Amongst the torrent of stuff that got missed in the fun and games this week was the Senate passing amendments to the renewable energy target scheme.
The large-scale renewable energy industry – which, at this point in time, basically means wind power – has been in trouble for the past couple of years, and it’s our fault. We’ve been too concerned for the environment. Particularly when state governments throw additional subsidies at us to be concerned. As such, solar hot water systems and solar panels have been appearing on rooftops nationwide. As well as generating hot water and a small amount of electricity, they generate an accounting unit known as a renewable energy certificate. Each system only generates a few, but get enough of them installed and you have a glut of REC’s on the market. Power companies need only purchase enough of them to meet their government-allocated target. As such, the price of REC’s goes down, and building new large-scale wind farms becomes uneconomic.
Enter the new scheme, as explained on this fact sheet. In short, the MRET will be split in two: a large-scale renewable energy target for wind – and possibly geothermal and large-scale solar, if they ever become competitive – which operates like the current MRET, and a separate scheme for small-scale domestic installations, which fixes the price for credits at $40 for these, however many systems are installed, and (as best I can figure from the fact sheet) obliges electricity retailers to buy their share of these, however much domestic solar is installed.
From what I’ve been able to read, the wind farmers are happy, but the solar panel installers arenot, because the bill contains a mechanism to reduce the small-scale credit price in future.
As far as the climate goes, meh. Whatever the solution to clean electricity is, wind energy without storage to back it up is not it, and never will be. Until somebody figures out how to store wind energy, we may as well just replace coal with natural gas. We’ll be burning just as much gas in peaking plants to cover for wind’s flakiness anyway.
MRET Bill can not be seen in isolation or end framework…but a road to 20% R E by 2020 for Co2 reduction Anti Labor people critical of there CC actions find this area convenent to ignore , and 600 million in 2010 Budget along this line
Ferguson’s Dept is also running and pans for even more complex tests on capacity , tech , cost and efectiveness of grid for Wind , Solar , go thermal , bio etc plus CP & S , but with typical little MSN cover , suppose subject is not sensationalism enough
MRET Bill can not be seen in isolation or end framework…but a road to 20% R E by 2020 for Co2 reduction Anti Labor people critical of there CC actions find this area convenent to ignore , and 600 million in 2010 Budget along this line
Ferguson’s Dept is also running and pans for even more complex tests on capacity , tech , cost and efectiveness of grid for Wind , Solar , go thermal , bio etc plus CP & S , but with typical little MSN cover , suppose subject is not sensationalism enough
So, when are we getting our first Gig of Solar Power?
So, when are we getting our first Gig of Solar Power?
Robert Merkel: “We’ll be burning just as much gas in peaking plants to cover for wind’s flakiness anyway.”
Proof please.
Do you have a report that shows this, or are you just postulating?
If you have a report, could you share the link with us?
Robert Merkel: “We’ll be burning just as much gas in peaking plants to cover for wind’s flakiness anyway.”
Proof please.
Do you have a report that shows this, or are you just postulating?
If you have a report, could you share the link with us?
Similarly, whatever the solution to clean electricity is, solar without storage to back it up is not it, and never will be.
The future lies in a mix of supply, suitable for whichever grid or section of the grid is in question. The only definate is no coal.
Similarly, whatever the solution to clean electricity is, solar without storage to back it up is not it, and never will be.
The future lies in a mix of supply, suitable for whichever grid or section of the grid is in question. The only definate is no coal.
Keithy @2, as of May this year, we have 120 MW of rooftop solar.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/what-you-need-to-know/renewable-energy/solar-homes/history.aspx
Click on “Watts Installed by Month” to get an Excel graph and tables.
The growth rate, according to my calibrated eyeballs, is approximate DOUBLING of capacity installed year-to-year since the start of 2008. If that continued, the current 120 MW could reach 1 GW in a bit over 3 years.
THREE YEARS! Yikes that’s fast!!! Correct me if I am wrong.
Keithy @2, as of May this year, we have 120 MW of rooftop solar.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/what-you-need-to-know/renewable-energy/solar-homes/history.aspx
Click on “Watts Installed by Month” to get an Excel graph and tables.
The growth rate, according to my calibrated eyeballs, is approximate DOUBLING of capacity installed year-to-year since the start of 2008. If that continued, the current 120 MW could reach 1 GW in a bit over 3 years.
THREE YEARS! Yikes that’s fast!!! Correct me if I am wrong.
True, sounds fastish!
True, sounds fastish!
…it’s just that if we don’t start hitting multiples of GWs, instead of MWs, then we will never cut into baseload territory i.e. the addiction part of carbon emmisions!
…it’s just that if we don’t start hitting multiples of GWs, instead of MWs, then we will never cut into baseload territory i.e. the addiction part of carbon emmisions!
You could start with the last link in the post, Elise.
You could start with the last link in the post, Elise.
From BNC blog of Barry Brook:-
From BNC blog of Barry Brook:-
oh-oh! (?)
oh-oh! (?)
@TerjeP – from the wikipage on nuclear power in Australia (emphasis mine):
I find it odd that environmentalists are against (the poll says 78% of Greens) what appears to be the only viable option for clean energy production. Most of Europe seems to have come on board – why are Aussies so against it?
@TerjeP – from the wikipage on nuclear power in Australia (emphasis mine):
I find it odd that environmentalists are against (the poll says 78% of Greens) what appears to be the only viable option for clean energy production. Most of Europe seems to have come on board – why are Aussies so against it?
Not another nuclear debate guys, please.
Not another nuclear debate guys, please.
Elise, when you take into account solar capacity factors it’s roughly the equivalent of 30 megawatts of coal or gas capacity, and it cost (when you take away the subsidies) pretty close to a billion dollars.
Solar panels on roofs are even more expensive non-solution at this point in time.
Elise, when you take into account solar capacity factors it’s roughly the equivalent of 30 megawatts of coal or gas capacity, and it cost (when you take away the subsidies) pretty close to a billion dollars.
Solar panels on roofs are even more expensive non-solution at this point in time.
