, TQ. Maybe it's time to add a few new ideas to your repertoire.

I just love the optimism of the renewables supporters.

Matt, you glibly slip in 2bn for HVDC as the answer to the reticulation.

What you missed is a zero. Reticulating that diverse power would probable be closer to 20bn.

Also, the need for base load would need to include 90% of the coal / gas capital cost.

I should get you to do my taxes!

I agree with your 20 Billion figure -- that is the cost for doing the entire grid, diversified and resilient, from Cape York Penninsula to Eyre Peninsula and through tasmania via an upgraded bass link

This could easily bring online The 55,000MW of wind power that we would need to go 85% renewable.

Which as it happens is, 10 years of what they installed this year in the United States and in terms of cost, and scale-- the industry in the united states is only just getting started and they're install 5500MW in one year -- we can easily mimick this and do it over 10 years. Build the 20Billion of HVDC.. and we're home

I happily agree with your figure.

2 Billion was the HVDC upgrade just to integrated 2GW into the Grid for each additional 2GW just add another 2Billion upto 20GW then you can add the additional 35GW on without very much aggregated grid cost.

Recently read article where German farmers are instaling solar panels on their farms and selling the power thus generated to the Grid.
Apparently this has become so profitable many farmers are no longer producing primary products but living solely on money earned from their power generation, and would you believe, once installed they don't have to do a thing.
Now if the Germans can do this in the Northern hemisphere, one really has to wonder what's wrong with us down here with the amount of sun we have and the abundant land available.
Another article also, was the development of a giant Battery by the Japanese, these batteries could be situated near substations and would capture power generated thru the grid via wind of solar, stored in the battery and then when needed, utilised thru the grid.
According to the article, these were being tested insitu right now and have passed the feasability stage.
Clearly, there are many avenues we need to consider and an open mind seems to be the most important as well as avoiding being involved with vested interests.

What am I missing here?The majority of our population live on or near the coast.There is constant wave action all around the said coast.Base line power available 24 hours every day?Why no mention anywhere?If there is no viable method of generating power from the waves then why no attempt to find something? Curmugeon

Curmugeon,I did mention the option of using wave power,the study was carried out in Fremantle two years ago.The company were extremely happy with the out come as they found they could also produce potable water.It was discussed with Mr Gallop as the company required finance,we have heard nothing since.I am unaware if they approached the federal government.

What if every house in Australia had solar-power tiles on its roof? The price of manufacture would drop and there would be incentives for companies to produce yet more efficient solar tiles for the market. Add this to high quality batteries for storage and low wattage light bulbs such as are available now and we start moving towards power reduction. But the privatised power generating companioes might not like the loss of profit.

What if every house in Australia had solar-power tiles on its roof? The price of manufacture would drop and there would be incentives for companies to produce yet more efficient solar tiles for the market. Add this to high quality batteries for storage and low wattage light bulbs such as are available now and we start moving towards power reduction. But the privatised power generating companies might not like the loss of profit.

The main thing that keeps bogging things down is the discussion that centres around BASELOAD electricity. Of course solar can never compete effectively in suppling base load power to a grid because it just doesn't have the oomph. However coal and nuclear generated base load electricity will never, ever meet the efficiency of solar.

Stop trying to make out that we need to replace our current generators and supply to our current grids. Start thinking about energy that is available immediately at the point of consumption. Electricity grids lose about 30% through radiation from lines. That means they are merely 70% efficient. And that's not even taking into account the loss of heat in production. That's a big waste, but big companies can absorb or pass on that loss because of the shear number of consumers.

On the other hand solar can be used at the point of capture with virtually no lose because the distance of transfer is nil. This is unpalatable to big business and governments because people would no longer be completely reliant upon the grid. This is why business and government will never really do anything because it is in their interests to maintain the status quo. It is up to individuals to make themselves self-sufficient. And you can forget "clean coal" - there's no such thing.

Well, we now know where all the Democrat's bottom of the garden fairies went don't we?

Pity, they don't appear to have become any more practical, during their migration.

Definitely has-been, Hasbeen, don't you think?

Didnt read the article but the assumption that solar cannot provide baseload is erroneous.

http://www.coolearthsolar.com

http://www.nanosolar.com

As the peak load occurs between 6pm and 9pm this is exactly when the base load supply is most needed which is exactly when solar power is completely useless. Like wise, wind power cannot be relied on to deliver the power when it is needed.

