The future of energy generation and storage

Whether or not it's relevant to us, I found this piece interesting.

Is it true that citizens of California are leaving California and are moving to other states? If yes, why?
Yes it is true people are leaving California and moving to other states.
We moved from San Diego to Houston last November.
Why? well I could go on and on about democrats running the state in the ground, but that is a broken record most people don't want to hear anymore.
My wife and I make good money. between the two of us we pull down $200K a year. we lived in a modest home in north San Diego county. In the twenty one years of living in the house we saw value go up almost matching cost of living. We did OK, but not making any ground on retirement or any other things one works for.
Here is how the last few years in California played out for us. We had solar put on the house in 2015. You know, cut your bill to zero, shrink your carbon foot print blah blah. Well, no electric bill for two years. Then the utility companies started losing a huge amount of revenue due to people going green and all new construction on California had to be solar. After those two years we started getting a bill. small, $20 - $30 a month. No problem, I could deal with that. Well on year three utility companies are sounding the warning, costs blah blah blah. The public utilities commission, you know that commission that is supposed to be the watch dog for the consumer? well they got in bed with with the utility companies and came up with a tier system for the consumer. basically the more energy you used, the higher tier you were in. It did not matter how much energy your solar was putting back on the grid. Well our bill went to $300 a month WITH SOLAR! We sucked it up for a year, then came… you guessed it…. the solar tax! that's right folks! if you have solar you will have to pay a solar or sun tax in the amount of $600 a year. That was it. We were done with California. what they say is true, if California can find a way to tax something, they will. I guess I don't need to go on about liberal progressive politics. All you really have to do is watch the news.

SirRumpole said:

Whether or not it's relevant to us, I found this piece interesting.

Click to expand...

That's the problem with privatisation and renewable energy, as we keep saying you need a hell of a lot more than you actually consume and the private companies don't get paid for it, so someone has to foot the bill.
There is no way to avoid it other than take it back into public ownership and run it out of consolidated revenue, but that ain't going to happen over East, from what I'm seeing.
Sooner or later this is going to hurt big time, probably when the at call generation is down to the realistic minimum possible, then it should kick in big time. Until then the private generators should be squeezing the public purse for availability allowance.

China's million volt energy superhighway.

Rumblings that gas is the next thing to go. I've always preferred gas hot water. I'd often get the short end with big family-cold showers.
Even gas heating will heat a room in a matter of minutes (I don't use heaters generally). Rather than electric heaters. I suppose air-conditioning but it's still blasting huge amounts of electricity.

A lot of supposed "eco tech" seems like it's not going to fill the gap or it's a poor outcome alternative to practicality.
There's a push for the electrification of everything but the ambitions seem bigger than the abilities. It's hard to see just the electricity grid being sorted.

moXJO said:

Rumblings that gas is the next thing to go. I've always preferred gas hot water. I'd often get the short end with big family-cold showers.
Even gas heating will heat a room in a matter of minutes (I don't use heaters generally). Rather than electric heaters. I suppose air-conditioning but it's still blasting huge amounts of electricity.

A lot of supposed "eco tech" seems like it's not going to fill the gap or it's a poor outcome alternative to practicality.
There's a push for the electrification of everything but the ambitions seem bigger than the abilities. It's hard to see just the electricity grid being sorted.

Click to expand...

The reality of the enormity hasn't sunk in yet.

@SirRumpole an interesting article on the gas field in the Kimberly, where the Broome plant was going to be built, of interest is the last paragraph which highlights how a volume tax is better than a super profit tax.


Amid enduring grievances about how much — or how little — tax LNG producers pay on the resources they exploit, both Mr Wilkes and Mr Kavonic reckon the situation should stand as a cautionary tale.

They note that Australia's signature tax on oil and gas production — the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax — is based on profits.

But Mr Kavonic says it's doubtful that Prelude, in particular, will ever pay the tax because it's unlikely to get its up-front costs back and become profitable.

