If you’re willing to overlook a couple of major climate disasters, Australia has been doing great this year. We’re on fire!
You may be wondering how you could overlook the fact fires have incinerated an area of land larger than Switzerland. By the time things are under control we’re likely to have burned bush the size of Tasmania. But I say relax and take your cues from our Prime Minister — the world expert at taking it easy in a crisis. He doesn’t let himself get bothered by little things like two Hawaiis’ worth of Australia going up in smoke. If he did, he wouldn’t have been able to enjoy his overseas vacation at all.
Some people were upset he was enjoying a torchlit Luau while homes were going up like torches back in Oz, but he wasn’t doing anything useful here so I don’t blame him for going. The only thing I blame him for is coming back.
You can’t deny it would have been nice to nip off to Honolulu where it was only 29 degrees during our pre-Christmas heatwave. A heatwave that contained Australia’s two hottest days in recorded history. In Adelaide it reached 43 degrees, in Sydney it was 42 degrees, and parts of Balmoral hit 1,200 degrees.
On the bright side, the air has cleared up significantly since Malcolm Turnbull took this picture while flying into Sydney:
Image by Malcolm Turnbull
He wrote:
“We have to accelerate the move to zero emission energy. It will mean a safer planet for our children…”
What a nice old man. If only he had held some sort of position of power or responsibility at any point in his life. Then he might have been able to do something tangible about the inevitable disaster caused by the increasing length and severity of our fire seasons.
In 2019 The Link Between Climate Change & Increases Bushfire Risk Became Obvious To Almost Everyone
There’s no particular mystery around why bushfire risk has increased. Global warming has raised average temperatures in Australia by around 1.5 degrees over the past 100 years. Here’s a graph from the Bureau of Meteorology showing how yearly temperature means have differed from the mean since 1910:
As you can see, the average temperature on this continent has increased by around 1.5 degrees. I’m sure Australians reading this don’t need to be told why a bush fire season where the mean temperature is 24.5 degrees is more dangerous than one where it’s 23 degrees. In other words, I’m assuming the average Australian is smarter than the average Prime Minister.
In 2019 The Coalition Continued Their Fear Of A Burned Surplus
I’d like to get the elephant in the room out of the way. Firstly, because it’s cruel to confine an elephant, and secondly, because it’s on fire and watching an elephant burn is distressing. Especially since I’ve just eaten a heap of Christmas leftovers, so the smell isn’t even making me hungry.
The reason the Coalition is doing nothing about the bushfire crisis, and may continue to do nothing, is because of the surplus. Or rather, the lack of surplus if they take action that even approaches what’s required. If Australia is to be protected against future bush fires of the magnitude experienced this year it will require tens of billions in additional annual funding for the next couple of election cycles to upgrade our fire fighting capability to the point where it can handle climate disaster level blazes. Then it will take billions per year in additional spending to maintain it.
The Coalition promised a $21 billion surplus for this financial year. This figure has since been watered down to $5 billion because of a weakening economy. Dealing with bushfire damage in any meaningful way means there will be no surplus. This is why they have been dithering while Balmoral burns. They’ve centred their political platform around creating a surplus and if that doesn’t materialize they ain’t got much left to give as a reason to vote for them.
After all, they can’t claim they are going to protect us from climate change because, according to them, it either doesn’t exist or they’ll only grudgingly admit it might be a problem. Upon coming back from Hawaii, Scott Morrison struggled to keep only one foot in his mouth at a time as he said:
“There is no argument about the links between broader issues of global climate change and weather events around the world. But I’m sure people equally would acknowledge that the direct connection to any single fire event. It’s not a credible suggestion to make that link.”
Look Scotty, we’re not asking you to work out the percentage chance a particular incinerated koala would still be dead without climate change. We just want you to:
- Give some Federal support to those suffering in the current crisis.
- Take substantive action to reduce climate change.
If we confine ourselves to considering nations that are larger than Wales then, Australia has the 7th highest per capita GDP in the world, so we can afford to take action. Scott Morrison, if you want to keep your surplus, it’s easy. Just put a tax on carbon. That way you can kill two birds with one lump of coal.
In 2019 Vic Labor Screwed Over Their Solar Power Industry
You might think the country has enough trouble with idiot politicians who don’t believe in climate change trying to kill us through inaction, but this year Victorians also had to cope with well-meaning idiot politicians messing things up through stupidity.
When Victorian Labor made an election promise to provide a state subsidy for home solar power I didn’t think it was necessary, as rooftop solar was doing well. But I did think it would help. I certainly never thought it would be so horribly designed it would:
- Ruin businesses and throw perfectly good solar installers out of work.
- Waste huge amounts of taxpayer’s money through unnecessary red tape.
But they managed to do both. Hopefully things have stabilized now and no more solar installers will be driven out of business, but we can’t be certain at the moment. We’ll have to wait and see.
Normally, I have no trouble in believing in the innate stupidity of human political organizations, but this was so bad it had me wondering if it was actually an intentional attack on the state’s solar industry. I eventually decided they actually were that stupid.
Solar Costs Kept Falling In 2019!
Things haven’t been all bad this year. If you’re willing to overlook climate disasters and the epic stupidity of the Victorian Solar Homes Scheme, things are looking up. One piece of good news is solar panels have continued to fall in price. Here’s a chart from PVInsights showing this week’s cost per watt in American dollars for solar panels:
They use the word module instead of panel and these are factory gate prices, so don’t expect to find them retailing for this much in Australia. But when we look at solar panels made in China — which is where the majority used in Australia come from — they are damn cheap, even if we only consider the high prices on the chart. The Australian and US dollar have rarely stopped doing 0.69 for the whole financial year, so after converting to Australian dollarydoos we get:
- Chinese polysilicon panel: 35 cents per watt or $104 for a 300 watt panel (factory gate)
- Chinese monosilicon PERC module: 36 cents per watt or $109 for a 300 watt panel (factory gate)
If you are wondering what’s the difference between polysilicon and monosilicon, the answer is:
“Meh.”
Polysilicon is a little cheaper while monosilicon is a little more efficient, but you’re better off focusing on getting a good quality solar panel that suits your needs rather than worrying about what are — in practice — minor technical details. That said, most panels going into Australian roofs these days are monosilicon.
While the cost of solar panels can go up the trend is definitely down. While the rate of cost decrease may slow, I don’t have any doubt they’ll be considerably cheaper in the future.
In 2019 Solar Installations Were Up, Up, Up!
A record amount of solar panel capacity was installed this year. This graph from the Australian PV Institute shows there’s now around 14 gigawatts in the country:1
This PV capacity comes to 560 watts per person, which is equal to a pair of 280 watt panels. This is enough to generate an average of over 2 kilowatt-hours per person per day or around 8.4% of our total electricity consumption.2 This means solar PV is now providing more energy to the country than hydroelectricity does in an average year.
You may hear a much lower figure of only around 3% for grid generation, but this figure leaves out rooftop solar, which is the most PV capacity, as this graph shows:
The dark coloured areas at the top of the bars represents large solar farms and comes to around 4.4 gigawatts or only 32% of the total PV in Australia.