An MRET is better than an ETS in that the outcome is a ramping up of the average price of electricity instead of the the average price of electricity having to be pushed high enough to justify investment in clean electricity as required by an ETS or carbon tax. However, there is still the risk of artificial supply limitations if investors under-estimate power requirements. In addition, there is the risk to investors of a dramatic drop in the value of credits if over-investment results in a surplus of clean electricity. It would be a lot smarter to use a series of contracts for the supply of cleaner electricity to drive investment in clean electricity. Gives greater investor certainty and avoids the risk of artificial supply limitations.
The other problem is the focus on renewables. In this post it is argued that there is a strong case for using gas fired generation as a transition to some pure green power generation. If we must have an MRET it would make more sense to have a target for tonnes CO2/mWh instead of % renewables. (Credits being given for below target emissions and required for above target emissions with the target ramping down over time.) The attraction of this approach is that it encourages any action that reduces emissions/mWh.
It is worth noting that a MRET style scheme is ideal for driving down the average fuel consumption of new cars.
An MRET is better than an ETS in that the outcome is a ramping up of the average price of electricity instead of the the average price of electricity having to be pushed high enough to justify investment in clean electricity as required by an ETS or carbon tax. However, there is still the risk of artificial supply limitations if investors under-estimate power requirements. In addition, there is the risk to investors of a dramatic drop in the value of credits if over-investment results in a surplus of clean electricity. It would be a lot smarter to use a series of contracts for the supply of cleaner electricity to drive investment in clean electricity. Gives greater investor certainty and avoids the risk of artificial supply limitations.
The other problem is the focus on renewables. In this post it is argued that there is a strong case for using gas fired generation as a transition to some pure green power generation. If we must have an MRET it would make more sense to have a target for tonnes CO2/mWh instead of % renewables. (Credits being given for below target emissions and required for above target emissions with the target ramping down over time.) The attraction of this approach is that it encourages any action that reduces emissions/mWh.
It is worth noting that a MRET style scheme is ideal for driving down the average fuel consumption of new cars.
Robert – there isn’t any need for a nuclear debate and if there is a debate then it’s a bit of a false one. Nuclear is the safest source of electricity. Nuclear is the lowest cost source of zero CO2 emission electricity (by a very long country mile). Nuclear power is already the most prominant source of zero CO2 emission electricity providing nearly 15% of the worlds electricity. Other than hydro electricity nuclear power is the most commercially proven and established zero CO2 emission source of electricity.
Denmark is the worlds most successful in terms of establishing wind as a source of electric power. And in terms of displacing coal fired power stations it has been a utter failure. In terms or reducing CO2 emissions it has been an utter failure. Why should we use a policy instrument such as MRET to mandate failure? Surely we should seek benchmarks of success, such as France, rather than trying to emulate those that have failed, such as Denmark. How can the safest most abundant source of zero CO2 emission energy not be on the table? Why must we fiddle endlessly with windmills that achieve nothing in the way of tangible outcomes. Why should maddness be allowed to triumph over folly?
Robert – there isn’t any need for a nuclear debate and if there is a debate then it’s a bit of a false one. Nuclear is the safest source of electricity. Nuclear is the lowest cost source of zero CO2 emission electricity (by a very long country mile). Nuclear power is already the most prominant source of zero CO2 emission electricity providing nearly 15% of the worlds electricity. Other than hydro electricity nuclear power is the most commercially proven and established zero CO2 emission source of electricity.
Denmark is the worlds most successful in terms of establishing wind as a source of electric power. And in terms of displacing coal fired power stations it has been a utter failure. In terms or reducing CO2 emissions it has been an utter failure. Why should we use a policy instrument such as MRET to mandate failure? Surely we should seek benchmarks of success, such as France, rather than trying to emulate those that have failed, such as Denmark. How can the safest most abundant source of zero CO2 emission energy not be on the table? Why must we fiddle endlessly with windmills that achieve nothing in the way of tangible outcomes. Why should maddness be allowed to triumph over folly?
Fluffed that last sentence but hopefully you know what I meant.
Fluffed that last sentence but hopefully you know what I meant.
John D: while we are going to continue to agree to disagree over an ETS, I think we’re in complete agreement on the focus on renewables.
Terje, I don’t disagree with you on nuclear, but given that’s been taken off the table for the moment the choices for cleaner electricity are renewables, gas, or using less. Combined-cycle gas has the advantages of being much, much cleaner than coal, and barely any dirtier than renewables plus peaking gas. Furthermore, gas plants are quick, uncontroversial, and don’t involve a lot of capital expenditure so they don’t lock you in to bad decisions like new-build coal does. Therefore, building gas isn’t a bad short-term option.
John D: while we are going to continue to agree to disagree over an ETS, I think we’re in complete agreement on the focus on renewables.
Terje, I don’t disagree with you on nuclear, but given that’s been taken off the table for the moment the choices for cleaner electricity are renewables, gas, or using less. Combined-cycle gas has the advantages of being much, much cleaner than coal, and barely any dirtier than renewables plus peaking gas. Furthermore, gas plants are quick, uncontroversial, and don’t involve a lot of capital expenditure so they don’t lock you in to bad decisions like new-build coal does. Therefore, building gas isn’t a bad short-term option.
Robert
I think the more interesting political question is how many people predisposed to or open to giving the ALP their effective preferences (especially in marginals where an NPP might go) would desert to the coalition if the ALP proposed to revisit the question with an open mind?
I suspect that if the ALP kept the discussion evidence-based and dispassionate, the answer would be — almost nobody. It’s not as if the coalition could put itself forward as part of a campaign to resists nuclear power without looking utterly opportunistic and unprincipled AND wedging itself serious in the process. They are on paper as favouring a debate.
That’s not really germane to this topic, which is about MRETs — which for the record, I oppose, along with FiTs — and also for the record, as an interim measure, it is clear that until and unless we get our act together and start building nuclear capacity, gas is the lesser evil compared with coal, and will absolutely be necessary if we are to get any use at all out of the existing renewable capacity we have.
