Australia has already been bypassed once by the world’s leading renewable energy developers, and risks doing so again if it makes more changes to its green energy policies, according to one of the world’s biggest energy groups.
The Australian clean energy market nearly became a wasteland after the Howard government refused to extend its hugely successful start to the country’s first Renewable Energy Target, causing many international and Australian companies to leave the country and manufacturing facilities to be closed.
There are concerns of a similar flight of interest, and capital, if the government makes changes to its 2020 Renewable Energy Target, which is expected to be the bedrock for some $20 billion of investment in wind energy and solar farms in the next eight years.
Rafael Mateo, the global head of energy at Spanish group Acciona, the world’s largest green-only energy developer, says Australia is effectively competing with other countries in Asia, Africa and the Americas to attract capital for investment in clean energy.
Acciona sources about three-quarters of its revenue from its home base in Spain, but is now moving rapidly to flip that figure upside down and is seeking the majority of its revenues in the international market. It has been particularly active in South Africa, where it has won bids to construct wind and solar-energy plants, and in South America, where in Chile banks are financing wind and solar projects even without subsidies and power purchase agreements. India is also looking particularly attractive.
“We are looking for countries with a clear policy about renewables and looking to countries which are looking to install capacity,” Mateo said in an interview with RenewEconomy. “We are expanding in emerging countries and we are trying to expand operations in Australia,” he said. “It is clear that the carbon tax is penalising co2 emissions and we are moving to a world with more expensive conventional generation, and thermal generation with less expensive renewables technologies. We are confident about the renewable generation market. The defining feature (of our investment choices) is the policy environment.”
Andrew Thompson, Acciona’s country head in Australia, said the company was concerned about talk of changes to the RET, or even a recent push to change policy incentives to an auctioning system. He said that while the Grattan Institute proposal for a series of capacity auctions was a valid idea (it has been used in South Africa where Acciona is building capacity), it was wrong to suggest the policy should be changed mid stream.
“You can’t just tear up existing policy and start over again,” he said. “It could take several years to debate and agree on how a new policy would look. We’re happy with the RET in its current form. AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator) may revise demand forecasts. Don’t see a point changing a target every two years just because demand forecast is changed.”
Mateo was in Brisbane as many of Acciona’s senior management arrived for the launching of the Prado exhibition, which the company is sponsoring. He said wind energy would continue to grow quickly, although it was difficult to see costs falling much further because capital costs — driven down by loss-leading Chinese manufacturers — were already approaching costs of around $1 million a megawatt.
“There is no other industry that is growing at 40% a year,” Mateo said. “Many countries need to change their fuel capacity and replace it with clean energy, so there are a lot of possibilities in the renewable market. And it is so much quicker and easier to build renewable generation than conventional generation.”
Acciona is also one of the leading companies in concentrated solar thermal — building plants boasting parabolic trough and solar tower technologies, and recently adding molten salt storage so that such plants can become “dispatchable” like gas-fired power stations.
He said even solar thermal CSP is also already operating at about $150/MWh in countries with good sun, such as South Africa and Australia, and Acciona argues that this should draw the attention of big miners such as BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, which are paying $300/MWh or more for diesel at remote mine sites.
“There’s got to be a shift in mindset from having a diesel generation plant they know well and which is relatively cheap to build, to shifting towards a highly technical generation source and perhaps outsourcing the management and ownership of that asset through a third party that knows how to operate that,” Thompson said.
Mateo says PV is heading towards $100/MWh and it was interesting to note that in some countries, financing had been offered by banks without subsidies from the government, and even without power purchase agreements. In Chile, for instance, the cost of energy is $100/MWh, which allows wind and solar PV, in some instances, to compete. Mateo said there could be opportunities to combine CSP installations with solar PV.
Mateo conceded that Spain was no longer a growth market because the country had a surplus of capacity, partly caused by the huge investment in renewables in recent years. However, this had also created large green-focused energy developers such as Acciona which were expanding rapidly onto the global stage.
“They are taking their expertise all around the world,” Thompson added. “Australian policymakers sometimes lose sight of that. In a country like Australia, we are enjoying strong economic conditions, and we have a huge opportunity to become leaders if we choose to.”
