- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,340
- Reactions
- 17,657
Responding to posts from noco and others:
Personally I don't have a strong ideological view on any technology so long as it's safe, within our capabilities, affordable, reliable and actually works.
From a purely technical perspective it is practical to have anything from 0 to 100% renewable in the grid. The arguments for and against renewables are thus economic, scientific (the CO2 issue) and political rather than technical. Either can generate constant power if done properly.
The problem we have is that we're doing "none of the above" meanwhile the existing generation fleet is aging and contrary to the expectations of many the demand for electricity hasn't gone away to any great extent (Qld is at all time record levels and NSW was very close on Friday).
How long a thermal (coal, oil, gas) power station lasts depends on a number of factors from the original design and construction through to operation and maintenance. But the range is 30 to 60 years almost always.
Looking at the present major power stations in the problem states (NSW, Vic, SA) the vast majority is now in that age range so we're certainly going to see more closures over the coming years.
I should also mention that Queensland has the large Gladstone power station which is now 40 years old. Whenever that closes then Qld joins the list of states having power supply problems since it's a very major plant.
So what do we replace all this with?
The real problem is a political one. With so much debate at the federal level over the CO2 issue and associated matters plus so many bits of meddling at the state level, the private sector has simply lost interest in new investment and that has lead us to the present situation.
So the first thing that needs to be accepted is that government is going to have to get involved and take on some risk, that being the risk created by government itself with the constant debate and shifting of policy over the past decade or so.
There's essentially zero interest in building new coal at the moment due to the risk that a carbon tax (or other carbon cost) is introduced.
There is likewise not much interest in a large scale renewables + storage approach due to the risk that a carbon tax is not introduced.
Coal is a viable option technically and so is renewables + storage. But neither will be built on a major scale unless government finds some way to remove the risk of future policy changes.
If that risk cannot be removed then the private sector will at best build things which can be easily sold for relocation overseas if they cease to be viable in Australia. That is, in practice, open cycle gas turbines or diesel engines. Gas wasn't too bad in the past but with the price having tripled isn't a good option today.
What's really needed is for the Australian Government to keep as far away from the power industry as possible. Make their mind up on the CO2 issue and then get out of the way.
In the absence of government getting out of the way there's really only one effective option remaining and that is for government to financially back and take the risk associated with whatever is to be built. Either outright government ownership or taking the risk on behalf of private owners. SA has effectively come to that point now and Vic won't be far behind.
Personally I don't have a strong ideological view on any technology so long as it's safe, within our capabilities, affordable, reliable and actually works.
From a purely technical perspective it is practical to have anything from 0 to 100% renewable in the grid. The arguments for and against renewables are thus economic, scientific (the CO2 issue) and political rather than technical. Either can generate constant power if done properly.
The problem we have is that we're doing "none of the above" meanwhile the existing generation fleet is aging and contrary to the expectations of many the demand for electricity hasn't gone away to any great extent (Qld is at all time record levels and NSW was very close on Friday).
How long a thermal (coal, oil, gas) power station lasts depends on a number of factors from the original design and construction through to operation and maintenance. But the range is 30 to 60 years almost always.
Looking at the present major power stations in the problem states (NSW, Vic, SA) the vast majority is now in that age range so we're certainly going to see more closures over the coming years.
I should also mention that Queensland has the large Gladstone power station which is now 40 years old. Whenever that closes then Qld joins the list of states having power supply problems since it's a very major plant.
So what do we replace all this with?
The real problem is a political one. With so much debate at the federal level over the CO2 issue and associated matters plus so many bits of meddling at the state level, the private sector has simply lost interest in new investment and that has lead us to the present situation.
So the first thing that needs to be accepted is that government is going to have to get involved and take on some risk, that being the risk created by government itself with the constant debate and shifting of policy over the past decade or so.
There's essentially zero interest in building new coal at the moment due to the risk that a carbon tax (or other carbon cost) is introduced.
There is likewise not much interest in a large scale renewables + storage approach due to the risk that a carbon tax is not introduced.
Coal is a viable option technically and so is renewables + storage. But neither will be built on a major scale unless government finds some way to remove the risk of future policy changes.
If that risk cannot be removed then the private sector will at best build things which can be easily sold for relocation overseas if they cease to be viable in Australia. That is, in practice, open cycle gas turbines or diesel engines. Gas wasn't too bad in the past but with the price having tripled isn't a good option today.
What's really needed is for the Australian Government to keep as far away from the power industry as possible. Make their mind up on the CO2 issue and then get out of the way.
In the absence of government getting out of the way there's really only one effective option remaining and that is for government to financially back and take the risk associated with whatever is to be built. Either outright government ownership or taking the risk on behalf of private owners. SA has effectively come to that point now and Vic won't be far behind.