"The reason everyone is upset the PRRT is not realising as much as they hoped is because it's a super profits-based tax," Mr Kavonic says.

"And some of the projects are never going to be super profitable," he says.

moXJO said:

There's a push for the electrification of everything but the ambitions seem bigger than the abilities.

Click to expand...

Tasmania:

94% market share for electric hot water.

Effectively 100% market share for electric ovens in residential use and about 90% market share for electric cooktops.

67% market share for electric space heating in residential and around 90% in commercial use.

Largest exporter is the world's third largest zinc smelter and the state's second largest electricity consumer. Largest electricity consumer being Bell Bay Aluminium and third largest being TEMCO (Tasmanian Electro-Metallurgical Company) which produces ferromanganese, silicomanganese and sinter. Those all being highly energy-intensive processes. Various other heavy industry, particularly Norske Skog, also uses rather a lot - the overall consumption mix in the state is roughly 60% heavy industrial, 20% residential, 20% business and others.

If it were an independent country, it would have the third highest per capita electricity use globally, exceeded only by Norway and Iceland. It's more than double the Australian average. Indeed SA, with more than three times the population, only uses about 20% more electricity than Tasmania does.

Environmentalists were unhappy enough about this hydro-electric dominance of Tasmania, that they formed a political party to oppose it which, ultimately, became The Greens. At one point they even advocated burning coal and taking more wood out of forests as alternatives. That's factually correct just in case I've upset anyone there and was reported by the media at the time.

Therein lies the problem. If we're to transition energy use to electricity, and we're to transition exports away from coal and gas and toward processed minerals, and if we're do all that with renewable energy then we're not going to do it without breaking some eggs. At the national level we need a drastic upscaling of wind, solar, transmission and, dare I say it, hydro.

Smurf1976 said:

Tasmania:
. At the national level we need a drastic upscaling of wind, solar, transmission and, dare I say it, hydro.

Click to expand...

Yep all true. In fact the opportunity to create diverse small scale hydro batteries has already been opened.
There is also a new UK technology to use a heavy fluid as the Hydro medium which would enable effective small hydro schemes in even smaller hills.

The revolt against the destruction of Lake Pedder and the further expansion of Tasmanias very large hydro schemes was one of balance. Still is in my mind.

Smurf1976 said:

Therein lies the problem. If we're to transition energy use to electricity, and we're to transition exports away from coal and gas and toward processed minerals, and if we're do all that with renewable energy then we're not going to do it without breaking some eggs. At the national level we need a drastic upscaling of wind, solar, transmission and, dare I say it, hydro.

Click to expand...

At a national scale we need to actually make some statements as to guidelines and access to land, so that the implementation can actually accelerate IMO, at the moment it is all huff and puff the AEMO apparently says we need to move on.
So how are we going to sort out transmission line easement issues with land owners, we haven't even started addressing access to native title land yet, I'm not sure how that is going to go down and no one is talking about it.

Here is an issue in India, it probably isn't the same issue we will have as our farms are larger, but it does shows that good intent can ahve unintended consequences and the sooner the Govt makes some guidelines the better IMO.


India, like many other countries, is looking to renewables as an antidote to soaring fossil fuel prices and to tackle climate change. Prime Minister Narendra Modi sees renewables as vital for a “developed India”.

But while renewables are seen as a major positive on a societal scale, these large scale facilities can – if done poorly – make life harder for people who live close to them.

That’s exactly what happened to one of the world’s largest solar installations, India’s Pavagada solar park. The park was meant to offer cheap clean power, avoiding 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year and give an economic boost for a poor area. Our new podcast and research found, sadly, that didn’t all happen. Larger landowners profited, while poorer villagers lost access to agricultural land.

The problems of Pavagada show us the importance of genuine partnership with the rural communities where wind and solar farms will be built.

basilio said:

The revolt against the destruction of Lake Pedder and the further expansion of Tasmanias very large hydro schemes was one of balance. Still is in my mind.

