Grid can go 75% renewable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 350RRC

Yambuk wind farm is 16 years old and was operating at up to 101% of nameplate capacity this week.

DL

---

In that time it’s had multiple upgrades and refurbishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

by that logic, coal is free too.

---

Yep, there's tonnes of it - just lying around doing nothing - didn't cost a cent to put there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homestar

Yep, there's tonnes of it - just lying around doing nothing - didn't cost a cent to put there.

---

exactly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilipA

You are ignoring the capital and depreciation costs of solar and wind. Wind replacement say 10 years , solar maybe 15-20.

If they are so cheap why the subsidies?

In reality they should always have been responsible for 24hour power delivery , not just when the wind blows or the sun shines.
Regards PhilipA

---

How about the capital and appreciation costs of coal plants? The Callide plant that failed had $60m spent on an upgrade last year - and it still failed. I read it had eight shutdowns for problems in a year.
All systems have capital costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homestar

That conclusion that all can be replaced shows no knowledge of Electrical Engineering or grid infrastructure - I do this for a living which I've said many times - your conclusion is wrong - plain and simple. I'm not going to explain it, but just know it is. Simplistic extrapolations like "because it can replace 10% then it can replace 100%" don't work when physics gets involved. I have no issues with differing opinions, but this isn't that. Your assumptions are incorrect in this case and provable to be the case if I had the time.

I fail to understand why you continually seem to rebut others posts on this topic when you have no experience with it at all and disagree with me when I've been working in the industry for over 25 years full time - what would I know... I would happily sit down with you and explain the physics and of electricity and the Engineering challenges that face those that have to continually try and cope with how the grid is changing and come up with solutions to try and keep everyones lights on, but that's a conversation that isn't possible here unfortunately.

---

When did I criticise you? I'm not having a technical argument, I'm just noting the lost 10% has been replaced from other sources, which is just fact.
Qld is already averaging about 40% renewable power over a year and that is rising.
The Qld government has just announced it is going ahead with a second pumped hydro station, 5 big batteries and a $75m transmission upgrade from a planned solar farm in FNQ.
Diversifying power sources to reduce reliance on any one source just seems common sense to me.

Quote:

---

How about the capital and appreciation costs of coal plants? The Callide plant that failed had $60m spent on an upgrade last year - and it still failed. I read it had eight shutdowns for problems in a year.
All systems have capital costs.

---

You are changing your argument here.
You stated that wind and solar were the cheapest source of electricity.

That is not so as many many international studies have found.
To then say "well what about coal maintenance" is a different argument.
Even with the maintenance coal from existing power stations is still by far the cheapest.

Regards PhilipA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

When did I criticise you? I'm not having a technical argument, I'm just noting the lost 10% has been replaced from other sources, which is just fact.
Qld is already averaging about 40% renewable power over a year and that is rising.
The Qld government has just announced it is going ahead with a second pumped hydro station, 5 big batteries and a $75m transmission upgrade from a planned solar farm in FNQ.
Diversifying power sources to reduce reliance on any one source just seems common sense to me.

---

You’ve changed your argument here - go look at what I was replying to.

That's because I never actually said it would go from 10% to 100%, as you stated, so I was politely avoiding saying you had mis-stated what I said. Anyway, whatever.

Sent from my A1601 using AULRO mobile app

I found this the other day while looking for something else. Some interesting numbers. [thumbsupbig] [bigwhistle]

Graham, P., Hayward, J., Foster J. and Havas, L. (2020). GenCost 2020-21: Consultation draft, CSIRO, Australia.

CSIRO Research Publications Repository

I've never claimed to be an expert, but I am trying to learn more.
This interesting article explains what 'baseloard power' actually means.
Many people, including me, assumed baseloard power meant the minimum power demand in the electricity grid, but that's wrong.
Baseloard power actually means the minimum level a generator can operate at before it has to shut down, like the idle engine speed in a vehicle. It was originally used to describe the minimum operating level of nuclear plants, and later extended to coal.
So coal generators were designed to have a baseloard operating level to match the minimum electricity demand, usually around 2-4am.
The coal plants were intended to operate continuously, because it is slow and expensive to turn them off and on.
Gas is different as it can quickly be stopped and started, while batteries are almost instant and pumped hydro is quick. Gas can operate continuously.
Solar and wind operate continuously while sun and wind are available. Their outputs can be stored in batteries to dispatch when needed.
So the better term to use is 'dispatchable power', meaning it is available when needed.
I've also read other sources which say similar things.
Interesting.

Baseload: Exploring the myths behind Australia's baseload power demand.