JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Optimistic? SA Energy Minister says helpfully “The grid blowing up is not the right term”

South Australia has built unreliable generators on one third of all homes in the state. They are expensive, encased in glass, and all fail at the same time, usually for breakfast, and definitely for dinner. They randomly fail when clouds roll in, but consistently fail all night long. When they do work, they all work together, producing an excess of energy when no one need an excess.  In order to pretend that this surge is useful, a billion dollars of working infrastructure has to switch off, scale down, spin its wheels, and toss money out the window.

A few weeks ago, the State Energy Minister of SA, Dan van Holst Pellekaan, warned that the state is only a few years away from reaching “net negative demand” which is a fancy-pants way of describing the moment that solar power makes more energy than the whole state can use. His reassuring comment was “The grid blowing up is not the right term, but it simply will not work.”

With 250,000 unreliable generators in the state the midday excess is now so large it threatens to break things, drive up voltages, drive out reliable generators and generally muck up what was a finely tuned system honed over 50 years.

There is already so much excess at lunchtime that the Energy Czars want to remotely switching off people’s solar panels at their most productive time, much to the outrage of hapless homeowners who thought they were buying something useful.

Rooftop solar destabilising South Australia energy supply, says Dan van Holst Pellekaan

by Perry Williams, The Australian, August 5, 2020

One third of the state’s households have rooftop solar systems installed but the strong uptake has created issues for the renewables-heavy grid, with solar at times generating so much surplus energy that demand falls near zero, destabilising the power system.

Residents with solar now face the prospect of their rooftop panels being switched off remotely to ensure the grid stays stable and secure.

“If the grid reaches net negative demand which under current operations is forecast in South Australia only a few years away, that’s not a political issue, that’s not a market issue, that’s not an environment issue. It’s actually a physics and engineering issue,” Mr van Holst Pellekaan told a Smart Energy Council forum on Wednesday. “The grid blowing up is not the right term, but it simply will not work.”

South Australia has also accelerated a timeline for renewables to provide 100 per cent of its electricity needs with plans to hit the ambitious target by 2030.

It didn’t have to be this way

The entirely artificial rise of solar panels in South Australia:

Solar installations in South Australia to the SA Power Networks distribution network, July 2008 to July 2020. Source: SA Power Networks.

 

No wonder South Australia is in so much trouble

The conservative party is in charge now in SA, but here’s the sensible party, telling us how practical they are, while they are trying to change the global weather with green electrons.

“We are not philosophically or ideologically constrained in our governance in South Australia,” Mr van Holst Pellekaan told the forum of Australia’s state and territory energy ministers. “We are constrained by a firm conviction that we must move forward with regard to harnessing renewable energy and it must be in a practical way that works for everybody who participates in the market. We’re not locked into ideology. We’re locked into continuing down a path of making sure it’s a practical way to do it.”

We’re not ideologues, my foot.

It’s projection all the way down.

Money, money,money

It’s an expensive game — global weather tweaking. The cost of managing the grid is rising fast.

The costs of managing the power system soared to $310m in the first quarter of 2020, more than double the previous record set in 2008,consuming 8 per cent of all energy costs for the three month period compared with just 1-2 per cent historically, the Australian Energy Market Operator said.

Are these $310 million dollar new costs being borne by the wind farms and solar panel owners?

The solution to the destabilization-by-unreliable-generators, is to add more unreliable generators and on top of that — spent $1,500 million dollars on a giant interconnector emergency IV line to NSW.

The report also highlights the benefits of a greater interconnected grid as levels of renewable energy increase. In South Australia’s case the proposed EnergyConnect project will dramatically reduce security challenges and allow South Australia and NSW to take advantage of their geographic ­diversity through their ability to share resources when it is to their economic advantage.

This will drain unreliable energy out of South Australia at lunch time and windy days. That way, the surge can destroy the baseload economics of New South Wales as well. It also means South Australia can pretend to be 100% “renewable”, even though it won’t be able to do it without the billion dollar extension cord.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (71 votes cast)
Optimistic? SA Energy Minister says helpfully "The grid blowing up is not the right term", 9.8 out of 10 based on 71 ratings

184 comments to Optimistic? SA Energy Minister says helpfully “The grid blowing up is not the right term”

  • #
    TdeF

    The cost of free energy is extraordinary and rising rapidly.

    And the only reason for this incredible waste of resources is the reduction of CO2. In this time where no planes are flying, no cruise ships are sailing and in Victoria people are locked in their homes, what is the impact world CO2. Absolutely zero.

    Is even South Australian CO2 lower?

    Otherwise, why is it being done? Why not just stop? Billions and billions and billions on windmills, solar panels and pumping the Snowy river uphill? Could someone please explain?

    After thirty years of this and trillions of dollars, could someone, anyone point to actual benefit achieved?

    Coal is free, plentiful and controllable. Solar and wind are not. No surprises there.

    I knew it would come to this. So much damage. For nothing.

    Can they put back what was there in the first place? It worked.

    541

    • #

      Here is the mauna loa co2 curve.

      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

      Nothing has dented it, not the wholesale destruction of industry. The loss of millions of jobs. The huge reduction in travel. Nothing.

      Mind you there is an excuse given on the link above as to why it hasn’t happened. But co2 will surely plunge imminently otherwise people will start doubting we have much of an effect. Any time now…just about to happen….

      360

      • #
        Jojodogfacedboy

        It will be blamed on forest fires caused by climate change and not about cutbacks in forest management to pay for studying flying monkey crap or some other unneeded funding project.

        180

    • #
      Mal

      As the report states its a physics and engineering issue. Always has been.
      If proper due diligence had been carried, this would have been obvious
      When you have decision making by politicians with a green bias, you get disaster
      There is something wrong with how their brains are wired.

      90

    • #
      Graham Richards

      How many nuclear power generators can $13 billion buy.

      Probably 2, maybe 3 depending on capacity etc.

      Invest in productive projects for God’s sake, not these unreliable expensive limited life, white elephants called wind & solar farms. Another useless UN left wing construct.

      Somebody please put a bloody rocket under the Federal Government.

      20

  • #
    Zigmaster

    The scary part is that this is happening with a Liberal government in charge federally and in the state. We need more and more blackouts and massive increases In cost to create a genuine anti renewables movement. With some prominent lefties like Moore and Shellingberger providing reference material to help educate about the way forward we can have a change in sentiment.But until either Labor or liberals embrace a no more renewables policy unfortunately we are pretty stuffed in being able to democratically effect change.

    250

    • #
      reformed warmist of logan

      True, so true.
      There is a glimmer of hope though.
      The Democrats this week have broken a 48-year tradition of being “anti-nuke”.
      I wonder how many more years it will take the ALP. to (partly-) reject the global climate cult re nukes.
      There are many elephants in the room at the moment! … and 3 in particular:–
      There needs to be a summer of many blackouts before Australians start to desert renewables;
      There needs to be radical 180 degree turn of the media’s, esp. the abc’s., publicizing renewables;
      Trump needs to win in 9 weeks time.
      Unless all 3 of these things happen in the next year or so, Australia’s electricity “train crash in slow motion” will continue.
      Warm regards, reformed warmist of Logan

      200

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Explaining to my wife, who has no interest in tech, she finally “gets it” that you can only have 10% of the grid capacity as relaughable energy.

        Her father, who is also of same ilk ( but very fiscally focused ), would be very peeved if all of a sudden his solar gets shut off by power authority…..and all of sudden his investment hits the wall.

        And I think this will be the reality that slaps a lot of solar owners hard in the face – the reality they have in effect an unregulated grid power source that is about to be regulated….and they wont like it.

        I suspect by spending *more* money ( thus decreasing the economics of solar even further…) on a battery and new control system, they could run on battery when the power company slams on the brakes for it being grid connect…or drops out the panel output by switching off the micro-inverters on each panel…

        80

        • #
          oeman50

          Those who generate power for a living are quite used to having the power sources controlled by the grid authority. Home generation should be set up to allow the owner to generate all of the power they can use but any surplus is subject to curtailment. In the zeal to “encourage” solar use it was set up so the grid acts like their personal battery, much to the detriment of the grid and other users.

          20

        • #
          Chad

          Roofop Solar was (is?) encouraged by authorities primarily because they niaevely believed it would provide a privately funded, distributed power generation system , to relieve them of the burden of funding a real grid generation system.
          Obviously they wre poorly informed.
          Also, the AEMO’s proposal for “switching off” RT solar panels in situations of critical liw grid loading, ..may also included the ability to isolate any battery back up !.. because the intention is to transfer as much demand as possible back onto the main grid supply .
          The only way to prevent /avoid that type of intervention is to be fully “Off grid” ..ie, no connection to mains power supply.
          Personally, i have no sympathy or support , for either party in that situation.
          RT Solar is a blight on the reliable functioning of a public utility grid, and ..
          Grid management interfering with privately funded property is an infringement on personal liberties which they should not have encouraged. (subsidised + FIT etc).

          00

    • #
      Dennis

      Federation of States, Commonwealth of Australia, was formed by the British Colonies here, and the States retained sovereignty for all or most state affairs.

      In other words a Federal Government cannot instruct the Premiers and their Cabinet Ministers, as COVID-19 dysfunction has revealed consensus is hard to achieve, even constitutional laws are ignored, like closing interstate borders in breach of the Constitution.

      The Renewable Energy Target and subsidies was based on the UN Kyoto Agreement to lower emissions and now Paris Agreement targets, but approving development applications from wind and solar installation energy supply businesses is State and Local Government responsibility and powers.Privatisation and/or demolition of power stations were State Government based and sale or demolition of public assets.