Click to expand...

The basic problem with that one, and I know the story in very fine detail, is the "all or nothing" approach adopted by both sides.

Suffice to say that using that very specific example, well I could show you a plan that's technically 100% doable in an engineering sense, indeed the relevant sites were even drilled to confirm geology, and which:

1. Generates almost twice as much electricity as the Gordon power scheme as built.

2. Does not involve submerging the natural Lake Pedder or its surrounds and retains them in their natural undammed state. Or reverses the flooding if all this were to be built today.

3. Floods a portion of the lower Gordon River within the World Heritage Area but upstream of the Franklin and physically precluding ever reviving the Gordon-below-Franklin scheme. A great big physical obstruction is, of course, far more effective long term than assuming the politics forever remains against reviving it.

4. The big one - could be developed so as to replace 22.8% of all long term gas (or diesel) generation in the NEM for the purposes of deep firming. To be clear, that's to replace 22.8% of it across the whole of Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, SA as well as Tas. Just need build the required transmission and it's very doable (based on AEMO figures for the long term gas requirement).

5. Bearing in mind that lesser scale versions are also possible, it's not an all or nothing thing although it's the kind of thing to "do it once then leave it".

Combined with some other hydro projects elsewhere in the eastern mainland states we could easily ditch gas completely and go 100% renewable, it's entirely possible.

But then there's politics.....

One side wanted the optimum scheme which is considerably larger.

The other side opposed any new dam anywhere.

Stalemate and in practice that was the end of all hydro construction not just in Tasmania but nationally. We burn more coal and gas today as a direct result.

Bearing in mind a key problem we have, especially in the context of Vic and SA, is that of low VRE yields during winter combined with persistent high demand once we assume a future switch from gas to electric heating. Looking at how to fix that, well the very conditions that diminish solar output, heavy cloud, are highly correlated with the conditions that benefit hydro. So a very nice synergy there and bonus when you've got 3 full years' worth of water stored anyway.

Now the problem in my view isn't about the details but rather, it's that society's unable to engage in a proper, objective evaluation of the options. There's no silver bullet in all this, they all come with downsides in some way, or as I've said many times in many places "All Power Pollutes" because it does. So it's rationally about looking at the options and picking the least bad ones but understanding that some pain is required.

In saying that well I'm not really arguing for that specific hydro scheme or indeed any hydro scheme, just that we ought be having a rational, objective examination of the options and making sensible decisions not political ones.

At the moment though, well another renewable energy project looks to have now fallen over. Not sure if it's announced so I won't name it but it's a significant one.

We're also not on track with the overall construction of wind, solar, storage and transmission hence the alarm being raised by AEMO. Realistically, we're going to have to invest further into fossil fuels if we don't want the lights going out.

Then there's price and on that one we're doing massive damage. I can say with certainty that industry is now knocking back work simply due to energy costs in Australia and in doing so, we're entrenching even further the nation's reliance on mineral exports including coal. Anyone from a redneck to the most hardline green ought to see a problem with that.

Then there's the household level where it's causing misery to many. Here's a real example of the imminent price jumps here in SA:

Old rates through to 30 June 2023:

Daily supply charge = 77.402c / day
Controlled Load consumption = 13.689c / kWh
Consumption 10am - 3pm = 17.076c / kWh
Consumption 1am - 6am = 21.219c / kWh
Consumption all other times = 35.315c / kWh

New price from 1 July 2023:

Daily supply charge = 106.381c / day (+37.4%)
Controlled Load consumption = 22.297c / kwh (+62.9%)
Consumption 10am - 3pm = 27.511c / kWh (+61.1%)
Consumption 1am - 6am = 33.066c / kWh (+55.8%)
Consumption all other times = 55.869c / kWh (+58.2%)

To say those are massive jumps is quite an understatement. Those prices would be high even on a small island or in the middle of nowhere and for a city they're just ridiculous. Even someone working full time on average wages is going to be finding this problematic and as for the poor, well they're stuffed at this point.....