Another thing to look out for are graphs like this one from the Australian Energy Regulator which gives large scale solar energy output in the National Electricity Market3 as 2.6% of the total, but which only uses data from the first 3 months of the financial year, which are definitely not the sunniest months of the year:
This year 3.6 gigawatts of solar PV was installed. The amount may be less in 2020 due to a weaker economy and because of the Federal Government allowing support for large scale renewable energy to fade away. But I’m certain any decline will be temporary. With solar continuing to fall in price we’re not going to suddenly decide to toss it in and start building new coal power stations instead.
In 2019 Battery Cells Got Cheaper! But Not Home Batteries…
Major car manufacturers, such as Tesla and Volkswagen, are now paying around AU$150 per kilowatt-hour for battery cells.4 This means electric cars are certain to take off. In the short term — which is basically now — new car buyers will be able to get better performance by getting an electric car than spending the same amount on a traditional internal combustion engine vehicle. It won’t take long after that for electric cars to be have better performance and be cheaper overall. Clearly, not many people at that point are going to want to buy a fuel burner.
Low cell prices also means there is plenty of potential for home battery systems to come down in price. Unfortunately, so far this has manifested itself in much the same way as my potential to lose weight has. Massive decreases are clearly possible, but it just doesn’t seem to have happened yet.
2019 Gave Birth To A Crap Load Of VPPs
I expect at some point home battery systems will start paying for themselves. Virtual Power Plants may go a long way in helping achieve this, but it remains to be seen just how useful they will be to households. We may find many households would be better off without a VPP and all the middle men they come with. And that will certainly be true for some of the unsolicited ‘deals’ verging on scams that many solar power system owners are finding in their letter boxes. Expect the 2020s to be the decade of the scammy VPP – which will be a shame as the bad eggs may spoil the party for the honest VPP players.
While the amount of additional battery storage Australia needs to become carbon neutral is none, cheap battery storage — whether in homes, businesses, cars, or large scale battery farms — will still be very helpful.
In 2019 Solar Panels Got Bigger, Better, Reliabler, Less Grammatical
Over the past year I’ve seen solar panels:
- Increase in efficiency and wattage
- Increase in average product warranty
- Fall in price
- Hit a guy in the nuts
Hopefully the first three are trends that will continue and I really hope the fourth was a once-off and not the first blow struck in a solar revolution.
In 10 years we’ve gone from next to no solar electricity to it supplying around 8.4% of our consumption. If installations continue at the same rate as this year, by 2026 over 20% of our electricity will come directly from the sun. This will lower daytime electricity prices and put downward pressure on solar feed-in tariffs, but I am still very optimistic this will occur.
I try to maintain an optimistic outlook because when I look at the behavior of our political leadership it just makes me want to cry. No, wait a minute, I’ve got that the wrong way around… When I look at our political leadership it makes me want to make the Coalition cry. But if all the smoke in Australia can’t manage to bring a tear to their eyes, I don’t know what I can do.
When I started writing this 2019 review I thought I would have something to say about the madness of the Trump Presidency, but Australian politics has taught me you don’t have to sound like a raving looney to be delusional.
I wanted to end the year with a musical number but wasn’t sure what song to use, so I decided to go with the personal theme of our Prime Minister:
Footnotes
- I’m not sure how they account for decommissioned solar or if they account for it at all. If it’s not accounted for it doesn’t create a huge discrepancy, but it will become more of a problem over time. ↩
- Last financial year Australia consumed around 230 terawatt-hours of electricity. The population is 25.2 million so this is 25 kilowatt-hours per person per day. ↩
- Australia minus WA & NT. ↩
- Around $100 US. ↩
About Ronald Brakels
RSS - Posts
You are spot on about the Morrison Gov protecting their beloved promised budget surplus and ignoring bush fire climate change funding, now is the time that you can do something about it, by helping to boot out this Gov now, sign the petition please at http://chng.it/TRcbNtHD
I will be adding solar next year when I get permission to change the roofline of my garage extension to capture my sun. I am beginning to think that I may be also better off planning for an electric car to use my surplus power. I am a light user (sounds like drugs…) and from reading your blog I will be facing low feedback tariffs and inefficient batteries. As a retiree I also do not have much travel time in a car except for my holiday trips. Thank you for helping me to start educating myself on these matters.
PS Love the choice of music – you may also like
The Platters
They, said some day you’ll find
All who love are blind
When your heart’s on fire
You must realise
Smoke gets in your eyes ……
PPS
I too would like to see the coalition cry.
Hi Brenda,
Like you, we are retirees, living in Queensland, so can maybe understand your motivations and life pressures a bit better.
I installed my present system a little over 2 and half years ago (6.44 kw of panels), and I’ve recovered about 60% of my outlay already, and expect to have fully recouped my purchase outlay in about another 18 months. Four years to recover your purchase outlay in full is pretty standard for Queensland.
We too are ‘light’ users, and also don’t use our petrol vehicle much at all now. I’ve got no plans to replace them – we’ve already reduced our ‘car pollution’ footprint by around 80% by also making sure that as much as possible we do more than one thing when we go out, and the annual mileage on each is so low neither is wearing out much.
I wouldn’t delay too long in ordering your system. There’s been regular attempts to wipe out the STC purchase offset, which can be worth around $3750 or so for system sizes the same as mine. There’s been a couple of attempts to completely stop granting this offset. Those haven’t succeeded, but there’s still that possibility.
As well, there’s downward pressure on feed-in tariffs, and that’s likely to continue too. In the UK, from 1 Jan 2019 government subsidization of FIT’s has stopped completely for new installations, but the door is still open for electricity distributors to provide a similar incentive. (that’s somewhat similar to the closing of the 46 FIT subsidy given by the Qld government in the early days of solar PV, and system sizes were only around 1.5 kw).
We don’t intend to get a battery at the moment, but I’m keeping an eye on the prices.
Our system has 60% of panels facing North, and 40% facing West. (the optimum would have been a 55/45 % split so not much difference. What that split means is that overall, the total annual production gets slightly reduced BUT you get a bit more power in the late afternoon which fits in better with any late afternoon cooking.
So… you lose some FIT benefit at (say) 8 cents or whatever which you would have got at mid-day, but save 25 cents a kwh in the late afternoon because of ‘self-consumption’ of generated PV. Or if your not cooking, you can run a small air conditioner a bit longer which keeps your bill down.
Excellent article, Ron!
I went to sign the petition, but couldn’t find the Comments section referred to in that format. We totally agree that federal LNP is negligent and utterly without vision, but here in WA, state Labor is almost as useless and bereft of foresight… blaming the cost of voters’ power bills on solar panels!~
Ronald, how about this one for Scumo’s song of the year. “The Roof is on Fire” originally by Rock Master Scot and the dynamic three.
if Scomo thinks that we do not need him during the crysis, why do we need him at all?
Though I never seen him as a leader,
he just confessed the same belief by own action.
If you are thinking of any tax of any sort on the mining esp coal forget it as neither party will touch it as they can’t get elected. If they do while in office they wont stay after the next election do as there are extremely powerful and cashed up opponents who as we have seen in the last couple of elections will exert their influence.
Nothing we (Australians) can do now will effect climate change if as the majority of scientist think is from burning fossil fuels. We just have to manage it.
As for burning fossil fuel for power generation there is a limit as to how much solar you can add without any decent storage.
As for climate change it is somewhat guess work as to what can happen as I remember when this first raised it head they were predicting more cyclones for Queensland but the opposite has happened.
Maurie,
It seems to me you are regurgitating some of the fossil fuel industry propaganda that’s aimed to delay for as long as possible any action to rapidly reduce GHG emissions.
