Dear Jennifer,
Mark Diesendorf’s new book on renewable energy – ‘Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy’ is likely to receive plenty of comment if the last few days are anything to go by.
I think it’s important that his work is put under the spot light as it is often, I feel, rather dogmatic and driven by conspiratorial notions of how government works. Certainly his survey of an area I know a something about, nuclear power debates, is rooted in 1970s style anti-nuclear rhetoric.
Last week my University convened a two day conference on nuclear matters, Mark addressed a session and I had the opportunity to critique his views and debated a few points with him during one of the breaks. I am researching the area and have two critiques of the anti- nuclear movement out to review with journals and am at the happy to forward these to anyone interested (the more feed back the better!).
Mark claims that the nuclear fuel cycle underpinning nuclear power is highly carbon emitting, especially the mining and milling stages. This is largely fanciful and, likewise, his assessment of the latest designs for reactors as somehow just “theory” albeit, unpleasant theory for the anti-nuclear power camp, given its promise of ever greater safety features and nuclear fuel efficiency, ie. some of these designs would see reactors require far less nuclear fuel than is currently the case with Generation 3 reactors.
Mark argues that high grades of uranium ore are likely to be depleted soon and thereby the carbon emissions entailed in processing uranium for nuclear fuel will increase considerably in coming decades. I think this misses two rather vital points –
1] While nuclear power was unpopular during the 1980s and 1990s and the price of uranium remained low there was little by way of investment in exploration. This has changed remarkably over the last few years and, given that uranium is one of the most abundant minerals, there is every reason to believe high grade ores will be found. Indeed, the extent of current exploration in Australia, and also where high grades are appearing, in Africa, suggests the nuclear power industry’s claim to low carbon emissions compared with other reliable base load power, such as coal and gas, remains as convincing as ever.
But worse for Mark’s line of argument is this rather fundamental aspect of mining.
2] Uranium usually occurs with other ores, notably copper and gold. BHPs mine in northern South Australia, at Roxby Downs, is a copper mine – that’s why BHP bought out Western Mining, for the copper and gold. Yes, the mine will soon become the biggest uranium mine in the world, but BHP would still be there at Roxby even if there was not an ounce of uranium to be extracted. This is commonplace with uranium mining because uranium seems to like bobbing up with other valuable minerals! Point is, the mining and separation of various minerals, all carbon intensive activities, would be happening anyway. How convenient to neglect this very obvious aspect of the equation and, in the process, trump up the charge that nuclear power is high on the carbon emitting front.
As for reactor designs it is rather disingenuous to maintain so confidently that future science regarding reactors design and safety features ( making meltdowns impossible and securing against ‘worst case’ terrorist attack scenarios) is just theory nor likely to happening with sufficient speed to be a major contributor to relatively carbon free power generation. With the growing interest in nuclear power it is highly likely that so-called Generation 4 reactors will be built in the next two decades, in fact many of them will be built as their designs are not foolhardy constructs but arguably realistic – ie. nuclear physicists have not been designing them just for fun and investors are likely to find the great safety angle reassuring.
There are a number of designs (for info on this go to http://www.uic.com.au/nip77.htm) one of particular interest is the so-called, ‘pebble bed modular’ reactor. Contrary to Mark’s view that no Gen 4 reactors exist today a pebble bed modular, is operating in China (some readers may have seen this featured on ABC TV’s ‘Catalyst’ program a couple of months ago). This design is remarkable because meltdown is claimed to be impossible and this was the key point of the ‘Catalyst’ report where a mock ‘accident’ proved the point – the reactor’s systems enacted shut down, rather than meltdown, in what was a convincing display in front of a swag of Western nuclear physicists and experts.
The problem for many anti – nukes environmentalists is that they just don’t bother to note that much has changed since the 1970s. The second big problem is that unless nuclear, along with other suitable renewables, cannot replace, at a reasonable rate, the introduction of ever more coal burning power stations in countries such as China and India then projections on climate change may well fall more readily into the alarmist category.
Obviously, the emerging Chinese and Indian middle classes are not going to forgo Western style consumerism, in particular the purchase and use of cars. One can only hope that the future of transport lies with electric cars and possibly in decades to come hydrogen will play big role in ‘driving’ transport. Heavy duty base load power is required for this future and I fail to see how wind and solar (or even one of my favourites, geo thermal – ‘hot rocks’) will fill the bill here – thus my concern that too many environmentalists remain so dogmatically opposed to nuclear power.
Sure, in a perfect world uranium should be left in the ground…alas, who sees a perfect world?
Notwithstanding my misgivings sections of Mark’s book are very interesting.
His case for wind power being able to produce base load electricity generation argues for windmills stretching over 600 or so kms and is quite convincing and ‘rational’ but only if you take the politics out. Point is, just how many federal and state electoral boundaries would they cross? And then there’s the potential disgruntled mayors, councilors and community groups – arguably an investor’s and Premier’s nightmare!