I'm also aware of business looking to cut back in order to deal with rising energy costs. Cut back as in cut the wages bill in order to pay the power bill.

Underground power lines or not ?

SirRumpole said:

Underground power lines or not?

Click to expand...

Technically it can be done sure.

It does alienate at lot more land and cost more than going overhead though.

A cynic would think the real aim was to sink the viability of renewables by loading up costs......

As a clarification to what I'm on about with hydro, it's not about generating bulk power and nor is it about meeting daily peak demand. Wind and solar can do the former whilst batteries and relatively short duration storage (hydro, batteries) can do the latter.

Going forward, what we need hydro or gas turbines for is to fill in the gaps. The days when the sun and the wind both fail simultaneously and yes it happens.

12 month daily wind and solar output chart for Victoria:



And for SA:



And WA:



Look closely and you'll see the problem. Days when wind and solar both fall to low levels and which, not always but often, coincides with relatively cold weather.

Now at present most space heating in Victoria and much of it in WA and SA is supplied by non-electric means, primarily gas, but if the aim's to move to renewable energy then that needs to change. So we then get higher demand for electricity - at the very same time, the exact same days, when we get poor wind and solar yield.

As per the AEMO Integrated System Plan, CSIRO work and the efforts of various others, there are two basic options on the table to address this problem:

1. Large storage hydro.

2. Gas turbines or other fuel-burning plant.

AEMO's number crunching comes up with 19GW required across the NEM with existing hydro and Snowy 2.0 between them providing 9GW of that, leaving 10GW assumed to be provided by gas turbines or diesel engines.

My argument, given the high financial cost and known environmental impact of gas and diesel, is that the hydro alternatives ought be objectively evaluated from that perspective as a known technically viable alternative.

In a technical sense that works simply because if you've got a dam that stores 2, 3 or 5 years' worth of river flows, and that is indeed the scale of such projects, then that gives absolute control over when that water's released. Whenever the wind and sun fall in a heap, or there's some other unexpected problem, that's when it comes to the rescue. Rest of the time it just sits there slowly filling up.

As a concept that's a bit like a worker who just puts regular contribution into a separate account or a managed fund and leaves it there. That's the fund to draw on when the proverbial hits the fan and there's a need to fill a gap. When the car engine blows up or there's a pandemic or whatever, that money comes to the rescue but it's not for regular spending. Same concept.

There'd be some places where almost certainly a conservation argument wins out from a rational assessment, the impact of oil and gas is less bad than putting a National Park underwater, but there'd almost certainly be other sites where it's a no-brainer to dam them ASAP rather than be burning fossil fuels.

So I'm saying evaluate the lot and compare them to the gas / diesel alternative. I'm not saying dam the lot, just that an unbiased approach ought be taken.

With that in mind I'll add my opinion that there's a very real chance the whole thing gets derailed in the not too distant future. When people are getting huge increases in their bills, and increases in the 40% - 70% range aren't at all uncommon, well that goes beyond simply being something that people disagree with. It's not like seeing some issue on the news where people think OK, they don't agree with that but if it's going to happen well no big deal.

No, this is different to that and quite simply there's more than a few who can not pay. I repeat - can not pay. They don't need some politician expressing sympathy, they don't need a loan that only delays the inevitable, they need the problem fixed because quite simply they can't pay the bills. For those on lower incomes that's here right now and even those in the middle it's going to sting when they start getting bills over $1000 on a regular basis as many will.

This could well blow up very spectacularly at the political level and what happens next becomes anyone's guess but it's unlikely to be good. As I've pointed out to many, there was quite a bit of momentum to deal with the emissions issue in the late-1980's through 1990. Then the recession hit and not another word was said until late that decade. We could well see a repeat of that so my view is very much that a workable solution, an economical one, needs to be implemented ASAP because time's very quickly running out.

