Some more recent data.An interesting graph, biomass and hydro have been lagging.
@Smurf1976 do you have any more current graphs? This is 2019.
That's the crux of it @Smurf1976 , it's all about tribal politics, point scoring and finger pointing.As I've learned though, it's pretty much impossible to get this stuff through to much of the population. There's an awful lot of people whose mind just isn't open to factual data.
That's the crux of it @Smurf1976 , it's all about tribal politics, point scoring and finger pointing.
Eventually the whole issue will be painted into a corner, where a crisis causes a panic reaction and then the whole thing becomes a pigs ear, situation normal.
There is an absolute lack of honesty and integrity surrounding the whole issue ATM, way too many sectors are making a killing and vested interests seem to be controlling the narrative.
It just has to end badly, or the more likely outcome, the Govt has to continue to pay the coal generators to stop their closure and take the responsibility of firming away from the private sector. Then the privates get paid for their generators and production, then can use the money to install renewables win/win.
Certainly is an interesting period in Australia's history.
As for your comment that the task is far greater than most realise, I get shouted down for even suggesting that.
Is it possible to have a rational debate? IMO probably not, even now that the issues are becoming obvious to everyone, there is still a lot of deceit and misinformation being pedalled.Is it possible to have a rational debate based on science and engineering instead of hysteria? It's looking more and more unlikely I'm afraid.
There is too much fuss about emissions targets imo. Get the right technology and the targets will be achieved.Is it possible to have a rational debate? IMO probably not, even now that the issues are becoming obvious to everyone, there is still a lot of deceit and misinformation being pedalled.
The Labor party are pushing the renewable barrow, which is wobbling along way too slowly, even Chris said yesterday " I am still quiet confident we will achieve our target".
That is a huge change in rhetoric, no doubt because we are getting to a point now, that generation required is in reality surplus to requirement, to charge storage and be supplementary to make up for poor generation days, so who is going to put that in?
We have been talking about this for years.
Then we have the Coalition spruiking nuclear, when in reality there is no money in nuclear even if it is chosen, so the taxpayer would have to fund it and the cost would be huge, there is no way the privates would pay for it.
So really there isn't an easy answer at the moment, because neither side IMO, is being honest.
Absolutely, eventually the correct mix will be found, that balances emissions with system reliability and growth demand and my guess it it won't be one technology.There is too much fuss about emissions targets imo. Get the right technology and the targets will be achieved.
Absolutely, eventually the correct mix will be found that balances emissions with system reliability and growth demand and my guess it it won't be one technology.
This is again back to the energy any technology can supply, it is no good being 100% reliant on a certain technology, when it can't actually supply the required amount of power, if it can that's great but ATM that isn't looking likely in the timeframe available.
The fact of not being flexible will be the downfall and blaming everyone else wont work either.
Today Albo saying nothing has been done in the last 10 years, I don't think people are believing that anymore and it gives the Coalition a free kick when they show something like graph I posted and the sums smurf put up, the growth in renewables has been rapid and constant. Also I didn't want to mention it, because it is political, but Howard actually started the renewable energy target in the early 2000's and also gave a huge subsidy to home solar installations, about $10k per home installation from memory.
All Labor can make claim to is really more and more announcements and not much else. But as I said the thread will just become a bun fight if politics are used rather than technical issues.
As @Smurf1976 already highlighted, rooftop solar isn't going to even be a pimple on the bum, of what is needed.Rooftop solar seems to be the only non political technology, at least all sides (including the Greens) don't seem to be against it.
Maybe that's a better way to go than massive solar or wind farms and their associated wiring. Whether it alone could supply the load is out of my technical knowledge, but you would still need deep firming of some kind.
Then of course you have to consider that a lot of future housing will be high rise, with a limited rooftop area supplying a lot of customers. Solar windows perhaps ?
The situation in SA over the past 24 hours shows it clearly:it won't be one technology.