      However, it is very annoying that the Federal Government signed the UN emissions reduction Agreements and established the RET. Also, that the present Federal Government has been negotiating with the States for new power stations to be constructed (two gas fired now approved one for SEQ and one for VIC), including a new HELE coal fired power station for NQ that the Queensland Labor Government is procrastinating about.

      The Turnbull Government interfered by having legislation passed, with Opposition Labor and Greens support, early in 2016, penalising fossil fuel burning power stations adding to operating costs. And that legislation was not well publicised, another electricity price rise factor.

      30

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    The SA Energy Minister is correct, more solar means The grid simply will not work. So he (and his colleagues) are subsidising the introduction of more solar.
    Then there is the problem of getting the “wonder interconnector” built. He wants more renewables immediately but going from the problems of up-grading the existing one how long will that take? More blackouts?
    I point out that there are politicians in NSW who are pushing for lots more renewables. Will the new interconnector will be ready just in time to send lots of excess electricity back to SA? That should cause more blackouts.

    It is becoming obvious that the only solution in SA is to go off-grid. Expensive? yes, but at least you would have electricity when you need and want it, and it may well be cheaper than his wish for 100% renewables.
    Of course it woud be cheaper to have him carted off to the lunatic asylum.

    120

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Graeme all they need to do is throw a few billion at it then another few billion and then another few billion and then another few billion and then it will almost be fixed .

      130

      • #
        Dennis

        One of our renewable energy high wealth individuals is apparently attending a meeting of various groups and politicians this weekend or next week to explain the benefits of a transition to renewable energy.

        Would he be as keen to invest in solar and wind if the direct subsidies for profit were withdrawn, as they will be in 2030 as announced in 2019, or is his mission to convince people that subsidies are important to encourage the transition to unreliable energy: in other words wealth creation for investors at consumers expense?

        30

  • #
    David Maddison

    Sorry to sound cynical but do a majority of the Australian Sheeple actually deserve any better?

    Aa Donny Miller said: In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.

    Most Australians, present company excepted, are ignorant and followers, not leaders and keep voting for same.

    In Victoriastan they even voted for Andrews TWICE and after the current C-19 disaster he still has a 49% approval rating. He will likely be elected a third time if he doesn’t install himself as Premier for life and permanently cancel elections (which is also quite possible).

    There is little hope and we have no worthy leaders like Trump.

    Australia is destined to become a second rate country along the lines of Venezuela.

    Trump could start an exchange program where “his” America-hating Leftists are sent to Australia where they’ll love the extreme political correctness, fanatical commitment to “green” “energy” and the free stuff and hard working, well educated and pro free enterprise Australians can go to the US. All on a permanent basis of course. Australia will get what it deserves and America will get what it needs.

    211

    • #
      RickWill

      Aa Donny Miller said: In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.

      This statement demonstrates an ignorance of the power of the media giants – specifically, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter. People only ever get to see information that these firms allow anyone to see. “Information” is highly skewed toward the world that benefits their bottom line.

      30

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I disagree…if you understand the Gurgle and most search engines are just censorship providers, its becomes very much “The Matrix” reality where you decide whether you want a red or blue pill life.

        I chose the “red pill” a long time ago….and there is a price to be paid for freedom, namely dealing the sheeple as they bounce off the (metaphorical) bonnet of your car….

        40

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Speaking of a choice…..apparently the sheeple arent “getting it” to be scared enough…naughty sheep….

        So now the handlers have told the powers that be to crank up the fear and wave a big stick….cower in fright, sheep….now….!! Hang on…..why arent they…uh oh….( childish tantrum follows…)

        Its laughably predictably hysterical…..

        *yawn*

        Its getting old now….were done with it.

        https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/only-one-in-three-commuters-is-wearing-a-mask-experts-want-it-mandatory-20200827-p55pyy.html

        “Fewer than one in three commuters is using a face mask on Sydney’s public transport network during the coronavirus pandemic, prompting calls for the state government to make the measure mandatory before it’s too late.

        “Despite more than 20 new cases of coronavirus being recorded in NSW this week, including a trainee bus driver, mask use on public transport remains relatively stagnant, leaving some experts confused as to why the government is yet to mandate the practice.

        30

  • #
    David Maddison

    Don’t the ignoramuses in SA see the solution to the intermittency of unreliables to have a big battery in every household?

    I’m fine with that as long as it’s done under full free market conditions and the luddites pay full price for it.

    Let thinking people have properly generated power from coal, gas, nuclear and correctly engineered hydro (not political projects like Snowy Hydro 2) and let the Luddites pay triple the cost or more for their beloved “green” power.

    Thinking people should not be forced to subsidise ignorant Luddites.

    132

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      David:

      The SA Government has a scheme for interest free loans (and another I think for a subsidy) for people to install a home battery.
      They work with rooftop solar. The idea is that instead of feeding the grid during the day the solar recharges the battery, and when the sun starts to set and the peak demand period arrives, those batteries will feed the house.

      Sounds good so I think it was dreamt up at a University. What happens if the grid goes down? Solar shuts down during the day because it requires voltage/phase info from the grid. Result a flat battery. And if the grid goes down can the inverter supply the house? There is also the little problem of time signals coming through the grid, so hot water services ‘know’ when to start heating, alarms work, timers on electrical goods etc. This won’t be available.
      The cost of the battery (with inverter/controller & installation) is around $A14,000 for 10kW real capacity. That should be enough for 12 hours or more provided the battery is fully charged. The solar PV sellers have responded by increasing the size of the recommended installation to 6.6kW capacity, or 2 hours of sunshine to fully charge the battery. Where does the rest go on a sunny day? Into the grid destabilising it faster. And on cold overcast days when the gullibles come home and want electricity for (heating/TV/lighting etc) the battery won’t be charged and that will throw more demand onto the fragile grid. Result blackouts.
      The only thing to do, if you have the finance and space, is to go off-grid. Solar to feed batteries with a computer controller to switch the generator on when needed. About $40-45 thousand. And you will still get stung for the cost of the farcical interconnector.

      90

      • #
        ColA

        G3,

        If you really want to be off grid you forgot the petrol generator to back up everything!!

        40

        • #
          MCMXLIII

          That’s right, if SA follows California where they are proposing to ban natural gas supplies to residential consumers, gas-fired generators won’t work.

          10

        • #
          Annie

          I think Graeme did mention a generator.

          30

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            I did, thanks Annie. I am well aware of the necessity for a generator. For home use a petrol type is probably best, although commercial ones are diesel because their running costs are lower.

            20

      • #
        jpm

        Instead of “$A14,000 for 10kW real capacity” shouldn’t it be “$A14,000 for 10kWh real capacity.”
        A kilowatt is simply 1,000 watts, which is a measure of power while A kilowatt hour (kWh) is a measure of energy. With a battery you are storing energy not power. There is a lot of confusion on this point.
        For a solar array KW is the correct unit as that is the maximum instantaneous output that the array can manage, depends on many factors.
        On another facet of this subject:
        Many of those taking up roof-top solar did not know about the inequity of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) and its effects on the lower income group of our society and therefore could not have taken that into account when they purchased roof top solar. However, I feel that most of them are uninterested!
        The RET, as this document explains (https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/QG/RenewableEnergy), forces electricity users to subsidise inefficient, intermittent and very expensive renewables as there would be very few renewables about otherwise. This has the effect of increasing the price of electricity as electricity users must pay the subsidies forced by the RET. Of course increasing the  price of electricity is a large part of the aim and it has certainly achieved that. It is unfortunate that lower income groups are disproportionately affected, many left in energy poverty. Many have had their electricity cut off as they could not pay their accounts. We saw how hard being without electricity was to put up with during the recent bush-fires.
        Businesses, commercial and industrial users have been affected, many closing as a result. The high price of electricity makes them unable to compete with goods produced overseas. Some, very big users of electricity like the Aluminium plant in south western Victoria which uses 10% of the states electricity, are near collapse because of the price and unreliability of the electricity.    
        The effect of roof top solar is much worse still. Each household with them is reducing the electricity purchased from electricity retailers, from the grid. This means that there is a smaller amount of electricity being sold to spread the cost of the subsidies and extra grid costs associated with renewables among and that drives up the unit price of electricity increasing the total bill mainly for all users without solar.
        It is even worse than that though. Those on low incomes, renting accommodation or like myself refusing to buy roof top solar on ideological grounds must therefore bare a disproportionate amount of this unnecessary burden. I have stated that I would not purchase roof-top solar on moral grounds. That is true as have known about this for over 12 years and it would have been reprehensible on my part to do so.
        The RET with its subsidies is driving our reliable generators, mainly coal-fired, out of the market gradually leaving the inefficient unreliable renewables a larger and larger share of the market. The retail price of electricity has doubled, in real terms taking inflation into account, over the last ten years, mostly due to the RET. I have electricity accounts going back 10 years and they show that the unit price of electricity has tripled, not taking inflation into account.
        When in 2017 the Victorian Hazelwood coal-fired power plant was closed down years earlier than necessary due to the huge advantage that the RET gives renewables, the wholesale price of electricity went up over night by 3 times in Victoria and in NSW by 2 to 2.5 times. There have been rolling blackouts in Victoria and some in NSW as a result. It must be very pleasant when stuck in a stopped train in Sydney with the temperature close to 40 degrees C during such an outage. The problem causes trains to back up through the network inconveniencing many more commuters.
        In South Australia where they have huge uptake on roof top solar, solar farms and wind farms the price of electricity is much more expensive than ours and they regularly have rolling blackouts at certain times of the year. Poor commuters!
        That is why I state roof top solar was not for me. By the way this is not idle speculation, I have proof. The RET document is a great part of it.
        John

        100

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          I stand corrected on units.