Smurf1976 said:

As a clarification to what I'm on about with hydro, it's not about generating bulk power and nor is it about meeting daily peak demand. Wind and solar can do the former whilst batteries and relatively short duration storage (hydro, batteries) can do the latter.

Going forward, what we need hydro or gas turbines for is to fill in the gaps. The days when the sun and the wind both fail simultaneously and yes it happens.

12 month daily wind and solar output chart for Victoria:

View attachment 158487

And for SA:

View attachment 158488

And WA:

View attachment 158490

Look closely and you'll see the problem. Days when wind and solar both fall to low levels and which, not always but often, coincides with relatively cold weather.

Now at present most space heating in Victoria and much of it in WA and SA is supplied by non-electric means, primarily gas, but if the aim's to move to renewable energy then that needs to change. So we then get higher demand for electricity - at the very same time, the exact same days, when we get poor wind and solar yield.

As per the AEMO Integrated System Plan, CSIRO work and the efforts of various others, there are two basic options on the table to address this problem:

1. Large storage hydro.

2. Gas turbines or other fuel-burning plant.

AEMO's number crunching comes up with 19GW required across the NEM with existing hydro and Snowy 2.0 between them providing 9GW of that, leaving 10GW assumed to be provided by gas turbines or diesel engines.

My argument, given the high financial cost and known environmental impact of gas and diesel, is that the hydro alternatives ought be objectively evaluated from that perspective as a known technically viable alternative.

In a technical sense that works simply because if you've got a dam that stores 2, 3 or 5 years' worth of river flows, and that is indeed the scale of such projects, then that gives absolute control over when that water's released. Whenever the wind and sun fall in a heap, or there's some other unexpected problem, that's when it comes to the rescue. Rest of the time it just sits there slowly filling up.

As a concept that's a bit like a worker who just puts regular contribution into a separate account or a managed fund and leaves it there. That's the fund to draw on when the proverbial hits the fan and there's a need to fill a gap. When the car engine blows up or there's a pandemic or whatever, that money comes to the rescue but it's not for regular spending. Same concept.

There'd be some places where almost certainly a conservation argument wins out from a rational assessment, the impact of oil and gas is less bad than putting a National Park underwater, but there'd almost certainly be other sites where it's a no-brainer to dam them ASAP rather than be burning fossil fuels.

So I'm saying evaluate the lot and compare them to the gas / diesel alternative. I'm not saying dam the lot, just that an unbiased approach ought be taken.

With that in mind I'll add my opinion that there's a very real chance the whole thing gets derailed in the not too distant future. When people are getting huge increases in their bills, and increases in the 40% - 70% range aren't at all uncommon, well that goes beyond simply being something that people disagree with. It's not like seeing some issue on the news where people think OK, they don't agree with that but if it's going to happen well no big deal.

No, this is different to that and quite simply there's more than a few who can not pay. I repeat - can not pay. They don't need some politician expressing sympathy, they don't need a loan that only delays the inevitable, they need the problem fixed because quite simply they can't pay the bills. For those on lower incomes that's here right now and even those in the middle it's going to sting when they start getting bills over $1000 on a regular basis as many will.

This could well blow up very spectacularly at the political level and what happens next becomes anyone's guess but it's unlikely to be good. As I've pointed out to many, there was quite a bit of momentum to deal with the emissions issue in the late-1980's through 1990. Then the recession hit and not another word was said until late that decade. We could well see a repeat of that so my view is very much that a workable solution, an economical one, needs to be implemented ASAP because time's very quickly running out.

Click to expand...

I'll put forward another alternative. Gas turbines don't need to run on gas, Brazil runs theirs on ethanol produced mainly from sugar cane which we produce a lot of.

Why depend on a diminishing resource like gas when we can grow our own fuel in perpetuity?

Obviously its also a solution as a transport fuel alternative but thet would require a larger investment and its probably better to go down the electricification route for transport.