You state:
“Nothing we (Australians) can do now will effect climate change if as the majority of scientist think is from burning fossil fuels.”
That’s total BS – the evidence clearly indicates otherwise. Per “BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019” (BPSRoWE-2019), in 2018, Australia was reportedly the world’s:
• Fifth (ranked #5) largest coal producer at 301.1 million tonnes oil equivalent (Mtoe), or 7.7% global share; after China (#1, 1,828.8 Mtoe, or 46.7%), USA (#2, 364.5 Mtoe, or 9.9%), and not far behind Indonesia (#3, 323.3 Mtoe, or 8.3%), and India (#4, 308.0 Mtoe, or 7.9%) – see page 44 of BPSRoWE-2019;
• Seventh (ranked #7) largest natural gas producer at 130.1 billion cubic metres (Gm³), or 3.4% global share; after USA (#1, 831.8 Gm³, or 21.5%), Russian Federation (#2, 669.5 Gm³, or 17.3%), Iran (#3, 239.5 Gm³, or 6.2%), Canada (#4, 184.7 Gm³, or 4.8%), Qatar (#5, 175.5 Gm³, or 4.5%), and China (#6, 161.5 Gm³, or 4.2%) – see page 32. In Nov 2018, Australia surpassed Qatar and became the world’s largest LNG exporter.
See: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2019.html
Per Ian Dunlop and David Spratt’s op-ed in The Guardian on 3 Aug 2019:
“We are already the fifth largest carbon polluter globally when exports are included – about 5% of global emissions. On current projections, by 2030 Australia will be responsible for a massive 13% of global emissions. Our fossil fuel industries are subsidised annually by about US$29bn or 2.3% of GDP, far in excess of anything given to the low carbon industries.”
See: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/03/australias-climate-stance-is-inflicting-criminal-damage-on-humanity
Australia is undeniably a major contributor to global GHG emissions as it is unequivocally a massively subsidised, major global producer of fossil fuels, namely coal (both thermal and metallurgical) and natural gas. What Australia does matters. IMO, your comment referred above shows manifest (and perhaps wilful?) ignorance.
You then state:
“We just have to manage it.”
Manage what, Maurie, your/our untimely demise?
Humanity needs to rapidly reduce GHG emissions on a global scale. If we don’t, then it’s likely we won’t have sustainable businesses or an economy within the next 20 to 30 years. Humanity’s current business-as-usual GHG emissions trajectory means a 4–4.5°C rise (above pre-industrial age) by 2100, that will likely result in civilization collapse and a human population reduced to less than 1 billion. How would you suggest we “manage” that, Maurie? Do you have any clue about the consequences of what you are suggesting, Maurie?
See “Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach”, pages 8 through 9: https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/papers
See also: http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/08/at-4c-of-warming-would-billion-people.html
See also the extended interview (particularly from time interval 10:14 through to 12:31): https://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/the-business/2019-07-08/extended-interview-with-ian-dunlop/11290026
I’d suggest we will be “managing” humanity’s civilisation collapse – like rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the sinking SS Titanic – unless we ALL make drastic changes by rapidly reducing GHG emissions by 50% of current levels by 2030, and net-zero by 2050!
You then state:
“As for burning fossil fuel for power generation there is a limit as to how much solar you can add without any decent storage.”
This is well understood – the affordable and rapidly deployable solutions are available for electricity generation, but the political will is evidently not, IMO thanks to many people that are ill-informed and easily duped by propaganda/lies/deceit propagated by vested interests.
See: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/nuclear-energy-australia/#comment-581961
Also: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/submissions/65231/Submission%20-%2092.pdf
Your last sentence begins with:
“As for climate change it is somewhat guess work as to what can happen…”
I think this phrase of yours suggests to me you are likely to be a climate science denier.
There’s no “guesswork”, Maurie. The evidence is unequivocal that the world is getting hotter primarily due to human-induced GHG emissions, but perhaps you think the Australian BoM’s graph of temperature anomaly for the period 1910 to 2018 (shown in Ronald’s post above) is “guesswork”, or perhaps it’s a conspiratorially fraudulent data manipulation, eh Maurie? Perhaps you think this ‘climate change caper’ is all just one big hoax, Maurie? And who are “they” that “were predicting more cyclones for Queensland”?
Australia is certainly getting “unprecedented” bushfire activity, and the weather is breaking maximum temperature and heatwave duration records. But perhaps this is all inconvenient ‘fake news’ to you, Maurie? Perhaps in your mind there’s nothing extraordinary happening because it hasn’t touched you personally… yet?
See: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/extreme-heat-to-bake-nation-s-south-east-as-hot-air-mass-shifts-east-20191224-p53mog.html
Ignoring the escalating warning signs risks human civilisation collapse and the extinguishing of several billions of human lives before 2100. Do you wish to ignore these risks, Maurie, for your life and your family’s lives (if you have any?)? What will it take for you to reassess and recognise the escalating dangers, Maurie, or is your mind already closed? The Laws of Physics don’t care what you think.
To be better informed, I’d suggest you view the YouTube video below that includes Professor H. J. Schellnhuber’s address presented on 17 Oct 2018, from time interval 0:05:31 through 0:40:20 (if you dare, Maurie?):
[Keynote Debate Can the Climate Emergency Action Plan lead to Collective Action_ (50 Years CoR)]
Hi Ronald
Your figure of 560 W PV capacity / person able to generate an average of over 2 kWh per person per day or around 8.4% of our total electricity consumption is great Ronald – and scaling down of my 6.24 kW system’s actual performance suggests 2.45 kW/person/day so I’d guess your figures are conservative (or perhaps include more southerly States’ contributions).
However with respect, I do think you have to dig a little deeper. Over 3 particular days in winter my system generated a total of 24.63 kWh – scaling this means the 560 W panels would produce an average only 0.737 kWh/day (the first day was quite overcast, the next 2 a little better – I was looking to see what battery capacity I’d need to tide me over). Now – 737 W / day for 3 days would not nearly be enough for my modest consumption patterns.
Clearly, I would need a very substantial battery system to maintain continuity of suppy – and the same applies to utility-level storage to cover nights, and winter periods. I think the requirements are MASSIVE, and as well, as more PV and wind is installed some of it will need to be curtailed (when there is nowhere to store the excess energy, say in summer). As well – the highly “impulsive” nature of generation will require substantial investment in new and upgraded transmission and distribution systems (we are already seeing that requirement in WA – and I know many European states have for some time).
So it’s great, but renewables capacity is going to have to increase dramatically – not just by a factor of 12 (100% / 8.4%), for it to be able to cover dark, windless winter periods – as will storage capacities. Curtailment is inevitable – unless we can use the excess energy to make and export hydrogen (and perhaps use some of the hydrogen for effective storage (i.e. hydrogen-fuelled Peaker units), no matter the low efficiencies.
Yep, we should all just stop trying… and give up, Maurie.
Seriously, we’re interested in your comment on climate change: “We just have to manage it…” How do you propose we ‘manage it’, Maurie? Build 10m high sea walls around Pacific islands? Level our forests so there’s less to burn?
Please enlighten us. If increased solar power generation, electric vehicles, etc., won’t ‘effect’ reduced emissions, what do you propose to ‘manage’ coastal erosion and extreme weather events?
