Build surplus RE for reliability! How come we didn’t think of it?

What a great idea. What could go wrong?

More exciting news.

Strong investments in renewable energy projects has continued to drive down electricity emissions, as wind reaches a new milestone, overtaking hydro for the first time, according to the latest National Energy Emissions Audit published by The Australia Institute.

Earlier this week, a new record level of wind generation was recorded for the National Electricity Market, spurred by strong Antarctic winds and the growth in new projects connecting to the grid.

The National Energy Emissions Audit found that wind generation had – for the month of April – overtaken hydro generation in the NEM for the first time, each accounting for approximately 7.5% of NEM generation.

On the other hand Jo Nova reports.

A big new study by electricity grid nerds (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) shows that after all the money and pain of 20 years of forced transition Australia’s electricity has shifted from 85% coal powered to 75% coal powered, which cost billions and as a bonus, made electricity more expensive and unstable. We drove out some brown coal, but swapped it for black coal. Instead of ousting coal power, the extra solar and wind power replaced some gas and hydro.

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

35 Responses to Build surplus RE for reliability! How come we didn’t think of it?

  1. stackja

    With extra subsidies, of course.

  2. mem

    So where did the other 92.5% of our National Electrify Market generation come from? Was it solar? Was it gas? Was it hydro-electrify? Or was it coal? After the upheaval to our electricity grid, the cost of subsidies, the desecration of our landscape and the slaughter of air born creatures such as birds and bats, I would be hanging my head in utter shame if I was in favour of these things. Absolutely shameful.

  3. He Chose Poorly

    For Minnesota, in the most extreme 100% PV generation scenario assuming oversizing by a factor of two – or doubling the solar needed to meet current demand – this area would amount to 435 square miles, assuming solar panels with state-of-the-art efficiency of 20%
    435 square miles (1126.64483 square kilometers) of solar panels scorching anything flying over head.
    That’s 112664.483 Hectares.
    Or 278400 Acres.
    They might be right when they say, that a million species are endangered or threatened with extinction, because of humans.

  4. JohnL

    …National Energy Emissions …

    What is “Energy Emission”?
    What is “National Energy Emission”?
    I came from a non-English speaking country. I have only been here 50 years, I am still learning the language.
    Please help me!

  5. Howard Hill

    Strong investments in renewable energy projects has continued to drive down electricity emissions

    Ah NO! Those windmills were built using coal in another country, so we achieved nothing.
    Getting your neighbour to burn your rubbish for you does not stop you from producing smoke!

    Anyone else getting sick of all the pontificating going on about this shit. Isn’t it time we laid down some simple facts about these crooks!

    How about we get everyone to pitch in and run some adds explaining simple truths to the brainwashed masses? Rather than spend countless hours posting drivel on forums and blogs that are only read by the converted!

  6. Karabar

    #3032121, posted on June 1, 2019 at 8:47 pm
    Howard, you can lead a horse to water…………….

  7. Bruce of Newcastle

    So if you double the number of solar panels, according to their study, in order to produce enough electricity in the off days you’d double the cost of installation and therefore double the cost of the electricity, no?

    Then on good days you’d have twice as much power as the grid would need. So the wholesale price would go to zero, which already happens on AEMO sometimes. All that power therefore would be getting no return on those ‘good’ days. Then on the bad days there’d be enough electricityy for the grid because of the oversizing, so you’d get a reasonable return. But because you’re producing only half as much electricity you get half the return you might otherwise get.

    So the net result is half the time you get full price for half your capacity, and the other half of the time you get zero price for all your capacity. Thus you are getting 0.5 x 0.5 x 1 + 0 x 1 x 1 = 0.25 as much as if you could sell at the normal price, like roof top solar people can do now.

    Therefore by doubling the installation and quartering the return you have to raise the electricity price by a factor of 8 to break even…

  8. RobK

    Where to start? BoNs description is right for the gluts and shortfalls. There’s added cost for distributed grid feeders. More over design is required to recharge storage. Extra monitoring, controls and instrumentation required for FCAS and demand management/ load shedding. Then of coarse a scheme has to be developed as to who gets curtailed, when. And a small matter of subsidies. These clowns are getting ahead of themselves. Still needs back up. Stop the subsidies now.

  9. Mark M

    [Global Warming] is not going away and, while it is positive to see that the energy sector is witnessing a move in the right direction, Australia needs strong climate and energy policies if it is to meet its Paris obligations and stop pouring fuel onto the fire.”

    Further evidence renewables cannot make [global warming] “go away”, no matter how many windmills you build.