It does underline a basic point though — the push for intermittents in the energy system amounts in practice to a demand for more gas at the expense of coal. Gas becomes the new “green” alternative. Perhaps that could be the slogan — Green gas — you know it makes sense.
Robert
I think the more interesting political question is how many people predisposed to or open to giving the ALP their effective preferences (especially in marginals where an NPP might go) would desert to the coalition if the ALP proposed to revisit the question with an open mind?
I suspect that if the ALP kept the discussion evidence-based and dispassionate, the answer would be — almost nobody. It’s not as if the coalition could put itself forward as part of a campaign to resists nuclear power without looking utterly opportunistic and unprincipled AND wedging itself serious in the process. They are on paper as favouring a debate.
That’s not really germane to this topic, which is about MRETs — which for the record, I oppose, along with FiTs — and also for the record, as an interim measure, it is clear that until and unless we get our act together and start building nuclear capacity, gas is the lesser evil compared with coal, and will absolutely be necessary if we are to get any use at all out of the existing renewable capacity we have.
It does underline a basic point though — the push for intermittents in the energy system amounts in practice to a demand for more gas at the expense of coal. Gas becomes the new “green” alternative. Perhaps that could be the slogan — Green gas — you know it makes sense.
Energy storage technologies are coming down the track, they they far more advanced than those diddy green nukes that Fran loves.
My modelling shows that as little as 12 kWh storage in each household in Oz would enable the total utilisation of all intermittent wind and solar resources. The electricity supply network would become a huge mesh that stores redistributes energy on demand. Peaking plant would not be required as such a system would provide at least 20 GW of peaking capacity. The ADMD would drop from the present 3-4 kVA to about 1.2 kVA. Cost ? A lot less than a nuclear program. Just keep adding intermittent renewables until you can close down all the coal fired stuff and add in a bit of gas.
But WTF the stupid will want nuclear because they are just.. stupid. I am so over the really dumb nuclear touts.
Huggy
Energy storage technologies are coming down the track, they they far more advanced than those diddy green nukes that Fran loves.
My modelling shows that as little as 12 kWh storage in each household in Oz would enable the total utilisation of all intermittent wind and solar resources. The electricity supply network would become a huge mesh that stores redistributes energy on demand. Peaking plant would not be required as such a system would provide at least 20 GW of peaking capacity. The ADMD would drop from the present 3-4 kVA to about 1.2 kVA. Cost ? A lot less than a nuclear program. Just keep adding intermittent renewables until you can close down all the coal fired stuff and add in a bit of gas.
But WTF the stupid will want nuclear because they are just.. stupid. I am so over the really dumb nuclear touts.
Huggy
Huggy – nuclear is proven safe and reliable with a track record that spans 50 years. It already provides 15% of the planets electricity. It is CO2 emission free energy. And you want us to sit on out hands and wait for something that might happen one day down the track, possibly. I’m not against delay but if we are going to delay let’s just stick with coal until all your miracle innovations materialise.
Huggy – nuclear is proven safe and reliable with a track record that spans 50 years. It already provides 15% of the planets electricity. It is CO2 emission free energy. And you want us to sit on out hands and wait for something that might happen one day down the track, possibly. I’m not against delay but if we are going to delay let’s just stick with coal until all your miracle innovations materialise.
Could we please get back to the merits of the RET changes?
For what it’s worth, the RET is a subsidy to commercialize renewable technologies. As such, wind is thoroughly commercialized and pretty mature (and a dud). So why not (as the tories have proposed in the past) reserve some of it for non-wind renewables?
Could we please get back to the merits of the RET changes?
For what it’s worth, the RET is a subsidy to commercialize renewable technologies. As such, wind is thoroughly commercialized and pretty mature (and a dud). So why not (as the tories have proposed in the past) reserve some of it for non-wind renewables?
From an electricity greenhouse emissions point of view what really matters are the amount of CO2 emitted over the next 40 yrs and the emissions/kWh at the end of that period. From the political point of view the issue is what we are going to do in the short term and what the economic/political pain associated with this is.
I would hope that by 2050 our emissions/kWh would be less than 95%. We don’t know what the generation mix will be in 2050 because there are a range of technology advances going on at the moment both in terms of existing technologies (such as wind and solar PV), technologies that are yet to be proven (such as hot rock) and possibly things we haven’t even thought of yet.
In terms of the 40 yr emission reduction there are numerous ways of meeting specific targets including going straight to pure green technology and transition approaches that use technologies such as CCGT (gas fired). One important thing to understand here is the best economic/political result is not going to be obtained by a steady ramping down of emissions. As discussed in this earlier post on the case for a natural gas transition the best results will be obtained by rapidly replacing coal fired with CCGT followed by a period where there is little action before the replacement of gas fired begins. This means that we need something far more direct than either MRET or ETS to drive this surge of conversion to CCGT.
From an electricity greenhouse emissions point of view what really matters are the amount of CO2 emitted over the next 40 yrs and the emissions/kWh at the end of that period. From the political point of view the issue is what we are going to do in the short term and what the economic/political pain associated with this is.
I would hope that by 2050 our emissions/kWh would be less than 95%. We don’t know what the generation mix will be in 2050 because there are a range of technology advances going on at the moment both in terms of existing technologies (such as wind and solar PV), technologies that are yet to be proven (such as hot rock) and possibly things we haven’t even thought of yet.
In terms of the 40 yr emission reduction there are numerous ways of meeting specific targets including going straight to pure green technology and transition approaches that use technologies such as CCGT (gas fired). One important thing to understand here is the best economic/political result is not going to be obtained by a steady ramping down of emissions. As discussed in this earlier post on the case for a natural gas transition the best results will be obtained by rapidly replacing coal fired with CCGT followed by a period where there is little action before the replacement of gas fired begins. This means that we need something far more direct than either MRET or ETS to drive this surge of conversion to CCGT.
I just don’t think there is a case for an MRET or FiT. One form of energy — fossil fuels — gets a subsidy from the commons, so you put a new competing subsidy from the commons in place in order to sustain the first while underpinning the RE.
Irrational, surely. Drop both subsidies by internalising the externalities attached to FF.