Smurf1976 said:

This could well blow up very spectacularly at the political level and what happens next becomes anyone's guess but it's unlikely to be good. As I've pointed out to many, there was quite a bit of momentum to deal with the emissions issue in the late-1980's through 1990. Then the recession hit and not another word was said until late that decade. We could well see a repeat of that so my view is very much that a workable solution, an economical one, needs to be implemented ASAP because time's very quickly running out.

Click to expand...

Chris Bowen is ageing very quickly, as I said in another thread, the reality of the issues are catching up to the enormity of the issues.

The 2030 line in the sand will be haunting the Government and the pain has only just started, getting the coal generators to spend money on their plant is a huge problem, add to that the reluctance to invest in gas and it all becomes a very scary mess IMO.

The only thing worse than a bad plan, is no plan IMO, which at the moment is starting to become obvious. @Smurf as you say time is running out very quickly, with the rapid increase in population I wonder if time hasn't already passed the point of an orderly transition.
Interesting times, even putting in a gas plant like Kurri Kurri, which is pretty simple and straight forward in the scheme of things, is taking a huge amount of time due to logistics and labour problems.
So actually getting approval, funding and permissions to put in some serious capacity, then actually getting it up and running before the coal plants collapse, is getting less and less likely.
Oh what a mess.

So with renewables you either firm with fossil fuels, nuke or hydro?

What was the plan for 100% renewables if that is the case?

How would it even be done with renewables- every house gets a battery or something. Or just huge batteries (that I can't imagine would be feasible)?

moXJO said:

So with renewables you either firm with fossil fuels, nuke or hydro?

Click to expand...

Yes, for long duration firming, fossil fuel, nuke or hydro, of which none are acceptable or readily available ATM.

Short duration storage, rapid response and frequency control, is covered by batteries.

moXJO said:

What was the plan for 100% renewables if that is the case?

Click to expand...

They don't have one.

moXJO said:

How would it even be done with renewables- every house gets a battery or something. Or just huge batteries (that I can't imagine would be feasible)?

Click to expand...

In a nutshell, at the moment, it is called winging it.

So my understanding (and anyone feel free to correct me because I don't really know)
is that renewables are a cheap source of power. But the actual transition off one of the current firming measures is where the costs start to really add up?

If the above is true, were we sold on a partial truth about the cost?

Is this why all the countries that have gone renewable is experiencing higher costs despite the low cost energy renewables produce?

Essential it works at a smaller scale and even that doesn't make financial sense until battery prices come down.

moXJO said:

So my understanding (and anyone feel free to correct me because I don't really know)
is that renewables are a cheap source of power. But the actual transition off one of the current firming measures is where the costs start to really add up?

If the above is true, were we sold on a partial truth about the cost?

Is this why all the countries that have gone renewable is experiencing higher costs despite the low cost energy renewables produce?

Essential it works at a smaller scale and even that doesn't make financial sense until battery prices come down.

Click to expand...

The thing with renewables is they are intermittent, whereas fossil fueled generation is at call whenever it is needed, as long as there is fuel available.
Solar and wind generators are fairly cheap to purchase, but because they are intermittent in nature and their output is never guaranteed, storage is integral to its viability therefore it needs to be added to the base line cost and probably makes it more expensive than equivalent fossil fueled generation.
The cost of grid connected batteries isn't cheap the Kwinana 100MW battery is $165m and rising, then add the solar/wind to charge it and the solar/wind that is required to supply the load while the battery is charging, that adds up to a lot of money.
Then add the cost of hydro for long duration storage, where the battery storage isn't suitable and that costs big dollars.
So it really isn't easy to compare the cost of renewable generation to fossil fueled generation IMO, if we do manage to get to a fully renewable grid it will be amazing and a hell of an achievement.