“Yep, we should all just stop trying… and give up, Maurie”
Drawing a long bow there as I was just pointing out if you tax carbon you will be either thrown out of office or you wont get in, just stating facts from history.
Yes we have to manage it as no way little old Australia can do to change things even if we stopped driving cars shut down all fossil power stations and killed off our cattle as last time I looked we have the same atmosphere as Russia.
We have what we have and I have no magic wand as I have solar and I drive fuel efficient cars and I use public transport when in the city.
And BTW how are electric cars charged of a night when they are not needed wait for it fossil fuel power.
Erm, the 3 electric cars here in Tasmania are charged each night by hydro.
“And BTW, how are electric cars charged of a night, when they are not needed? Wait for it. Fossil fuel power?”
Hate to correct you, but we’re fast approaching the time when the EV itself will become the storage facility. Already you can buy Evs which facilitate this. As we move on from coal, we’ll see the price of battery storage fall… and warranties increase.
A significant number of us retirees will be happy to charge our cars in daylight hours from our solar systems. My wife and I have already put enough kms on our eBikes to cross Australia… and we’ve deregistered three of our FF vehicles. We suspect that one reason Australian car sales are so stagnant is that so many of us are waiting for the right EV. We’ll never again buy a petrol or diesel engined vehicle in our lifetimes.
If your mantra in life is one of ‘powerlessness’ (I can’t make a difference!) you’re to be pitied, Maurie. Every one of us can make a difference. Hiding behind that pitiful excuse isn’t acceptable from our ‘leaders’… and it’s time we voters had the intestinal fortitude to remove duds like Scomo, McGowan and other blinkered, cardboard cut-out figures, who can’t see past their own PR smoke… .
Hi Lessor
As a retiree myself, I also have deferred buying an EV (charging from existing home PV) as the only one able to meet my necessary range requirements here in WA is far too expensive – I’ll stay with my 5 y.o. but very efficient petrol vehicle for the meantime.
But, I’d hope like hell that we won’t have to use our EV batteries to power industry, hospitals, street lights, and our own homes at night or during extended gloomy weather low wind conditions, thereby wearing them out prematurely with a high replacement cost. The reason? I’m sure vehicle batteries are built to a much higher standard than stationary batteries (to withstand higher g-force, vibration levels, and crash safety), and so would be consiberable more expensive to replace – having both purchase, shipping, and labour costs to consider.
Imagine also, the dramatic increase in ditribution network and transmission line upgrade costs – to carry all of this highly distributed battery energy to where it is actually needed!
Even if we think only selfishly of only our own home use, there just has to be a better option.
Maybe Governments need to consider more in the way of rebates for EV purchases?
Ian: “…we won’t have to use our EV batteries to power industry, hospitals, street lights, and our own homes at night or during extended gloomy weather low wind conditions…” Yes, you’re right, Ian. Can’t imagine we’ll be _forced_ to do that… It will most likely be a personal / family choice.
Musk’s goal, to create ‘million-mile’ batteries is achievable… and should encourage some of us to use EVs as home battery systems. MM batteries will outlast me, at my age!~ I’m not sure it’s actually ‘selfish’ to make such personal choices, Ian. We’ve made dozens of such choices, in setting up for independent living, self-sufficiency and sustainability… and we’re extremely fortunate to have been able to do so… .
“Maybe Governments need to consider more in the way of rebates for EV purchases?” Absolutely agree. My son’s GF gave him a Model 3 deposit for Christmas… and as a Canadian citizen, he’s eligible for an EV rebate… .
Can you imagine our own coal-polishing dinosaur initiating such an option, especially when EVs threaten our weekends, our utilities(!) and our Australian way-of-life? Leadership AWOL.
Hi Lessor
No, I wouldn’t imagine we’d be_forced_to do that – it would be a political hot potato.
My point was simply that at the present time, using your EV’s battery for home or grid support is unlikely to be the most cost-effective option – purpose-designed batteries for stationary use just have to be less expensive than replacing an EV’s battery – which of necessity must be designed to accept accelerations and vibrations – and probably a higher temperature range and require to be crash worthy, etc.
Maybe Musk can achieve ‘million-mile’ batteries – but there don’t appear to be any guarantees that this is achievable – let’s hope if they are achieved, they don’t involve a premium price.
The only aspects that might in the future allow EV battery use to become viable – is that economies of scale will allow prices to fall, and market requirements will push for longer battery lifespans.
I’ve yet to see a battery that lasts for ever – 2 years for a mobile phone if you’re lucky – similar for a lot of car batteries, although with premium batteries (more cost) and good design (battery in boot or under rear seat – so not exposed to under bonnet temperatures) I managed to achieve > 6 years in several cases.
So – using EV batteries may not be selfish? Well, this approach does increase CO2 emissions, as Ronald has described. I think also likely to increase power tariffs, as the difference between FiT and tariff to another customer is not made available to the DNSP.
Oh well, whatever…
Lessor,
You state:
“We’ve made dozens of such choices, in setting up for independent living, self-sufficiency and sustainability… and we’re extremely fortunate to have been able to do so… .”
How self-sufficient and sustainable? What if Australia’s liquid fuel supplies were substantially disrupted, Lessor, how prepared are you for something like that, really? Food? Pharmaceuticals? Transport? Replacement of parts/equipment that fail? How many days/weeks do you think you could last without help/replenishment from the ‘outside’ world?
Australia’s EIA net imports coverage in Oct 2019 was apparently 54 days – it’s supposed to be at least 90 days, but Australia hasn’t complied with this EIA requirement since about 2011.
In Oct 2019, Australia’s crude oil + condensate + LPG domestic production was less than 500,000 barrels per day. Australia has no means to refine condensate domestically, so it is exported.
Australian refinery production in Oct 2019 for LPG + gasoline/petrol + Avgas + jet fuel + diesel + fuel oil + other petroleum products was around 450,000 barrels per day.
Recent Australian gasoline/petrol imports (12 month moving average) were around 110,000 barrels per day, diesel was around 360,000 barrels per day, and jet fuel was around 100,000 barrels per day.
Australia’s crude oil stock consumption covers between 2010 and Oct 2019 ranged from about 21 to 32 days. In the same period, Australia’s gasoline/petrol consumption covers ranged from about 16 to 28 days. Similarly, for diesel, from about 11 to 22 days, and jet fuel, from about 13 to 30 days.
The increase in Australian gasoline/petrol and jet fuel imports is greatly dependent on South Korea, which in 2019 sourced 72% of its crude oil from the Middle East (ME). Japan sources 89% of its crude oil from the ME, and Singapore is 77%.
In future, there will be more threats to oil/petroleum fuel supplies, and it would be futile to increase oil and fuel stocks in an inevitable post- ‘peak oil’ world (likely to arrive in the 2020s). Logically, all new petroleum-dependent projects must stop. Australia needs to rapidly reduce its petroleum dependency.
See: https://crudeoilpeak.info/australias-oil-consumption-highly-vulnerable-to-events-in-the-middle-east
You finish with:
“Can you imagine our own coal-polishing dinosaur initiating such an option, especially when EVs threaten our weekends, our utilities(!) and our Australian way-of-life? Leadership AWOL.”
I would suggest a major disruption to Australia’s liquid fuel supplies is a far, far greater threat to “our weekends, our utes and our Australian way-of-life”. I’ve experienced first-hand how major fuel disruptions impacted the UK in 2000.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom
Fuel strikes and protests are much easier to pull-back from, compared with the consequences of a major war in the Middle East, or the inevitable onset of a post- ‘peak oil’ world.