I just don’t think there is a case for an MRET or FiT. One form of energy — fossil fuels — gets a subsidy from the commons, so you put a new competing subsidy from the commons in place in order to sustain the first while underpinning the RE.
Irrational, surely. Drop both subsidies by internalising the externalities attached to FF.
Robert, I agree that wind is a dud for baseload but don’t agree that that makes it worthless. Much as my bicycle is a dud for international travel but still kinda handy for commuting. Until we get to 20% or more wind we gain more benefit per dollar invested than from any other RET.
I agree with Fran – it would be better to pull all the subsidies and simply require remediation. I’m not convinced that simply turning everything into dollar values is useful, the old saw that you can’t eat money springs to mind WRT city growth. But for energy sources, I say use anything you like as lkong as it’s closed cycle using sunlight as the ultimate source. Fossil fuels still work in that scenario, they’re just slow and expensive.
Robert, I agree that wind is a dud for baseload but don’t agree that that makes it worthless. Much as my bicycle is a dud for international travel but still kinda handy for commuting. Until we get to 20% or more wind we gain more benefit per dollar invested than from any other RET.
I agree with Fran – it would be better to pull all the subsidies and simply require remediation. I’m not convinced that simply turning everything into dollar values is useful, the old saw that you can’t eat money springs to mind WRT city growth. But for energy sources, I say use anything you like as lkong as it’s closed cycle using sunlight as the ultimate source. Fossil fuels still work in that scenario, they’re just slow and expensive.
Moz, I suppose I’m looking for technologies which will allow us to shut down coal fired power stations, which is what we have to do. Wind isn’t it; there isn’t much potential for additional hydro in Australia. So we need something else, and there’s nothing out there, commercially deployable, right now, except gas (and the n-word).
So I reckon the RET should be redesigned to ensure that substantial parts of it go to support technologies that can replace coal.
Moz, I suppose I’m looking for technologies which will allow us to shut down coal fired power stations, which is what we have to do. Wind isn’t it; there isn’t much potential for additional hydro in Australia. So we need something else, and there’s nothing out there, commercially deployable, right now, except gas (and the n-word).
So I reckon the RET should be redesigned to ensure that substantial parts of it go to support technologies that can replace coal.
We also need to talk about the low MRET target: Penny Wong has said that the government’s 2020 emission reduction target is the equivalent to a 25% reduction in total emissions by 2020.
The current MRET 2020 target is equivalent to a reduction in total emissions of only 10%. However, any reasonable analysis would suggest that most of the reduction in total emissions must come from reducing electricity related emissions. My guess is that the 25% target would require at least a 35% reduction in electricity emissions (17.5% of total)with the remainder coming from transport and other relatively minor emission sources and perhaps even charcoal sequestration.
My personal preference would be take a more aggressive approach and set out to replace all coal fired electricity with CCGT ASAP. The price increase required by this change is quite small (assuming conversion of coal fired plants) and the resulting 30% reduction in total emissions sends a message that Australia is actually serious about emissions. Add 5% by introducing an MRET style scheme to reduce the fuel consumption of new cars and we are within reach of the 2020 target proposed by the Greens without disturbing the economy.
We could meet the 25% reduction in total emission target by halving electricity emissons
We also need to talk about the low MRET target: Penny Wong has said that the government’s 2020 emission reduction target is the equivalent to a 25% reduction in total emissions by 2020.
The current MRET 2020 target is equivalent to a reduction in total emissions of only 10%. However, any reasonable analysis would suggest that most of the reduction in total emissions must come from reducing electricity related emissions. My guess is that the 25% target would require at least a 35% reduction in electricity emissions (17.5% of total)with the remainder coming from transport and other relatively minor emission sources and perhaps even charcoal sequestration.
My personal preference would be take a more aggressive approach and set out to replace all coal fired electricity with CCGT ASAP. The price increase required by this change is quite small (assuming conversion of coal fired plants) and the resulting 30% reduction in total emissions sends a message that Australia is actually serious about emissions. Add 5% by introducing an MRET style scheme to reduce the fuel consumption of new cars and we are within reach of the 2020 target proposed by the Greens without disturbing the economy.
We could meet the 25% reduction in total emission target by halving electricity emissons
Moz said:
Well I would say use the thing that is most fit for purpose, taking full account of the cost, the footprint in its broadest sense and so forth. In some circumstances, geothermal — which has nothing to do with sunlight would be the best thing. Tidal energy could be useful in some places — and that’s about lunar gravity.
The way we reconcile these things though is through the cost needed to deploy them at the scale required and with the dispatchability needed. In industrial societies, as far as stationary energy is concerned, that is likely to be thermal energy from nuclear power, which has the smallest footprint and meets the other criteria.
Moz said:
Well I would say use the thing that is most fit for purpose, taking full account of the cost, the footprint in its broadest sense and so forth. In some circumstances, geothermal — which has nothing to do with sunlight would be the best thing. Tidal energy could be useful in some places — and that’s about lunar gravity.
The way we reconcile these things though is through the cost needed to deploy them at the scale required and with the dispatchability needed. In industrial societies, as far as stationary energy is concerned, that is likely to be thermal energy from nuclear power, which has the smallest footprint and meets the other criteria.
Listen, if we want to do something serious about our carbon emissions, we simply should replace all our coal-fired power plants with gas-fired ones. It is far better to use combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants than simply convert existing coal-fired to gas. CCGT plants have almost twice the thermal efficiency of existing steam plants and incidentally, twice the efficiency of existing nuclear plants. The addition of a gas turbine topping cycle increases the Carnot efficiency. This technology has the big advantage that it is straight off the shelf, does not require some bullshit research program, does not require the establishment of some massive institution to feed thousands of nuclear wankerdemics…and more importantly does not create the toxic radioactive wastelands that are uranium mines and uranium disposal. Such a scheme would reduce our CO2 emissions by about 60%, and even a modest energy storage program could take care of the other 40.