          But I ask if “renewables are the cheapest source of electricity” which is continually parroted by the MSM,
          And SA has the highest percentage of renewables it follows that
          SA must have the lowest electricity prices in Australia.

          60

    • #
      Rowjay

      The problem of renewables “spill” power (excess power generated by renewables above that needed by the grid) has not been properly addressed. Ideally, the producers of spill power, especially rooftop or grid-scale solar, should be mandated to install battery backup at their own cost.

      The issue of grid-scale spill power will increase with the commissioning of more wind and solar. Already, the existing renewable energy producers are pumping wildly variable power into our east Australian grid as shown on the monthly graphs here.

      10

      • #
        Chad

        But RT Solar was originally encouraged to feed excess power back to the rid ..hence the high FIT returns.
        Only now are some authorties beginning to see the problems this is causing !

        10

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    I do love these wild stories of how we’ll all be ruined.

    However, is it fair to compare a relatively new technology with an older mature one?

    You could replace solar with car and reliable with horse.

    So are you all still using horses to get around? I thought not

    235

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Again a poor analogy. You have to feed a horse much as you have to feed renewables with lots of money. And cars can run at night unlike solar.

      Try to get your mind around the fact that the grid was built for reliable input and supply. Basing it on variable generation is an exercise in stupidity, and very costly.

      350

      • #

        Your analogy is wrong because a car replaced a horse – without government subsidy , because it worked better .
        People did not buy a car as well as a horse .
        With Solar – you need exactly the SAME dispatchable power in the background so you have to have a lot of horses ( to equal one car ) AND a car ……….. all the time .

        This makes having the horse an additional expense on top of the car

        230

        • #
        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Since cars were so scare, unreliable and expensive, most people did have both.

          My apology stands

          211

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Analogy

            07

          • #
            robert rosicka

            Your apology is accepted , heh heh.

            Peter going from horse and wind power to fossil fuelled power was a giant leap forwards for humanity .
            Going from fossil fuelled power back to wind was a massive step backwards and as for solar it’s no different .
            If solar worked 24/7 and wind worked 24/7 it would probably be a different story although the premise we need both because of CO2 and supposed warming is not supported by science only by activists and shysters .

            80

    • #
      el gordo

      Renewables are anchored on a false premise.

      110

    • #
      David Maddison

      Peter, although your analogy is wrong, as pointed out, I sense you are at least starting to acknowledge the extremely serious problems and great expense of your beloved unreliables.

      By all means, please feel free to invest tens of thousands of your own money (not mine via taxes) into your own “green” off grid system. Don’t forget to allow a few extra thousand for a diesel generator to back up your green system when the battery goes flat.

      241

    • #
      MCMXLIII

      The so-called new technologies, intermittent renewables that require storage (buffering), deliver single figure energy returns on the energy used during their lifetimes compared to denser legacy energy sources that have delivered multiples and have been the basis of the relatively higher standards of living of the past century.
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492
      Societies that depend on intermittent renewables will slowly and surely regress into relative poverty — except for the few.

      80

    • #
      David Maddison

      Peter, windmills are not new technology.

      There is a very good reason they were rapidly dumped soon after Newcomen invented a practical steam engine in the early 1700′s.

      Because they refuse to teach real history in the Marxist dominated indoctrination system euphemistically called “schools”, this lesson will have to be relearned.

      231

    • #
      MCMXLIII

      You could replace solar with car and reliable with horse

      Cars deliver far more power from input, 250 horsepower from this.
      Solar and wind including necessary storage deliver far less energy from the input that coal, gas, hydro and nuclear and are therefore not an advance but a step backwards.

      60

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Interstingly the EIA has South Australia comming in second after Denmark.

      Even more interesting is the fact that in the real world (where climate change is a thing) engineers are already working on the problem of overproduction, which is described as phase 5, and which no country has reached.

      I’ll stand by my analogy about the introduction of motor vehicles at the expense of horses, which if we had listened to the arguments put forward here, would have resulted in all of us owning a horse instead of a car.

      123

      • #
        TdeF

        That’s a silly analogy. You could not afford a horse. Only the very rich could afford a horse. And it was an extremely limited solution. Maintenance, cost of ownership was astronomical.

        New technology is not only better, it has to be cheaper and more reliable and less mess and cost. Now how are windmills and solar better and cheaper and more reliable and cleaner than coal, gas, oil and diesel? Unless human generated CO2 is poisonous, in which case you have to outlaw all life on earth including 7 billion humans.

        141

        • #
          TdeF

          And you can still sell your car and get a horse. Surely that’s more eco friendly.

          81

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          But “New technology is not only better, it has to be cheaper and more reliable and less mess and cost” is supporting my argument.

          As to horses vs Cars. clearly shows that many people could own a horse, or could access one, and only the very rich had a car.

          my analogy stands

          118

          • #

            Peter, your analogy stands if you can show we had to massively subsidize cars for decades in order for them to outcompete horses.

            Over to you ….

            241

          • #
            TdeF

            “many people could own a horse”. That is wrong. You can win any argument if you make up your own facts.

            120

            • #
              TdeF

              And we are talking private horses, not draft horses, delivery vans, coaches, horse drawn trams, cobb & co. Private horses in private houses, where cars reside today.

              Perhaps look for stables at the back of properties. Almost non existent except for dairies, bakeries, coaches, workshops. Only the very wealthy could afford their own stables. Henry Ford made cars affordable. And IBM made computers affordable.

              Horse racing is still the sport of millionaires.

              120

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                You argument applies for cars as well. Do not forget most villages (and up) had at least one livery stable, often associated with a hotel.

                My analogy stands

                111

              • #
                TdeF

                Forget? That’s a public taxi service, not a privately owned horse.

                You are saying that most households owned one or two horses. That’s ridiculous.

                Most Australian households today have two cars. And they still could not afford a personal horse.

                The first affordable private transportation was the bicycle. Which was responsible for a massive increase in the quality of the roads. Horses and windmills were hopeless. Coal and gasoline are the keys to our current quality of life, not windmills. They were abandoned the moment there was an alternative.

                140

      • #
        Dennis

        Of course Denmark being so close to Sweden imports electricity from nuclear and hydro power stations there.

        Like all renewable hero lands the virtue signals ignore the reality of power station baseload generators.

        120

    • #
      liberator

      New technology, yes, (but in reality not that new) compatible with the” old” no. Suns shines only so much during the day, wind only blows certain times during the day.

      How well is this new technology working when it’s source of energy – both derived from the sun, are not available?

      Two thirds if not more of the day, this new technology just doesn’t cut it.

      We’ll fix it with batteries (really new technology? – old tech just “reformulated”.
      We’ll fix it by pumping water back up hills.
      We’ll fix it by installing expensive submarine cables to to join up our grid with other countries.
      We’ll fix it by installing giant flywheels that spin up to take the excess electricity out of the grid.

      How is that this new technology needs crutches to support it, including coal and gas? New tech doesn’t necessarily mean better.

      70

    • #
      R.B.

      I do love these wild stories of how we’ll all be ruined

      I find it funny that you’re happy our emissions, which are dwarfed by natural emissions and sinks, has increased global CO2 by 100 ppm. Then you are happy that so much more will effect that climate drastically, and that the warming will destroy the world and not make it better

      But you can’t see how near 50% of electricity sources switching on and off in unison will cause grief.

      30

  • #
    Rafe Champion

    Another perverse outcome of the price volatility caused by the injection of unreliable energy is that it provides the rationale for installing big batteries to make money out of the fluctuations in the price. And they talked about the Hornsdale battery keeping the lights on:)
    At least Audrey had been forced to admit that there is a problem, a bit late in the day and the plan to fix it with
    more RE will only make it worse. Is this a conspiracy or just a screwup?

    150

    • #
      David Maddison

      I believe the only useful function of the Hornsdale big battery is to allow electricity price arbitrage to make $$$ for its owners. It charges when power is cheap and discharges at a higher price.

      141

      • #
        Analitik

        No, FCAS is the cash cow for Hornsdale with 70% of its capacity devoted to this. It is far too small in both capacity and output to significantly arbitrage power.

        10

      • #
        Analitik

        sorry, that should have been “far too small in both storage and output capacity”

        The other 30% of storage capacity is reserved for shortfall events where it will give the grid operators a few minutes to shed load and fire up peaking plants but with only 100MW output, this only works for small events.

        20

        • #
          David Maddison

          This document seems to indicate arbitrage is an important function.

          https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arena.gov.au/assets/2019/02/hornsdale-power-reserve.pdf

          Principles of the arbitrage:
          – Objective of generating revenue by trading energy
          – Strategy based upon a basic principle: the battery
          imports low price energy and export it back to the grid
          when the prices are high.

          Market operation:
          – 119MWh of storage capacity and an output +30MW
          (generation) / -40MW (load) are available for trading
          – Bidding mostly automatized thanks to:
           the bidding optimisation algorithms developed for the project;
           bidding engine platform (custom made software) able to transmit
          the bid to AEMO’s bidding platform (Market Management
          System);
          – 24/7 operations control centre in Neoen’s Canberra
          Office (set up for the project) in charge of the
          monitoring/supervision of the battery.

          01

          • #
            Analitik

            The bids are for FCAS, not power delivery

            10

            • #
              Chad

              Tesla, the supplier of the Hornsdale battery, and continue to support development of the facility, have been developing and prooving a “Market Bidding”. Software control pakge. ( called Autobidd). That maximises the arbitrage capacity of the ffacility.

