Some rare goods news on the climate and energy front: Australia is on track to beat its 2020 renewable energy target (RET).
The Clean Energy Regulator says it has recently approved enough new renewable energy projects to ensure the target of generating 33,000 gigawatt hours of renewable energy will be met a year ahead of the 2020 deadline. That means about 20% of Australia’s electricity use will be coming from large-scale and rooftop solar energy, wind farms and hydro power plants.
The RET was initially put in place by prime minister John Howard in 2001, to source an additional 2% of electricity from renewable energy by 2010. Since then it has been adjusted several times — most notably when the Rudd government expanded the scheme, followed by the Abbott government’s appointment of climate sceptic Dick Warburton to review the target with a view to getting rid of it all together. Investment in large-scale renewable energy dropped by 90% in the year after the review was announced and 2300 people lost their jobs in the sector.
Thankfully, despite a bipartisan deal to weaken the RET, investment recovered, building new renewable energy projects got cheaper and now here we are: about to source 20% of electricity from renewable energy ahead of schedule.
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reductions Angus Taylor is this week celebrating Australia reaching our RET. But this must be a bitter pill to swallow; Taylor has been one of the RET’s fiercest opponents over many years.
“There’s no question that the cost of energy coming from solar and wind is now low,” Taylor said this week. “So the real challenge now — and I’ve had this view for many years — is that this will become a challenge and it is, is to get balance in our system.”
Governments subsidise what they want more of and the Morrison government has made it very clear it wants more coal-burning power, and maybe nuclear too. But not renewables.
Minister Angus Taylor is looking to underwrite six gas and coal power plants through the Underwriting New Generation Investment program. The government has even ordered a review into an element of its flagship Climate Solutions Fund to make it easier for coal companies to access taxpayer support that’s supposed to reduce emissions, to pay for upgrades to power stations that burn coal.
That is precisely the opposite of what we should be doing to address the energy trilemma: to reduce emissions and electricity prices while increasing reliability of the grid.
According to the CSIRO, renewable energy is now the cheapest form of new electricity in the nation. So now the self-described “minister for lower energy prices” needs to explain why he is so keen to leave the cheapest form of energy in the nation — renewables — on the shelf, while looking to underwrite new coal plants and even going so far as holding an inquiry into nuclear energy, the most expensive new energy source on Earth. That’s a recipe for pushing electricity prices up.
The prime minister claimed his government can now close the chapter on the RET because renewable energy “doesn’t need government to hold its hand anymore. It’s grown up. And I think that’s a tremendous thing”.
But gas and coal power plants have had decades of government hand holding. Most coal power plants in Australia were built with taxpayer funding. So why does renewable energy need to “stand on its own two feet” while gas and coal continue to get a handout? Especially when fossil fuels are directly contributing to Australia’s high greenhouse gas emissions.
Last week, new government data confirmed Australia’s national emissions have risen for a fifth year in a row. This is not news to Angus Taylor, who has the unique title of minister for energy and emissions reductions. More renewables can benefit both parts of his portfolio. Renewables provide the lowest cost form of electricity and has helped lowered electricity sector emissions, which is the most high-polluting sector of the Australian economy.
It is Angus Taylor’s job to pick and choose what forms of energy the Australian government supports with taxpayer funds. What is then in the best interests of all Australians is as clear as daylight; whether the minister will make the sensible decision is as clear as mud.
Richie Merzian is the climate and energy director at independent think-tank The Australia Institute. He tweets at @RichieMerzian.
The market is wise until it says you are wrong and an ideologically-bound idiot. Imagine where we could be with a coherent energy policy. But this mob of dolts are too busy trying to talk some suicidal investors into building coal-fired power stations. You could not make this stuff up.
Let the world burn. Who cares? What’s on the telly? How good’s coal, eh?
The renewables industry should promote their image as being capable of supplying electricity on demand. Electricity on demand is of far more value to the grid than intermittent power that other generators on the grid have to struggle to balance. Providing massive storage is a big ask, but the renewables industry should be showing their sincerity by pushing for feasibility studies, of PHES, for instance. In the meantime, they could contract with gas turbine operators to balance the intermittent power before it is offered to the grid operator. Either way, such gestures would make renewables less vulnerable to orthodox criticism.
Nuclear does offer a direct threat to the renewables industry. Although the capital cost of nuclear generators is high, they last much longer and have negligible fuel costs. Consequently the marginal cost is very low, and they will always be able to outbid the surges of renewable power. However, levelised renewable power could complete on levelised terms.
Nuclear power is not exactly “on demand” type power nor, for that matter, is coal fired power stations or thermal gas (ie not gas turbines).
There are many proposals for PHES going through review and feasibility studies at this moment, and the Snowy 2.0 project has been approved.
[Note that Tumut 3 is a PHES in the Snowy Mountain Scheme that has been operating since 1973, balancing the supply from coal powered stations.]
There are peaking gas turbine and Diesel generators in the system, and more coming. These are peaking plants, designed to cope when the demand is greater than supply from the main system.
