Thread: Big storm and no power in SA

I will be free of the grid with our next house, i think a lot more should be going this way too.

Until we can work out a way to effectively and economically store the electricity produced by "Renewables" we will be dependant on power stations included in the Grid for continuity of supply, It really is that simple.
For some insane reason we are still using Coal and gas powered stations when we have a ready supply of uranium that is being pretty much ignored and has been put into the "Too Hard" basket.

Originally Posted by Vern

I will be free of the grid with our next house, i think a lot more should be going this way too.

Fine for a house. There was one featured in The Oz's weekend mag a couple of months ago. It cost around 25k, and was going to do so again when the panels and batteries needed replacing. Useless for industry and high density housing, not to mention hospitals, where stable synchronous grid power isn't merely desirable, it's life or death. But, sure, if I ever achieve my 'tree change' dream then I'll most likely do the same thing, but it won't be for AGW, which I simply don't believe in, it will be to avoid the costs that chasing the AGW myth has placed on us all.

Originally Posted by Homestar

While I agree with what's being said there John, that completely fails to take into account the cost to society if we don't move to renewable energy.

That's because the guy who wrote it doesn't subscribe to the whole "CO2 is a pollutant" meme. Nor do I. That doesn't mean that I don't want to see a phasing out of coal, but that I see no need for it in such a drastically flawed way as we are pursuing at the moment.

Originally Posted by trout1105

Until we can work out a way to effectively and economically store the electricity produced by "Renewables" we will be dependant on power stations included in the Grid for continuity of supply, It really is that simple.
For some insane reason we are still using Coal and gas powered stations when we have a ready supply of uranium that is being pretty much ignored and has been put into the "Too Hard" basket.

Agree, nukes are the answer. Central Australia is perhaps the most geological stable place on the planet, so no Fukushima worries there. But using coal and gas will still be necessary to provide energy stability until such time as nukes get built. Seeing that they seem to be saying that it takes around 25 years to build and commission one, the sooner we get started the better, IMO.

Originally Posted by johntins

Fine for a house. There was one featured in The Oz's weekend mag a couple of months ago. It cost around 25k, and was going to do so again when the panels and batteries needed replacing. Useless for industry and high density housing, not to mention hospitals, where stable synchronous grid power isn't merely desirable, it's life or death. But, sure, if I ever achieve my 'tree change' dream then I'll most likely do the same thing, but it won't be for AGW, which I simply don't believe in, it will be to avoid the costs that chasing the AGW myth has placed on us all.

And thats fine with me, our tree change house cost us between $4-$5k a year in electricity. It will cost me $30k to do a stand alone system with gene back up. Battery life of min 15years, panels of min 25years, inverters min 10years (warranty time), you do the sums.

Originally Posted by Homestar

While I agree with what's being said there John, that completely fails to take into account the cost to society if we don't move to renewable energy.

I would agree with you there if the essential service, electricity, were in the control and ownership of the state. The state could move the country to a low emissions energy supply.
However, The state has sold off the essential service of electricity into the private sector with the mantra of "let the market determine".
With this in mind, the government should butt out. The market will determine whether we want expensive, intermittent wind or solar with or without expensive batteries, without subsidies or cheap coal generated power without levies.
Interference from the state is distorting the industry and costing us, the consumer. It is also costing us much endangered manufacturing jobs.

Governments make the rules, so the electricity system is still under the control of the state. Governments have decided we have to control emissions because we are already behind schedule to achieve the world target of keeping the rise in temperature to two degrees. That means coal has to be phased out. Finkel says coal will be down to about 20% by 2050. Even that won't be enough to stay within the two degree temperature rise. We are fouling our own nest, which is not logical, as Dr Spock might have said.
Banks and investors won't fund new coal or nuclear because they know they have a limited future, so they aren't an option. The investors are pouring into renewables because they know they are the future. Gas will provide an interim baseload until batteries become widespread, as the market forces down their cost. Energy companies have already begun installing battery banks in substations to provide local backup in each neighbourhood. Solar and wind plants will all include large battery banks.
These aren't theories, they are what is actually happening all around us.
Renewables are getting cheaper all the time — here's why - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Battery storage: How it could solve our energy problems - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)