IMO, EVs would reduce Australia’s precarious transport energy security situation.
Indeed, leadership is AWOL!
I have just been informed that I will receive a “free” 3Kw solar P.V. array installation at my NSW home courtesy of the NSW gov’t.
The only problem with this “free” system is that we have to forgo our annual pensioner energy rebate of $280.00 p.a. for the period of TEN YEARS!
Simple maths says 10 x $280 = $2800 for my “free” system, ta Gladys.
Our daily avg. consumption is around 20 KWh so I assume we will still be consuming a considerably lesser than our usual amount of grid power which is a win of sorts. I have no concern about supplying power back to the grid as that is an uneconomical exercise usually.
Hello Chris
Yes, I’m afraid the “free” system won’t be free. But it is a good price for a 3 kilowatt system and it will be put in by a reliable installer. You also aren’t required to get it. Generally for people who have enough roof space I recommend a solar system of 6.6 kilowatts or close to it, but if that’s not an option the 3 kilowatt system for $2,800 over 10 years is still a good deal.
Chris,
I found more details of the ‘trial’ scheme on the Renew Economy website at:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/free-rooftop-solar-for-low-income-households-in-nsw-government-trial-62587/
The system size is 3KW, but you can upsize to 6Kw. However the maximum subsidy amount stays at $2850 and the ‘trial’ is limited to 5 regions, and only 3000 households will take part in the trial.
Gladys B has been a complete ‘no-show’ so far as solar PV is concerned. She’s a staunch ‘closet climate denialist’, – your $2850 will no doubt get added to the claims by other fellow denialist Federal politicians such as Craig Kelly as yet another example of ‘massive subsidies paid to those lefties determined to get their pinko hands on your entire life savings by rorting hardworking australians every chance they get’ – or similar phraseology.
Gladys gets seen to be seemingly doing something. Scomo will claim its ‘yet another example of the great progress being made by your Federal government who – as just demonstrated by this new initiative, not only fully support an orderly measured approach to addressing climate change concerns, but above all, are fulfilling our promise to lower your power bills. We are meeting all of our commitments just as I said we would’ .
The total amount of subsidy outlay amounts to $8.55 million at this stage. It will take x years for the trial to complete (possibly 10?) then another y years to collect the results’ of said trial and carefully evaluate them and present the results to parliament, so they can decide what to do about it.
The total 2019-2020 budget revenue forecast for NSW is estimated to be $84.3 BILLION, with outlays much the same at $83.3 billion.
Basically, this brave new initiative amounts to 1/1000 of NSW State Government total outlays.
So… the battered school bus filled with brawling Year 1 students continues on its way. Scomo the bus driver continues to drive it steadfastly at 5 kph.
A small group in the back of the bus, wearing orange-haired wigs to indicate where their true loyalties lie are demanding that the bus stop completely, while the remainder are debating whether Scomo should slow down to 4 kph or recklessly accelerate to 6 kph.
Behind them, on the distant sea horizon is a thin black line – it’s a Tsunami of Consequences. Tsunamis can travel at speeds of up to 800 kph. It’s a bit hard to know precisely when it’s going to hit, but at 800 kph that doesn’t really matter once you can see it coming. And when shallow water gets reached its height above sea level rises significantly.
The kids on the bus think their bus is fast enough to escape. It isn’t. They should have started packing their bags and boarding the bus a long time ago
Ron
We know you have a sense of humour and your blog is greatly appreciated but you went over the top in some of your comments and pics on the PM’s holiday.
Please keep your site one than everyone can use without needlessly offending others.
Rowland,
It’s Ron’s blog and it’s up to him what he puts on it. Not that he needs me to defend him.
I find his musings both witty and well crafted.
Here in Aussie we still have a bit of freedom remaining to say what we want on the net, although some are trying to snip away at that (and also at what the ABC can say). I think this progressive deprecation of freedom to speak is to be frowned at.
I’m glad Ron hasn’t been distracted by the “not PC” mob. I doubt he ever will be.
Never mind Ronald the developers/rent seekers will find it much
easier to concrete over what’s left once the bush has been razed to the ground.
Good summary Ron.
My 2019 was a big one for renewables.
Upgraded my existing 17kW rooftop system with new panels and inverters after 7 years. Used a lot less panels for the new system. With the extra roofspace I installed 5 solar air conditioners (15kW cooling capacity).
I sold the old panels to a guy in Melbourne who has since installed them at his farm.
I also bought a Tesla Model 3.
So even though the LNP are a bunch of feckless turds, the economics of renewables make them a no-brainer.
That’s an excellent amount of renewables, Mark.
I hope to be driving a Model S before long. Just as soon as Tesla sends me a free one…
The best we can hope for, in the _short_ term, is that:
1.) Chinese Teslas (M3s and MYs) will be marketed here at reasonable prices…
2.) …regardless of US prices…
3.) …and / or the US$ / A$ exchange improves, in our favour…
4.) … and million-mile battery technology is close-at-hand.
Musk has already inferred a 20% price reduction for Shanghai-built cars.
Fantasising about a Model S, Ron? Why not go all-out… and ask Elon for the new Roadster?!~
Unfortunately any forum that has climate in it attracts the looney leftist greens as they decided to attack my posts.
I was only pointing out that a carbon tax will not happen as we have seen the result. As Albert Einstien said insanity is “doing the same thing expecting a different result.”
We have seen what happens when the leftist green agenda is taken to the polls as recently as last year, it is not a vote winner at all so you can be sure labor will drop it next election.
I am not a greenie not a hard rightist but a middle ground and I believe a phasing out of fossil fuels esp thermal coal is needed but in an orderly manner.
As I said if Australia stopped emitting CO2 now nothing would happen to the atmospheric CO2. From what scientific literature I have seen written if the works stopped emitting CO2 now we are committed to the temp rises for 50 yrs hence we have to manage what we have no one seems to realise that.
I have spent 40 yrs in the power industry and can I know how it operates however for some that is irrelevant as they have read it all on Wikipedia.
I don’t care if this is published as moderators filter posts as I will not be seeing it as I will use the unsubscribe feature after I have posted this so the looney left are welcome to abuse me but I wont see it.
Goodbye
Maurie,
You state:
“I am not a greenie not a hard rightist but a middle ground and I believe a phasing out of fossil fuels esp thermal coal is needed but in an orderly manner.”
I’ll repeat: “The Laws of Physics don’t care what you think.” …or what you or
anyone else “believe”. It will do what it has done since the “big bang” and long after you and I and anyone we care about are long dead. My point is humanity must work within these constraints or we are kidding ourselves – this is not a movie or computer game; it’s real life, and there’s no reset!
You then state:
“As I said if Australia stopped emitting CO2 now nothing would happen to the atmospheric CO2.”
No, you did not say that, Maurie – your previous comment stated: “Nothing we (Australians) can do now will effect climate change…”, which I demonstrated was evidently false. Australia is a major contributor of GHG emissions by including our exports. So, it seems to me you are a denier/distorter of facts now.
You then state:
“From what scientific literature I have seen written if the works stopped emitting CO2 now we are committed to the temp rises for 50 yrs hence we have to manage what we have no one seems to realise that.”