              00

  • #
    Sean

    Just require every electricity generator to have at least on days worth of energy production in storage to be dispatched when needed.

    40

  • #
    Another Ian

    “David Bidstrup guest post. Audrey’s getting anxious…”

    https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/08/27/david-bidstrup-guest-post-audreys-getting-anxious/

    40

  • #
    MCMXLIII

    We’re not locked into ideology …

    Maybe not, at some point the sunk cost fallacy takes over:
    People demonstrate “a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made” This is the sunk cost fallacy …
    A related phenomenon is plan continuation bias, also called get-there-itis or press-on-itis, which is an unwise tendency to persist with a plan that is failing …

    I doubt it can go on indefinitely, at some point reason must prevail.
    The industry would realise that but are essentially economic opportunists ‘making hay while the sun shines’.

    50

  • #
    Reed Coray

    I have three questions. For the first question, ignore grid stability. I infer from this thread that at least for a few hours each day SA’s renewable energy generation sources are approaching the state where they can generate sufficient electrical energy to meet SA’s needs. That’s not to imply the renewable energy can be distributed to where it’s needed; only that renewable electrical generation exceeds the demand for electrical energy generation. Is my inference correct; and if so, won’t/can’t the greens claim they are well on their way to achieving “carbon-free” electrical energy?

    Second question. As I understand it, the phrase “net negative demand” applies to the electrical power that the grid must supply, and not to the demand for electrical power. There will always be a demand for electrical power so the “demand” for electrical power cannot be negative. The phrase “net negative demand” is the difference between (a) the demand for electrical power …and… (b) the electrical power being supplied by renewable generation sources independent of the ability or lack thereof to get the electrical energy to where it’s needed. Is my understanding correct?

    Third question: Assuming the renewable electrical power generation rate is in excess of the demand for electrical power, can the renewable electrical power be distributed to where it is needed without a grid that in part is being fed electrical power from non-renewable sources; or is a grid powered by a non-renewable energy sources (like coal plants) required for the renewable power to be distributed to where it is needed? If a grid powered in part by non-renewable sources is needed, what percentage of the total power being fed to the grid must be supplied by the non-renewable sources?

    20

    • #
      Analitik

      1. Yes. The greens will use averaging and cherry -picking of particular periods to “prove” that renewable generation can cover the needs for SA. It’s the same playbook as used for promoting Climate Change.

      2. Sort of. “net negative demand” does indeed apply to the electrical power that the grid must supply. But this is the difference between a) demand for electrical power minus generation outside the market operator’s control (largely rooftop PV) and b) the electrical power being supplied by generation under the market operator’s control (including wind and solar farms)

      3. IF sufficient renewable generators AND battery storage centers had synthetic inertia capabilities (few of the generators do since they cost more) AND there was sufficient storage PLUS enough overbuild of renewable generators to charge them as well as provide power for direct use, then it is THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE for a grid to be not require any non-renewable energy sources. Any reasonable analysis of seasonal demand will show the amount of renewable generators and batteries required is prohibitive else remote areas would ditch their diesel generators – none have done so because it doesn’t make economic sense. Grids where 20% capacity is renewable generation (by nameplate) where issues seem to start – it would be difficult to model this accurately since there are lots of variables with transmission network size (both capacity and geographic), interconnectors, numbers and positioning of non-renewable generators…

      40

    • #
      Graeme#4

      To be pedantic, for your point 1, there are not a few hours each day where renewables can support the grid. Only at certain times in the year will this occur, usually in spring and autumn. In winter, when there is a likelihood of a number of cloudy and windless days in a row, renewables couldn’t supply all the grid power required.

      70

    • #
      RickWill

      Lets be accurate- At the current state of technology, there is only ONE source of renewable energy known to man – that is managed forests. Weather dependent power generation is in no way “renewable”. Using that descriptor is incorrect.

      The power can flow from rooftop solar to anywhere in the grid. Rooftops in SA will soon be generation electricity for use in Victoria and possibly NSW if they get the upgraded link. There are a few issues to iron out. The largest issue is automatic voltage regulation at the residential level to ensure rooftops are not shutting down on over-voltage. That requires the installation of many more automatic tap-changing transformers. It also creates issue for protection systems because all existing grids were designed for one-way power flow with the exception of some of the interconnections between generating centres.

      Remote areas are already converting to solar as a diesel fuel alternative. They keep the diesel but save money by reducing their need for diesel. The economics for that are very attractive.

      In places like SA it is close to economic to go off grid. The lowest cost option is solar panels, lithium battery and tiny ICE generator that might get used 10 days a year. The cost of power from such system would be around 40c/kWh over a 10 year project life. I expect we will be seeing systems like this within the next decade as grid prices continue to climb.

      20

      • #
        Peter C

        Thanks Rick,

        Remote areas are already converting to solar as a diesel fuel alternative. They keep the diesel but save money by reducing their need for diesel. The economics for that are very attractive.

        I asked that question of the King Island Renewable Energy Integration Project (KIREIP) about 4 years ago. “What is the cost of the intergrated renewable project vs just straight diesel? I never got a reply.

        On another track, do you have any information of the best type of storage batteries for a solar lighting project in our hangar. I am going 24VDC power. I will need 2, 12 volt storage batteries. Are AGM batteries the best?

        10

        • #
          RickWill

          I would only consider lithium batteries unless I was gifted AGM batteries. You can get 12V lithium batteries with on-board battery management.

          For low current applications you can translate lithium to lead/acid at about 2 to 1 on a capacity basis. So a 100Ah lithium battery is equivalent to a 200Ah AGM battery in terms of usable capacity. The lithium will still give more cycle life.

          These appear to be good value:
          https://outbax.com.au/voltax-12v-100ah-lithium-ion-battery-lifepo4-deep-cycle-recycle-camping-rv-solar?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIm-GJsoS96wIVSyQrCh3tPA-DEAYYASABEgLhz_D_BwE

          I have bought quite a lot of solar stuff from lowenergydevelopments over the years. I have not bought batteries from them though but they now have a wide range:
          http://www.lowenergydevelopments.com.au/batteries/LithiumBatteries

          They would be a good place to start to get an opinion on the various batteries they are selling.

          I design lithium battery capacity on the basis of 2 hours of sunshine over two days. It means your battery needs to be able to hold enough to cover your load for 2 days. So if your lighting total is 100W for 10 hours a day (1kWh/day) then you need 2kWh of storage. For a 25V system (the average for a 8cell LiFePo4) then you need at least 80Ah. I would go for 100Ah to give some ageing component. You would need 1kW of solar panels.

          One of the reasons that you need less lithium capacity is that the nominal voltage for an 8 cell lithium batter is about 25V. For a 12 cell lead/acid it is about 23 or a bit less. The other is that you really impact on cycle life with a lead/acid if you work it over more than 30% of its capacity. A lithium will give many more cycles than the lead/acid working over 70% of its capacity.

          00

        • #
          Springdam

          Hi Peter C. If you would like to e-mail me, I can point you to a family business who can help with the hanger project.
          Cheers. G.

          00

    • #
      Reed Coray

      I want to thank Analitik, Graeme#4 and RickWill for their responses to my questions.

      10

  • #
    tom0mason

    Well if the JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency) forecasts for the next 3 months is anything to go by, Australia’s weather will be mostly cooler and wetter than average.

    Humm, probably high than usual electricity demand but more cloud cover — not a good outcome for solar power.

    90

  • #
    PeterS

    PM Morrison is now high on serving the best interests of the nation with his recent announcements of a new policy that might end up tearing up a variety of arrangements made by various states with foreign governments and organisations, and rightly so. So, how about being consistent and honest by doing the same with the Paris Agreement and tearing it up??!! This nonsense about reducing emissions has to stop. Or, as I suspect Morrison is just being yet another hypocrite who speaks with forked tongue?

    120

    • #
      el gordo

      Don’t worry about the Paris Agreement, its impossible to convince anyone that carbon dioxide is a harmless trace gas. The battle is on the ground in my backyard.

      ‘The pilot REZ in the state’s Central-West aims to deliver 3,000 MW of firmed wind and solar generation that the state government identifies as “the cheapest type of new reliable generation.” It is expected to generate $4.4 billion in investment, create 450 construction jobs and help put downward pressure on electricity prices.’ PV Mag

      The states are responsible for energy, so let them go ahead and build Renewable infrastructure, which may work to a certain degree. If it turns out to be a massive white elephant then they can build a Hele at Dubbo.

      06

      • #
        PeterS

        So your attitude is to just ignore the scam and the hoax and pretend all will be OK. Not good.

        60

        • #
          el gordo

          We are powerless and have to wait until the market decides the best way forward. Even if we could suddenly prove that CO2 doesn’t warm the planet it won’t change anything, the juggernaut is unstoppable because its the free market.

          The hoax is small beer compared to the pandemic, so PM Morrison is unconcerned, there is no political urgency on climate. The front bench is full of lukewarmers.

          33

          • #
            Peter C

            , the juggernaut is unstoppable because its the free market.

            It is not a Free Market. It is a highly politicised, subsidised and regulated market.

            People who have a choice choose not to pay even $1 more to offset their carbon footprints. If there was more choice at the consumer end there would be far less renewable energy being purchased from the grid.

            40

            • #
              el gordo

              I was thinking of the Renewable Zones in NSW, its a free market venture, with relatively little contribution from the state.