*This article was first published at RenewEconomy
Yet another reason why we would be better off with non-partisan government. See
colflower.blogspot.com.au
I agree with the general thrust of the article, though it is easy to pick holes in the arguments being put forward by Acciona about Australian renewable energy policy, as being motivated by commercial self – interest on Acciona’s part.
One consideration to note: Regarding the likelihood of Solar Thermal replacing diesel generation on remote minesites this is really quite unlikely to happen, at least in the short term.
A Solar thermal power plant requires a plant in excess of 20 MW (preferably 50 MW) in size in order to develop the economies of scale which can deliver Levelised Cost of Energy figures around the $150 / MWh quoted in the article above.
Most remote mine sites in Australia have electricity demands significantly less than this. Only the real behemoths crack the 20 – 50 MW mark. For the smaller ones ticking along with 1 – 5 MW of diesel generation, unless there are another 5 or 10 mine sites within a 50 km radius who are all willing to either share the (considerable) up front capital cost and construct their own transmission lines, or alternatively, sign up to long term power purchase agreements making it profitable for a 3rd party to build it, I would be surprised if such an investment were to be considered advisable.
For a Solar Thermal plant to be a viable proposition, just going off raw economics, for a large remote minesite, it would need to satisfy the following criteria:-
1. The mine would need to have a large enough electricity demand to create the economy of scale described above, AND
2. The owners would need to be confident enough of the ongoing viability of the operation, in terms of proven and projected ore reserves, price projections and the remainder of their business model, to be quite certain that they would require such a large load at that location for at least 20 years, probably longer, AND
3. The mine would need to be far enough from BOTH of the following to make either one uneconomic:
a) A (relatively) low cost electricity grid such as the SouthWest or North West interconnected Systems, or the Eastern National Electricity Market, to which a transmission line could be constructed, thus delivering power at ~ $60 / MWh plus tranmission line costs amortised over the remaining mine life, OR
b) A Natural Gas pipeline such as the Goldfields Gas Pipeline, Dampier to Bunbury Pipeline, or similar, to which a spur line could be constructed, thus delivering gas to a gas turbine power plant which could deliver power for similar rates to the above HV transmission option (allowing for pipeline construction costs).
What it comes down to, is that the central premise of the article is correct – at this point, the development of world – leading renewables in Australia, which could position us as a global leader in one of the fastest growing and most critical industries the world has ever seen, is highly dependant on consistently supportive domestic energy policy.
The Good Captain would have more credibility in his pronouncements if he mentioned the “molten salt storage” associated with Acciona’s solar thermal plants and prominent in the above article.
The proceedings of the First International Symposium on Energy Storage held in Dubrovnik in 1979 contains reports on “molten salt storage”. (a United Nations publication held in The State Library of NSW and probably not on-line).
But such energy storage is left out of the Good Captain’s offerings to other posters, any explanation?
“Energy Storage”, is it part of Captain Planet’s expertise or not!
Type “Energy Storage” into a search engine and 27 miilion sources pop up.
Does someone have an unsustainable blind spot? Tell us about energy storage Captain, does it even exist on your planet? Is posturing fraudulence applicable here? A reasonable question.
As for the economies of scale, does this apply to an acre of print lending supposed cerdibility to an unbalanced analysis of the above article? Just who are you trying to convince? Yourself?Wake up!
“Acciona recently adding molten salt storage at their solar thermal plants so that such plants can be dispatchable like gas fired power stations”. See above article.
Some explanation as to how this does not equally apply to diesel power plants would be welcolmed.
And the unsubstantiated assertions concerning economies of scale just exactly how does this apply to mirrors and storage tanks? Que?
@ Hamis Hill,
Firstly, it is plain to anyone with the faintest comprehension of how solar thermal power plants work, that any proposal to replace the diesel fired generation of a 24 hour operation like a remote minesite, with solar power, would have to incorporate energy storage of some kind.
For a brief summation of my opinions on the various utility scale energy storage options presently available and under development, please refer to my post of three days ago, here:
http://uat.crikey.com.au/2012/07/20/theres-a-da-xiang-in-the-room-new-greenhouse-emission-data/
Posted on Tuesday 24th July at 09:59 a.m, and subsequently read by your good self I can only presume, as you have then proceeded to comment again on that thread again thereafter.
What are you trying to prove?