@Smurf will have plenty of accurate data, but the main issue is with the electrical system, near enough isn't good enough. We are so dependent on a reliable electrical grid that a long duration failure would be a disaster.
It can work on a small scale there are some on the forum that are off grid, but I bet they have a backup.
My son last year on the off grid system only ran the generator for 5 hrs, this year has been a lot more overcast and already the generator has operated for 10 hrs.

Here is a very good article on the indicative costs of various generation and it isn't back of the napkin, which is normally presented as data: There is a comprehensive cost analysis for each type of generation currently under consideration.

SirRumpole said:

I'll put forward another alternative. Gas turbines don't need to run on gas, Brazil runs theirs on ethanol produced mainly from sugar cane which we produce a lot of.

Why depend on a diminishing resource like gas when we can grow our own fuel in perpetuity?

Click to expand...

As a concept fully agree.

In practice however an issue is that we've already got a huge demand for liquid and gas fuels that's going to persist for the medium term at least. Between petrol, diesel, jet fuel, fuel oil, LPG, natural gas and various specialty fuels there's literally billions of devices around the world using them. Everything from ships and aircraft to household gas appliances to things like industrial equipment and even hand held blowtorches for brazing etc.

Eventually that might all go to electricity or other means but not in the medium term. There's simply so much of it and it lasts a rather long time. Even cars commonly last 20 years.

So to that end if we've got a source of any kind of alternative liquid or gas fuel then we can simply use that to replace some of the oil and gas we use now. That being so, choosing to use it for electricity is keeping oil and gas demand higher than it otherwise need be.

Eg produce 1000 barrels of ethanol, biodiesel, synthetic jet fuel, etc.

We could use that to run existing uses of liquid fuels thus reducing the use of fossil oil to produce petrol etc.

Or we could burn it for power generation and continue using 100% fossil oil for the other uses.

End result is whilst the gas turbines might physically burn ethanol, biodiesel etc they really just diverting that from some other use that now sticks with fossil-based fuels instead.

Same with biogas. For the medium term at least we can just feed it into the gas network. Even if we make all efforts to move away from gas over the longer term, this side of 2050 at least we can easily use all the biogas we're likely to produce just to displace some of the fossil gas. We don't need to find a new use for it.

So in a technical sense absolutely it works. Gas turbines or internal combustion engines can between them run on a wide range of liquid or gas fuels. But if doing so simply diverts that fuel from some other use, it's adding to fossil fuel use in practice. It's renewable only in the context of "on paper" accounting.

Looking at ethanol in particular, there's been quite some nonsense of the political kind regarding it in Australia. In short though the vast majority of vehicles now using petrol can use a blend containing up to 10% ethanol and it has very definite advantages.

Firstly because it's a high octane additive. It's a cheap and effective way to raise the octane of petrol without using metallic compounds (which are rather nasty) or without using toluene or similar (also rather nasty). Add 10% ethanol to 95 RON petrol and now you've got 98 far more cheaply and with lower toxicity than 98 made solely from crude oil. Same trick if we start with a 92 RON base and add 10% ethanol, now it's 95. Or start with about 88, add ethanol, and now it's 91. That enables the petrol itself to be both less toxic and also lower cost. USA does it extremely widely but that's about the only place that does, anywhere else it's hit and miss.

Secondly because it's an oxygenate. Ethanol contains oxygen, versus petrol that's hydrogen and carbon only, and the addition of that oxygen does in practice improve combustion and lower "conventional" emissions out the exhaust. Conventional meaning unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and so on - things toxic to humans as distinct from CO2.

All that said, if we get to a point where do have the ability to produce surplus ethanol, biodiesel etc then absolutely it would make sense to run gas turbines with it. I'm just saying that's going to be quite some time in the future, that's all.

As an analogy it's a bit like someone with a $1 million mortgage and in some financial difficulty winning a $1000 cash prize. They don't need to come up with a way to spend the money, they've already got that sorted and if the aim's to improve their situation well then put it straight in the bank.