              Its highly politicised because of AGW, but in my understanding the age of large renewable subsidies has come to an end. There is little value in waving our hands about, all the majors are singing from the same songbook.

              22

          • #
            Chad

            el gordo
            August 28, 2020 at 11:16 am
            … Even if we could suddenly prove that CO2 doesn’t warm the planet it won’t change anything, the juggernaut is unstoppable because its the free market

            No! Its not a free market at all.
            It is a heavily distorted and subsidised to make RE attractive to investors.

            30

    • #
      RickWill

      The notion that there is ‘renewable’ energy using current wind and solar technology is widely accepted. I note that JoNova has not used the term without qualification but it has been used 45 times so far in the comments and most times without qualification. Current versions of solar collectors and wind generators in NO WAY provide “renewable” energy. Accepting this term affirms the belief that such things are real.

      The only currently available form of renewable energy is managed forests. The uncontrolled burn that occurred across eastern Australia last spring/summer destroyed enough fuel to power the entire Australian economy for 2 years; not just electricity but all energy requirements. Trees are the only currently available renewable energy source. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increase, trees are increasing their productivity.

      As the global community continue to burn fossil fuels to help to restore the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to levels that suit the current forms of vegetation, there is every prospect that we will need to manage forest growth to avoid the serious issues that are emerging from increasing forest productivity; wild fires and falling trees.

      41

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        “Increasing productivity”?

        The problem is not extra CO2 induced growth but the refusal to acknowledge that fire intensity is related to the failure to carry out regular low intensity preemptive burns.

        60

        • #
          RickWill

          At no point did I state that extra CO2 was problem. In fact it creates an opportunity. There is a significant opportunity for collection of forest litter by mechanical means to use it as fuel.

          The additional CO2 is resulting in faster growth of trees in dryer conditions. They are producing more litter than in human experience. It is not a problem. It is a potential fuel resource that needs economics means of collection.

          01

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Rick,

            Maybe, but you did say;

            “As the global community continue to burn fossil fuels to help to restore the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to levels that suit the current forms of vegetation”.

            There’s an inference in that which says that humans can change the atmospheric CO2 levels.

            That is not correct.

            KK

            40

            • #
              RickWill

              There’s an inference in that which says that humans can change the atmospheric CO2 levels.

              That is not correct.

              There is no doubt that humans are contributing to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would be less than it is if we were not burning fossil fuels. Humans are adding 36Gt of CO2 per year. That alters the equilibrium however that equilibrium is achieved.

              10

              • #
                el gordo

                It boils down to CO2 ‘sensitivity’, the IPCC (backed by the precautionary principle) over hyped the warming power of trapped CO2.

                22

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                From earlier;
                http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/weekend-unthreaded-17/#comment-1322546

                Man made CO2, is only 3 or 4% of all annual CO2 production; the rest is nature at its finest.

                Then in the so called “green House Gas” issue, if it is relevant, water vapour accounts for most of the ?GHG? effect

                leaving all, yes ALL CO2, not the human bit, to take the blame for the other 4% of the total GHG input, IF it is relevant.

                As I have written several time previously:

                Total Human Input to the Fabled GHG Effect is: 3% of 4% of atmospheric CO2.

                As a percentage, Total Human Input is therefore 0.12 % of the total GHG Effect.

                IF we can change our Earthly carbon footprints by say 10% then we are influencing the Total GHG Effect by 0.012% or 1 part in 10,000.

                Applying this to the much touted temperature increase from mid 1800s we have a change of about 0.6 C deg of which 0.000072 C Deg is due to us Humans getting together and reducing CO2 output by 10%.

                Thankfully we have not cut back on CO2 output that much and have paid the awful price of having the temperature due to our profligate behaviour by, you guessed it:

                0.000072 C Deg

                If we can find anyone who is capable of detecting such a change in Earths temperature I would like to meet them and shake their hand.

                KK

                30

              • #
                robert rosicka

                0.12% ? We’re all going to burn in hell KK ! , either that or we’re all going to freeze but either way we can still blame CO2 .

                10

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                The estimate was rough and some of the writing not clear.

                If we are going to pretend that Greenhouse Gases are a functional part of the atmospheric heating, then;

                Water is the most influential being about 97% of total GHGs and operating in essentially the same spectrum as CO2.

                Natural origin CO2 is next at about 3%, and

                Human origin CO2 is about 0.12%.

                As TdeF has indicated, isotopic analysis says that the ratio of natural to human origin CO2 remains unchanged so there is no uneven “accumulation” of human origin CO2 compared with natural.

                As a simplification I didn’t look at the individual thermodynamic capacities of water and CO2, that’s for another day.

                The important message is that human origin CO2 cannot do anything to influence the world’s temperature.

                Why then are we destroying the world’s economy and insisting on pseudo green power.

                Paradoxically, this pseudo green power is more CO2 intensive per kWh and is highly contaminating.

                KK

                20

              • #
                Lucky

                Human activity does not change the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The control is by the oceans which absorb and outgas as described by Henry’s Law. (Partial pressure is an element in the equation).
                Thus 36 Giga Tons or whatever it is produced by humans is absorbed by oceans. There will be a time delay, matching may not be exact per day or per year.

                Equilibrium- natural systems do not have equilibrium.

                10

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Yes Lucky,
                for any newly expressed CO2, whether from Nature or Human origin it will all be re-assimilated within seven years and some research suggests possibly as little as four and a half years.

                CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere but is constantly recycled.

                KK

                00

      • #
        PeterS

        So in other words more CO2 means more renewables (trees and plants). Yet another irony of how the so called Greens’ movement is divorced from reality. If only voters would realise that truth and that our leaders, sate and federal are leading us down the path of self-destruction.

        60

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Peter,

          “down the path of self-destruction”?

          I have little doubt that we are actually there.

          KK

          30

        • #
          el gordo

          Over capacity causes headaches, but no crash and burn.

          ‘The renewables market was already expected to decelerate from a record-smashing 2019 in which 6.3 gigawatts of new large and small scale capacity was installed – the fastest per capita build rate in the world.

          ‘This green rush was primed by a combination of factors, led by high wholesale electricity prices and a push to capture the fading financial benefits of the RET subsidies.

          ‘It has resulted in grid congestion to some high renewables regions, triggering a heated debate about what should be built to fix this and who should pay.

          ‘With the RET now delivered, the value of the subsidy scheme is evaporating, as it was designed to.’

          Eutility

          22

      • #
        TdeF

        “As the global community continue to burn fossil fuels to help to restore the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to levels that suit the current forms of vegetation”

        This is an interesting idea, again based on the idea that the level of CO2 is controlled by man or even by plants. Neither is true. The level of CO2 is controlled by the giant reservoir which contains 98% of it, the oceans. Water surfaces receive 80% of all incident light. The world’s oceans have 1400x the heat of the thin air above. How much CO2 is in the air is a matter for simple physical Chemistry set basically by Henry’s Law. Warmer ocean surface, more CO2.

        In fact the first conclusion of a reasonable person is that increased CO2 indicates a tiny increases in the ocean surface temperature, which in turn would indicate a slight increase in solar intensity or that ocean currents bearing heat have surfaced, as in the La Nina, El Nino effect. These sources, Solar activity and ocean currents explain everything.

        And there is no evidence that anything we humans do can affect CO2 levels. The idea that the CO2 causes rapid planetary warming is so far fetched as to be ridiculous. And in 100 years the increase in this tiny trace gas has only been 50%.

        So where is the problem? And the obvious conclusion that more CO2 means more vegetation is obvious. You only need CO2, sunlight and water. The idea though that the vegetation consumes all this CO2 is not logical. If it did, CO2 would drop and again while increased CO2 means increased vegetation, increased vegetation does not mean decreased CO2.

        41

        • #
          Lucky

          Thanks TdeF, I have just read this after my post earlier.
          The implications are interesting-
          -Human CO2 production does not change CO2 in the atmosphere so no temperature change is caused with or without this supposed Greenhouse.
          -Humans cannot claim credit for increased greening.
          When ocean waters start to cool, in maybe a century, then there will be more greening, but not resulting higher or lower temperature.

          00

          • #
            Chad

            Kalm Keith
            August 28, 2020 at 8:18 pm
            The estimate was rough and some of the writing not clear.

            If we are going to pretend that Greenhouse Gases are a functional part of the atmospheric heating, then;

            Water is the most influential being about 97% of total GHGs and operating in essentially the same spectrum as CO2.

            10

          • #
            Chad

            Kalm Keith
            August 28, 2020 at 8:18 pm
            The estimate was rough and some of the writing not clear.

            If we are going to pretend that Greenhouse Gases are a functional part of the atmospheric heating, then;

            Water is the most influential being about 97% of total GHGs and operating in essentially the same spectrum as CO2.

            Same spectrum…..but different frequency range ?

            01

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Same “part” of the spectrum.

            Water and CO2 are both “bad” and “dangerous” greenhouse gases so it’s wrong to just pick on CO2.

            Look at the operating temperatures for this so called greenhouse effect.

            There’s no science to support the concept of man made global warming.

            10

  • #
    Ian

    Most days I have a quick peak at the AEMO data dashboard to get a feel for which state is paying the most for power. It’s a great site for watching a slow train wreck unfolding.

    Due to supply and demand, the highest price being paid is often in Victoria and very, very rarely in Queensland.

    It is also obvious that the supply of ‘surplus’ generated electricity is mostly from Queensland to the lower states, propping up their decisions to abandon reliable fossil fueled solutions.

