The current use of natural gas fired electrical plant to balance variable wind output is short sighted. There are many higher priority uses for natural gas and coal seam methane; these include nitrogen fertiliser production, CNG diesel substitute in buses and trucks, industrial process heat and domestic use. Export comes after electricity generation and I think there should be some official policy setting this out. Over to you Martin Ferguson.

I suspect several sites on the Tasmanian west coast could use unregulated wind electrical output to pump hydro outlet water back uphill again ie a continuous loop. While this could produce say 300MW of smooth power it is small compared to current black coal, brown coal and gas generation. Solar does not fully balance wind power and is too expensive. Cheap thin film solar may or may not happen. Current generation nuclear power plant doesn't like rapid throttle changes to accommodate a wind surge or drop. At say $3m a kilometre high voltage direct current lines (HVDC) plus $200m apiece converter stations will be too expensive to join up all States so wind and solar can be shared.

I think Canberra should present an energy outlook white paper that canvasses all these issues including desalination, electric transport and population growth. In theory the ETS and MRET are not supposed to pick the best technologies in advance but they should all be broadly consistent. In my opinion we should start building nuclear power stations, retire coal plant, conserve gas and find other ways to balance wind power.

I can't believe this. The author talks about storage of energy as though it's a difficult problem.

At home about half my electricity usage is for a hotwater storage system. At present it runs off-peak. It is governed by a clock. But a generation ago my parents off-peak hotwater system was converted from a clock to being switched on and off by a signal sent through the lines from the power supplier.

That is to say, the technology is there to switch hotwater systems on and off according to whether the wind is blowing or not. And the "storage infrastructure" (ie storage hotwater systems) are also present in may homes already.

It's hard to take the article seriously (likewise, especially, for the cited report by Lang), when it doesn't take this sort of thing into consideration

Jeremy - you raise an interesting point I did not quite get around to in the article. Yes, you can store energy as hot water, and this is done for individual sites. there may also be some application on a system wide basis but my point is that no-one has done the planning for this or put in any thought.

As an aside, on the grid design issue, the off-peak part of the day is when the coal-fired base load plants are still running, and its probably better to use those for energy storage, as they are best left running at the same speed. Wind might just get in the way, or it might not - either way, the distresing part of the business is that, as matters stand, these things will be simply expensive symbols..

You will note that there are numerous reports making exactly the same points, not just one.

The problem with the variability of wind energy is so easy to fix.
Make all electrical equipment able to work on any voltage between 110
and 240 except heaters (the biggest consumers) which cut out if the voltage is below 220.
If wind is low then the voltage drops a little (brown out)and heaters automatically switch off so reducing the load.

I have a few pieces of equipment that work from 110V to 250V and at 60Hz or 50Hz.
Modern electrical stuff can handle large voltage swings easily.
Lights can maintain their brightness and color during a "brownout".
You will not even know it is happening

"As has been confirmed in a series of reports by different bodies, renewables, particularly wind farms, are a lot more trouble and far less effective than those who support these targets realise."

Not according to the following report:

http://www.issuelab.org/research/global_wind_power_capacity_reaches_100000_megawatts

If Australia is sincere about reducing GHGs (which I don't believe it is!) then we should further investigate the glowing report provided, to verify the windpower achievements it boasts of. The US now services 4.5 million homes with windpower. Considering our significantly smaller population, 4.5 million homes, supplied with wind energy in Australia could make a remarkable difference to our carbon emissions:

Yet Mr Lawson's article suggests it can't or shouldn't be done. I suspect Australia will wear more egg on its face before it's dragged kicking and screeching into the 21st century.

Mark,
You never fail to disappoint me with your lack of insightor to adress a topic objectively.
Let me guess you are one of those confused individuals that is really a closet conservatives masquerading as an *”independent journalist”*. When * independent journalist is code for Political/special interest axe grinder or the print version of talk back radio.

Simple question: Why can’t our energy needs be a blend of technologies.
It is an erroneous that various areas could vary their sources of both base and peak loads.

The argument that big is necessarily better is at best sleight of hand. In truth as it stands today If big power were compelled to charge the true cost of power including amelioration of environmental damage it would non viable.
If this wasn’t true then why has these same polluters demanded (sorry negotiated) a ridiculous negation of the carbon tax in freebees?

One wise poster said that “knee jerk negativity (myopic spin) simply extends the life of ideas beyond their useful use buy dates”. Your mind set is no different.

This whole line of thinking belongs to the 1950/60.

Ask yourselves the outcome if the green sources were offered the same levels of research stimulus and freebees (level playing field) would they still be as “un- viable”?