Huggy
Listen, if we want to do something serious about our carbon emissions, we simply should replace all our coal-fired power plants with gas-fired ones. It is far better to use combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants than simply convert existing coal-fired to gas. CCGT plants have almost twice the thermal efficiency of existing steam plants and incidentally, twice the efficiency of existing nuclear plants. The addition of a gas turbine topping cycle increases the Carnot efficiency. This technology has the big advantage that it is straight off the shelf, does not require some bullshit research program, does not require the establishment of some massive institution to feed thousands of nuclear wankerdemics…and more importantly does not create the toxic radioactive wastelands that are uranium mines and uranium disposal. Such a scheme would reduce our CO2 emissions by about 60%, and even a modest energy storage program could take care of the other 40.
Huggy
HuggyBunny said of 100% reliance on CCGT:
Closer to a 50% reduction in emissions from stationary energy (not transport) and certainly not all emissions from industry, agriculture or forestry.
Any energy storage program that could “take care of the other 40″ would not be modest, but huge. Storage does not generate energy, but allows you to use, at some cost in dollars and round trip efficiency, energy generated above and beyond the requirements at the time of generation. If 100% comes from gas, it comes out of this 100% — you don’t get to count it twice. You would be paying for the storage out of the efficiency and savings of running the CCGT at optimal thermal efficiency 100% of the time, saving wear and tear by avoiding cycling. That’s nothing like an extra 40% though.
And of course, by contrast with nuclear, where the fuel cost is a trivial factor in price of energy, your gas-fired economy is at the mercy of rises in gas prices.
HuggyBunny said of 100% reliance on CCGT:
Closer to a 50% reduction in emissions from stationary energy (not transport) and certainly not all emissions from industry, agriculture or forestry.
Any energy storage program that could “take care of the other 40″ would not be modest, but huge. Storage does not generate energy, but allows you to use, at some cost in dollars and round trip efficiency, energy generated above and beyond the requirements at the time of generation. If 100% comes from gas, it comes out of this 100% — you don’t get to count it twice. You would be paying for the storage out of the efficiency and savings of running the CCGT at optimal thermal efficiency 100% of the time, saving wear and tear by avoiding cycling. That’s nothing like an extra 40% though.
And of course, by contrast with nuclear, where the fuel cost is a trivial factor in price of energy, your gas-fired economy is at the mercy of rises in gas prices.
As interesting as this de-railing discussion of nuclear power is, can anyone here explain to me how uranium became a renewable commodity?
As interesting as this de-railing discussion of nuclear power is, can anyone here explain to me how uranium became a renewable commodity?
Fran: CCGTs with fixed compressor blades lose efficiency at reduced outputs because the turbines have to operate at a fixed speed to give the required AC frequency. As a result, the air flow to the turbine is fixed and the air/gas ratio moves away from the optimum when generator output is turned down.
CCGT’s fitted with variable compressor blades will operate efficiently over a range of outputs because the airflow can be changed to give the optimum air/gas mix over a range of outputs. For this reason gas is a very useful part of any system containing significant amounts of variable output systems such as wind.
Gas is also attractive as a means of delaying expenditure on storage because of its lower emissions. As a rough approximation you can have a wind/gas system producing 80% less CO2/kWh compared with coal that is still averaging over 40% of power from gas.
Fran: CCGTs with fixed compressor blades lose efficiency at reduced outputs because the turbines have to operate at a fixed speed to give the required AC frequency. As a result, the air flow to the turbine is fixed and the air/gas ratio moves away from the optimum when generator output is turned down.
CCGT’s fitted with variable compressor blades will operate efficiently over a range of outputs because the airflow can be changed to give the optimum air/gas mix over a range of outputs. For this reason gas is a very useful part of any system containing significant amounts of variable output systems such as wind.
Gas is also attractive as a means of delaying expenditure on storage because of its lower emissions. As a rough approximation you can have a wind/gas system producing 80% less CO2/kWh compared with coal that is still averaging over 40% of power from gas.
The hydrogen currently getting fused into helium in the sun is not renewable, either, but when it starts to run out we’ll have bigger problems.
Similarly, one of the things about nuclear fusion (the one we can’t do yet, that is to be researched at ITER) is that the fuel is extractable in virtually unlimited quantities from seawater. So while it’s not technically “renewable”, the amount of energy available from the resource is so vast that it doesn’t matter.
There are pretty good reasons to suspect that reserves of fissile material (fuel for nuclear reactors) are almost as abundant, but the discussion is a very lengthy one, and becomes quite philosophical.
The hydrogen currently getting fused into helium in the sun is not renewable, either, but when it starts to run out we’ll have bigger problems.
Similarly, one of the things about nuclear fusion (the one we can’t do yet, that is to be researched at ITER) is that the fuel is extractable in virtually unlimited quantities from seawater. So while it’s not technically “renewable”, the amount of energy available from the resource is so vast that it doesn’t matter.
There are pretty good reasons to suspect that reserves of fissile material (fuel for nuclear reactors) are almost as abundant, but the discussion is a very lengthy one, and becomes quite philosophical.
One thing that occurs to me is that we’re at the wrong end of a number of major research projects. Depending on your beliefs about engineering and politics, we need to know: how to run a nuclear energy cycle safely and profitably; how to run deep geothermal ditto; how to efficiently store solar/wind energy in large quantities for even 10 or 12 hours; how to generate tidal power without destroying estuaries. I’m sure there are other similar questions.
Now, ideally we would have started putting serious effort into these questions 10 or more years ago, but we haven’t. The best Australia can say is that we’ve given some useful tips on PV to China. Oh, and we’ve given a big chunck of cash to the coal companies in the hope that they might eventually be able to dump their waste in landfill. Sorry, bury their problems. Whatever.
I mean, FFS, winning medals at the olympics gets more funding that energy research. Priorities?
So, should we continue this do-nothing policy, or should we start seriously trying to solve the problems?
One thing that occurs to me is that we’re at the wrong end of a number of major research projects. Depending on your beliefs about engineering and politics, we need to know: how to run a nuclear energy cycle safely and profitably; how to run deep geothermal ditto; how to efficiently store solar/wind energy in large quantities for even 10 or 12 hours; how to generate tidal power without destroying estuaries. I’m sure there are other similar questions.