    And we should all know that the cost of electricity is set by the price of the dearest supplier required to be utilised at any one instant. eg coal may bid $5/MWHr, wind 7$/MWHr, solar $10/MWHr and diesel at $40/MWHr. If the demand can be met by the mandated first purchase of wind and solar with the balance supplied by coal, then every supplier in use would be paid $10/MWHr, apart from the diesel supplier that would not be used.

    Now think of the consumers in Queensland, if they cut the interconnect cables to the south, it is highly likely that their states demand could be met by coal only, they would be paying no more than $5/MWHr for power. So why would they bother having anything to do with the southern states that are enabling the more expensive suppliers in their state to operate and hence bump up the price everyone in Queensland is paying?

    I can imagine the uproar if that was explained to the masses in Qld. I’m thinking the transmission towers would have the legs cut off within days. And could you imagine them supporting the expenditure of another couple of billion dollars of federally collected taxes to build another interconnecting line that will increase the demand further on their suppliers and by inference, raise their bills more?

    Why should the decisions of a ‘green’ thinking state affect the price paid for an essential service in another state several thousand kilometers away?

    And for the record, we’re off grid now for 10 years due to the proposed initial cost of poles and power to my remote property, so I’ve got nothing to gain or lose by the supply price of power. I have got great concerns about wasting the taxes that I pay on pie in the sky green ideas that are not evaluated by competent engineers and the waste that ultimately flows/follows.

    100

    • #
      DaveR

      Great comment ian. For some time i have been arguing that Victoria should cut its interconnects with SA and stop helping them out. It should lead to lower costs in Vic, and higher costs in SA. I get the distinct impression that the Vic spinning load base supply is absolutely essential for grid frequency stability. Beyond 30% renewable supply, costs of frequency stability control rise astronomically.

      80

    • #
      RickWill

      eg coal may bid $5/MWHr, wind 7$/MWHr, solar $10/MWHr and diesel at $40/MWHr.

      Your understanding of the prices is unrealistic. It has been a while since I have looked at actual bid profiles but there is no doubt that solar and wind are bidding some blocks of power at negative prices. The coal plants also bid a small portion of the energy at large negative prices so they remain scheduled during large negative price excursion.

      Before curtailment of wind and solar became common place, they just had standing bids near the floor price of minus $1000/MWh. The coal generators have learnt that they can bid in a small block at large negative number to force the wind and solar to voluntarily curtail. The coal generators have the opportunity to recover the losses during the evening peak.

      The carrot for consumers is that there is the prospect of negative wholesale prices. Queensland has a significant amount of rooftop solar and the connection with NSW currently enables the coal plants in the state to continue to generate by sending power south when the lunchtime solar is cranking. 11am Friday 28 August, the Queensland wholesale price is MINUS $44/MWh. Yesterday the large solar farms in Queensland were being voluntarily curtailed because price would have been negative. Without extra demand in the southern states, the Queensland coal generators would be in financial strife; if they are not already.

      There are often times in Queensland when the co-gen plants are shut down. These plants are using excess process heat to generate electricity so the energy is free but they cannot tolerate negative prices.

      The problem with weather dependent generation is its intermittency and the impact on dispatchable generators. Queensland already has ample amount of weather dependent generation to destroy the economics of its coal generators. The link to NSW currently enables them to pump power south to get some income from NSW. The penetration of rooftop solar in NSW is not as significant as Queensland and certainly not at this time of year.

      40

  • #
    Yonason

    “We’re not locked into ideology”

    And yet, at every turn, they pick the least practical most wasteful and failure-prone ideologically driven choices, about which they claim they ARE “locked into” making them work, in spite of the fact that they can’t.

    They say they aren’t blind, but keep walking into obstacles that sighted people easily avoid. Conclusion?

    170

    • #
      Jojodogfacedboy

      Love your perspective!

      60

    • #
      PeterS

      I take the far simpler reason; stupid is as stupid does.

      40

      • #
        Yonason

        Yes, but I think it’s important to come at this from all sides. You, know, block off their path to retreat. :)

        10

        • #
          Yonason

          OK, it occurs to me that I should add that knowing these con-men are wrong on a gut level is easy for people of integrity. But knowing why it’s wrong helps prevent them from weaseling out when caught.

          This is why I like JoNova’s blog, because she not only tells us what’s wrong, but dissects why it is wrong, and that’s often key to standing fast in the face of the hurricane of lies leftists employ against us.

          60

  • #
    Graeme#4

    Ummm, NO, neither the recent article in The Australian, Zibelman’s comments or the AEMO RIS, on which this article is based , clearly say that the AEMO is proposing to switch off folk’s home solar systems. All they talk of is having the facility to solar shed. This may only be disconnecting the grid feed-in from the solar systems, which modern inverters have to do anyway if the voltage rises.
    And it MAY include a facility to remotely switch off the home solar system.
    BUT, this is NOT clearly stated in the AEMO RIS, and I challenge anybody to point out to me the exact clause in the RIS, presumably in Appendix A, that clarifies this issue.
    Until then, I wish folks wouldn’t state something that they have not clearly confirmed is the case.

    30

    • #
      RickWill

      BUT, this is NOT clearly stated in the AEMO RIS, and I challenge anybody to point out to me the exact clause in the RIS, presumably in Appendix A, that clarifies this issue.

      Challenge accepted-

      Mandate minimum device level requirements to enable generation shedding capabilities for new DPV installations in South Australia (other NEM regions and Western Australia encouraged).

      From Table 1 of Appendix A. Zibelman has been reported as stating this in earlier news reports as being a requirement needed for WA as well rather than just encouraged. The problem in Queensland is also emerging.

      It will be a challenging requirement because they will not want to shed large blocks of DPV. Ideally generation would be shed progressively at Avery source. It may be that the new inverter standards will achieve the objective without the requirement for central control.

      All the money being spent to adapt a one-way grid to distributed generators could be spent on off-grid generation and storage. Ultimately that is the end game because the grid power will just get more expensive as all these things get added to it.

      10

      • #
        Graeme#4

        But Rick, this statement still hasn’t clarified whether the “generation shedding capabilities” are only grid feed-in or include the power derived from solar being used by the residence – it could be both but this is NOT confirmed by that simple wording. There are two quite different problems identified by the AEMO, being the high voltage and the reduced demand for grid power. Both could be partially resolved by pr3venting grid feed-in from home solar, and don’t necessarily mean also having to shut down the home solar.
        I have tended to ignore what Perry Williams or Audrey Zibelman say, and have focused on the wording in the RIS.

        10

        • #
          RickWill

          They have not resolved that detail. AEMO want to be able to centrally control the output of solar systems. It does not matter to them how that is achieved but it will need to be a linear or small step-wise response to avoid losing great slabs of generation.

          Whether it impacts only exported power or total array output will depend on how it is implemented. Small DGs will not have much choice in how it is done because the grid controls what can be connected to it. It is a little more complex to only limit exported portion in response to the central control but certainly not impossible. It is not difficult to detect the direction of power flow. Before I got my new ‘smart’ meter I took some delight in watching my meter reverse when the sun was shining.

          I would expect that only altering the exported portion would be the strongly favoured direction. What goes on behind the meter is not really an issue for the grid operator.

          00

          • #
            Graeme#4

            Perhaps it would be easier simply to stop all power exports back to the grid as a first step. As a second step, I believe that the AEMO could control all modern inverters since I can access my inverter from anywhere, so it wouldn’t be technically difficult for the AEMO to also access my inverter and control it.

            00

            • #
              Chad

              G4..
              AEMO and/or service providers , can already shut off RT olar Feed in back to the grid.
              They are wanting further controls on inverters to enable full shut down when necessary.
              Zeiblemann has openly stated that .

              00

  • #
    Analitik

    South Australia will be interesting to watch over the next few days since the series of highs rolling across southern Australia will have their wind farms struggling. Since midnight, output has been around 200 MW (which is less than 10% of nameplate)

    20

    • #
      Analitik

      And add Victoria to this as our windfarms will be similarly affected. Since midnight, output has been trending down from around 45% to 20% at 9am

      20

      • #
        Chad

        Robber, By “Total generation” i assume you are including RoofTop solar ?
        ..which..
        A). Is not measured and hence only estimated..
        B).. is not part of the grid supply….infact it reduces the grid demand.

        00

  • #
    Robber

    For SA in FY20, wind and solar on average provided 57% of total generation, with gas providing the balance. Note that given the intermittent nature of wind and solar, SA must be able to ramp up gas generation and imports from Victoria to meet demand, and on other occasions export the surplus to Victoria.
    To meet an average demand of 1,700 MW, and a peak summer demand of about 3,000 MW, SA gas generator capacity is 3,100 MW with emergency diesel generators of 270 MW. Wind nameplate capacity is 2,100 MW, solar on a good day delivers 1100 MW at midday, and the Vic-SA interconnector can carry 650 MW. What massive over investment.

    40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Robber,
      a lot of that gas goes to OCGTs which are notoriously subject to maintenance and only available 15-20% of the time. That might account for the apparent over-capacity.

      20

  • #

    There is a very simple answer to all of this, really, but it’s one that is unacceptable, and was a failure of implementation at the origin of solar panels.

    All homes installed with solar panels should have been required to also install a battery capability matched to the system that was installed, and for the home to then be moved off the grid.

    NOW perhaps can you envisage why that is unacceptable, because if that was the case, very (very) few of them would have ever been sold.

    Note ….. NOW ….. the problems they are causing to the grid.

    Rooftop solar panels will NEVER (and I could repeat that word ad infinitum) be able to contribute in any manner to the overall power consumption, other than a very tiny and niche Residential supply. What we are talking about here is not one large (of any type) power generator, but millions of minutely minuscule tiny weeny little useless generators, occasionally delivering minute amounts of power to the home whose roof those panels are on.