Ask yourself “Can the public afford to be so profligate with it’s power demands?”
As for employment I would posit that a connected hub system would simply diversify jobs though out the nation including areas where there is not enough employment now.

Likewise it is preposterous to suggest that if the wind stops here that the wind in other areas has too. Again the technology exists to grid switch.

We need solutions not more of the same pro big power (vested commercial influence abuse) spin that is contrary to national interests

Protagoras - glanced briefly at your link. It doesn't disprove anything. The installed capacity reported, although its sounds impressive, actually doesn't not add up to much world wide, and they quote estimates for power generation by wind that is wildly wrong. Nor are they concerned with trying to make wind power effective. The energy authorities who actually have to deal with the stuff, all say the same thing - which I've reported - sorry..

As for the comment by another writer about making electrical equipment able to work on a range of voltages I can't see that it would make the slightest difference to this enormous problem with wind. Wild swings in the output voltage don't seem like a good idea.. but please give further details, I'll certainly read it.

Mark,

Your ideas are (mostly) similar to those that have been promoted by a number of people (both inside the industry and outside) about the added complications of balancing supplies with an increasing amount of variable (and unpredictable) wind generation.

This does add to the cost of power supplies (because of the shadow capacity required, as you say). There is much work being done around the world to see how this can be reduced. Everyone has their own point of view, and there is no commonly accepted "truth" in terms of the scale of the cost.

However, you then make a fundamental flaw in confusing the measure of MW (megawatts - an instantaneous measure) with MWh (megawatthours - a unit of volume, if you like).

You are JUST PLAIN WRONG if you state that a MWh of wind power is not a MWh saved from "black" power. I see you are the editor of AFR's "Carbon Quarterly", in which case I would think you really should understand the difference.

Your point that wind power is more expensive than simply the installed capacity cost is true (because of the back up required), but this is talking about a capital cost (i.e. $/MW). When a wind turbine does produce a MWh of generation then (just like any other generation source) this DOES REPLACE the need to source it elsewhere.

The organisation you refer to is the Clean Energy Council (not the "Green" Energy Council) and the website is here
http://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/

Also, "Undidly" you might want to check this out for an explanation of why maintaining frequency is important in interconnected electricity systems:
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/Public/Article.aspx?aid=66#_Toc221058950
Your ideas are just a little simplistic!

Hope this helps.

Cheers

ClarkKent

"Also, "Undidly" you might want to check this out for an explanation of why maintaining frequency is important in interconnected electricity systems:
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/Public/Article.aspx?aid=66#_Toc221058950
Your ideas are just a little simplistic!"

I said nothing about frequency changing.
If the system is overloaded then the frequency would drop.
Load shedding puts it back where is was,50 Hz here in Australia.
The article is interesting and agrees with my post.
Modern power electronics can easily and cheaply compensate for varying voltage and undo any effect of wind energy changes.

"UNDO any effect of voltage changes."
The frequency stays the same BECAUSE the voltage change is corrected.

As with most debates related to renewable energy sources, the focus is on the scientific detail, mega thingies per whatsits. Diving into content serves no purpose other that to demonstate the undoubted technical knowledge that each side uses to substantiate their case or to refute that of another.

Why can't we learn from those nations that have tried renewable sources over many years?

Why is there no instance of wind farms being run by the private energy generators? Could it be because there is no financial return on investment therefore only political (public money) decisions support it? Is that why the Europeans have described renewables as "eye wateringly inefficient and expensive"? Could the fact that every single wind turbine built with cost 1.5 million euros to decomission? the massive concrete foundation and land fill/restorations are not included in that figure.Could that be why the Swedish government has decided to go nuclear?

Surely we can learn something from those who have been there, done that? What are we, myopic lemmings

Clark Kent - there was no confusion over Megawatt hours and megawatt. If you go back to the article you will see I was simply referring to the output of power stations at a given time.. the megawatt hour thing is a measure of output over time.. I made no attempt to discuss total contributions of generators. Take you point on clean and green however - my apologies..

Spindoc - yes we are learning from nations who have been using renewables for years.. that's the point of the article. We have at least some chance of designing a renewables system that will make a contribution, rather than just be symbolic. At the moment we are heading towards symbolism..

Power stations are only part of the strategies to reduce CO2, therefore one straw does not make for a whole broom. Other industries emit equally as much, if not more specific carbon pollutants (plus other hazardous compounds) than the electricity sector.