Now, ideally we would have started putting serious effort into these questions 10 or more years ago, but we haven’t. The best Australia can say is that we’ve given some useful tips on PV to China. Oh, and we’ve given a big chunck of cash to the coal companies in the hope that they might eventually be able to dump their waste in landfill. Sorry, bury their problems. Whatever.
I mean, FFS, winning medals at the olympics gets more funding that energy research. Priorities?
So, should we continue this do-nothing policy, or should we start seriously trying to solve the problems?
And in any event, the oceans are continually replenished with uranium from the flow of rivers. So while nuclear isn’t technically renewable, we aren’t going to run out any time in the foreseeable future.
And in any event, the oceans are continually replenished with uranium from the flow of rivers. So while nuclear isn’t technically renewable, we aren’t going to run out any time in the foreseeable future.
I think if a seperate category of MRET excluding wind is created it needs to specify that novel ways of harvesting the wind are included. If the point is to promote new technologies this should be treated very differently from turbines:
http://www.ted.com/talks/saul_griffith_on_kites_as_the_future_of_renewable_energy.html
I think if a seperate category of MRET excluding wind is created it needs to specify that novel ways of harvesting the wind are included. If the point is to promote new technologies this should be treated very differently from turbines:
http://www.ted.com/talks/saul_griffith_on_kites_as_the_future_of_renewable_energy.html
John D said:
The question is though — why bother with wind at all? At the margins, does one save that much from adding wind to the mix? In expenditure terms, how does it stack up per unit of CO2 emission avoided?
Since you are only comparing plant efficiency, replacing coal and gas with nuclear can abate 100% of such emissions. Put motor vehicles on the electricity grid and you can then start reducing them to effective zero emissions.
Now if we are not doing nuclear, CCGT is the next best thing — no doubt about it — but it’s still a very second rate solution. Throwing in wind makes it even less attractive, because the emissions abatement cost goes up without adding very much at all in the way of emissions savings. Buying a more expensive non-sustainable system so we can lower the cost and improve the utility of another expensive and ineffective intermittent system sounds a trifle silly.
John D said:
The question is though — why bother with wind at all? At the margins, does one save that much from adding wind to the mix? In expenditure terms, how does it stack up per unit of CO2 emission avoided?
Since you are only comparing plant efficiency, replacing coal and gas with nuclear can abate 100% of such emissions. Put motor vehicles on the electricity grid and you can then start reducing them to effective zero emissions.
Now if we are not doing nuclear, CCGT is the next best thing — no doubt about it — but it’s still a very second rate solution. Throwing in wind makes it even less attractive, because the emissions abatement cost goes up without adding very much at all in the way of emissions savings. Buying a more expensive non-sustainable system so we can lower the cost and improve the utility of another expensive and ineffective intermittent system sounds a trifle silly.
Here’s a question:
To what lengths should Australia go to totally eliminate all marginal CO2 emissions AND all other uncontrolled emissions of toxics associated with power generation?
If we could achive this within 15 years at a modest cost premium on the present and without other major structural change or variation in consumption patters and if during the same timeline we could steadily reduce transport emissions to zero by converting ICE vehicles to electric vehicles and powering them from the grid should we do it?
I’d say yes.
Here’s a question:
To what lengths should Australia go to totally eliminate all marginal CO2 emissions AND all other uncontrolled emissions of toxics associated with power generation?
If we could achive this within 15 years at a modest cost premium on the present and without other major structural change or variation in consumption patters and if during the same timeline we could steadily reduce transport emissions to zero by converting ICE vehicles to electric vehicles and powering them from the grid should we do it?
I’d say yes.
Fran: I think the case for nuclear in Aus will become a lot stronger once there have been gen4 or thorium cycle nuclear plants being built and run for enough time to provide some certainty re both price and risks. I simply cannot see nuclear power coming on line in Australia within the next 15 years. If I was convinced that nuclear was part of the long term solution I would be arguing strongly for a large surge in investment in CCGT now. Ditto if i was a serious supporter of hot rocks, kite power or something else that is not really commercially proven right now.
The theme in most of what I write about climate action is that we need to take serious action NOW that will start reducing emissions with minimum pain.
Fran: I think the case for nuclear in Aus will become a lot stronger once there have been gen4 or thorium cycle nuclear plants being built and run for enough time to provide some certainty re both price and risks. I simply cannot see nuclear power coming on line in Australia within the next 15 years. If I was convinced that nuclear was part of the long term solution I would be arguing strongly for a large surge in investment in CCGT now. Ditto if i was a serious supporter of hot rocks, kite power or something else that is not really commercially proven right now.
The theme in most of what I write about climate action is that we need to take serious action NOW that will start reducing emissions with minimum pain.
I certainly agree that by the time GenIV and Th reactors become common, the case for nuclear here will become stronger. Yet it is precisely the time lag that means we should begin discussions now.
Given the political realities in this country, I certainly see CCGT as preferable to what we have now, but I would at least like people to at least weight the option of nuclear, because that is still the only near zero emissions and low-footprint fully dispatchable technology in every demand centre that is right now available.
I certainly agree that by the time GenIV and Th reactors become common, the case for nuclear here will become stronger. Yet it is precisely the time lag that means we should begin discussions now.
Given the political realities in this country, I certainly see CCGT as preferable to what we have now, but I would at least like people to at least weight the option of nuclear, because that is still the only near zero emissions and low-footprint fully dispatchable technology in every demand centre that is right now available.
Why wait for veneration IV. Generation III is already orders of magnitude safer that coal and a few multiples safer than hydro. It’s clean and safe and available now.
Why wait for veneration IV. Generation III is already orders of magnitude safer that coal and a few multiples safer than hydro. It’s clean and safe and available now.
Fran, once when flying from Cairns to Weipa in a small plane at 8000 feet I saw this huge column of brown dust that went up to 20,000 feet. I asked the pilot what it was. oh that’s **** uranium mine he said. Is that dust toxic ? I asked. “No way I would fly through it” he replied. If you really believe in this uranium stuff I challenge you to seek some funding from whatever institute pays your salary to fly you and a bunch of associates through the cloud.
