The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

I find it impractical to use 10s of square kilometres of land for a 1 GW solar farm.

Once the pandemic is sorted I suggest a road trip from Sydney to Adelaide via Broken Hill.

Or alternatively Perth to anywhere in any other state so long as you drive there.

There are arguments for and against solar and indeed many things but one thing we're not short on in Australia is flat land that's presently doing nothing or at best used for grazing.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Once the pandemic is sorted I suggest a road trip from Sydney to Adelaide via Broken Hill.

Or alternatively Perth to anywhere in any other state so long as you drive there.

There are arguments for and against solar and indeed many things but one thing we're not short on in Australia is flat land that's presently doing nothing or at best used for grazing.

Sure; but is it not polluting the landscape?

 

[Smurf1976]

If the system becomes unreliable and needs 24/7, 365 day, at call clean energy, then cost wont come into the equation, most who have worked for the Government know that.

Ah yes, I remember those days.......

 

[Smurf1976]

Sure; but is it not polluting the landscape?

If someone's worried about the visual impact of a solar farm in the middle of nowehere then zero chance they're going to not be opposed to any fossil fuel, nuclear or hydro facility of any kind so it's a moot point really.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

If someone's worried about the visual impact of a solar farm in the middle of nowehere then zero chance they're going to not be opposed to any fossil fuel, nuclear or hydro facility of any kind so it's a moot point really.

Concentrated solar thermal is more expensive than nuclear. Then you have to run transmission lines from the middle of nowhere where you lose ~5% per 1000km of electricity generated in transmission loss.

Rooftop solar I support, not so much solar farms.

 

[sptrawler]

Once the pandemic is sorted I suggest a road trip from Sydney to Adelaide via Broken Hill.

Or alternatively Perth to anywhere in any other state so long as you drive there.

There are arguments for and against solar and indeed many things but one thing we're not short on in Australia is flat land that's presently doing nothing or at best used for grazing.

https://blog.plantminer.com.au/massive-15gw-wind-and-solar-farm-proposed-for-the-pilbara-wa
From the article:
Currently, the project developer is negotiating the terms of an Indigenous Land User Agreement as the Asian Renewable Energy Hub is located within the Nyangumarta Native Title Claim area. Might end up dearer than nuclear in the long run.

 

[rederob]

So you want to disregard the most credible energy data source in America which has a multi billion dollar budget.

Try dealing with realities.
The only US nuclear plant presently under construction will have a build cost well in excess of US$25B and double the initial project price. No other nuclear plants are proposed for the USA.
Do the maths on that for the data you rely on.
In the UK, EDF has plans to build two EPR nuclear reactors and in September 2019 again raised their estimated cost of construction, taking the expected cost to £21.5-22.5 billion. The National Audit Office estimates the additional cost to consumers (above the estimated market price of electricity) under the "strike price" will be £50 billion, which "will continue to vary as the outlook for wholesale market prices shifts." Note that in October 2013 Liberium Capital described the strike price as "economically insane," going on to say "as far as we can see this makes Hinkley Point the most expensive power station in the world...."
Nuclear does not make economic sense in any country unless it has no other energy options.

I support rooftop solar; but I find it impractical to use 10s of square kilometres of land for a 1 GW solar farm. A solar farm that will need to be replaced in a couple of decades.

The companies installing grid-scale solar have done the maths on costs and there are hundreds of square kilometres of otherwise unproductive land ideally suited to solar in Australia. What we don't have is a coherent plan to integrate solar/wind with existing energy infrastructure.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

https://blog.plantminer.com.au/massive-15gw-wind-and-solar-farm-proposed-for-the-pilbara-wa
From the article:
Currently, the project developer is negotiating the terms of an Indigenous Land User Agreement as the Asian Renewable Energy Hub is located within the Nyangumarta Native Title Claim area.

Try dealing with realities.
The only US nuclear plant presently under construction will have a build cost well in excess of US$25B and double the initial project price. No other nuclear plants are proposed for the USA.
Do the maths on that for the data you rely on.
In the UK, EDF has plans to build two EPR nuclear reactors and in September 2019 again raised their estimated cost of construction, taking the expected cost to £21.5-22.5 billion. The National Audit Office estimates the additional cost to consumers (above the estimated market price of electricity) under the "strike price" will be £50 billion, which "will continue to vary as the outlook for wholesale market prices shifts." Note that in October 2013 Liberium Capital described the strike price as "economically insane," going on to say "as far as we can see this makes Hinkley Point the most expensive power station in the world...."
Nuclear does not make economic sense in any country unless it has no other energy options.
The companies installing grid-scale solar have done the maths on costs and there are hundreds of square kilometres of otherwise unproductive land ideally suited to solar in Australia. What we don't have is a coherent plan to integrate solar/wind with existing energy infrastructure.

You keep banging on about the capital cost. You need to look at the LCOE, keeping in mind the lifespan of the asset.

Hinkley will be a 3.2 GW nuclear power complex. You would have to build a 9GW solar complex to match the power generation, and you would need to build it twice to match the lifespan of the nuclear infrastructure.

China have 12 nuclear plants under construction, 44 nuclear plants planned and 168 nuclear plants proposed (https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...ofiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx)

 

[SirRumpole]

China have 12 nuclear plants under construction, 44 nuclear plants planned and 168 nuclear plants proposed

They also have a population of 1 billion.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

They also have a population of 1 billion.

