Thread: Grid can go 75% renewable

Interesting thing about the Callide coal plant failure is the 10% of Qld's lost power from the explosion has been quickly replaced from other sources. With plans accelerated for a second pumped hydro plant, 5 big batteries and $75m of upgraded transmission lines from a new solar farm in FNQ, it shows there are alternatives to coal plants as they wear out.

But coal is still the cheapest from an existing plant at about 4C per Kwh.

Again they misrepresent batteries as producing power. They don't.

If the battery had been flat when the explosion happened , there would have been no compensation.
Regards PhilipA

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Interesting thing about the Callide coal plant failure is the 10% of Qld's lost power from the explosion has been quickly replaced from other sources. With plans accelerated for a second pumped hydro plant, 5 big batteries and $75m of upgraded transmission lines from a new solar farm in FNQ, it shows there are alternatives to coal plants as they wear out.

Wow, that's like saying 1 + 1 = 3. How on earth did you jump to that conclusion? 10% coverage = total coverage? "All wood burns states Sir Bedivere, therefore he concludes all that burns is wood"

Its simple. The Callide plant where the turbine failed produced about 10% and tripped two other plants so the triple shut down totalled about 30%. The other two restarted, but the damaged plant remains shut. Other sources replaced it.

Solar and wind are the cheapest because they have no fuel costs - sun and wind are free. Coal is only competitive when renewables are idle.
Batteries get discharged and recharged.

Originally Posted by PhilipA

But coal is still the cheapest from an existing plant at about 4C per Kwh.

Again they misrepresent batteries as producing power. They don't.

If the battery had been flat when the explosion happened , there would have been no compensation.
Regards PhilipA

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Its simple. The Callide plant where the turbine failed produced about 10% and tripped two other plants so the triple shut down totalled about 30%. The other two restarted, but the damaged plant remains shut. Other sources replaced it.

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.

Solar and wind are the cheapest because they have no fuel costs - sun and wind are free. Coal is only competitive when renewables are idle.
Batteries get discharged and recharged.

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

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Solar and wind are the cheapest because they have no fuel costs - sun and wind are free. Coal is only competitive when renewables are idle.
Batteries get discharged and recharged.

by that logic, coal is free too.