Mark complains of ‘the treble’ of opponents to wind power, namely the coal and nuclear lobbies and the NIMBies; it is largely their fault that the Howard government shuns backing wind power. For mine the ‘equation’ here is mainly about simple politics of uncertainty surrounding such widely spread structures and how this may translate into potential investor reluctance to commit. Given that I teach electoral politics and political/electoral behaviour such matters do tend to readily come to mind and suggest there must be better options than Mark’s favourite.
Haydon Manning
Adelaide
haydon.manning@flinders.edu.au
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Haydon, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said in a perfect world, uranium should be left in the ground. Who sees a perfect world? Indeed, if we keep digging it up, we certainly won’t see a perfect world.
No, you are right, lets accept second best, because getting it right is too hard.
The only thing stoppping investors piling in to wind power in this country is weak renewable energy targets (MRET), hence we now have state targets and subsequent rekindling of investment.
Do some research and you will see that wherever good community consultation is done, wind projects get up because they bring a lot of value to the communities they operate in.
Do some more research and I am surprised you will still call nuclear renewable.
Do even more research and I am surprised you don’t think geothermal can’t privide base load?!?
Heck, solar thermal can/has been providing base-load!
There is a good reason why most of Europe is piling into wind, solar, biomass and other clean renewables while phasing out nuclear. We can’t wait two decades to bring on “gen 4” nuclear power and by the time we do, the learning curve on genuine clean renewables will probably make nuclear a waste of time.
“Heck, solar thermal can/has been providing base-load!”
Perhaps Anthony would oblige with locationsdetails of these solar thermal baseloads please.
And where do renewables compete on price?
when they do we will all want them and it will not require legislation to enforce it. The govt should be providing incentives to bring down the cost so that they can compete….
It seems to me the gist of the article is higlighting the misinformation spread about nuclear….that when taken into consideration actually makes nuclear a quite viable option for those concerned about co2.
Anthony, the thing stoppimg investors piling into wind power is the fact that our polly’s know that the average voter in Oz will not stand for huge increases in power charges. Particularly when those increases are only to pander to the few, noisy, long haired, radical rat bag, fringe greenies, & their dream of “clean” power.
Base load is just that. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, not just on a sunny windy day, in daylight.
We tried biomass at Rocky Point, & it failed, costing the tax payer over 60 million. I suppose it did its job, & bought a few twit greenie vots. I wonder how much those vots cost each?
Wind realy is an ugly joke.
Geothermal may be good, if it works, but its a long way from markets.
Every time I hear the suggestion thst we need a “mix” of power sources, I know, that the proposer knows, all the systems are only part time. They hope that something will be working all the time. We all know that Murphy’s law will not allow that. We all know that conventional power stations will have to be up & running, on stand, permanently.
So Anthony, I suggest you take up writing kids stories. Fairy tales go well there.
Hasbeen, recent water shortages and subsequent supply constraints drove the cost of coal base load up to and beyond $70MWh. At that price, wind doesn’t need subsidy and we’re copping price increases regardless.
I believe wind penetration is over 20% in Germany and Spain and manages to supply reliable base-load. Thats not a fairy tale, that’s countries realising this is the future or energy supply.
I agree geothermal hot rocks is a long way from markets but NZ supplies something like 50% of its electricty from geothermal. You better check your facts and/or how you express them.
Laurie: http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2005/solarthermal.pdf
go to page 8
Toby, how does the article show nuclear is a viable option? What is the lifecycle cost, per MWh, includnig waste disposal? Where is the risk of failure priced? At what point did community backlash get overcome? Risk of nucelar proliferation?
We’re doing deals to sell uranium to India, russia, Indonesia is going nukes. At what point did this become a good idea?
You would reduce more emissions more effectively and cheaply by regulating aerodynamic standards for cars than building nuclear plants and probably alot of other things. Nukes should be the last on a very long list of more sensible ways to reduce emissions.
Anthony what it purports to show is that the supposed non ability of nuclear to reduce co2 emissions is in fact not the case….and therefore can be a viable alternative energy source if reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is the goal. There is a strong message being pushed that nuclear will not reduce co2 levels, nor provide energy for a long time in the future. Both of these things appear to be lies….but that does not suprise me.
The reality is that if these alternatives were cost effective, and provided reliable base load then they would be chosen! ,…….sure countries like Denmark chose as a society to pay considerably more for their power by using wind power.
In terms of safety it also sounds pretty good (a legitamate reason for fearing nuclear)”Gen 4 reactors exist today a pebble bed modular, is operating in China (some readers may have seen this featured on ABC TV’s ‘Catalyst’ program a couple of months ago). This design is remarkable because meltdown is claimed to be impossible and this was the key point of the ‘Catalyst’ report where a mock ‘accident’ proved the point – the reactor’s systems enacted shut down, rather than meltdown, in what was a convincing display in front of a swag of Western nuclear physicists and experts.”
You don’t have a vested interest in wind do you Anthony?
Toby, I speak for myself as someone concerned about how the path to emission reductions are being managed in this country.