That’s what really gets me, you Ivory tower types know nothing at all about what it is really like in that industry. You are quite happy to have the Government force Aboriginal people to store the waste on their cattle property. (Nothing about that racist impost in LP I note). You have never been to the States to see the vast radioactive wastelands that leak that are the nuclear waste “storage” grounds. Oh noo its all about little green nukes for your gated communities.
In the meantime real engineers are out there inventing stuff like air storage CCGT systems that use wind turbines to compress air into salt domes so that the compressor stage in a gas turbine can be eliminated and the efficiency ramped up and the wind energy efficiently stored. Like Geo-thermal systems that require no fuel at all. Uranium from sea water! – gimme a break. What a fantasy!
Huggy
Fran, once when flying from Cairns to Weipa in a small plane at 8000 feet I saw this huge column of brown dust that went up to 20,000 feet. I asked the pilot what it was. oh that’s **** uranium mine he said. Is that dust toxic ? I asked. “No way I would fly through it” he replied. If you really believe in this uranium stuff I challenge you to seek some funding from whatever institute pays your salary to fly you and a bunch of associates through the cloud.
That’s what really gets me, you Ivory tower types know nothing at all about what it is really like in that industry. You are quite happy to have the Government force Aboriginal people to store the waste on their cattle property. (Nothing about that racist impost in LP I note). You have never been to the States to see the vast radioactive wastelands that leak that are the nuclear waste “storage” grounds. Oh noo its all about little green nukes for your gated communities.
In the meantime real engineers are out there inventing stuff like air storage CCGT systems that use wind turbines to compress air into salt domes so that the compressor stage in a gas turbine can be eliminated and the efficiency ramped up and the wind energy efficiently stored. Like Geo-thermal systems that require no fuel at all. Uranium from sea water! – gimme a break. What a fantasy!
Huggy
I would agree in principle Feral Sparrowhawk.
I would also allow “conventional” wind if it was paired with substantial amounts of energy storage.
I would agree in principle Feral Sparrowhawk.
I would also allow “conventional” wind if it was paired with substantial amounts of energy storage.
Can someone just clarify for me how zero-emission nuclear works?
My understanding is that all reactors rely on a certain level of “residual radioactivity” being discharged, leading to situations like the cancer clusters around Lucas Heights. Not to mention the high level waste being stored on site while they work out who’s going to take it off their hands. Like many things, these problems are theoretically solvable it’s just that no-one has practically solved them.
But I’m sure that Australia could, if we could be bothered.
Can someone just clarify for me how zero-emission nuclear works?
My understanding is that all reactors rely on a certain level of “residual radioactivity” being discharged, leading to situations like the cancer clusters around Lucas Heights. Not to mention the high level waste being stored on site while they work out who’s going to take it off their hands. Like many things, these problems are theoretically solvable it’s just that no-one has practically solved them.
But I’m sure that Australia could, if we could be bothered.
Coal fired power stations emit far more radiation than any nuclear power plant. And whilst the nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant is managed and regulated and in fact very commercially valuable the nuclear waste from a coal fired power plant is unmanaged, unregulated and sent up the chimney to ccatch the wind and fall down on surrounding land.
Coal fired power stations emit far more radiation than any nuclear power plant. And whilst the nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant is managed and regulated and in fact very commercially valuable the nuclear waste from a coal fired power plant is unmanaged, unregulated and sent up the chimney to ccatch the wind and fall down on surrounding land.
Moz asked:
Exactly what it says … there are no emissions beyond the smallperimeter of the plant. There’s a “fence post” radiation test.
There’s no evidence to support the claim that people living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants are marked by different epidemiology than those living in areas where there are no power plants.
Within the footprint of a coal or gas plant though, the epidemiology of the community does change for the worse.
Moz asked:
Exactly what it says … there are no emissions beyond the smallperimeter of the plant. There’s a “fence post” radiation test.
There’s no evidence to support the claim that people living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants are marked by different epidemiology than those living in areas where there are no power plants.
Within the footprint of a coal or gas plant though, the epidemiology of the community does change for the worse.
Huggy: Bit surprised to hear you have found a uranium mine between Cairns and Weipa! Details?
Terjep: Gas avoids the radiation problems of both coal fired and nuclear. Details of very commercially valuable nuclear waste? And percentage of current world nuclear waste in safe, long term storage?
Huggy: Bit surprised to hear you have found a uranium mine between Cairns and Weipa! Details?
Terjep: Gas avoids the radiation problems of both coal fired and nuclear. Details of very commercially valuable nuclear waste? And percentage of current world nuclear waste in safe, long term storage?
Robert said:
It is not a question of what we should allow. It’s a question of what should be public subsidised. I’d say nothing should be subsidised with public money or benefits from forbearance of the commons.
If someone wants to set up a wind farm or solar plant or coal, gas or nuclear plant — let them do it entirely with private money — and subject them all to the same stringent environmental impact requirements — so that they have a burden not to contaminate the area beyond their plant perimeter — and if they do, they must pay a suitable cost — reflecting the long term damage caused to ecosystem services. In the case of gas plants, they pay for the NOx and CO2. In the case of coal, they have to keep all their particulate matter onsite and sequestered from contact with the surrounding environment.
Let nobody get tax deductions or rebates for dirty energy — with dirty energy defined as having the same CO2 footprint as coal or petrodiesel in the case of cars. If something is 50% as dirty, you get to deduct 50% of the cost for business purposes.
Hand back the money clawed back to people in the bottom 60% of income earners in cash and benefit in kind. Simple.
Robert said:
It is not a question of what we should allow. It’s a question of what should be public subsidised. I’d say nothing should be subsidised with public money or benefits from forbearance of the commons.
If someone wants to set up a wind farm or solar plant or coal, gas or nuclear plant — let them do it entirely with private money — and subject them all to the same stringent environmental impact requirements — so that they have a burden not to contaminate the area beyond their plant perimeter — and if they do, they must pay a suitable cost — reflecting the long term damage caused to ecosystem services. In the case of gas plants, they pay for the NOx and CO2. In the case of coal, they have to keep all their particulate matter onsite and sequestered from contact with the surrounding environment.