“Nuclear does offer a direct threat to the renewables industry. Although the capital cost of nuclear generators is high, they last much longer and have negligible fuel costs. Consequently the marginal cost is very low, and they will always be able to outbid the surges of renewable power. However, levelised renewable power could complete on levelised terms.”
You know that renewables have no fuel costs? And lower maintenance costs? Far lower capital costs?
Not sure what you mean by nuclear power being “always able to outbid the surges of renewable power”. If renewable power is surging then the wholesale cost of electricity is heading towards zero. Usually because supply is in excess of demand, allowing storage to top up their systems at minimal cost.
Levilised cost takes into account capital expenditure, maintenance, capacity factor and fuel costs. Renewables are lower than nuclear power in this measure.
“Demand”? In orthodox analysis, “demand” refers to electricity consumption. The smooth variation of demand is matched by the “load following” capabilities of all steam generation, including coal, gas and nuclear. Intermittent generation from renewables creates temporary failures of supply, not temporary increases in demand. On this basis, raw renewable power constitutes unreliable supply and will always be vulnerable to orthodox criticism.
I’m not sure that demand/consumption could be considered smooth.
And if “load following” was so easy with steam generators why was Tumut 3 built in the first place?
Wind power can be turned on or off according to demand, if there is sufficient capacity. Or the pitch angle of the blades can be varied.
One day you will hear about the capabilities of storage systems that will smooth out the renewables. Perhaps you might start with reading about what the South Australian battery has done to the price gouging of the gas fired systems since it was installed some 18 months ago. You might also google ‘Kidston Mine Pumped Storage’.
It will be interesting to learn your opinion of Nuclear when you understand how alternatives are progressing. Hundreds of such opportunities exist throughout australia in abandoned mines. They will develop much more before ANY nuclear facility can ever answer the most basic question of ‘where?’.
Actually, I do understand the renewables scene. In 1974, a friend and I gathered material to write a book on how solar energy was going to supply Australia. At the time, there was an enormous amount of promising designs, scientific research and engineering development. Commercialisation was imminent and many hopefuls prepared to make their fortunes. Despite all the hope, excitement and faith, the developments were never quite there yet. We decided to wait a short while until the long-lived PV film (for roofing panels) was proven, along with lead-free electrical storage for homes, and the resolution of technical problems with the compression, liquefaction, storage, distribution and vehicle-adaption of hydrogen as an intermediate storage. (We considered that PHES was a proven technology, but Australia lacked enough big river valleys to provide the scale required, and Bob Brown had already demonstrated that locals don’t like wild rivers to be flooded.) We hoped that with a short wait, the fog of blind faith would lift to reveal new, competent technology on the scale required. However, 45 years later, we’re still waiting.
Roger, even now the wait time for Nuclear is just as long as you have waited for YOUR version of the solution to our power problems.
Roger, PHES do not need “big river valleys” nor do they require “wild rivers to be flooded”.
All is required is a reasonable elevation change and space for a top and bottom reservoir.
And the bottom reservoir can be the sea, which negates the problem of water availability.
Already there is a mine sit in Queensland being converted to PHES.
And there are literally thousands of sites in Australia suitable for PHES.
The costings for small or remote pumped hydro electric systems (PHES) restricted feasibility to the existing hydro dams in the Snowy and other valleys in the Great Dividing Range. Modern costings may change the assessment, but I don’t think by much. However the modern proponents of PHES are secretive with their costings. Further, they avoid telling the public what the best sites are. Seeing as the best place to put a dam is in a valley, there is little chance that the custodians of the valleys would permit flooding of these “best sites”, especially with seawater.
Why not do the costings yourself? 100% renewables would have to supply Australia with an average of maybe 60 GW plus a peak of maybe 30% of that. And we would need to have 50 days of storage to ensure that the storage never runs out in the worst of years.
a) PHES do not need the flooding of valleys.
b) Sea Water PHES would not need to have a dam in a valley since the sea is the lower reservoir. A seawater PHES only needs an upper reservoir.
c) 50 days? When ever has there been 50 days where the entire eastern seaboard has been so cloudy that no PV energy can be collected and, at the same time, the wind has been so low that no turbines from FNQ to SA can operate?
Wayne says that a pumped hydro electric storage system only needs an upper reservoir, without needing to put dams across existing river valleys. A little arithmetic would show that the vast volume of water to be intermittently stored, cycled and evaporated is far too great to be stored anywhere else than in the notches in the hillsides that we call valleys.
Wayne questions the need for 50 days of storage capacity, but even that may not be enough. In an average year, level in a storage must increase gradually (from excess production) across the favourable half of the year, then gradually decrease (to balance inadequate production) across the unfavourable half of the year. A realistic system must have extra capacity to cover several bad years in a row. The fatal flaw in any scheme involving storage is that storage runs out – eventually.
I have challenged any interested readers to do the arithmetic on pumped hydro, but the silence suggests that everyone who has tried the arithmetic has found that PHES is hopelessly impractical. When even the salesmen don’t want you to do the arithmetic, you should suspect fraud.
As noted by Dodger – for want of a reply button, “… when the(y)… don’t want you to do the arithmetic, you should suspect fraud” – imagine trying to get a nukes fan to do a little simple arithmetic.