  10. Mark M

    “Earlier this week, a new record level of wind generation was recorded for the National Electricity Market, spurred by strong Antarctic winds and the growth in new projects connecting to the grid.”

    Wait. What?

    It’s 2003, and those who claim to see 100 years in the future, claim the future is here, now … with revolutionary new theory they devised to explain why … the drought vortex …

    Narration: To understand how dramatic the change in rainfall has been, we need to wind the clock back 30 years. Right along the bottom of the continent we could count on reliable rain arriving in late autumn and early winter. But as Kevin Hennessy from the CSIRO explains, the once reliable rain-bearing cold fronts have started to move.

    So lucky the unlucky country has such incompetents at the BoM & CSIRO.

  11. Herodotus

    There has been no greater proof that politics and media have slipped the bounds of rational thought than the climate scam.
    It has proven to be a form of mental illness which is contagious.

  12. Bruce

    “Howard, you can lead a horse to water…………….”

    But, can you lead a horticulture?

  13. RobK

    The article and associated paper on building excess renewables really is quite delusional. However, the following quote alludes to some truth:

    However counterintuitive, a study our colleagues and we conducted shows that these steps are the key to the least expensive path to an electric grid powered largely by solar and wind.

    Weighing against energy storage

    The reasoning behind overprovisioning solar and wind is straightforward:

    Energy storage is the one essential ingredient needed to fill renewable energy variability when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow.These gaps include intra-day periods, such as hours of peak demand during the day and nights, and more importantly, larger multi-day and seasonal gaps from sustained low-sun or low-wind conditions.For storage, grid operators – the organizations that ensure power supply matches demand as it rises and falls during the day – typically rely on water reservoirs called pumped hydroor, for shorter periods, batteries.Storage is getting cheaper, but even assuming the most optimistic long-term cost projections, our study led us to conclude that applying storage alone to firm wind or solar will remain prohibitively expensive because of the size of multi-day and seasonal gaps.

    The bolding is mine. Least expensive is not cheap.
    Here is a graph of insolation energy on a horizontal plate at Perth airport;Perth airport solar 2018
    The claimed 1.4 x over build won’t cut, even in Perth.

  14. wal1957

    Build surplus RE for reliability!

    Yeah??? Nah!!!

    Just how much more unreliables would you need ???
    May as well ask how long is a piece of string!!!


  15. Dr Fred Lenin

    Just because the horses I backed in the first seven races lost ,dont worry ,Im putting a heap on this certainty in the last race ,we will be rolling in it !
    The socialist solution ,if at first you dont succeed ,keep doing the same thing till it works .
    Modern career politics dogma .

  16. Robbo

    Wind farms are the greatest confidence trick ever played. What they manage to generate most is billions of dollars from stupid and gullible governments, but electricity not so much. A few governments in Europe have apparently started to understand how utterly stupid they have been and are reducing the number of wind farms but here in Idiot Government Central, otherwise known as Australia, the confidence trick continues to suck heavily on the teat of public money. What to know why energy prices are so high? Have a good hard look at the low quality of the idiots making the decisions on energy in our Federal and State parliaments.

  17. Robbo

    Should be “ Want to know why energy prices are so high?”

  18. Robbo:
    To see why our nation is in such a mess, first see how many Engineers there are in Parliament.
    Now find out how many Lawyers.
    One set lives in the real world, the other lives in a legal fiction and believes it is real.

  19. tombell

    Windfarms for Warringah. Zali you know it makes sense.

  20. Terry

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #3032141, posted on June 1, 2019 at 9:35 pm

    Yes. It is like building an eight-lane motorway for four lanes of traffic and closing all but two of those lanes every peak hour.

    Beyond insane, or as we call it here in the (once) great land of Oz, “Energy Policy”.

    How much better our lives and this country would be if these people just stopped “helping”.

  21. Terry

    Dr Fred Lenin
    #3032344, posted on June 2, 2019 at 9:29 am

    “The socialist solution ,if at first you dont succeed ,keep doing the same thing till it works .”

    Now come on.

    Is there any kind of Socialist failure that cannot be overcome with just a few more human sacrifices for the cause.

    Yeah, yeah. 100+ mil not quite enough (and that’s just the dead – not including the ruined), but with just a few more we will get this just right. No, really.

