Potential bloodbath for investments in unreliable energy

Recently the AEMO (Energy Market Operator) flagged the rerating of some unreliable energy projects to take account of power lost in transmission that can amount to more than 10% of the power generated. This is explained in a technical paper on loss factors. Jo Nova has elaborated on this process and the financial implications for many of the projects about to bring more wind and solar power on line (maybe).

As Australia push-pumps “renewables” into remote locations some of their incomes are suddenly being cut because the losses (as they transmit across long lines) are higher than they expected. On March 8th the AEMO rerated many generators and this year it’s being called a bloodbath for wind and solar. Some of them, like AGL’s Silverton wind farm face losses of 20%.

The danger of stranded assets where wind and solar factories are located far from the existing grid was flagged long ago and this rerating process is just another chapter in the story of the debacle of unreliable energy installed in advance of mass storage facilities.

What is new? The Germans have demonstrated how to spend a trillion euros to increase the cost of power and destabilize the grid without getting anywhere near emission reduction targets. I suppose the experiment has to be replicated before people will be convinced.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Potential bloodbath for investments in unreliable energy

  1. stackja

    Class action suits against companies who followed wrong advice? A RC on this? Banks faced this.

  2. stackja

    Ian Plimer just on 2GB.

  3. stackja

    Some Sydney suburbs have faced three blackouts so far this year. Even non-renewables are at time unreliable.

  4. yarpos

    I wonder how virtue signalling industry Super $s will be flushed down the toilet once this fully unravels.

    Never mind they are just little peopls $s

  5. Nob

    Transmission loss is one reason why Geodynamics Hot Dry Rock couldn’t have succeeded financially even without the technical problems.

    One thought bubble scenario was that they could get Google to locate a server factory there since data losses on fibre optic are nothing compared to electricity lossests over great distances.

    Google like cool dry areas with abundant electricity.

    The Hot Dry Rock site was unsuitable on at least one point out of those.

  6. billie

    Nob, didn’t we (the taxpayers courtesy of PM Rudd) sink over $90M into GeoDynamics due to Flannery flattery? (see what I did there?)

    GeoDynamics has rebranded as ReNuEnergy and they are into Solar PV now.

    As far as companies getting into trouble over their renewables investments, I can smell a government handout fest coming. Can’t have renewables looking bad and what with a Labor government likely to get up it will be a bloodbath for the taxpayer.

  7. hzhousewife

    As far as companies getting into trouble over their renewables investments, I can smell a government handout fest coming. Can’t have renewables looking bad and what with a Labor government likely to get up it will be a bloodbath for the taxpayer.

    I suspect that the funding for renewables will be forced via Industry Super Funds, who are on track to own at least 50% of the shares in most listed Australian companies very soon. My source is informal via RN, some business program I heard over the last week. Who cares if they lose the lot, no young person I know thinks they will ever see their Super money, they regard it as another tax. They have no idea what happens to that 9%, but they do expect it to pay them a pension when they are old, just like their grandma gets now.

  8. Nob

    Billie, yes.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Geodynamics+%2490+million&oq=Geodynamics+%2490+million&aqs=chrome..69i57.16284j0j7&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

    And some people (not me) who knew the $90m was coming , before it was announced, , bought shares then cashed them in when they rose on the news.

    As you can see from the graph here:

    https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-samsung&ei=0xaQXIPUDuCX1fAPpdem6As&q=geodynamics+shares&oq=geodynamics+shares&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.12…0.0..43988…0.0..0.0.0…….0.yi37H_Qu1NE , they had been falling then rose only to fall again.
    Now they’re at $0.08, trading as Renu, I guess.

  9. Nob

    Hit the Max tab on that last link to see the historical highs and lows.

  10. Karabar

    you can spend a trillion euros to increase the cost of power and destabilize the grid without getting anywhere near emission reduction targets
    Wrong argument Rafe. Emissions of WHAT?
    CO2 has nothing to do with the weather. The salient point is that the Germans wasted trillions on trying to solve a problem that does not exist.
    Whether or not it was effective in reducing these “emissions” is immaterial.
    It is just simply waste.

  11. Mark M

    Karabar, #2963484, posted on March 19, 2019 at 9:29 am:

    – comment x a squillion thumbs up!

  12. Nob

    Guardian World is a place of delusion.

    Biggest polluters have been communist countries, and places where free enterprise is most suppressed, time and time again.