It seems clear to me you have not looked at any of the links (particularly the last link referring to Professor H. J. Schellnhuber’s address) I’ve presented. There are many people (NOT “no one seems to realise that”) that know what’s likely in store for humanity. And it’s not a 50 year timescale that you suggest – it’s much longer – but the danger for humanity is already escalating over a shorter timescale of 20-30 years to lock-in our fate and it’s potentially existential. Effective and drastic action is required to rapidly reduce human-induced GHG emissions over a timescale of years, NOT DECADES.
You then state:
“I have spent 40 yrs in the power industry and can I know how it operates…”
We need to move to any entirely different paradigm, and rapidly. The fundamentals of electricity transmission are set, but how electricity is generated must change – all fossil fuel-based generation must be rapidly phased out and replaced with cheaper, long-term sustainable renewables. It doesn’t mean it will be easy, but it must be done, or humanity has a very bleak future.
You finish with:
“I don’t care if this is published as moderators filter posts as I will not be seeing it…”
It seems to me you can’t accept the compelling evidence, so you close your mind to it, and run away. No skin off my nose. This reply is for others who may see it.
In this age of information, ignorance is a choice.
Maurie, it seems to me you wish to be this guy:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/head-in-the-sand-picture-id157507641?s=612×612
Loved the picture Geoff.
It also reminded me that when such people get a boot in the backside from ‘reality’, it only serves to push their head deeper into the sand.
Oh dear… . We’ve offended a valued contributor, who was about to ‘manage’ climate change! WTF will we do now?!
We’ve missed a golden opportunity to save the planet in “an orderly manner”.
These bushfires, floods, rising sea levels and other extreme weather events might have shown better manners, been more orderly, etc… .
Apologies for offending an expert with “40 yrs in the power industry..” I’m sure those decades of coal-fired / gas-fed electrickery gave you insights and experience invaluable to all us ‘green lefties’.
This loss is incalculable… . 😉
Have a look at this mindless unmitigated claptrap – this does absolutely nothing for the credibility of the boosters:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-now-has-its-first-state-run-on-100-per-cent-renewable-electricity
Are we supposed to believe NSW and Qld will be forced to stay with using coal and gas to prop up the ACT on windless nights for the foreseeable future? Or do away with coal altogether (too slow to modulate), but start and stop their natural gas-fired turbines to feed power to the ACT when it is needed?
I’m all for renewables, absolutely, but only as part of an overall and organised plan – I’ve yet to see a case-study explanation of how everything is to work without fossil fuels, including ALL of the component parts (and interconnecting transmission and distribution line upgrades). Geoffrey Miell is fond of posting a link to a CSIRO talk, but this provides no detail to any useful extent, and only seems to deal with HOURLY balancing – maybe at 150% renewables. However for continuity of energy supply, we quite clearly need SEASONAL balancing, and this is going to require far, far and away more than 150% renewables capacity – I’d say closer to 1,000% name-plate capacity, based on having adequate storage recharge excess capacity (as well as meeting existing demand at the same time) so that the storage doesn’t run flat in a follow-up extended lull in generation. Then for much of the time this expensive capital infrastructure will remain largely idle (the batteries and pumped hydro when not needed, and the excess wind and PV in summer).
Look at this: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/turbines-spread-amid-127m-bill-b3v50pxgf
The problem with the SBS post, I believe, is it gives the unaware a fake sense of security that “we are nearly there already”, whereas the truth of the matter is we are very far from it. The reaction I’m getting from knowledgeable professionals is “bullshit” – which also doesn’t help matters. We cannot delete coal and gas, unless we have storage (chicken and egg – I suspect we are not getting significant storage projects, as there is insufficient money in it until we have much more generation capacity). Hornsby is insignificant in terms of utility-grade storage in the overall scheme of things (although great for FCAS).
I could argue that with 6.24 kW of PV on my roof I am fully sustainable >100% renewables as for ACT, as we export much, much more power over the course of the year, than we import. The fact that these imports are nearly 100% fossil-fueled in WA is beside the point? You’ve got to be kidding…!
No – I would have to spend a lot more money on batteries, inverters, etc., and go off-grid before I could truly be considered 100% renewables – and even then would not be providing enough to run industry, hospitals, transport – the list goes on.
Why cannot we get some level-headed straight talk on the facts? Are BOTH sides of the equation hiding things?
BTW I thought Geoffrey Miell’s comments regarding Australia’s place in GHG emissions was good – I had no idea we exported enough NG and coal, to put us up with the front-runners in emissions contributions.
Ian Thompson,
You state:
“I’m all for renewables, absolutely, but only as part of an overall and organised plan – I’ve yet to see a case-study explanation of how everything is to work without fossil fuels, including ALL of the component parts (and interconnecting transmission and distribution line upgrades).”
You’ve used a computer to post your comments on this blog. Ian, do you require an explanation of “how everything is to work” for the computer you use and the internet system that transmits your communications, etc.? Do you require a detailed explanation for your mobile phone, TV, PVR and any other complex equipment/appliances you perhaps may use? Are you using pharmaceuticals, and if so, do you require a detailed explanation of how these work on your body? Would you have the intellectual capacity to understand it all (and I’m not suggesting you are witless; I’d suggest most people would be greatly challenged to understand all the details)?
Do you fly, Ian? Do you insist on checking the aircraft, or checking the credentials and experience of the flight and maintenance crews, before your flight takes-off? That would be absurd (and you perhaps may be arrested if you attempted to do so).
So why do you require “a case-study explanation of how everything is to work without fossil fuels, including ALL of the component parts (and interconnecting transmission and distribution line upgrades)”? Why do you need to know the ‘nitty-gritty’, Ian? You say: “I’m all for renewables, absolutely, but…”, ah yes, then the “but” looms… and then set an apparently very high bar that suggests to me perhaps you really intend renewables to fail, is that it, Ian?
Why would you put trust in some professionals and technicians to do their jobs competently and not others, Ian? What’s the rationale driving the apparent lack of trust for some people?
You then state:
“Geoffrey Miell is fond of posting a link to a CSIRO talk…”
Err, no Ian, the talk I’m “fond of posting a link to” was presented at the CURF (Canberra Urban and Regional Futures) Annual Forum hosted by and at the venue of the University of Canberra in 2017, and Professor Andrew Blakers, who delivered that keynote presentation that year, is based at the ANU. The CSIRO and AEMO are aware of Blakers’ work as they reference him and his team (among others) in their “GenCost 2018” report (see “References” on the report’s page 59). It’s NOT a “CSIRO talk”. Did you confuse CURF with CSIRO? I’d suggest your powers of comprehension for details need to improve markedly, Ian.
You follow with:
“…we quite clearly need SEASONAL balancing, and this is going to require far, far and away more than 150% renewables capacity – I’d say closer to 1,000% name-plate capacity, based on having adequate storage recharge excess capacity (as well as meeting existing demand at the same time) so that the storage doesn’t run flat in a follow-up extended lull in generation.”
What’s your expertise and is it current, Ian? Do you really think Professor Blakers and his team, and other groups doing similar work, haven’t bothered to look at these critical technical issues in detail and then also avoided being peer-reviewed? Do you really think every expert that you question doesn’t know what they are doing, and you do? I’d suggest you would be engaging in breathtakingly supreme hubris (if that’s the case).