    The minimum Base Load is 18000MW, and I know I harp on about that ALL the time, but there is a reason. Power consumption (on the year round average) at its absolute lowest point for any day is that 18000MW, and that’s at 4AM, when we are all of us mostly sound asleep.

    At that time, every single day, there is ZERO rooftop solar power. That 18000MW is the BASE for every day. All other consumption rises from there to the daily average of 23300MW and to Summer and Winter peaks of over 30000MW. (a total which is now rising each year)

    The average supplied by rooftop solar is 1400MW, (and keep in mind that this is a guess because it CANNOT be accurately metered, well, metered much at all in fact) and that average is only being consumed in the residential sector of homes with panels on their roofs. None of it is being consumed in the wider area of overall power consumption, because of its very nature tiny little generators with no ability to add to what the grid is providing.

    For when power is REALLY needed, the evening peak, even in Mid Summer, rooftop delivers next to zero, averaging zero for the year, and it’s not much better at the morning peak either.

    The only thing rooftop solar power HAS done is to inexorably make ANY efficient operation of the overall grid all but impossible.

    It’s millions of useless generators spread across the Country. Any generated power at all loses its ‘oomph’ by the next power pole to the home with the panels.

    Now try telling people that the only cure for all this is that they MUST install batteries if they want rooftop solar, and go off the grid.

    Rooftop solar power CANNOT supply the wider power consumption.

    Tony.

    220

    • #
      Dennis

      Before the desperate discounting offers on rooftop solar systems began the payback period on the average installation was several years and the investment was not a real saving in energy bills when repairs and replacement were considered.

      But a storage battery is, the last time I checked, not cost effective, battery replacement and cost well exceeded the storage of energy benefit.

      How many others are fed up with the transition to band aid solutions to solve a problem that didn’t exist when power station generators were not handicapped by unreliable energy sources?

      140

    • #
      Dennis

      [Duplicate]

      20

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Set the year to 1900, replace solar for motor car and coal base load for horse. Now run forward to today – all the economic, technical logistical and social problems around cars have been solved (apart from pollution but that is a problem for horses as well). You argument stands only as long as renewables stand still (in an economic, technological and logistical sense).

      Now take the 4 AM example. set your time machine to 2000, record the contribution of renewables at 4AM, now repeat that every year until today – what is trending upwards on your graph? could it be renewables? (and I am lumping gas into the unrenewable pile)

      218

      • #
        Analitik

        Renewables have stood still for the past decade aside from production costs falling due to China’s industralization. Technical advances have only been for scale.

        Cars advanced technically in leaps and bounds after they were introduced, which led to the displacement of horses. And cars weren’t government subsidised but heavily taxed

        100

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Who pays for the roads?. Who pays for the compliance? Who pays for the policing? Are they not subsidies

          28

          • #
            MCMXLIII

            Yes they are not subsidies.
            The tax on general petrol and diesel sales was introduced by the Fraser Government to fund road construction and maintenance in 1982.
            Nowadays the fuel tax has increased so much that it exceeds the money spent on roads by a wide margin.
            Whatever the fuel taxes are spent on it is EV owners, public transport users and cyclists who contribute little or nothing to the road system including cycle paths.
            Of course everyone benefits from the road system, policing etc. that carries goods and services around.
            Generally the idea that a tax break or concession is a subsidy is based on the notion that all wealth rightfully belongs to the government and anything that is not collected in tax excise etc. is a generous favour.

            70

            • #
              Analitik

              Exactly, MCMXLIII. Fuel excise is a heavy tax (see how much it comprises of the retail price – you will be amazed) ostensibly to fund road infrastructure but in practice, it goes into general funding and much of it is used for other government programs.

              Educate yourself before making naive comments like this, Peter Fitzroy.

              70

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                you are mistaken – it does not matter how the money is collected, but how it is distributed that makes a subsidy. Please note that this is for all roads, Federal, State and local.

                19

              • #
                Analitik

                And more is collected in excise than is spent on the roads. Otherwise, they wouldn’t put it into general revenue. Which means fuel excise from car users subsidise/fund other government activities.

                20

            • #
              Analitik

              Sorry, MCMXLIII that was poorly phrased – I meant that Peter Fitzroy would be amazed at the proportion of retail petrol, diesel and LPG pricing that due to excise. I am giving him the doubt of being ignorant rather than dishonest.

              40

      • #

        As per the topic, (and please Fitzroy, you keep telling us to remain on topic, and at the first chance you jump off topic) set the year to 2000 and find the contribution of rooftop solar to the 18000MW Base Load.

        Now scroll forwards to 2020, and again, find the contribution of rooftop solar at 4AM.

        Now the trend on that graph is ….. a flat line at ZERO.

        And as the data for the last four years so eloquently shows, the only effect that renewables is having is that natural gas fired power and solar power are slowly decreasing, in line with the increase in wind power.

        Funny that! D@mned data is so inconvenient.

        Oh, and I’m glad that you’re now counting natural gas fossil fuel as a renewable.

        Tony.

        180

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Why are you saying that only solar is in the mix? Wind?
          Asinine comment again for you – one more and you’ll be eligible for a frypan

          111

          • #
            Analitik

            “Asinine” from you, Peter Fitzroy? Everyone of your comments on energy can be categorized as such given their naivety.

            70

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘I am lumping gas into the unrenewable pile.’

        Agreed.

        10

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          EG:
          But gas is necessary to run the Peaking Plants (OCGTs) which cover for times when renewables ae delivering, so their emissions should be counted as due to renewables.

          20

          • #
            el gordo

            I know, its a wicked web of deceit.

            The green/left are in a bind, Santos what to open up a gas field outside of Narrabri, but the Lock the Gate mob are against it. The problem with the agrarian socialists is that they don’t care if the cities implode, my comrades refer to Sydney as China Town.

            10

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Poor choice of analogy Peter. Along the technology path there has been numerous costly technology failures, and we learn from those failures to move ahead and develop something different. In much the same way as we now look back at those failures, such as huge airships, and wonder what the heck the designers were thinking when they designed them, folks in the future will look back at the current “renewables” era and wonder why our generation ever thought they would work.

        10

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        The first large scale solar plant was built in Egypt in 1913. It used solar heat to vaporise a low boiling point liquid. It was discontinued in 1915.
        But things have improved since then, WHY Many people can get 7 or 8 years use from solar panels before maintenance or the need to up-grade.

        20

    • #
      Analitik

      no ability to add to what the grid is providing

      This is not technically true else there wouldn’t be cases of damage to transformers from reverse flow. But it is PRACTICALLY true, ignoring the demand reduction (which is why rooftop PV is modelled as negative demand rather than generation) and that the spillover tends to flow to other local subnets reducing their demand rather than flowing out to the wider network.

      There is an important side effect though which is local voltage rise that can lead to damage which is why inverters have a shutdown voltage to stop output beyond a line voltage limit. This, of course, enrages the greenwash as they can’t see why the grid operators can’t cater to their transient voltage rises by reducing dispatchable generation. They ignore the intermittent nature of PV output and, as always, don’t understand (or choose to ignore) the consequences of grid operators reducing generation and then being caught out by a large passing cloud causing a shortfall, as demonstrated by the recent Alice Springs blackout.

      80

      • #
        RickWill

        There is an important side effect though which is local voltage rise that can lead to damage which is why inverters have a shutdown voltage to stop output beyond a line voltage limit.

        This problem is easily solved by spending a few billion dollars at the distribution level to replace mechanical tap changers with automatic tap changers.

        This paper discusses the issue:
        https://eprints.qut.edu.au/14285/1/04548108.pdf

        The recent introduction of the competitive electricity market in many countries has sparked a renew trend in connecting small-size generators into distribution networks. Those new generators together with different other types of equipment such as On-load Tap Changing (OLTC) transformer, shunt capacitors, shunt reactors, etc, will all participate into the voltage regulation process in the power systems.

        This is from my poles and wires provider:
        https://www.ausnetservices.com.au/-/media/Files/AusNet/About-Us/Electricity-distribution-network/Week-4/Background-reading—DER.ashx?la=en

        Our customers have told us they do not want to be constrained in their ability to export into the grid. However, just as importantly, our customers should not be expected to write a ‘blank cheque’ to guarantee export regardless of the cost to upgrade the network.

        AusNet Services has, therefore, designed our DER program to ensure that we prudently and efficiently maximise the ability of our customers to connect and export electricity.

        20

        • #
          Analitik

          easily solved by spending a few billion dollars at the distribution level

          In a nutshell

          40

        • #
          Analitik

          BTW, those OLTCs may be automated but they are still mechanical – it’s just that the taps are changed with motors directed by sensors rather than a linesman manually switching the tap. Hence the billions of dollars in distribution infrastructure upgrades with complex devices that will require additional maintenance since we are still dealing with moving parts.

          40

          • #
            Bob in Castlemaine

            Don’t worry Analitik, a few billion dollars to junk the millions of distribution transformers throughout the country is a small price to pay so that the proles can enjoy all that “free” electricity from the sun?
            Actually those pesky old fashion manual tap change, distribution transformers will have to be junked anyway as we “transition” to a brave new all electric world. The massif increase in household demand to allow for charging of plug in electric cars and the abolition of fossil fueled domestic heating will mean not only the distribution transformers will have to be replaced, but likely much of the other LV reticulation infrastructure as well. And that’s just the start, the impact of these load increases will ripple right through the distribution system to transmission level. Don’t even mention where the additional night time MWs will come from at a time when “low cost” wind, if it’s available, will be struggling to pump up Malcolm’s fantasy.

