It is hard to keep track of the varying views regarding the economic feasibility and energy potential of the different modes for generating electricity. There seem to be so many different views about what can and can’t work.
Professor Barry Brook, http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26330976-5006301,00.html a well respected climate change scientist at the University of Adelaide’writes today that “Nuclear power is the only proven electricity generation technology that can simultaneously meet reliable baseload demand, anywhere, and yet emit no carbon dioxide when operating, ” and says that France generates nearly 80 per cent of its electricity this way. He also details how just switching from coal to gas for generating baseload electricity will not be able to address greenshouse targets..
Meanwhile, http://www.ipsterraviva.net/Europe/article.aspx?id=8032 this report states that “wind energy notched up a new record in Spain on Sunday, when it generated 53 percent of total electricity demand nationwide for part of the day”, before going on to suggest wind generating capacity could be quadrupled, including exporting more of that power to France. It also details how energy generated through wind power is able to saved for times of highest demand.
About the only thing that seems widely accepted is that continuing to expand coal use is like continuing to run further away from the finish line. Naturally, Queensland is currently spending billions of dollars to enable an expansion of coal exports, while privatising coal rail andenergy port infrastructure, making it even more difficult to take any action to reduce coal exports.
It is hard to keep track of the varying views regarding the economic feasibility and energy potential of the different modes for generating electricity. There seem to be so many different views about what can and can’t work.
Professor Barry Brook, a well respected climate change scientist at the University of Adelaide, writes today that “Nuclear power is the only proven electricity generation technology that can simultaneously meet reliable baseload demand, anywhere, and yet emit no carbon dioxide when operating, ” and says that France generates nearly 80 per cent of its electricity this way. He also details how just switching from coal to gas for generating baseload electricity will not be able to address greenshouse targets.
Meanwhile, this report states that “wind energy notched up a new record in Spain on Sunday, when it generated 53 percent of total electricity demand nationwide for part of the day”, before going on to suggest wind generating capacity could be quadrupled, including exporting more of that power to France. It also details how energy generated through wind power is able to be saved for times of highest demand.
About the only thing that commonly widely accepted is that continuing to expand coal use is like continuing to run further away from the finish line. Naturally, Queensland is currently spending billions of dollars to enable an expansion of coal exports, while privatising coal rail and port infrastructure, making it even more difficult to take any action to reduce coal exports.
18 Comments
Also in that report:
“For years, Spain has planned to increase its interconnection with France by 2014, but work has not yet begun, due to opposition by environmental organisations because of potential ecological damage.”
Doesn’t that just speak volumes. Clearly, many environmental organisations are incapable of understanding the first two words in that ‘think globally, act locally’ slogan. Nay, they can’t even get past the first word.
A recent study in Spain reports that 2.2 jobs are lost for every one created via wind. Worse, Spanish and Danish CO2 emissions are up in spite of wind. Germany is building numerous new coal power stations. UK is going nuclear again. Australia is also under nuclear threat. As wind capacity rises towards and beyond 10% of the total, backup powergen has to be added. The more wind, the more fossil fuel backup. Wind is pure idiocy both from an economic and an environmental viewpoint. Wind’s extreme intermittency makes it useless. Continental high pressure systems create peak demand, precisely when wind is at zero or close to it, so the regional spread of turbines is fairly pointless. Most surplus wind energy in Europe is dumped on the grid at peppercorn prices, precisely because it is usually available when least needed.
Wind is a vast corporate scam and 100% subsidised by the consumer. No grid manager would touch wind- they have to be forced by legislation to take it. The tragedy is that people think that wind is a solution to environmental disaster, thereby inadvertently facilitating it. Miniscule resources are being put into other renewables, so they remain undeveloped. Where am I coming from? Green Left.
And I haven’t even mentioned the appalling effects of turbines on local communities, birds, bats etc.
Andrew,
the energy storage technology discussed in that report is “pumped hydro” – essentially, you pump water uphill when you’ve got a surplus of power, and run it back through your hydroelectric power station when you have a deficit. You can even do the same thing without a pumping station – simply switch your hydro station off when the wind is blowing, if your hydro power station is water limited (and they virtually all are in Australia).