I think nuclear can reduce CO2 and I agree that Mark D’s arguments against nuclear, as presented in the above article, are not convincing. However for cost, risk and timing issues, I don’t think it is a smart option, especially for a country like Australia that has very limited skills and experience.
The alternatives are cost effective with a price for carbon, and thats why they are being chosen around the world while nuclear is being phased out in many places.
Meanwhile Australia appears detined under this government to pick technology winners – clean coal and nuclear – at their own peril.
As for pebble bed modular, if it’s built by a human, it can and will fail, but more importantly the risks of nuclear go beyond the generator.
Great article Haydon – if we truly need to make big but affordable reductions in CO2 as quickly as possible then nuclear is the obvious answer.
Leaving aside the politics – if the AGW threat really is so serious then serious solutions shouldln’t be a threat – how quickly ( realistically ) could this occur given the lead time for siting,construction and development of a skilled workforce?
I saw the Catalyst feature on pebble bed reactors as well – certainly looks more affordable and less alarmist than traditional fission.
Perhaps we read different articles Jim, but I failed to see where the article analysed technical, economic and political factors that made nuclear power an efficient means of abating emissions.
Have you seen any good studies done on this?
Anthony,
Here’s two very quick non-political/credible sources.
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
http://www.uic.com.au/nip11.htm
There’s no doubt that nuclear is more expensive than fossil fuel generation but no currently technically feasible solution is going to be cheaper…..
Whilst there will be public concern about nuclear ( and renewables ) , I have faith that rational arguments will win the day.
The bloke referred to here for example http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hawkes-nuclear-dump-plan-pie-in-the-sky/2005/09/27/1127586828642.html was able to convince the Australian public to accept some difficult and haelthy attitude change.
Jim, that UIC link comes up with
“However governments must play a stronger role in facilitating private investment, especially in liberalized electricity markets where the trade-off between security and low price has been a disincentive to investment in new plant and grid infrastructure”
I don’t have figures on it but it would be interesting to see the rate of investment in nuclear as a % of total energy spend by nation overlaid with nations with a carbon price.
My guess would be that the only countries persisting with it, in the presence of a carbon price, are those countries with a long history (France) and that their investment is static. I would guess the nuclear movers around the world typically don’t have a carbon price and/or have some political motive for pursuing nuclear (Russia, China, US etc). i.e it is not being driven by energy economics.
It’s worth noting the Germans actually abandoned their pursuit of pebble bed reactors. Did they find something more attractive? We don’t need another energy industry built around hidden government subsidies.
and
“…wind, solar, tidal and wave energy to hydro, geothermal and biomass-based power generation. Apart from hydro power in the few places where it is very plentiful, none of these is suitable, intrinsically or economically, for large-scale power generation where continuous, reliable supply is needed.”
This is plain and simply false. The Germans, among others, are running sophisticated energy intensive economies with a high peneatration of wind/solar/biomas etc.
as for the MIT study, it seems pretty unconvincing. They concede their study is not an examination of what is the best option, and the rationale for pursuing nuclear is “because it is there, it must be part of the mix.”
Lastly, you also have to remember that nuclear implies centralised generation and subsequent transmission and distribution infrastructure. Transmission and distribution costs currently account for more than half the cost of supply infrastructure and make up the greatest % of your electricty bill. So when you talk about ‘cost of generation’ this is really a small part of the cost of actually being supplied electricity. This is a cost ultmiately borne my us, citizens and consumers.
Solar, wind, biomass, gas fired micro generation etc can all be deployed within distribution networks which makes them attractive.
If Mark Diesendorf wants his work to be subject to critical review, then he should not be asking people to pay $50 for the privilege. I assume that he has no such desire, and that a primary function of the book is to generate income.
Sylvia.
All but one post is not abusive which I applaud.
Not mentioned by anyone is the cost of disposing of waste and dismantling the infrastructure after its life cycle.
No one has mentioned the Chinese scientist who declared “Australia should not go nuclear for lack of expertise”
The germans dropped pebble reactors years ago, the requirement was then not present.
The chinese have only an small reactor in a uni establishment.
I see nuclear as an option, perhaps a good one, lets all be educated and not display outrages prejudice. So far so good, I too was impressed by the chinese demo on tele.
fluff
Frank, I agree nukes has to be considered as part of a long term mix. A radical breakthrough could make a world of difference.
What I find frustrating is that there is so much we can do on efficiency and renewables now, that is being delayed in Australia, because we appear to be holding out for a silver bullet in the form of clean coal and/or nuke.
There is equal rhetoric used by the pro and anti nuclear lobbies on why it should or shouldn’t be considered which just isn’t helpful.
What I find most frustrating is that you’ll note that whenever the case for nuclear is being made it starts with the assumption that we need 24 x 7 baseload and that coal/nuclear only can provide this, not renewables.
This is an out and out falsity, either through ignorance or deceipt and it’s helping to fuel a perception of renewables as a second rate energy source. If this keeps up in this country, coal and nuclear will be obsolete before we know it and all the benefits of the great work done on solar in particular (in Oz.) will be reaped by overseas companies and investors.