  22. poorly chosen

    A legitimate question to ask is what would be the area required for a full deployment of oversized solar PV.
    For Minnesota, in the most extreme 100% PV generation scenario assuming oversizing by a factor of two – or doubling the solar needed to meet current demand – this area would amount to 435 square miles, assuming solar panels with state-of-the-art efficiency of 20%

    435 sq mi is 1126.64483 sq klm.
    435 sq mi is 112664.483 hectares.
    435 sq mi is 278400 acres.
    That’s a huge area scorching anything flying above.
    I doubted the story about 1 million species becoming endangered or extinct because of humans. Now I’m not so sure.

  23. Herodotus

    Incidentally, work has now started on the new 54 turbine wind farm located along the Cullerin range, stretching south from the Hume Motorway towards Collector. It has been in gestation since 2013, so it’s entirely down to the NSW coalition.

  24. Infidel Tiger

    My God. Just watched the highlights.

    The Mexican is so fat I can barely believe he could climb in the ring.

  25. Dr Fred Lenin

    So you create something that is inefficient and unreliable and you think the solution is to make it more inefficien and unr;iable by spend g more money building it twice as big . Now what happens when you do that and it still doesnt do the job? Double it again? These idiots should be locked up in a nental hospital,or perhaps a long term in gulag for criminal acts .

  26. mem

    If after 18 years (billions of dollars of expenditure, subsidies, raised electricity prices, compromise to a reliable grid and damage to the environment) we have only reduced usage of coal by 10% then surely this wind and solar experiment should be declared an absolute failure. We would have been far better off with Tony Abbott’s greening Australia initiative or better still putting the money into new technology coal plants if the real purpose was to reduce emissions, wouldn’t we?

  27. Dr Fred Lenin

    Thes people are bloody insane ,you can build 1000,000 windmills a produce bugger all if the wind doesnt blow ,same with stupid solar panels ,ni sun no power ,the people falling off rooves cleaning them is collateral damage like kruds insulation deathe and burning houses . Still as the gangrenes say about the 1,500 drowned illegals trying to break our laws , accidents happen tough luck .

  28. mem

    Can anyone tell me how much our CO 2 emissions have gone down as a result of reducing coal usage by 10% in Australia and by how much this will reduce CAGW (AKA Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Global Heating) over the next decade?

  29. yackman

    how does one find the data for the time based output of a windfarm or solar pv unit?
    That data would enable an approximation of the SD and hence 99 percentile capacity needed for backup by other wind/solar.

  30. Winston, soon there will be an engineer. Malcolm Roberts of ON is set to be reelected to the senate in Qld. He is a mining engineer and made the ON policy on energy and democracy. The policy on democracy takes in some of the Swiss system of citizen initated referenda

  31. Tim Neilson

    #3032806, posted on June 2, 2019 at 6:43 pm

    You can do a rough calc.

    International aviation standard average “lapse rate” (how much cooler it gets per rise in altitude) is 6.5 degrees per kilometre.

    IPCC scary prediction is 4.5 degrees warmer by 2100. Assume it’s all caused by eeeeebil human CO2.

    So about 692 metres difference assuming the very worst.

    Australia produces 1.3% of that – about 9 metres.

    Electricity is about 30% of our CO2 production – about 2.7 metres.

    So 10% less coal (assuming none of the replacements produce any CO2 or require production of any as an input) – about 27 centimetres.

    So hold your right hand a bit less than one foot above your left hand, and the difference in temperature between your two hands is about what we’ve achieved, even assuming everything’s at the absolute worst that the alarmists predict.

  32. mem

    Tim Neilson
    #3032894, posted on June 2, 2019 at 8:50 pm

    #3032806, posted on June 2, 2019 at 6:43 pm
    You can do a rough calc.

    So far you are the only respondent to my question so therefore best answer yet. I happen to have had my flu shot yesterday so can’t lift one arm but nevertheless got the full gist. I intend to contact the self proclaimed independent Australian Climate Council , my local member of Parliament, and at least two parliamentarians for their answers too. My bet is your answer will remain the most accurate. I will post any answers I receive. Many thanks. mem

  33. Dr Fred Lenin

    Why arent the career polliemupets out there boasting about their geat work defeating climate disaster ?
    They do it with every rare thing they think they have got right , its all a soros scam .
    Saw where Gore can be had to give lying talks for $100k to $1,ooo,ooo a time .now what in Gods name gould that con man say that was worth a million dollars ,still ohama got $30 million for not writing a book ,and it wasnt a reward for wrecking the US economy.
    Politics is the new home of criminals.

  34. Anthony

    Build surplus RE for reliability

    Oerbuilding power supply seems inevitable though. Don’t we have like 55GW generation capacity when demand is usually 20-30GW?

Comments are closed.