A study by the CSIRO indicated that even if there was sufficient wind and solar power and other renewable sources to meet 100% of the average power requirements of Aus, there would still be the need for base load generation capacity of 90% of the total.

No one actually supplying solar equipment is going to claim base load equivalence as their customers would have a mega claim. The only claimants to this "theory" are pseudo intellectuals whose grasp on statistics is mirrored only by their fleeting grasp on reality.

Renewable energy can contribute dramatically to the reduction of green house gases, but it will never replace base generation no matter how much we want it to.

Dave Clarke,
There are systems being tested and implemented which can control
the thermostadts in water heaters, air conditioners etc.

The technology used sometimes is known as Broadband Power Line (BPL).
There are better technologies that use radio or lower frequencies than
BPL and do not cause interference.
We will see these systems installed after the current trials are completed

Antigreen;
Noone has answered your question, so I will attempt to answer some of them.

• AC transmission is subject to radiation and resistance losses. While high voltage DC transmission will only suffer resistance losses.#

I have not heard that radiation losses are that great. If the lines
are reasonably matched I would think that the loss would be very small.

• The conversion from high to low voltages (AC only) by transformers or conversion from AC to DC will lead to a loss of electrical energy. Indeed according to the second law of thermo-dynamics all energy conversions are subject to loss.

The losses here are also very small and a lot less than using the
lower voltage.

• Wind mill turbines generate AC power. Conversion to DC for purposes of transmission and re-conversion to AC for use must be wasteful of energy.

Same answer as above.

• I understand that when a small wind generator feeds into the grid there is a superposition of wave forms. That is the final wave form is the sum of all the multiple inputs.

The generator is in fact an alternator, if for some reason it runs
slower than synchronous speed then the grid would drive it as a motor
up to synchronous speed.

• I would be interested to learn that if the frequency of the various inputs differs by small amounts is there the equivalent of “beats’ developing in the system.

As above, everything gets locked to synchronous speed.

• Alternative if the input frequencies match and depending on the resistive properties of the system, is there the equivalence of resonance.

errr, don't think so. I suppose you could make a alternator on the
system look like a capacitor by trying to drive it harder than synchronous speed.
>>>>>>>>>
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 22 January 2008 11:24:23 AM

Cheers

>As the peak load occurs between 6pm and 9pm this is exactly when the >base load supply is most needed which is exactly when solar power is completely useless.

This is rubbish - Peak load in Vic, SA where prices are highest are linked to 35 degree + days instead of 4.5c kwh the price rises to $5-10 per kwh -From air-conditioners

At this point solar photovoltaic systems and (in the future) concentrating solar thermal and concentrating solar photovoltaic systems are at full output, generating the most expensive power for everyone air conditioners at the lowest cost.

Solar power can be stored, in thermochemical reactors (phase change with ammonia) pumped storage with hydro (has already been operating in the snowy scheme for 30 years). Compressed air, electrolysis with Hydrodgen. or by scheduling non time critical demand. -- like we do with off peak hot water. The year is 2007 and less important loads can be scheduled in real time -- this occurs in the USA originally with air conditioning systems at large retail complexes - it now happens right down to the domestic level.

>A study by the CSIRO indicated that even if there was sufficient wind >and solar power and other renewable sources to meet 100% of the >average power requirements of Aus, there would still be the need for >base load generation capacity of 90% of the total.

The study you are talking about you are totally misrepresenting -- it does not say this at all. If you check out

http://www-aadc.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=14726

It is well known that without geographical diversity it's much more difficult to integrate wind power. These two turbines at the Mawson base are saving around 40% of the fuel, and this is soon to be expanded with more turbines (technology has come a long way in 6 years) and a hydrogen system to completely eliminate diesel fuel imports.

No one actually supplying solar equipment
is going to claim base load equivalence

although the term is misleading, baseload with wind has already been claimed by the CSIRO, they said that on one geographic area such as South Australia, 8% of overall rated wind capacity can be claimed as baseload. And across 3 or more states this number raises to 20% of rated capacity. Which is pretty good given that output of wind turbines is roughly 33% of their peak rated capacity on an annual basis

Bazz,

Thank you for your observations.