Anthony, baseload is simply the level of demand that never goes away regardless of the day of the week, or time of day. In NSW, it’s running at around 7 GW, but baseloads climb inexorably. As demand rises, new capacity has to be created to supply it. If the baseload rises to 8GW in NSW, then that means that there has to be an increase in capacity of 1GW, 24*7, to meet that demand. That extra demand cannot be met by running renewables for part of the time.
Sylvia.
Sylvia, i know what base load is but not sure what your point is?
1. Efficiency can reduce base load
2. Smarter sequencing can shift discretionary loads in line with predictable renewables such as wind
3. Sequencing predictable intermittent renewables with quick starts like gas can provide reliable base-load.
4. Renewable hybrids like solar thermal or wind with biomass/biogas etc can provide base load.
All have the effect of reducing base load, all can be done with renewables, none require clunky coal.
It’s also worth noting that the whole concept of off peak was developed so that load profiles better matched the output profile of clunky coal. That is, you can’t just shut down and start up coal fired when you need it,it has to run continuously, so load profiles were engineered to match. This can be undone – off peak hot water is the classic example.
and if I can pre-empt the next logical argument against renewables – i.e. the need for back-up, lets remember that coal and nuclear also fail and also require backup.
In fact, nuclear plants in France had to shut down in a heat wave as they couldn’t discharge cooling water at the temperature required by their EPA equivalent.
We are also seeing coal plants go offline due to water shortages.
This is as much a case of ‘we need to replace coal base load’ with suitable alternatives as much as it is ‘we can replace coal base load’ with more suitable alternatives’
Anthony,
The fact that base load requirement can be reduced by efficiency has nothing to do with renewable generation.
You need to identify and quantify the discretionary loads if you want to use them to justify using wind power. They are not the same as sheddable loads, which can be disconnected during times of unusually high load.
If you want to use things like gas in conjunction with wind power, then the costs of the gas generating plant has to be treated as part of the cost of the providing the wind power, since that plant is only required because of the unreliability of wind. You cannot use the peaking plant that otherwise exists for that, because it is required anyway during peak times. If there is no wind at a peak time, then the additional plant is required.
A similar argument applies in the case of solar (the non-storage version), except that such plant never generates power at night.
Solar plant using things like molten salt for heat storage are an interesting development, but are much more expensive than coal or nuclear.
Biomass/biogas can provide base load anyway, without being associated with wind or solar, but their scale to date has been very limited.
The backup position in relation to solar (non-storage) and wind is quite different from that in relation to coal or nuclear. The probability that a wind farm is not able to produce its rated output is much much higher than for a coal or nuclear plant, and the probability that a non-storage solar plant cannot produce its rated output at night is 100%. The probabilities in both cases are so high that for each wind or solar plant, there has to be a corresponding backup plant of the same rated capacity. The costs of that plant have to be attributed to the wind or solar generator in question.
The need to shut down coal and nuclear plants has arisen because of unforeseen water shortages. It is possible to build such plants with a lower, or indeed zero, cooling water requirement, albeit at some extra cost.
Both coal and nuclear plants can be cooled using sea water, and there are quite a few coal fired plants in Australia that are. However, coal fired stations are most economic when located close to their supplying coal fields, which limits their scope for using sea water cooling. Such a consideration does not apply to nuclear plants, and given Australia’s population layout, it would make sense for Australia’s nuclear plants to be on the coast using sea water for cooling.
And creating fresh water as a useful by-product…..
Sylvia, so in a round about way you are saying we don’t need coal or nuclear to run baseload and this can be done with renewables?
The cost of back up is the cost of backup, doesnt matter if it’s backing up coal or wind. 1GW of coal needs 1GW backup, just the same as wind.
So sensible policy mix would be to reduce peak demand through load shedding, efficiency etc, free up existing gas plants for base-load and use them in conjunction with wind.
There is also the issue of loads deliberately moved to off peak to facilitate base load – big source of gains and potential fuel switching with renewbles
I understand coal can be run with dry cooling and seawater etc but water is just one of many issues with these technologies (non renewable fuel!!).
Anthony,
The gas powered generators used for backup of solar and wind are not themselves renewable.
It’s not true that 1GW of capacity needs 1GW of backup. It all comes down to probabilities. If a significant number of generators fail concurrently, then we will get black-outs. There is not sufficient spare, or backup, capacity in the system to handle large scale failures, particular at times of peak load. However, the surplus capacity is sufficient to ensure that the probability of a supply shortfall is very low. This works because the probability of a shortfall from each individual generator is already low, so the probability of multiple shortfalls is lower still.
With wind, the probability of a shortfall is not by any stretch of imagination low. It happens every time the wind is not blowing sufficiently, or is blowing too hard. Consequently there has to be a large backup capacity to ensure that there is not a net supply shortfall. Strictly speaking, this backup capacity does not have to equal the wind capacity, but given the probabilities involved it has to be pretty close.
Load shedding is done to avoid blackouts. It has a cost, so is not something to be done on a regular basis.