Nevertheless, given the time constraints in building just one nuclear reactor, Toshiba, General Electric et al will now need to find a way to physically and economically supply a world’s appetite for nuclear components - a virtual impossibility considering the urgency, time lags for construction and the gargantuan costs for construction and decommissioning.

With regard to spindoc's claim on Sweden, the UK’s Guardian media reported that Jean McSorley, a senior nuclear adviser at Greenpeace stated: "No way can this be seen as a ringing endorsement given the parties concerned only hold 180 of 349 seats. The largest party in Sweden is still against nuclear and the people are not enamoured by it either,"

Additionally, Swedish ministers have also outlined plans to lift the proportion of renewable energy consumption to 50% of the total. In the transport sector alone, the target was set at 10% and Sweden has become a major importer of sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. Sweden already gets much of its power from hydroelectric and biomass schemes.

The new energy package also included plans to expand wind power and tough new taxes on CO2 and energy.

Nuclear may be attractive to those countries which do not mine uranium. Australia has a disgraceful past and present record in its uranium industry and is one of deadly deceit which appears not to concern unscrupulous corporate lemmings or successive governments.

Currently, ERA’s Ranger mine in the NT is leaking about 100,000 litres of contaminated water every day, which is seeping from a tailings dam at the mine.

Industry captive and NT Resources Minister, Con Vatskalis said: "The Ranger Uranium Mine is one of the most strictly regulated uranium mines in Australia and the Office of the Supervising Scientist is controlling, is supervising, very strictly the mine," he said.

“So whats happening at the less supervised uranium mines, Mr Vatskalis?”

Mark - you note at the end of your article:
"The problem is that it will be a nominal 20 per cent - the power stations will still be operating at almost the same capacity, as they would be if the renewables were not there at all, and the network would be overall less efficient."

The 20% target is a target in terms of MWh instead of MW, so it will mean (if the target is met) that this will indeed be a real 20%, not a nominal 20%.

I think you meant to say that the shadow capacity will still be there, in almost the same installed capacity - but it would only run (fully) when the wind did not blow. Fully agree that the network will be less efficient.

If the 20% was to be filled entirely by wind (or solar, for that matter, which suffers similar issues in terms of max possible capacity factors) then it will mean we have a huge amount of installed capacity of wind (MW):

Total electricity consumption = 230,000GWh in 2006-07 approx
20% of this is 46,000,000MWh
= 5,300MW of capacity running at 100% capacity factor - or
= 18,000MW of wind farms running at 30% average capacity factor
= $54b capital cost installed (at about $3M/MW)

Hence, its widely acknowledged in the industry (witness investments by Origin, AGL and TRU in alternative energy technologies) that wind won't be able to supply it all (though we did count about 10,000MW of wind capacity in planning a couple of years ago).

Undidly - in the future you propose (routine load shedding to maintain frequency), you would see all electricity consumers in an area the size of Sydney (say 5,000MW in average load) automatically and routinely turned off every time the wind drops. Prepare for the riots!

ClarkKent

"Undidly - in the future you propose (routine load shedding to maintain frequency), you would see all electricity consumers in an area the size of Sydney (say 5,000MW in average load) automatically and routinely turned off every time the wind drops. Prepare for the riots!"

Load shedding of heaters only to start then if needed air conditioners.Everything else would still work.
As is now everything goes off in one area if there is not enough to go around.

My air conditioner and water heater can shut off your electricity now.
Auto load shedding would prevent that.

I've just been reading WWF Australia's report on achieving low carbon energy by 2050
http://www.wwf.org.au/publications/cr-industrial-constraints-schedule-1-v3/
Some interesting ideas about integrating wind power without burning gas but heroic assumptions about ocean power, geothermal and carbon capture. The crazy thing is while the solutions seem far fetched the problems aren't. Our current major sources of energy will be in dire straits by 2050 but we will have a much bigger population. Basically I believe it comes down to an energy storage breakthrough or assembly line nukes.

I think Clark Kent’s summery of Energy consumption is telling – if you equate available commodities to demand – I guess it is time to open a candle stick factory ; - Barristers are not permitted to tender.
After all, it was barristers who worded the Wind generator proposal – they operate on linguistic level 1-2 points above bureaucrats, and that be the reason why hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been disposed of by building big propeller Stautions called wind generators, when if you would measure the current generated on a multi meter, the 9 volt battery that operates the multi-meter is the most consistent contributor.

If you live in Sydney , take a multi-meter and measure the current generated by the 85 million dollar “Crookwell”; wind generators , the biological system of your own anatomy generates more electricity than these do.