  13. Rafe Champion

    Karabar, my argument does not depend on any position about CO2 and the weather. I think it does not matter but my point is that they are wrecking their economy and their grid without even bumping the needle of their key indicator.

    The program is a gigantic failure even if you think CO2 matters.

    We agree that the program was crazy from the go get.

  14. Rafe Champion

    One of my aims is to conduct the power and energy argument against premature development of unreliable energy in terms of the arithmetic and engineering realities of supply and demand. The idea is to get to people who are suffering from the rising price of power and are not up for a discussion of the weather and warming. The climate debate is too hard for the general public.

    The other good thing about this line of argument is that it does not directly challenge the political allegiance of people who follow the major parties because they are all going in the wrong direction so making this case is not like trying to persuade an ALP voter to vote Liberal for example.

  15. We all need to actually say it is a total scam. It does nothing and that is because there is no problem to address. We do need to make them keep telling lies and then the lies can be used to order a proper enquiry. I am staggered that Trump has not done this already because this will sink the whole show. Caught out on one lie and it is not a problem but lie, upon lie, upon lie is a different story. Be sure the idiot MSM will turn on these shills with the usual ferocity!

  16. Rafe Champion

    There are too many things that Trump needs to do. He has appointed a good man for official advice on science – Will Happer.
    The idiot MSM is so heavily implicated in the lies that it is going to be very interesting to see how they get out of the situation they have done so much to create.
    Don’t be too optimistic. The Quadrant group was always on the correct side of the argument in the Cold War but the left recovered from the Fall of the Wall without ever a world of apology and continued to abuse conservatives as though nothing had happened. Actually that was the stimulus to turn to identity politics and all the modern progressive left issues a la Robert Manne.

  17. BoyfromTottenham

    Rafe, your piece started with this statement:
    Recently the AEMO (Energy Market Operator) flagged the rerating of some unreliable energy projects to take account of power lost in transmission that can amount to more than 10% of the power generated.
    I saw the AEMO document that published this news, and saw that some of the projects that were derated had ‘marginal loss factors’ (MLF) of more than 1.000 (e.g. 1.06 in one example). The ‘MLF’ is arrived at by subtracting the actual measured power loss percentage from one, so zero loss on a circuit results in a MLF of 1.000. This being the case, one would expect that a MLF of greater than 1.000 would be impossible, as it would represent ‘negative loss’ or power being created out of thin air.
    Now the technical paper that you refer to states that in certain circumstances the MLF can be greater than 1.000, e.g. when an intermediate power source is introduced between a generator and its customer. OK, but as the renewable generators use their MLF to determine how many certificates they are entitled to (at 1 LRET cert per MWH actually delivered to the grid), it seems to me that if they were allocated an MLF greater than 1.000, they were being overpaid (in certificates). But after I queried them last week, their reply shows that AEMO doesn’t see it that way. In fact they tried to cop out by saying that they don’t issue these certificates, which is true but irrelevant if they determine the MLFs which determine the number of certs being issued. Unfortunately my maths isn’t quite up to working through the technical paper’s thicket of formulae in order to properly challenge their response, so perhaps some mathematical Cat can help me.
    PS I believe that the far bigger issue is that the formula used to calculate renewable generators eligibility for LRET certificates is grossly flawed, because the ‘worked example’ shown on the Clean Energy Regulator’s (CER) website clearly shows a hypothetical generator delivering 45 MWH to the customer qualifying for 90 LRET certificates, which equals two certificates per MWH – or exactly double the number that the RET legislation states. If this is what happens across all renewables generators, electricity consumers are being dudded by more than $1,000 million a year.

  18. Rohan

    I suppose the experiment has to be replicated before people will be convinced.

    Just like socialism/communism.

  19. Rohan

    stackja
    #2963429, posted on March 19, 2019 at 8:11 am
    Some Sydney suburbs have faced three blackouts so far this year. Even non-renewables are at time unreliable.

    This is not surprising. More often than not, NSW has been totally reliant on QLD to make up for it’s shortfall in demand requirements. The fun will really begin when AGL close Liddell.

  20. Ubique

    Rafe, the YouTube title page of your presentation mis-spells Failure.

  21. stackja

    Two major blackouts in Ausgrid area so far today. So power arrives at Ausgrid and power lines fail!

  22. AlanR

    “The forces of evil are winning …” is about as non-sensical as the pope recently proclaiming “Saturn is amongst us.” Just proves how we must be ever vigilant for these left wing Marxist plots. They’re everywhere, no?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.