Freeing up gas plant for use in conjunction with renewables has the same financial impact as building new plant for the same purpose.
While it’s true that existing nuclear power generation relies on a limited resource, the resource does exist, and while it lasts is cheaper than renewables.
If we were to accept the argument that we should not use nuclear power because the fuel won’t last forever, then we should equally not use hot-rock technology, which is also a limited resource (the heat would be removed from the rock faster than it is generated).
Sylvia, you are determined to deny renewables can provide base load…..
I used gas back up as an example. This can easily be done with biomass or biogas. Solar thermal can also provide base load in a similar way. In some remote applications, solar/hydrogen hybrids can suply cheaper than deisel.
Load shedding is far cheaper than meeting peak demand with supply infrastrcuture. This could be done with smart meters (so effectively nil cost for infrastructure where smart meter replaces old meter)
Freeing up existing gas plant is far cheaper than building new gas plant, not sure how you can deny that one?
That uranium is non renewable is one of many reasons that count against it. I am not opposed to using it per say, but I am opposed to it getting a free ride on the back of a government stuck in an old and flawed paradigm which is
1- we need big base load
2- the only way to supply it is with coal and or nuclear
take these assumptions to their logical conclusion and some time in the future, it will be impossible to run our ‘modern’ economies.
Pursuing hot rocks seems to make sense because depending on the reserve you will get over 100 years of base load, emission free, risk free, which is a much better deal than nuclear (on its current technology and considering Australia’s knowledge/experience).
Anthony,
I would have thought an Australian government proposing nuclear power for base-load supply was a NEW paradigm?
… in fact a significant paradigm shift for Australia.
Anthony,
I cannot see how you can claim that a renewable is supplying some base load X if it requires the use of a non-renewable capacity to supply X at the frequent times when the renewable cannot.
The claim that biomass/biogas can be the backup capacity ignores the fact that anyone providing power using biomass/biogas is not going to be willing to be used that way unless they are compensated for the loss of income they incur when they are not generating, which would significantly push up the price. There is also the question of whether biomass/biogas can actually be scaled up sufficiently. If it can (which has not been demonstrated) then it might as well be used on its own, which still leaves wind and solar out in the cold.
Load shedding using smart meters (I assume you mean domestically) is not going to be acceptable. You seem to be talking about telling consumers that they must consume power when it is convenient for the renewables to supply it, rather than when the consumer wants to. Further, the poor consumer won’t even know from one day to the next whether they can consume a particular level of power, and if wind generation is a significant part of the mix, the consumer may find that they cannot consume a desired level of power for days on end. Smart meters are intended to provide pricing signals to consumers, not dictate when power can be used.
In any case, talk of load shedding and shifting rather belies any claim that renewables can support base load.
I’m not sure how you’re arguing that freeing up existing gas plant is cheaper than building new plant, unless you’re planning to confiscate it. It belongs to someone.
At the end of the day, any changes to the power generation infrastructure have to be acceptable to the electorate, or they won’t happen. Using load shifting to suit renewables inevitably reduces the efficiency of the overall system and pushes up the cost. Renewables remain very expensive in comparison with coal and nuclear. Wind in particular is more expensive than generally represented because it is currently using the existing system as a free backup. That could not continue if wind were operating on a much larger scale.
If renewables are to play a big part in power generation over the next 50 years, they need to achieve a much lower cost, and provide power when the consumer wants to use it, not when the generator wants to generate it.
There is so much misinformation going on with this thread that I have to at least have a go with it.
First of all there is not such thing as base load. The term ‘base load’ refers to a type of power station that due to its operating characteristics it is more efficient to run it flat out all the time rather than try to vary its output with changing demand. Base Load types of power stations are thermal coal and nuclear. They take days to start up and stop and cannot change their output efficiently in less time than hours. They can load follow but at much lower efficiency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_station
Because these power stations are intermittant and take take out significant chunks of generating capacity with a single failure a large operational reserve (currently 900MW) must be maintained to preserve grid stability. This reserve consists of spinning reserve, which is a coal plant turning its generators consuming energy but producing nothing, and very short response power stations such as diesel that can take up the load within seconds notice.
http://www.nemmco.com.au/powersystemops/powersystemops.htm#ReserveManagement
Because base load power stations cannot respond to sharp changes in demand they have to be backed up with peaking plants. These are typically gas turbines that can vary their output precisely to meet demand with minutes notice. The unresponsive nature of base load power plants limits their use in any year to 30% or 40% of the total power generated. You cannot possibly have an all nuclear Australian grid because you would still need gas fired peaking plants or pumped hydro. In France where nuclear is a large part of the national grid they buy peaking power from outside France, typically Swedish pumped hydro. We use the Snowy Mountains scheme for the same thing however falling water levels in the Scheme have meant much less power is available.