I’d suggest you revisit the YouTube video titled “2017 CURF Annual Forum – Andrew Blakers keynote” from time interval 22:41 through to 23:17, that includes the key points on grid stability that the balancing of wind and insolation availability, plus storage and transmission, with demand is met for every hour OVER A LARGE NUMBER OF YEARS of hourly data. Perhaps you missed that bit, Ian? So, I’d suggest that should cover your concerns of “SEASONAL balancing”, but perhaps you could correspond with Professor Blakers to check, just to be sure, eh Ian? It seems to me you clearly have little regard for Blakers and his team’s work (despite them being awarded a Eureka Prize for their work – perhaps you think it was undeserved?), and it apparently seems to be you think you know better than them.
You then state:
“Then for much of the time this expensive capital infrastructure will remain largely idle (the batteries and pumped hydro when not needed, and the excess wind and PV in summer).”
What, you don’t think that happens already with fossil fuel electricity generation, or are you ignoring that inconvenient fact, Ian? – gas ‘peakers’ are an example of generation assets that usually sit idle most of the time and may only operate for a few hours in any year (if at all over long periods). Coal-fired ‘baseload’ generators and gas-fired ‘load followers’ don’t run flat-out all the time, so their ‘nameplate’ generating capacities are mostly underutilized. So Ian, why do you question renewables that may sit idle or underutilized for some time and you don’t criticize the same situation with fossil fuel generation assets? It seems rather hypocritical to me. It seems to me you have a low bar for fossil fuel (and nuclear) generators and a much higher bar standard set for renewables, would that be it Ian? Do you think that’s being objective and fair? I don’t.
Then you state:
“The reaction I’m getting from knowledgeable professionals is “bullshit” – which also doesn’t help matters.”
And who are these “knowledgeable professionals”, Ian? What are their areas of expertise? Are their minds stuck in twentieth century technology (i.e. fossil fuel- and nuclear-based generation) and they refuse to acknowledge and accept the newer, cheaper, disruptive technologies? Perhaps these “knowledgeable professionals” have a vested interest in keeping the status quo intact, Ian? Would that be why they say it is “bullshit”? Perhaps some or all of these “knowledgeable professionals” are also climate science deniers?
Put it another way, Ian, if it is all “bullshit”, then IMO it does not bode well at all for humanity’s future (i.e. current GHG emission trajectory means less than 1 billion people likely remaining by 2100 in a much, MUCH harsher environment – but perhaps you dispute/deny this, Ian?). So I’d suggest, for all our sakes, we all need to cease maintaining an ill-informed ideologically inflexible, unsound, and backward looking mindset, and make sure affordable, low carbon emissions renewable generation solutions can be deployed rapidly to meet our energy needs. What’s the better (i.e. reliable, long-term sustainable, cheaper, rapidly deployable at large-scale, low-carbon emissions) alternative, Ian?
You finish with:
“…I had no idea we exported enough NG and coal, to put us up with the front-runners in emissions contributions.”
The data is publicly and freely available from a few credible sources, and you can get “level-headed straight talk”, if you know where to look for it.
Ask yourself why you did not know this information previously – I’d suggest perhaps the source(s) you rely upon is/are failing to adequately inform you (in this instance, on energy)? Perhaps you need to reassess where you source credible information and analysis from? Don’t just rely on one source – look for independent credible corroborating data to increase confidence.
Ian: “Are BOTH sides of the equation hiding things?”
It’s possible Maurie is correct on one point made. Certain sites attract particular viewpoints… but it’s more likely that the descriptor ‘solar’ is the magnet, rather than ‘climate’ as he alleges… and that those attracted to the term ‘solar’ are climate change deniers, determined to very quietly slip more spanners in the works:
* in an ‘orderly manner’…
* “…committed to the temp rises for fifty years…”
* “…the looney leftist Greens…”
…etc, etc.
Dead giveaway, isn’t it?
Had to chuckle at the last allegation. Given our asset base, it’s often wrongly presumed we are LNP. Given my 53 years as a union member, it’s often assumed I vote Labor. Given our lifestyle, it’s often alleged we’re Greenies. In fact we are apolitical. We _telephone interview_ candidates, score their responses, choose carefully and vote accordingly. We vote for those we believe will benefit our shire, state and country.* Do we get it wrong? Often… .
At present, this LNP is _almost_ the very worst government we’ve suffered. They make our hapless WA state Labor government look good, FCS!
* One exception: How could anyone support the re-introduction of Death Taxes? It’s the last-nail-in-the-coffin for any party with this grave-robbing agenda buried in its manifesto… .
Hi Ronald
I finally found out why some of my attempted posts failed from time-to-time that I asked you about previously – might be useful for others having similar problems.
It seems any link containing an executable is being rejected – for example, the Live Supply & Demand webpage contains a very useful Widget, which executes within the webpage – and this gets rejected every time.
Pity about that – the widget is very useful for investigative purposes – but if people google “Live Supply & Demand Widget” directly, they can access the webpage that way.
I got caught out with several other links that caused rejection for similar reasons.
Quite reasonable to reject unknown executables, I’d think!
Hi Mr Geoffrey Miell, the All Knowing…
You appear to have mounted your High Horse once again.
As it happens, you’ve chosen poor examples to criticise me. I was a Commercial Pilot, before I finished my Engineering Degree – so do in fact know something about aircraft, not just the flying thereof. Also have designed and built electronics right from individual components, then TTL logic gates, through early and recent microprocessors, assembly language, high-level languages, mainframes, control system intranets (including wireless bridges), the list goes on – so, yes, I do know something about the internet, how things communicate, IP protocol, detailed digital logic, etc. Obviously I don’t have a detailed knowledge of ALL pharmaceuticals available, but yes, I do have some reasonably detailed knowledge of how certain drugs work on biological systems (mine).
I’ll say right out to you Geoffrey my boy – I’ve worked with many Professors, and I know even they are not infallible on all things.
Are you sure you are not exposing your faith-based confirmation and self-serving biased underbelly? Don’t feel bad – this is a characteristic of ALL humans.
Perhaps my problem is that I have an inquisitive mind – and I have thought we live in a democracy – so should have the RIGHT to want to see at least some detail – especially as my tax dollar is paying for this (or, are you trying to hide something – and that is the problem?).
I just wanted to know what a viable COMPLETE SYSTEM would look like – broadbrush overall concept would suffice. Your approach seems to be to just keep paying for a limited range or possibilities – and to keep going hoping for developments to fill in the gaps. My concern is that we are proposing to put all of our eggs in one basket, before we even know how to make the omelette.
Yes I agree some existing infrastructure would need to remain underutilised for much of the time – so please don’t be so patronising and arrogant – the issue is one of scale – not that I advocate it, but coal power CAN have high utiisation – unless it is curtailed to allow renewables to get a “look in”. I have seen a USA nuclear reactor that posted over 100% generation of it’s nameplate rating for a period of MONTH. c.f. typical Australian wind power is down around 25-35% over extended periods, without curtailment. PV even less – a PV farm being developed in Spain I recall, will have 1,4300,000 panels with 0.5 GW capacity (costing US$325), yet will make only 832 GWh/year – works out at less than 20%, and much of the energy generated will have less value or may be curtailed until matched with storage. To quote you, “Ouch”. Existing dispachable energy sources don’t need to recharge batteries while simultaneously meeting demand.