Especially that damned millennia of safe storage of waste.
“Wayne says that a pumped hydro electric storage system only needs an upper reservoir, without needing to put dams across existing river valleys. A little arithmetic would show that the vast volume of water to be intermittently stored, cycled and evaporated is far too great to be stored anywhere else than in the notches in the hillsides that we call valleys.”
You need a reservoir top and bottom.
In some places it would be possible to use the sea as the lower reservoir.
The capacity of the system depends on the size of the upper reservoir, so long as the lower reservoir is the same size or bigger. So flooding a whole valley river system as the lower reservoir would require a similar amount of water to be dammed at a higher elevation.
It can be done that way, such as with the Snowy scheme, but it doesn’t have to be.
An example is the conversion of abandoned mines for storage. Both underground and open-cut, where the bottom of the open cut-mine acts as the lower reservoir.
“Wayne questions the need for 50 days of storage capacity, but even that may not be enough. In an average year, level in a storage must increase gradually (from excess production) across the favourable half of the year, then gradually decrease (to balance inadequate production) across the unfavourable half of the year. A realistic system must have extra capacity to cover several bad years in a row. The fatal flaw in any scheme involving storage is that storage runs out – eventually.”
I would like to know where you got 50 days from? What were the assumptions, locations? Did it involve an interconnected electricity system, or state based closed systems (ie before they built interconnectors)?
You do know that demand varies across the day and year? That the highest demand in most places in Australia is when solar PV makes its maximum power?
Storage only runs out when there is insufficient spare capacity to charge teh system. That should not be a problem.
“I have challenged any interested readers to do the arithmetic on pumped hydro, but the silence suggests that everyone who has tried the arithmetic has found that PHES is hopelessly impractical. When even the salesmen don’t want you to do the arithmetic, you should suspect fraud.”
50 days of storage for the NEM would require roughly 40 million swimming pools worth of reservoirs (top and bottom) with an effective elevation of 100m.
Of course you can make the reservoirs bigger (without being the size of a river valley) and the effective elevation greater.
If your reservoir is 100m x 100m x 20m then you only need 500,000 for 50 days. Half that if you can double the elevation. And that is quite a small reservoir.
Wayne says, “If your reservoir is 100m x 100m x 20m then you only need 500,000 for 50 days” of storage. Assuming an average head of 100 m, I calculate that to be 1300,000 reservoirs. Of course we can vary any of the parameters, but would still end up with a large requirement.
Thank you for doing the arithmetic. Far too many people are capable of arithmetic, would rather have their opinions created by someone else.
Roger, Wayne:
Look up Dr Geoff Bongers work on the storage issue for Wind in particular. There is a 1 week in May scenario where very low wind can occur over a wide area for 7-10 days across the NEM. Wind power output is proportional to the wind speed cubed (^3) so if the wind drops to 1/2 of rated speed you get 1/8th the power. If it drops from say 20 knots to 5 knots you get 1/64th the power output which is negligible.
From memory, the dedicated Wind storage requirement was 14 GWhr for every 1GW of installed wind capacity. That is the equal of 120 x Tesla batteries. SA has over 1GW of wind capacity.
retsina62 – yes, the system that you describe would indeed allow wind to provide electricity on demand whenever there was enough energy in storage. In sufficiently favourable weather, that would be 24 hours a day. At other times the grid would fall back on other, presumably fossil or nuclear generators. However, Wayne and I were discussing how much storage would be required for “100% renewables”, that is when there is no other generation available for backup.
“From memory, the dedicated Wind storage requirement was 14 GWhr for every
1GW of installed wind capacity”
So, 14 hours of storage. Not 50 days?
At least we now have some sound bights from this woeful minister stating the obvious ie that renewable energy is cheap and getting cheaper.
I wish we could start having some grown-up discussions and planning around reliability. A few obvious facts:
* 100% availability is impossible.
* Marginal increases in availability (how many nines do you want? 99.99….?) is are increasingly expensive.
* Not everyone needs the same QoS.
* Back-up energy could be stored at every level of the system (ceiling LED, household, neighbourhood….)
* High demand customers should be responsible for their own business continuity planning.
I agree Ian. Especially in respect of neighbourhood schemes. Woking in the UK works like that. And that has had an unexpected benefit for the community. If you own your own generation and storage and share it with participating neighbours, you have a powerful incentive to know and cooperate with your neighbours. But that would require coordination at state government level to facilitate the initiation of these schemes. As an optimist, we have some hope that some state governments will see the wisdom in it. There is no hope this federal government has even considered it for a second. They are too busy being obsessed with the idiocy of new coal-fired stations and now the fantasy of nuclear.
And I agree that if you are a bulk-user business, make your own arrangements. As I have said here before, the scared grid was essentially created to service industry, not real people. But we subsidise all that and have since the start of creation of state-wide and then national grids only in the early 1960s.
With so much lithium being dug up and shipped O/S as well. And we have what, one manufacturer of home grown lithium batteries in Australia? Reminds me of Tassie selling wood chips to Japan for $16 a tonne and then buying the wood back as paper from Japan at $1000 a tonne. Good work Oztrailer.