The Eastern Australian grid is controlled on a half hour by half hour bidding system that is set in the NEMMCO. (http://www.nemmco.com.au/) A very illuminating document for you all to read is this:
An Introduction to Australia’s National Electricity Market
http://www.nemmco.com.au/nemgeneral/000-0187.pdf
On page 15 you can see how a typical half hour period is despatched and priced. For example the ‘base load’ part of the power can come from anything that bids the lowest price. A wind farm that has a large front predicted to move in the next day can bid for tomorrows power at a much lower price undercutting coal power for the day. This means that for that day the wind would be supplying the ‘base load’ using advanced weather prediction to use the capacity factor of wind to its best advantage.
Any individual wind farm is usually less than 100MW and due to the fact that it could be anywhere in the grid from SE Queensland to Wilson’s Promentory or even in Tasmania it is extremely unlikely that all wind farms will drop out at the same time so almost all wind’s variations can be handled by normal operational reserves. Wind Power stations are now starting to install storage to make then more despatchable and increasing the value of the electricity.
http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/8/30/2280046.html
If more wind farms start doing this they can then earn large amounts of money doing ancillary services and operational reserves. With V2G and large scale storage it is conceivable that ALL the operational reserves could be meet by storage eliminating the costly and wasteful spinning reserve. Solar thermal power stations can also store heat in molten salts and supply power at night if needed. However if you look at the demand curves on the NEMMCO site solar thermal, particularly if some are oriented more toward the west, matches the demand pretty well. So even without storage Solar Thermal can supply easily the peak demands just by operating normally with the rise and fall of the sun. Again as the Solar Thermal plants can be anywhere in NSW or QLD it is very unlikely that it will be cloudy everywhere at the same time. Combining the two, solar and wind, together even further reduces the intermittancy of renewables as it even more unlikely that it will be both cloudy and still in all the places at the same time. Also as a lot of the peak demand is air conditioning solar is at its strongest precisely when demand is greatest, when it is hot and sunny.
Nobody says that we have to stop burning coal. What we have to do is limit coal to less than 30% of the grid and also gasify the coal, rather than burning it directly, and try to store some of the resultant CO2. Gasifying coal means that the output gas is burnt in a gas turbine that CAN respond on the 2007 grid in a timely fashion rather than at present that has 19th century technology desperately trying to cope with 21st century loads . The only thing new in nuclear plants is the method of boiling water – everything else is strictly from the Victorian age of steam.
We do not need nuclear at all, the last thing a modern 21st century smart grid needs is more inflexible base load power stations. Particularly in such a nation as ours with so much renewable potential.
Jennifer, the paradigm that big base load is needed and that this needs coal and nuclear is old.
The fact that the federal government is pro nuclear, and this is a relatively ‘new’ thing, does not make the paradigm new.
Syliva, you are bordering on double speak now. Supplying base load with renewables and undertaking load shedding/cycling can both occur independant of each other and with no noticeable impact on the energy function required by the consumer. Have a look at what they are doing in SA with cycling air-conditioners.
Cycling/shedding/shifting peak loads is FAR mosre cost effective than supplying peak electricity.
Matching interruptible loads can also be done in a way which maximises the value obtained out of predictable supply loads, such as those generated by wind, which drives DOWN the long run marginal cost.
Lastly, if I hear another person say renewabels can’t compete with the cost of coal and nuclear I think I’ll crack it.
What price do you assume for emissions?
Cost over what lifecycle?
How do you price risk?
What about the cost of supply infrastructure (which typically exceeds the cost of generation unless it’s decentralised wind/solar etc!!)
Coal and nuclear is only ‘cheap’ because we are not accounting for their costs.
Please remember that our fragile coal generators recently bid their baseload to $70MWh because of water shortages, those shortages aren’t going away anytime soon in Victoria and Brisbane, and that $70MWh is comparable with wind, without a price for emissions!
ps: and at what point did nuclear become attractive to the electorate?!?
Anthony,
While it’s true that load shifting is cheaper than supplying peak load, that’s not what you’re arguing in favour of. You’re arguing that loads should be shifted from wherever they occur to whatever time the renewable generators can support that load, without regard to whether the load is shifted to a peak time, or from one.
Given that you claim that supplying base load with renewables can occur independently of load shifting/shedding, perhaps you can explain how wind farms can support a specified base load (let’s say 1GW) without using any load shifting or shedding.
Sylvia, wind farms up, spinning reserve down.
Also storage and quick start back up means wind can provide 99% reliable (as good or better than coal) baseload as I’ve pointed out about 20 times on this thread.
Also wind isn’t the only renewable out there that can do it!!!
Sylvia, I am arguing that there are about 5 different ways that our loads can be better supplied than they currently are. Some involve renewables, some involve load shedding etc etc
Regardless of the above, the main point is that a big baseload is not necessary. A big baseload demand has been created because it suits clunky coal, not because it has to be that way.
can we move on yet?
Are you are fixated on the idea that 20 wind farms spread across the country all start and stop at the same time therefore they are a waste of time?
Sylvia – “Given that you claim that supplying base load with renewables can occur independently of load shifting/shedding, perhaps you can explain how wind farms can support a specified base load (let’s say 1GW) without using any load shifting or shedding.”
It comes down to capacity factors. Wind is generally assumed to be 30%, coal is about 85%. Both generating systems need operational reserves as neither has a capacity factor of 100%.