You are also being highly disrespectful of the “knowledgeable Professionals” of whom I quoted – they too have a RIGHT to make comment – and they happen to also be “for” renewables, or “anti” coal – they just happen to think the article was bullshit because it so patently was so.
I don’t feel we can make judgements that “renewables are cheaper” either, no matter how often you repeat the mantra, unless we can at least see a more complete picture of the overall system requirement. You tend to quote nameplate peak power, instead of “energy generation capability”. Your revered experts need to put up, or shut up.
By all means let us pursue renewables – but don’t you think we should have a level of democratic review before we go too far down a path that may well lead to unanticipated problems? Or is you piety overwhelming?
Ian Thompson,
You begin with:
“Hi Mr Geoffrey Miell, the All Knowing…”
How condescending of you to sarcastically suggest I’m “All Knowing”. I certainly don’t make that claim. But I do make observations that seem to rile you.
You outline some of your personal accomplishments and then state: “Perhaps my problem is that I have an inquisitive mind…”
Perhaps you are the one trying to be “All Knowing”?
You state:
“I just wanted to know what a viable COMPLETE SYSTEM would look like – broadbrush overall concept would suffice.”
What’s stopping you from contacting Professor Blakers and his team and asking him/them for information (as I suggested in my previous comment)? Would it hurt you to do so? Perhaps he/they can enlighten you? Or are you looking for excuses to maintain your apparent biases and ill-informed ideology?
You state:
“You are also being highly disrespectful of the “knowledgeable Professionals” of whom I quoted…”
Now I’m confused, Ian. Where have you identified these “knowledgeable Professionals”, Ian? There are no names or links you have provided anywhere I can see – you just say in your previous comment: “The reaction I’m getting from knowledgeable professionals is “bullshit”…” Who are these people, Ian, or are they just figments of your imagination? Why won’t you reveal who they are, so we can all make our own judgements as to whether these people are, as you suggest, “knowledgeable Professionals”? What are you afraid of, Ian – would it reveal too much of your influences that you perhaps wish to keep hidden from us here at this blog?
Apparently unlike you, I have no qualms about revealing my data sources and influences on the issues I discuss here – anyone can look at them and make their own judgements about the veracity of the information. But we can’t do that with yours; why, Ian? You were not forthcoming in another thread also, which I highlighted in my comment here: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/powering-finland-nuclear-renewables/#comment-462659
Also: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/powering-finland-nuclear-renewables/#comment-462902
You state:
“I don’t feel we can make judgements that “renewables are cheaper” either…”
So, are you saying to me that studies like the CSIRO/AEMO’s “GenCost 2018”, “Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis, Version 13.0” and “Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Storage Analysis, Version 5.0” are all bogus, all lies? What’s your evidence, Ian, or are these studies (and others) just inconvenient for your IMO apparent ill-informed pro-nuclear, pro-fossil fuels ideology?
You finish with:
“By all means let us pursue renewables – but don’t you think we should have a level of democratic review before we go too far down a path that may well lead to unanticipated problems?”
I have a suspicion you are a closet climate science denier, based on the totality of your comments I’ve seen over numerous threads here on this weblog. You don’t seem to me to appear to have any sense of urgency to rapidly reduce human-induced GHG emissions.
Evidence I see indicates humanity doesn’t have the luxury of time anymore. Humanity needs to rapidly reduce human-induced GHG emissions, otherwise human civilisation risks chaos and collapse within this century, per evidence I see (see my comments to Maurie above).
In the YouTube video titled “Keynote Debate Can the Climate Emergency Action Plan lead to Collective Action_ (50 Years CoR)”, from time interval 0:23:51 through to 0:26:46, Professor Schellnhuber outlines the two possible outcomes for the Earth’s climate system, subject to the path humanity chooses to take with GHG emissions that will be emitted from now on. Schellnhuber suggests we can look forward to a climate state like EITHER:
1. The mid-Pliocene (3–4 million years ago) with CO2 stabilized in the range 400–450 ppm, with a temperature rise in the probable range +2.0–3.0°C (above pre-industrial), with sea level rise stabilized in the range +10–22 m above current levels (over centuries), by rapidly reducing GHG emissions; OR
2. The mid-Miocene (15–17 million years ago) with CO2 stabilized in the range 300–500 ppm, with a temperature rise in the range +4.0–5.0°C (above pre-industrial), with sea level rise stabilized in the range +10–60 m above current levels (over centuries), on our current GHG emissions trajectory.
The human species has never experienced these conditions previously. Do we still have a chance to preserve human civilisation? That will be path dependent.
It seems to me you wish to figuratively play Russian roulette with your life and your family’s (if you have any?) lives – I don’t think it is evil intent (at least I hope not); more likely it’s just stupid wilful ignorance.
You’ve skilfully avoided my question (in my previous comment above to you): “What’s the better (i.e. reliable, long-term sustainable, cheaper, rapidly deployable at large-scale, low-carbon emissions) alternative, Ian?” Do you have any evidence-based solution(s), or are you just here to denigrate cheaper, cleaner, rapidly deployable renewables and promote higher-cost, slower to deploy nuclear and dangerous climate-inducing fossil fuels in a surreptitious manner?
Hi Geoffrey Miell
I think you have again got totally the wrong end of the stick. Are you an acedemic perchance?
I can apologise for appearing condescending – but you do tend to regularly go way OTT, and play on pointless fearmongering and hearstring rending.
No – my (and my esteemed colleagues whom your are happy to malign – without any presumption of “innocence”) – are actually FOR looking to get rid of coal (in the first instance), and working down to reduce all other GHG emissions.
But your excessive behaviour does make me think you are hiding something.
We were not denigrating renewables – my point was simply that the SBS article was misleading and not really relevant to the issue – although I do think you over-play the present status of renewables. Have you not heard of the Value-adjusted LCOE? To quote CSIRO :
“A broad range of stakeholders require easily comparable cost data for electricity generation technologies. Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is the current best method but all stakeholders understand that this is no longer appropriate for a number of reasons. The primary concern1 that this report is seeking to find a solution for is in regard to the inability of LCOE to capture the additional balancing costs that variable renewable electricity generation technologies are expected to increasingly require to ensure the electricity system has reliable and stable supply.”
You can spout and talk up renewables until you are blue in the face – good on the ACT for having enough renewables (hopefully all year round) to be able to export as least as much energy as they import over the course of the year – but you have to realise that they are exporting renewable energy (perhaps more in summer, than winter) and then import largely coal-generate power when they need a top-up (perhaps more in winter, than summer). If the ACT has to import non-renewable energy, then they don’t have a complete system – any more than me buying a motor car is a complete system only to find it is without an engine to drive it.
What I’d like to see, is SPECIFICALLY how much storage and transmission/distribution line upgrades they would need – and at what cost – to be able to effectively go “off-grid”. Also, how long the renewables equipment is likely to last before requiring decommissioning and replacement.
Come on Geoffrey – it is not a difficult concept to grasp. We are not disagreeing that coal must go, and then other GHG-generators (although, I imagine it is going to take some time to rid the world of agriculture – or at least to provide the means to make it truly GHG-neutral). Nor was I saying ACT’s effort is bullshit – I just feel the SBS article was bullshit; it is just theatre and quite counter-productive to helping us get to where we need to go for the reasons I’ve outlined – I’m disappointed you don’t “get” that. I think a lot of people now wear “bullshit protectors”, because we get slung so much of it – and misleading crap like that just puts their backs up, against the cause!