This isn’t new – they were doing this, for instance, with the Snowy scheme decades ago.
Unfortunately, particularly in the Australian context, hydroelectricity is a piddle in the ocean of demand, and can’t be expanded much.
Without some kind of energy storage attached to it, Frank’s view on wind is not far from the truth- wind is largely useless and sucks desperately needed resources from renewable technologies that *do* integrate better with the grid.
I don’t think any single energy source is a silver bullet, and all need to be considered carefully. I fully support developing Nuclear in Australia, but don’t pretend that this will solve everything, not in the least because it will take decades to come online. That being said, the longer we wait to start the longer we have to wait at the other end.
As much as I’m generally supportive of the Australian Greens, I do find there blanket refusal of Nuclear as counter-productive and the ‘wind and solar not coal and nuclear’ slogan is pretty empty. Base load wind/solar is as least a far off as baseload nuclear, if it is even possible, so I don’t find this a constructive contribution.
I’d be interested to hear what you proposal as alternative renewable technologies Frank, since you seem to have some knowledge in this area. I’ve heard conflicting things about geo-thermal as well as non-PV solar including various systems such as using heated sodium (of all things!?) to store energy for extraction at night. What does a well designed renewables grid look like?
Andrew:
I really can’t believe you’re saying this:
wind energy notched up a new record in Spain on Sunday, when it generated 53 percent of total electricity demand nationwide for part of the day
This is supposed to be something to marvel at? Jeez Louise.
The only solution is nuclear and anyone concerned with AGW who continues to peddle a propeller on a stick is an anti-science denialist. Period.
Robert, there are heaps of energy storage options, some of which will come in at reasonable prices in the right situation. Check out the Electricity Storage Association’s website. They’re a US organisation.
Bogdanivist, coincidentally, I’m at the Aussie Geothermal Energy Conference right now. Things are chugging along nicely. Most prospective projects are in the middle of the Cooper Basin in NE SA/ SW Qld, and a long way from transmission lines. There’s heaps of potential generation to be extracted out there, but unlikely to produce a kWh until 2013. Geodynamics and Petratherm recently gained REDP grant funding from the Dept Of Resouces, Energy and Tourism (DRET). Details of their projects should be available on line.
I also know a bit about renewables, even have a degree in them, and strongly disagree with the nonsense that has been spouted on this thread. Sure, all generating technologies have drawbacks. Coal produces CO2 and wrecks rivers. Nuclear is slow to build and poisons the Earth for 100,000 years. Wind and solar are intermittent. Geothermal is in the middle of the desert.
But, none of the technical challenges are impossible. Keith Lovegrove from ANU is fond of saying that ALL of Australia, including the customary solar capacity factor of about .25, could be powered by a solar thermal plant 134k x 134k in area, situated west of Moree. Some people act shocked at what a large area it is; I on the other hand think it’s a surprisinly small area. All of our energy!
So, my ideal grid. Close all the brown coal generators and replace them with peaking gas turbines. This will cover the intermittency of the renewables and reduce the emissions from the brown coal kWh by 70% or so. 6 years is a reasonable time frame to do this and would meet our 25% CO2 reduction target. Roll out the wind turbines. Big buggers, anywhere the community wants them. This idea that they’re not economical or produce useful power is unbelievable nonsense. Of course they’re economical! Why else do companies keep building them! Also, lets’ build some huge thermal plants. There’s half a dozen ways to store solar thermal energy. Check out Wizard Power and LLoyd Energy; 2 very different proposals for the same outcome.
Contrary to JC123’s poorly constructed troll above, there are no technical reasons why we can’t power Australia 100% on renewables. Costs, definitely, but no technical reasons.
Evan Beaver wrote:
To put that into perspective, I grew up on a sheep station which covered about 80 x 80km. So Lovegrove is basically saying we could power the whole country from 1.6 medium sized sheep stations.
Many of the problems in Indigenous communities could be solved, or at least eased, if local jobs were available. Given that many remote communities are in prime solar radiation areas, building solar farms dotted across the country staffed from these communities could solve more than our energy problems. I’m told that high voltage DC transmission lines make this feasible.