Let nobody get tax deductions or rebates for dirty energy — with dirty energy defined as having the same CO2 footprint as coal or petrodiesel in the case of cars. If something is 50% as dirty, you get to deduct 50% of the cost for business purposes.
Hand back the money clawed back to people in the bottom 60% of income earners in cash and benefit in kind. Simple.
Fran, new technologies usually need a push to get them started. Sometimes all that is required is the basic research being done at a government subsidized institution, but the commercialisation can be entirely private. However, in many fields this just doesn’t work, there needs to be some level of support. Of course making dirty fuels pay for themselves would help, but if that is all we did we’d be stuck with using those clean technologies that happen to be cheapest today (usually ones that got subsidised in the past), rather than those with the greatest potential.
It’s perfectly reasonable for us to subsidise wave and tidal power, for example, to the point where we can see if they’re goers or not. It’s unlikely private interests will because the patents will have expired by the time large scale commercialisation takes off.
The thing is to distinguish between the sorts of technology that are at that starting point and need support, and those that are mature enough to stand on their own two feet.
Fran, new technologies usually need a push to get them started. Sometimes all that is required is the basic research being done at a government subsidized institution, but the commercialisation can be entirely private. However, in many fields this just doesn’t work, there needs to be some level of support. Of course making dirty fuels pay for themselves would help, but if that is all we did we’d be stuck with using those clean technologies that happen to be cheapest today (usually ones that got subsidised in the past), rather than those with the greatest potential.
It’s perfectly reasonable for us to subsidise wave and tidal power, for example, to the point where we can see if they’re goers or not. It’s unlikely private interests will because the patents will have expired by the time large scale commercialisation takes off.
The thing is to distinguish between the sorts of technology that are at that starting point and need support, and those that are mature enough to stand on their own two feet.
John D,
Because nuclear waste is fuel for any future IFR or LFTR the current global stockpile of nuclear waste from both military and civilian sources is estimated by some to be worth $30 trillion dollars.
http://skirsch.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/ifr/
John D,
Because nuclear waste is fuel for any future IFR or LFTR the current global stockpile of nuclear waste from both military and civilian sources is estimated by some to be worth $30 trillion dollars.
http://skirsch.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/ifr/
Feral – governments have a lousy record at picking winners.
Feral – governments have a lousy record at picking winners.
Given that the government is pretty much owned by the mining companies the path ahead is clear.
The government needs to hand over all energy planning etc to the mining and energy companies ASAP. Get them to create a coalition body with a government representative to keep the people in the loop take notes and fetch tea.
Given that the government is pretty much owned by the mining companies the path ahead is clear.
The government needs to hand over all energy planning etc to the mining and energy companies ASAP. Get them to create a coalition body with a government representative to keep the people in the loop take notes and fetch tea.
JohnD.
Did not say it was on our route, you can see a 20,000 foot high really dense dirty brown column of radioactive dust from a long way away when you are flying at 10,000 feet.
Huggy
JohnD.
Did not say it was on our route, you can see a 20,000 foot high really dense dirty brown column of radioactive dust from a long way away when you are flying at 10,000 feet.
Huggy
Feral Sparrowhawk said:
The position sounds reasonable, but the problem I have here is that something like CC&S — which is the biggest single line item in R&D in this area, gets a nod on this basis. I can’t see that you need a lot of R&D in tidal or wave — and a lot of this will be done overseas anyway. Storage technologies are a reasonable bet, but again, we aren’t the only country doing it.
It’s simpler if people who want to develop and commercialise new technolgies do it themselves, though I wouldn’t die in a ditch fighting modest state support through CSIRO for proof of principle and getting it to commercialisation stage.
Feral Sparrowhawk said:
The position sounds reasonable, but the problem I have here is that something like CC&S — which is the biggest single line item in R&D in this area, gets a nod on this basis. I can’t see that you need a lot of R&D in tidal or wave — and a lot of this will be done overseas anyway. Storage technologies are a reasonable bet, but again, we aren’t the only country doing it.
It’s simpler if people who want to develop and commercialise new technolgies do it themselves, though I wouldn’t die in a ditch fighting modest state support through CSIRO for proof of principle and getting it to commercialisation stage.
Our tax regime could be better in terms of fostering commercialisation. In particular we shouldn’t be taxing company profits that are reinvested Within the company. Instead we should tax companies only when they pay dividends and it should in essence just be a withholding tax. As it stands the companies that grow are those that demonstrate an ability to borrow funds. Which means small innovative risky companies are at a disadvantage even when profitable. Whilst large stable predatory companies with good bankers are favoured.
Our tax regime could be better in terms of fostering commercialisation. In particular we shouldn’t be taxing company profits that are reinvested Within the company. Instead we should tax companies only when they pay dividends and it should in essence just be a withholding tax. As it stands the companies that grow are those that demonstrate an ability to borrow funds. Which means small innovative risky companies are at a disadvantage even when profitable. Whilst large stable predatory companies with good bankers are favoured.
HB: I cant think of any working uranium mines in Qld so I doubt that the dust you saw was coming from a uranium mine.
HB: I cant think of any working uranium mines in Qld so I doubt that the dust you saw was coming from a uranium mine.
Maybe the dust was stirred up by someone running cattle?
Maybe the dust was stirred up by someone running cattle?
Here’s one from the my coal dead hand category … (sorry about the pun).
Significantly …
Here’s one from the my coal dead hand category … (sorry about the pun).
Significantly …
I suspect that the dust was stirred up by somebody wishing to cloud the debate with baseless anecdotes about how wicked nuclear power is. Given that nuclear is safer than hydro as a source of electricity such misleading behaviour is seriously disappointing.
I suspect that the dust was stirred up by somebody wishing to cloud the debate with baseless anecdotes about how wicked nuclear power is. Given that nuclear is safer than hydro as a source of electricity such misleading behaviour is seriously disappointing.