Assuming the unrealistic scenerio of 100% wind power then you would need a very large operational reserve to ensure grid stability. Equally as coal fired power stations are typically large for high efficiency then 100% coal would also require large operational reserves to supply 1GW 100% of the time without load shedding. Also 100% coal would not be able to handle peak power loads and would probably require load shedding just as much as 100% wind to cope with changing demand.
I think what Anthony was getting at (please correct me if I am wrong) is that the perceived intermittancy of wind and sun does not in itself require load shedding or shifting. A renewable grid will include storage as well as fossil fuels used in a more intelligent way than burning the coal and heating water. As long as operational reserves are maintained then the grid will be stable without load shedding. You do know that customers can pay less for their electricity if they agree to be shut off when needed? This happens now with the fossil fuel grid because of a lack of peaking power which is always in incredible demand at the height of summer.
Ender – correct. Does not necessarily require load shedding/shifting etc, but can be used to improve utilisation
Ender,
The characteristics of a generator are not entirely described by its rated capacity and capacity factor. You need to include details about how predictable the capacity is. A generator that spends 10% of its time out of action because of scheduled maintenance is more predictable that a generator that spends 10% of its time not generating because of random events, yet both would have a 90% capacity factor.
If both supply and demand were 100% predictable, we wouldn’t need an operational reserve. Anything that reduced the predictability of either supply or demand contributes to the need for a reserve, and since reserve costs money, it is the causers of unpredictability that must ultimately bear the cost.
Wind power is in a league of its own when it comes to unpredictability, and the cost of the extra operational reserve required must be attributed to the wind generators.
Alternatively, if the use of wind power leads to increased load shedding, then the cost of that increase must again be attributed to the wind generators.
If the grid includes storage capacity, then that capacity also has a cost. The unpredictability of wind power has to be offset by additional storage capacity. The cost of that…
Sylvia.
Anthony,
OK, let’s assume there are 20 wind farms each of 100MW capacity, spread up the east cost of Australia. That’s a total installed capacity of 2GW.
How much power in total are you prepared to guarantee to deliver at any particular moment?
Sylvia.
Sylvia – “The characteristics of a generator are not entirely described by its rated capacity and capacity factor. You need to include details about how predictable the capacity is. A generator that spends 10% of its time out of action because of scheduled maintenance is more predictable that a generator that spends 10% of its time not generating because of random events, yet both would have a 90% capacity factor.”
That is not entirely correct as the capacity factor of a coal plant includes both planned maintenance and unplanned outages. You cannot predict when a fossil fuel generator will fail however you can now predict with a reasonable degree of certainty when the wind will blow. Weather forecasting is much better that it used to be.
As I said before individual coal generators tend to be very large, 500MW or more. The consequences of one of these dropping out is quite large necessitating a large operational reserve to cope with it. Individual wind farms are quite small in comparison and are easily coped with by the present operational reserve. There would be no requirement up to about 25% penetration of wind for any extra operational reserve.
Wind operators are only too happy to install storage. Modern wind turbines use variable speed generators that do not need gearboxes to generate electricity. The conversion to 50hz AC is done in sophisticated power converters that require almost no modification to include storage. These power converters by their design and with storage can do very high value ancillary services of grid phase and frequency stabilisation so they are a money spinner for the wind farm. Wind farms with storage can also bid on more solidly on chunks of the demand increasing the despatchability of the power. There is no question of consumers bearing the cost of storage.
let me do the wind mapping exercise and then i will tell you.
Ender,
I didn’t say that a coal fired station’s capacity factor was solely a result of scheduled maintenance. I was just drawing attention to the issue.
Short term bidding for dispatch purposes is not so much the problem – to the extent that a windfarm does not fulfill its commitment, it will be required to pay a proportion of the frequency support ancillary costs, under the causer pays
scheme.
At the moment, windfarm output is not subject to dispatch, though this will change in the future.
However, it is not the short term dispatch that concerns me, but the determination in the longer term of required reserves. On the face of it, little of the wind generator capacity can be included when planning reserves, because wind generator output is completely unpredictable on timescales greater than a few days. This means that other capacity has to be planned for, and built, that effectively duplicates a large part of the installed capacity of wind farms. So we’re brought right back to the issue of cost.
Sylvia – “How much power in total are you prepared to guarantee to deliver at any particular moment?”
The usual answer to this sort of question is 20% firm as this is the industry standard. However in practice this can be much larger.
“On the face of it, little of the wind generator capacity can be included when planning reserves, because wind generator output is completely unpredictable on timescales greater than a few days. This means that other capacity has to be planned for, and built, that effectively duplicates a large part of the installed capacity of wind farms. So we’re brought right back to the issue of cost.”
No that is not how electricity is planned at all. As I said the wind can be counted by industry as 20% firm despatchable power. You do not have to predict the output of wind any more that you have to predict the failure of a large coal fired power plant. You simply need to size your reserves to cope with whatever happens on any one day.
