Thread: has Australia dropped the ball on solar?

Rather than thinking of one system, we have to learn to think of a range of systems connected together to provide the same result as coal-fired baseload power.
For example, wind systems distributed over a wide area should always have some production occurring, thermal is another choice, solar can provide some direct power and gas can be a backup when a quick boost is needed.


The current system already operates like this by connecting interstate grids as coal fired stations can't be quickly started and stopped.


Its just a different way of thinking about how it can be done.


http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/de...lacyANZSEE.pdf


Denmark is well on the way to its target of 100% renewable energy by 2050, abandoning coal, oil and gas, and has developed a big export industry in its technologies. It is looking at storing wind power in heat pumps.


http://www.dw.de/denmark-leads-the-c...rgy/a-17603695


It's going to happen. Our choice is either to ignore what's happening elsewhere or else get on board. Already we're at 15% renewable and 20,000 jobs, but that is at risk because of the current government's old-fashioned outdated ideas, which are threatening future jobs.

Originally Posted by rovercare

Are YOU prepared to pay the bill?

Yes I AM prepared to pay, because if I don’t pay then my children and grand-children will pay a much higher cost. In terms of their health, environmental damage and in terms of future power costs.
I suspect the best way to pay, is via some sort of emissions trading scheme, but if a so called “carbon tax” is required to drive the transition to renewables, then I’m happy to pay that.

However do remember that we are right now paying a significant price to use fossil fuels. Not just the energy cost, but through government subsidies to the industry, through damage to the environment, through damage to our health etc.
I’d much rather pay a cost that yields a better future than pay a cost which traps us in an unsustainable past.

Re the use of nuclear energy as Base load. I agree that nuclear has a role, but not large scale monolithic power stations which take a decade or so to plan and build, but small scale “modular” units which can be set up in months if necessary. Eg. Westinghouse SMR
There are many manufacturers around the world working on this technology and it’s much cheaper, safer and less “polluting” (in terms of radioactive waste) than the technology we’ve used in the past.

The future, using these small modular nuclear units, plus renewables, is a much more dispersed, and decentralised power network, where power is generated at many nodes rather than in a few huge power stations. This results in a much less costly and stressed network, less likelihood of power disruptions due to weather, breakdowns or sabotage, and an opportunity for local communities to invest in and take ownership of power generation, and perhaps even distribution. So the power system becomes “democratised”. Is that a bad thing?

I also like the idea that for me, living in a rural community, it could act as a catalyst for decentralisation of our economy and our political system. In SA where I live, the economy and the political system are incredibly centralised around Adelaide... the regions are only an afterthought (though we do generate much of the state’s wealth).
In Australia, the most urbanised and centralised country in the world, any move to decentralise power (in both senses) has to be a healthy thing.

Alan

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Rather than thinking of one system, we have to learn to think of a range of systems connected together to provide the same result as coal-fired baseload power.
For example, wind systems distributed over a wide area should always have some production occurring, thermal is another choice, solar can provide some direct power and gas can be a backup when a quick boost is needed.


The current system already operates like this by connecting interstate grids as coal fired stations can't be quickly started and stopped.


Its just a different way of thinking about how it can be done.


http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/de...lacyANZSEE.pdf


Denmark is well on the way to its target of 100% renewable energy by 2050, abandoning coal, oil and gas, and has developed a big export industry in its technologies. It is looking at storing wind power in heat pumps.


Denmark leads the charge in renewable energy | European Elections 2014 | DW.DE | 02.05.2014


It's going to happen. Our choice is either to ignore what's happening elsewhere or else get on board. Already we're at 15% renewable and 20,000 jobs, but that is at risk because of the current government's old-fashioned outdated ideas, which are threatening future jobs.

Again, nothing plausible on the how to, lots of slander though

Again, not sustainable in a sensible manner and at 20-30% even %40, it an excellent supplement...which I agree with by the way

Until you can run a atleast a 200ishMW turbogenset continuously, on renewable energy, you wont be using it for baseload generation

The unspoken parts of how the grid works, utelising turbogenerators for lead/lag for frequency control on the grid......voltage fluctuations due to green energy and the fact that inverters used both with wind and PV, all need to raise grid voltage to 'push' electricity in the grid, again, when everybody is trying to rise grid voltage it gets difficult to control

I spent more than a few years working in mud burners, and in the distribution network and currently work in a remote facility in PNG with our own grid and 7 gas fired generators in PNG, also the last few years putting up a lot of rooftop solar....2 10KW's to do in a few weeks.....so I have seen a bit about power generation

Keep in mind the Danes are hooked to the eastern European electricity grid and no one mentions import/export figures, not that articles like this or governments would ever skew the figures and of course, eastern Europe is almost entirely fuelled on rose pettles and good intentions

Originally Posted by Rurover

Yes I AM prepared to pay, because if I don’t pay then my children and grand-children will pay a much higher cost. In terms of their health, environmental damage and in terms of future power costs.
I suspect the best way to pay, is via some sort of emissions trading scheme, but if a so called “carbon tax” is required to drive the transition to renewables, then I’m happy to pay that.

However do remember that we are right now paying a significant price to use fossil fuels. Not just the energy cost, but through government subsidies to the industry, through damage to the environment, through damage to our health etc.
I’d much rather pay a cost that yields a better future than pay a cost which traps us in an unsustainable past.

Re the use of nuclear energy as Base load. I agree that nuclear has a role, but not large scale monolithic power stations which take a decade or so to plan and build, but small scale “modular” units which can be set up in months if necessary. Eg. Westinghouse SMR
There are many manufacturers around the world working on this technology and it’s much cheaper, safer and less “polluting” (in terms of radioactive waste) than the technology we’ve used in the past.

The future, using these small modular nuclear units, plus renewables, is a much more dispersed, and decentralised power network, where power is generated at many nodes rather than in a few huge power stations. This results in a much less costly and stressed network, less likelihood of power disruptions due to weather, breakdowns or sabotage, and an opportunity for local communities to invest in and take ownership of power generation, and perhaps even distribution. So the power system becomes “democratised”. Is that a bad thing?

I also like the idea that for me, living in a rural community, it could act as a catalyst for decentralisation of our economy and our political system. In SA where I live, the economy and the political system are incredibly centralised around Adelaide... the regions are only an afterthought (though we do generate much of the state’s wealth).
In Australia, the most urbanised and centralised country in the world, any move to decentralise power (in both senses) has to be a healthy thing.

Alan

So you are prepared to pay for it....tell me, are you grid connected? where does your power come from now? who is your retailer and energy agreement if its 'green'?

How does industry cope? (not that we will have much left soon enough) There is facility's that have feeders supplying solely them, its not the domestic household that suffers so much with the grid problems its heavy commercial/industrial....domestic does in large populous in remote locations

You do have some great points earlier in regards to smart meters, and that is full well there intent, load shedding has gone on forever, but no they can disperse it over whole massive area's, where as before it was centralized to only feeders which supplied housing with non critical consumers

The possibility's increase as the level of service decreases, that's the purpose reliable baseload generation serves....starting convincing business that you should be able to load shed them, have unusual frequency/voltage(where everything can work fine, but is detrimental to the service life of things with elements/windings) and you are off to a start

Oh well, it appears that we are not going to loose the:

1) Clean Energy Finance Corporation
2) The independent Climate Change Authority
3) RET will stay without the proposed amendments
The Solar Council is happy with the PUP support.

Some times we have to have good news