The coincidences keep coming.
Just sat through a presentation on the relative advantages and disadvantages of HVAC and HVDC power transmission, by Mai Nguyen from UQ. There are 2 major differences.
HVDC is cheaper over any distance greater than about 350km.
Also, HVDC doesn’t have an upper distance for active power losses. To clarify; with some HVAC lines, they are just so long it doesn’t matter how much power you put in, nothing comes out the other end. HVDC doesn’t experience this.
Better run. Another talk on now about alternate energy transmission options.
Sorry for essentially live tweeting the conference, but just saw a talk on transmitting power long distances using hydrolysis/methanation processes. Use the energy to make methane, using waste CO2 through the process, then pump the CH4. An example was given of using the Cooper basin geothermal projects and the waste CO2 from the Moombah gas plant. There’s a pipeline into the gas grid there, and the energy could be pumped straight in. Fascinating.
Re: the 2.2 jobs destroyed quote, have a read of this link, which is a good analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf
Birds and bats strike rates are low to non-existent. Avifauna studies during the planning phase are undertaken by independent consultants and determine any unacceptable risks.
I haven’t seen a continent size high press system. We don’t build wind farms expressly to cover peak demands.
Everyone’s totally right about the baseload requirements, though. I absolutely agree! I mean, clearly we should extend that to all things limited by natural variability. My baseload rainfall requirements (build desal), my baseload daylight requirements (build sun), my baseload getting laid requirements (build god)… The list does indeed go on!
Cheers,
jc123 – “Andrew:
I really can’t believe you’re saying this:
wind energy notched up a new record in Spain on Sunday, when it generated 53 percent of total electricity demand nationwide for part of the day
This is supposed to be something to marvel at? Jeez Louise.”
Yes it is. It’s an extraordinary figure even if only transient, and shows how far renewable energy (except for nations lucky enough to have sizeable hydro resources) has come.
“The only solution is nuclear and anyone concerned with AGW who continues to peddle a propeller on a stick is an anti-science denialist. Period.”
Nuclear as we know it (ie excluding breeder reactors which have been around in prototype form since 1953 and still DON’T WORK) is at best a useful supplemental source for specific regions without clear alternatives – there just isn’t enough uranium 235 for there to be a world-wide change-over. Wind by itself isn’t a solution – but neither is nuclear, neither is solar etc etc. The low-emission grid of the future will have a variety of complementary sources feeding into it.
Evan, if you get the chance, can you ask someone from Geodynamics how their in-situ permeability and heat exchange is holding up between Habanero 1 and Habanero 3? Doone Wyborn’s talk this morning would be the one to watch. Wish I was there.
Shouldn’t have any trouble getting there Marl; apart from a crushing hangover. Surprised you’re not here actually.
On Nuclear.
Did a quick straw poll over dinner last night, among essentially a group of geologists. Sure, they’re all here for a geothermal conference, but I suspect they’d find work in either case. Asked 10 people if ‘do you think Australia should start a nuclear power industry’ ie; mining, enrichment, generation and storage. Only 1 was in favour. All the others sighted the long lead time and small impact on emissions in the short term as their reason.
Mark, saw Doone’s talk, which was fascinating, but had missed the boat on the tech details on the heat exchanger. However, I got a copy of an earlier presentation from one of their tech guys. It’s commercial in confidence, but I can give you some info from it. On Twitter? I’m @evcricket. I won’t post my email address for fear of spam.
@Evan despite misgivings (always said I wouldn’t go here), I’ve assumed a twitter id @duffett. Our budgetary circumstances this FY are such that we’re lucky to get to a meeting across town, let alone a conference interstate. And I’m not quite so interested as to go entirely on my own time. Looking forward to more details.
Evan:
So would you ask a dentist for an oncological opinion and accept it as gospel?
JC – please go back to troll school and brush up on your skills.
Thanks for the blog Andrew. We are going to need a mix of energy solutions but good to see that wind is gaining traction. Nuclear on its own won’t solve the problem.
Turlough
http://au.linkedin.com/in/turloughguerin
http://twitter.com/Turlough_Guerin