The other capacity as you refer to it needs to be planned anyway. Thermal coal and nuclear plants need to be backed up with peaking plants. There probably exists today enough coal power to power all of Australia at any one time. However due to thermal coal’s slow response to change, peaking plants supply a large part of demand. In essence we already have duplicated a large part of the installed capacity of coal simply because thermal coal cannot do peaking.
In the future we will need all types of power stations as we do now. However we do not need nuclear as we can gasify enough coal, use gasified biomass and geothermal (hot dry rocks) to supply what base load thermal coal supplies now with VERY much lower greenhouse emissions. The intermediate IGCC plants can interact with the renewable grid requiring most of the wasteful spinning reserve to be switched off further reducing emissions. Finally the storage that is now being added to renewable power stations, making them firmly despatchable, and Vehicle to Grid from advanced electric transport will hopefully take over as operational reserve.
Surely this is better than building 25 nuclear base load plants that will also need peaking plants, producing 30tons of spent nuclear fuel each per year that needs another incredibly expensive facility to permanently store – even if this can be done.
Ender,
The total electrical load consists of an unvarying base load plus a varying additional load. The coal fired stations run at their rated output to support the unvarying base load and the peaking plants support the varying load. The peaking capacity does not duplicate the base load capacity.
The idea that spinning reserves are inefficient is wrong. They use some fuel to overcome internal losses, but when unloaded they use little fuel compared with when they are loaded.
Adding storage to renewable plants hugely increases their cost (although simply reflecting their true cost when they’re not allowed to freeload off the rest of the system).
There are ramifications of the 20% firm dispatchable wind power, but I’m waiting for Anthony to come back with his figure.
Sylvia.
Sylvia – “The total electrical load consists of an unvarying base load plus a varying additional load. The coal fired stations run at their rated output to support the unvarying base load and the peaking plants support the varying load. The peaking capacity does not duplicate the base load capacity.”
I really think you need to read the document that I posted on how the NEMMCO works. The total electrical load is calculated on a half hourly basis and whatever is cheapest, which at the moment, happens to be cheap coal is selected to supply demand. Coal is only this cheap because it does not include any environmental costs and includes subsidies from governments. In effect it is coal that is free loading and we will pay the price one day if coal’s greenhouse emissions really do cause climate change. Coal also emits tons of pollutants causing respiratory problems that they also do not pay for.
Australia’s had a generating capacity in 2000 of approx 43GW which is 80% coal
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/national_energy_grid/australia/index.shtml
These generators run flat out could have generated in a year 43 * 24 * 365 = 376 680 GWh of electricity. In 2000 these generators generated not 376 680GWh but 202 000GWh so obviously there is quite a lot of spare capacity that is not being used – at least in 2000.
The rosy picture you have of coal plants running and generating an unvarying base load of power is what the large generators would like you to think is what happens. In the real world of electricity markets and very dynamic loads this is not even close to what actually happens. There is quite a large duplication presently in the system. You could not possibly have 20GW of base load power stations running flat out and 20GW of peaking power supplying a 40GW load. It may be the simple picture but it is not how it is in practice.
What we have is the equivilent of 40GW of installed base load with 10GW peak supplying a 40GW load. This load also varies from 15GW off peak to 42GW peak depending on the season and the time of day. When the demand is 42 GW is when the load shedding happens and also all possible things that can generate power are hastily pressed into service and connected to the grid to shore it up.
Adding storage to renewable power does increase their costs however now not as much as it used to. As I said before modern wind turbines already have quite sophisticated power converters that are readily adapted to storage or the power converters that are sold with the storage can do all the power conversion and conditioning for the wind turbines. Pretty soon these power converters for variable speed wind turbines and solar PV will include the option of storage as standard. Adding storage to renewables also increases the possible revenues so the costs will become neutral as storage costs decline.
Clinging on to an outmoded 19th century grid will only condemn Australia to be 20 years behind the rest of the world. Why not get into the forefront of smart grids and generate export revenues and jobs for Australians in an area where we already punch well beyond our weight, that of renewable power and advanced power controls. Already our lack of vision has caused the very storage that makes renewable more attractive, vanadium flow batteries, that were invented in Australia to have gone offshore to Canada and VRB systems. How many more clever people and technology are we to lose before this obsession with large Victorian era power stations is finally laid to rest.
Sylvia, you will be waiting a long time… but let me entertain you… 100% firm despatchable… when the wind is blowing.
If I put the 20 wind farms around the Melbourne CBD, it’s going to be pretty different to putting them offshore in bass strait isn’t it.
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
Here is perhaps a better question to consider…For how long could we dispatch coal and nuclear power without risking the viability of the biosphere?
Anthony,
The question was if the twenty wind farms are spread along the east coast of Australia. This was in response to your question “Are you are fixated on the idea that 20 wind farms spread across the country all start and stop at the same time therefore they are a waste of time?”
Sylvia.
I’ve come across a couple of interesting papers in relation to wind power usage in Denmark.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/sharman-winddenmark.pdf
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/White-DenmarkTooGood.pdf