Clark Kent - quite right on the use of MWh but I don't believe it was necessary to go into the measure. However, I will make it clearer that I'm talking about output at the time in forthcoming articles.. anyway, we can agree there is a problem with this form of energy, and its a big one.

Like I said, the debate is still all about mega whatsits per thingies. You are missing the point and the big picture. Why can't you stop getting down and dirty in "I know more than you and I know a better website?"

Just look at the post from Protagoras, an otherwise serious ecologiacal debate is turned into a comedy by quoting a "Greenpeace Advisor" on the Swedish Governments decision to chose nuclear as a means of meeting its green house gas emissions targets. A Greenpeace Advisor for pities sake? Is Protagoras serious? are we proposing putting Iran's "HaveYourDinnerDad" in charge of the Jewish Kindergarten?

Protagoras, you missed the point entirely, which was, even the most renewable concious, biggest emission reduction nation on the planet is considering going nuclear. Now focus on reality, not Greenpeace "dreamtime". The Green lobby is selling us short and it's about time it shaped up.

The only real long term solution for our energy requirements is nuclear.

I am not against renewables like wind or solar, provided it is realised that they can only ever be marginal.

Using energy storage solutions mentioned in the article can improve the situation, and maybe solar will become more economic over time.

Even George Monbiot is beginning to see the light!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/20/george-monbiot-nuclear-climate

The problem that this article raises is a reflection of the way most seem to be approaching the energy problem. If we are looking for a simple linear solution then renewables of any description are going to present the same sort of problems as described in the article. However, if we view energy supply as a systemic problem then we need to look for a systemic solution this means that instead of just looking at wind you look at a number of renwable options working in sync. In Germany they have created a viable energy generating system that uses wind, solar and methane. Those familiar with the German model will protest that it is very much a small scale example and that is true. But there is really no reason to persist with a national grid. In some ways we are in an analogous position to when the moter car was introduced: early models looked very much like a horseless carriage. We are attempting to do the same with power generation and as a result come up with the sort of very real problems as those described in the original article.

“Protagoras, you missed the point entirely, which was, even the most renewable concious, (sic) biggest emission reduction nation on the planet is considering going nuclear”

Spindoc. You really should get up to date on the nuclear debate and cease providing posts which are slapstick vaudeville - full of hot air and slander.

Sweden is not “considering *going* nuclear” since they went nuclear decades ago and currently have 10 operating nuclear power reactors which provides around 45% of its electricity to a population of 9 million.

Contrary to your misinformation regarding the Swedish proposal (which still needs approval from Parliament) Ola Altera, state secretary for enterprise and energy advised that replacement reactors will be built at the 10 sites in Sweden where reactors are still operating, but they would be replaced gradually as they are taken out of service.

Sweden has used a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since 1991. The Swedish Ministry of Environment estimated the carbon tax has cut emissions by an additional 20 percent as opposed to solely relying on regulations.

It’s unclear why Mark Lawson says the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill is “one of the key parts of the Rudd Government’s efforts to reduce emissions”.
The Garnaut review notes, “No useful purpose is served by other policies that have as their rationale the reduction of emissions from sectors covered by the trading scheme. The Mandatory Renewable Energy Target [MRET] should be phased out” (p xxxii).
The CPRS aims to cover around 75% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. This coverage includes all emissions from fossil fuel powered electricity generation. The CPRS is SUFFICIENT to control all the emissions that it covers. It allows total control and constraint of Australia’s covered emissions each year. This makes it very efficient and powerful. The CPRS, if effected, would probably have the broadest coverage of any scheme in the world.
Complementary measures to the CPRS in Australia seem only necessary for emissions which are not covered by the Scheme, around 25% of the total.
So why is the Government trying to ‘pick winners’ in compelling a specific proportion of electricity from renewable sources? Additional specification of methods within the fully controlled and covered emissions limits the degrees of freedom desirable to achieve least cost abatement. Ie, abatement costs are likely increased.
The MRET scheme was instigated by the Howard government. Howard’s lack of a comprehensive Australian policy and scheme to control emissions led to piecemeal policy bandages like MRET. There are numerous ways to reduce emissions. Who knows what is most suitable in every situation? The cap and trade CPRS allows ingenuity to find the most efficient ways.
Mark Lawson correctly notes that “as matters are set now the emerging renewable electricity sector is set to consume a lot of money for comparatively little reduction in emissions."
Reducing carbon emissions by the best means possible will cost the economy a small reduction in growth (refer Treasury modelling, Dec 08). Why is this Government moving to perpetuate Howard’s inappropriate and inadequate measures to add unnecessary costs?

As Garnaut says, the MRET should be phased out.