The situation in SA over the past 24 hours shows it clearly:
Green = Wind
Yellow = Solar
Light Blue = Battery
Orange = Gas
Red = Diesel
Purple = from Victoria
View attachment 178592
Now in case you're wondering where that supply in Victoria is coming from:
Colour code same as above except:
Black = Coal
Dark Blue = Hydro
With the purple being import from Tas and NSW (and indirectly from Qld via NSW):
View attachment 178593
So on one hand the cheerleaders will correctly point out that on a clear Sunday afternoon in Adelaide, solar is indeed running the entire state.
We're a long way from having this sorted however, a very long way. It'd be pretty dark and gloomy right now if it wasn't for gas, interstate coal and hydro, and a bit of diesel having kept the lights on.
Do you reckon Snowy Hydro 2.0 is fatally flawed, ie will never do what its intended to do, or is it just having temporary setbacks ?
You are probably a power engineer rather than a construction engineer, so I understand if its not your area.
Good point @Smurf1976 It is a strange choice, when we are so adept at underground mining and have been doing it for so long, in all sorts of terrain.On SH2 I'm reluctant to criticise anything I'm not involved with and don't know all the details of but I'll note they do seem to have a bit of a fondness for tunnel boring machines.
Versus the hydro tunnels in Tasmania the majority of which were built manually, they were quite simply underground mines albeit for the purpose of making the hole rather than because anyone wanted the rock. Start digging at both ends until they meets somewhere in the middle.
The decision to use a TBM isn't one that can be made arbitrarily, it absolutely depends on the geology involved. If in doubt, a conventional mining approach is far more certain to succeed.
It ain't over until the things are built and running, so are they going to maintain the coal plants until the renewables are actually operating, of just let them die from lack of maintenance?These articles, are what cause all the confusion, by not comparing apples with apples and misleading the public that everything is fine.
Comparing at call 24/7 365 day generation with renewables and battery storage isn't a scientific approach IMO. Then they compare the output of renewables with small modular reactors, which in the next breath they keep correctly saying don't yet exist.
Is there any wonder the general public is confused and concerned, no one can give an accurate story.
From the article:The truth about Australia’s race to roll out renewables
New figures heighten the dispute over energy policy after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton revealed this week he would not set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.www.smh.com.au
Federal authorities have approved 51 renewable energy projects since the last election to add to the electricity grid and prepare for the closure of coal-fired power stations amid a growing political row about the need for new capacity to avoid future shortages.
The new projects are expected to add 8.4 gigawatts of clean energy to the grid, almost three times the capacity of the country’s biggest coal-fired power stations, and will be accompanied by storage to deal with intermittent supply from wind and solar farms.
The approved renewable projects in NSW include the Tilbuster solar farm near Armidale, the Quorn Park solar project near Parkes, the Marulan Solar Farm, the Orana battery storage project near Wellington and the Silver City storage project near Broken Hill.
The projects in Victoria include the Elaine battery storage system near Ballarat, the Melton battery north of Melbourne and the Numurkah solar farm near Shepparton.
The result is expected to add 8.4 gigawatts to the electricity grid, more than the 2.9-gigawatt capacity of the Eraring power station and the 2.2-gigawatt capacity of the Loy Yang A power station combined.
The renewable generation is accompanied by 6.4 gigawatts of storage capacity to add a degree of stability to the grid to handle increasing supplies from intermittent wind and solar farms.
The Clean Energy Regulator said last month that companies added 5.3 gigawatts of renewable capacity to the grid in 2023, but it has previously warned that Australia needed to add at least 7 gigawatts each year to achieve its emissions target for 2030.
Labor estimates its key policy to reduce emissions, the Capacity Investment Scheme, will underwrite 23 gigawatts of renewable generation by 2030. But the regulator’s analysis, matched by industry analysis from the Clean Energy Council, suggests 42 gigawatts of renewable capacity should be installed over the six years to 2030.
Labor estimates the renewable projects add the same electricity generation as 25 small modular nuclear reactors. The Coalition is yet to say what kind of nuclear power plants it will propose when it reveals its policy.
Unfortunately we have a bad habit of blowing them up, rather than nitrogen sealing them.Imo it would be better to mothball the coal plants instead of decommissioning them, just in case.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?