            60

    • #
      RK

      Tony,
      Everything you say there is true but a point overlooked with unreliable power is that it does not help the phases to remain balanced with so many different sources coming from single phase households and such varying voltage. Solar and wind can’t be put under load, they can’t provide the extra power when a lot more voltage is suddenly required. Take an electric train starting from a full stop at the station – they use 25000v AC, there is no way solar could provide that extra voltage even if it was connected to that distribution circuit. When large power loads are recognized by a drop in frequency and voltage, at power stations, the governors instantly recognize this and provide more fuel to the turbines to bring it back up. All voltage travels from very high to low voltage through transformers and substations from the power stations and it is important to understand that reactive power is required for voltage control where the big power draws occur, not out in the suburbs down a residential street where some solar power trickling back into the system would be useless.
      I suspect that most people have no idea what voltage actually is and so don’t understand the complexities of modern power grids and trying to mix low voltage DC with higher voltage AC regardless of the use of inverters. Voltage, the electromagnetic force that moves along just outside the wire is what stimulates electrons in a conductor,and is actually enormous numbers of photons travelling just below the speed of light. The numbers are immense – there are approx.2.9 x power of 18 photons emitting from a 100 watt light bulb every second – that is around a billion trillion photons.Thinking that having large numbers of solar panels putting power back into the lower voltage parts of the grid in uncontrolled and untimed forms is to not understand the physics of electrical energy.

      61

  • #
    Another Ian

    Seems to me that in the rush to get aboard the brave new perspective of renewable energy from wind that one obvious lesson was lost:-

    When using wind to pump water reliable supply involves a very large storage or an auxiliary engine powered pump jack – or preferably both.

    60

  • #
    Analitik

    If “blowing up” is not the right term, maybe they should try “burning out” and “dimming down”

    80

  • #
    Dennis

    Too many politicians are sensitive to the noisy socialists masquerading as environmentalists in their electorates, in SA the so called renewable energy transition has become a popular policy commenced by the Labor side when in government in SA and the Coalition is afraid to not appear to be supportive and even enthusiastic.

    Former Labor Federal Opposition Leader, now One Nation NSW Leader, pointed out on Sky News that a Bill to allow mining of Uranium in NSW (he referred to deposits in the west including Broken Hill and Dubbo) was rejected, a majority including both sides voted against it. Latham said that on the Coalition Government side the Members who voted against represent electorates in which greenism is influential.

    50

    • #
      PeterS

      As I keep saying, stupid is as stupid does. Of course there are those who will take advantage of the stupid situation and profit from it and some will try to destroy the West to satisfy their egotistical agendas. The fact that our leaders are completely blind to all that and is some cases instigating polices that only help such evil agendas demonstrates they don’t deserve to be in office. Yet the voters don’t give a damn and the train wreck continues in slow motion. Go figure.

      40

      • #
        el gordo

        We had this discussion before, there is no profit in digging up uranium at Dubbo, the market is flat and unlikely to improve. This is a two horse race, Renewables against Fossil Fuels.

        State governments will face the electorate and if power prices remain stubbornly high, then obviously they will be thrown out of office.

        14

        • #
          PeterS

          Yes but the fossil fuel horse is handicapped with lots of lead weight while the renewables one has none thanks to both state and federal government. Stupid is as stupid does.

          20

          • #
            el gordo

            Its over Peter, subsidies have finished and the market will decide.

            Look at the Renewable Zones in NSW and the fast tracking, no politician will criticise any of this because its cheaper than building a Hele and the benefits are local.

            10

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/major-solar-deal-to-create-400-qld-jobs-20200828-p55q4x

    “South Korea’s Hana Financial Investment has acquired a 162-megawatt solar farm to be built in the booming solar power state of Queensland and which is underpinned by a huge power sales contract with state-owned CS Energy.

    “The decade-long power purchase contract for 450 gigawatt-hours a year is one of the country’s most substantial renewable energy contracts ever signed, said Luminous Energy, the UK-based firm that developed the project…

    10

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Depression-like “New Deal” infrastructure spending……

    Destroying the economy using Covid, then becoming “saviour” recovering from a self inflicted wound….

    It will be interesting to see how much if it is worthless green nonsense.

    https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/victoria-plans-for-massive-recovery-spending-20200827-p55psh

    “Victoria is preparing a major economic recovery plan, with measures valued at around $18 billion to be announced in the upcoming budget.

    “Encouraged by the Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe for the states to lift spending by 2 per cent of GDP, the Victorian government is framing a massive increase in infrastructure and shovel-ready programs to stimulate…

    And then we have this :

    Its secret parliament business, and no one is allowed to see what were up to…or something…..a bit of a tantrum not being able to get it all their own way….diddums….

    Seems to underscore what appears a lack of trust in “Dans Gang”…..

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/critical-demand-on-state-of-emergency-extension-rejected-20200827-p55q0q.html

    “The Victorian government has rejected a critical crossbench demand to extend the state of emergency powers, hitting a major roadblock in negotiations.

    “Health Minister Jenny Mikakos on Thursday rejected a plan to establish a parliamentary oversight committee to scrutinise the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the effectiveness of programs designed to stimulate the economy.
    …………….
    “However, that demand was flatly rejected, Ms Patten said, adding Ms Mikakos had instead offered to extend PAEC, which is due to table its final report on October 31.

    20

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Dan van Holst PellekaanDan van Holst Pellekaan”

    With a name like that and an outlook like that I’d not be suprised if a cartoonist has created him a badge combining a pelican and a donkey?

    20

  • #

    SA Energy Minister says helpfully “The grid blowing up is not the right term”

    I’ll grant that. “The grid melting down” is probably more accurate.

    70

  • #
  • #
    Rafe Champion

    Peter Fitzroy, there is no solar at night and occasionally there is next to no wind.

    Enter the “choke point” factor. We need a continuous supply of oxygen and we will be dead in five or ten minutes when we choke or drown. The grid needs a continuous supply of power. At 4am there is no solar input and from time to time there is next to no wind. How many times a year are you prepared to have the grid “die” when there is not enough solar or wind input? – assuming that you are looking forward to a time when we don’t have any fossil fuels contributing.
    Storage you say? Talk to the Chief Scientist about the prospect of battery storage.
    Pumped hydro? You have got to be joking:)

    80

  • #
    Rafe Champion

    Speaking of next to no wind, the windmills in SA have been running under 10% capacity all day and in Victoria they have been under 10% since lunchtime.

    Refer to the very helpful NemWatch widget and see how much green (wind) you find in the bars at breakfast and dinnertime when the wind has to do all the heavy lifting for the RE team. http://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/reneweconomy/

    30

  • #

    Re Jo’s “spent $1,500 million dollars on a giant interconnector emergency IV line to NSW.”

    Nobody has mentioned that NSW is mainly an IMPORTER -
    so the “giant interconnector emergency IV line” is really to Qld.
    Extra distance = extra transmission losses.

    30

  • #
    David Maddison

    What are the anticipated transmission losses on the proposed interconnector?

    41

  • #
    nb

    The grid is peacefully protesting.

    20

  • #
    John Watt

    The reality is that for a properly planned and managed grid there is room / need for both fossil and renewable sources. Missing are planning and management. How we reached this sad state is due , among other things, to a misinformed fascination with renewables and greedy governments grabbing for privatisation cash.
    For suburbia, technology exists for community batteries to be used in conjunction with existing grid supplied community transformers (e.g. each supplying a neighbourhood of 150 homes) to balance community supply and demand while taking advantage of solar energy.
    At the edge of the grid solar supply , backed up by diesel generators and batteries are able to avoid the energy losses incurred in transmitting to the extremities of the grid.
    We seem to be in a confused/combative state where it can be only A or only B. Let’s stop the aggro and put our minds to the advantages of intelligent use of combinations of A and B.

    10

  • #
    UK-Weather Lass

    Just to illustrate the nonsense of solar and wind our UK summer has been a mix of storms and heatwaves i.e. lots of solar and lots of wind. The problem is we still haven’t worked out how to get the sun to shine at night and how to ensure that when it is windy the wind speed does not exceed the safe maximum of the individual generators. How anybody with a brain could have imagined these green ideas would meet our energy needs is quite beyond my comprehension.

    At least we know that nuclear, hydro, gas and new hybrid generators actually can provide baseline at high efficiency. How do we change the minds of the virtue signalling green people who would have us believe that our energy needs to cost so much more because they listened to a rumour about CO2 that has never been proven?

    30

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      ” How do we change the minds of the virtue signalling green people “.

      We can’t.

      This is the new religion and once the green virtue signalling is embedded nothing can change it.

      Blackouts might help.

      21

      • #
        TdeF

        Like the Climate Change religion, the Burn Loot and Murder religion is another yet piece of virtue signalling for white middle class people.

        That’s where the only slaves in history were black and the only slavers were Americans.

        However I thought African slavery was run by the Arabs and the black people themselves and they enslaved everyone they could, but who needs facts when you are apologising for the alleged sins of people long dead?

        In this other connected religion, white skin colour is all that matters, which is racist rubbish. As a black woman worth a cool $2.5Billion, Oprah Winfrey now lectures on white privilege, without any concern for the unbelievable hyprocrisy.

        And China sells all the windmills to a Western society which cannot stop apologizing, as the Chinese government points out, for ‘historic’ carbon dioxide pollution. More hyprocrisy, which the left of politics never notices.

        40