Sure; I am not saying for Australia to do the same. I am merely advocating that Australia lift the commercial prohibition on nuclear powerplants so that we can at least explore the option of bringing small modular reactors into our energy mix for our large cities.

 

[sptrawler]

They also have a population of 1 billion.

That is the issue a lot of the renewable cheer squad fail to comprehend, the actual physical quantity of renewable plant required to supply that sort of load is impossible, due to the low energy density/ area.
As I've said over and over, in Australia it may be possible unlikely but maybe, most highly populated countries it will be impossible.

 

[rederob]

You keep banging on about the capital cost. You need to look at the LCOE, keeping in mind the lifespan of the asset.

Lazard uses LCOE and nuclear is the most expensive option - several times more expensive than renewables - and is increasing in annual cost. How about you do the maths on the only nuclear plant in the USA under construction as a basis for your argument and come back to us.

Hinkley will be a 3.2 GW nuclear power complex. You would have to build a 9GW solar complex to match the power generation, and you would need to build it twice to match the lifespan of the nuclear infrastructure.

The UK has limited solar capacity, but is very strong in wind generation. The proposed nuclear plant is miniscule as UK wind power production as of this June consists of 10,790 wind turbines with a total installed capacity of over 23.3 gigawatts. Presently the UK relies on the sophisticated energy infrastructure of Europe to assist balance its energy requirements.
China's move to nuclear is essential if it wants to clean its air: it presently has over 2 billion kilowatts of installed energy capacity and needs to continue increasing this at an annual rate of 5-6% over the next decade to transform its economy to western standards.

 

[rederob]

That is the issue a lot of the renewable cheer squad fail to comprehend, the actual physical quantity of renewable plant required to supply that sort of load is impossible, due to the low energy density/ area.
As I've said over and over, in Australia it may be possible unlikely but maybe, most highly populated countries it will be impossible.

An opinion with evidence.

 

[basilio]

The most important difference between US energy comparison costs and the latest AMEO/CSIRO analysis is the dates.

The US figures quoted earlier related to 2012 costs of windfarms and solar. (See information on graphs) The reductions in installations costs and improvement in energy efficiency of both these energy sources has been huge in the past 8 years. That reality is reflected in the Australian data.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-a...tage-sparks-call-for-mass-coal-closure-61037/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianm...s-and-rising-electricity-prices/#30bdd01a61d5

 

[basilio]

This is a more recent Lazard energy cost comparison for the US. It notes the continue decline of captal costs for renewable energy and improvements in efficiency.
Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2018
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe Bas, you could explain how Indonesia population 273 million and Japan 126 million, are going to go reneawable?

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Lazard uses LCOE and nuclear is the most expensive option - several times more expensive than renewables - and is increasing in annual cost. How about you do the maths on the only nuclear plant in the USA under construction as a basis for your argument and come back to us.
The UK has limited solar capacity, but is very strong in wind generation. The proposed nuclear plant is miniscule as UK wind power production as of this June consists of 10,790 wind turbines with a total installed capacity of over 23.3 gigawatts. Presently the UK relies on the sophisticated energy infrastructure of Europe to assist balance its energy requirements.
China's move to nuclear is essential if it wants to clean its air: it presently has over 2 billion kilowatts of installed energy capacity and needs to continue increasing this at an annual rate of 5-6% over the next decade to transform its economy to western standards.

Lazard are a private enterprise that possible have significant interests to push the renewable narrative. I will take the US DOE data any day of the week over Lazard; just as I would take the USDA data for agriculture investment and trading, any day of the week over the data/publications of a private enterprise.

I will have an in-depth look at the Georgia nuclear plant today.

As for the UK; it is impractical for them to litter their small geographical landmass and seas with windmills; as they will be a major impediment for real estate, industry, commercial business and international trade.

In Australia we have the space to litter our landmass with windmills and solar panels, then we have build transmission networks and lines from the middle of nowhere that crisscross our country, then we have to build large scale battery capacity. You clearly haven't considered the associated cost for all the support infrastructure for solar and wind. As I said, rooftop solar for homes and buildings is fine, the utopia of 100% solar and wind, to power Australia, is borderline fantasy.

China has no choice but to go nuclear, that is obvious; as 100% renewable generation is impossible for such an industrial nation with a large population.

 

[basilio]

The concern about solar PV farms crowding out agriculture may be wildly displaced. There plenty of examples of PV structures enhancing agricultural output.
https://ensia.com/features/solar-farms/
https://www.ecogeneration.com.au/solar-farms-land-use-and-the-rise-of-solar-sharing/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190729123751.htm

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

The concern about solar PV farms crowding out agriculture may be wildly displaced. There plenty of examples of PV structures enhancing agricultural output.
https://ensia.com/features/solar-farms/
https://www.ecogeneration.com.au/solar-farms-land-use-and-the-rise-of-solar-sharing/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190729123751.htm

I don't have a problem with small rural and regional towns building their own little microgrids with solar and wind, if they wish; but powering our large cities of Melbourne and Sydney with 100% renewables is just nonsense.

 

[sptrawler]

An opinion with evidence.

I guess the only evidence I can put forward, is by a world leading authority, you.
It was in this very thread, that you were stating that we should be following the U.K lead, as they were leading the world and showing the way toward renewables.
They are building nuclear power stations.