Renewables - Death Knell?

[Renato1 (Renato)]

The issue about renewable energy discussed in the other thread has taken a fascinating turn.

In this article of 17 Feb 2013, previously provided by Clive on the other thread, we see Bloomberg Energy Finance telling us that renewables are so much cheaper than conventional power, that they can survive without subsidies.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/rene...ustralia-62268

But in this Sydney Morning Herald Article of 16 July 2014, we see Bloomberg Energy Finance making comments, and statements made that the viability of future and existing renewable energy projects are threatened if the Abbott Government tinkers with the Renewable Energy Targets (though I can't tell if Bloomberg or someone else is making some of those statements). And that investment in the entire industry has nearly totally dried up at the mere thought of the Government altering those targets.
http://m.smh.com.au/environment/clim...716-ztio2.html

As I see it, the two positions are mutually exclusive - there has to be a porky being told in one of them.

If renewables are so cheap, how can it be that tampering with the targets results in
"That would potentially affect the viability of even existing investments."???

Am I being too harsh?
Cheers,
Renato

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

You are correct that both statements cannot be simultaneously true - there is some cognitive dissonance going on here.
I posted about this issue on my blog recently, Renato, following the ABC "4 Corners" program:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/07/1...eld-of-dreams/

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

You are correct that both statements cannot be simultaneously true - there is some cognitive dissonance going on here.
I posted about this issue on my blog recently, Renato, following the ABC "4 Corners" program:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/07/1...eld-of-dreams/

Very interesting read, thanks Barry. I didn't know you had a blog.

Plainly the ABC has its agenda, and questions which could lead to inconvenient facts are deliberately not asked. I seriously doubt those reporters are as inept as what could be inferred from reading the article on your blog.

Reading that article reminded me of my brother's experience who attended a talk some years back by the people who had received millions of dollars to build a small pilot plant for carbon sequestration. They described how it was done and how it had all worked out very well.

They then took questions, where one audience member asked what they had to do to upscale it and make it work with the real power plants. Unlike Four Corners, the presenters were quite honest, and said that there was no way that what they had done would work with a real plant.
Cheers,
Renato

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

They were likely referring to the Otway Pilot Project run by the CO2CRC:
http://www.co2crc.com.au/otway/

[Renato1 (Renato)]

I found out today what was puzzling me in the first post below, namely why current renewables/ wind farms may not be viable in the future, if the RET is changed. Short answer is that they won't be able to price gouge as much.

From Nick Cater at the Australian, describing the new Mafia.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opin...5a8aeadc03065b

"Wind farms may be ugly but they are certainly not cheap, nor is the electricity that trickles from them. No one in their right minds would buy one if they had to sell power for $30 to $40 a megawatt hour, the going rate for conventional producers.

But since the retailers are forced to buy a proportion of renewable power, the windmill mafia can charge two to three times that price, a practice that in any other market would be known as price gouging.

As if a $60 premium were not reward enough, the transaction is further sweetened with a renewable energy certificate that they can sell to energy producers who insist on generating power in a more disreputable manner.

The going rate of $40 a megawatt hour means the total income per megawatt for wind farms is three to five times that of conventional power, and unless the government changes the scheme that return is only going to get better.

In an act of rent-seeking genius, the renewable lobby managed to persuade the Rudd government to set the 2020 target as a quantity — 41 terawatt hours — rather than 20 per cent of overall power as originally proposed.

Since the target was set, the energy generation forecast for 2020 has fallen substantially, meaning the locked-in renewable target is now more like 28 per cent.

That will send conventional producers scrambling for certificates, pushing up their price beyond $100. It’s a mouth-watering prospect for the merchant bankers and venture capitalists who were smart enough to jump on board, ... but of little or any benefit to the planet.

The cost of this speculative *financial picnic will be about $17 billion by 2030 or thereabouts, *according to Deloitte, which produced a report on the messy business last week."

[Wavytone]

Distorting a free market for idealogical reasons ALWAYS backfires, no matter how well-intentioned it may have been.

An unfortunate little lesson from history that the greens and ALP repeatedly ignore.

This is no different, it will just take a little longer than most previous examples.

Wind farms and solar also ultimately fail for another reason - the actual energy density per square kilometre than can be harvested has been grossly overstated in most analyses. The real results achieved fall well short.

And there still remains the problem that these do nothing to see the problem of meeting peak demand for electricity on cold winter nights with neither wind nor sun, or on hot summer days with no wind. Blackouts in extreme conditions will be regular, if the greens are allowed to dictate energy policy.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Distorting a free market for idealogical reasons ALWAYS backfires, no matter how well-intentioned it may have been.

An unfortunate little lesson from history that the greens and ALP repeatedly ignore.

This is no different, it will just take a little longer than most previous examples.

Wind farms and solar also ultimately fail for another reason - the actual energy density per square kilometre than can be harvested has been grossly overstated in most analyses. The real results achieved fall well short.

And there still remains the problem that these do nothing to see the problem of meeting peak demand for electricity on cold winter nights with neither wind nor sun, or on hot summer days with no wind. Blackouts in extreme conditions will be regular, if the greens are allowed to dictate energy policy.

Can't argue with that - but remember who it was that introduced the Renewable Energy Target? John Howard!

A very costly policy turned into law to grab a few votes.

And plenty in the Liberals still seem to be in favour of it. The main public proponent of it is former Liberal leader John Hewson.

And so far, in Australia, all those wind farms - apart from all the shortfalls you've mentioned - have hardly reduced any coal consumption, because the coal fired stations can't be turned off when the wind farms are pumping power.
Regards,
Renato

[xelasnave]

I wonder if Mr Hewson has any shares in wind farm corps...Should be on the record but I can't be bothered to look.
In any event with out being disrespectful I wonder how politicians decide something is good or bad..I use a cost benefit system but how do they do it...
Its is good it gets votes
It is good a major supporter will make money
It is good the nation will benefit
Renewables can only help the picture they are not miracle solutions enabling us to close coal mines and shut down drilling rigs.
Maybe we could rely solely on renewables if we have acres of batteries the size of swimming pools but even then it won't be cheap_

[xelasnave]

I have a massive 100 amp battery it is the key.
You should only use 20 % so I get by on 20 amps
Of course I think anyone who needs more is a glutton
The power for the battery comes from a 85 watt panel
There is a 800 watt generator for the run of rainy days but it tops up the battery firstly and rarely would I use it direct.
Before I lived alone the system was larger ..400 amp hours of battery storage.
But renewables are not going far without batteries.
Selling solar power to the grid will never teach people how to manage power..but if there was a battery bank in every house folk would be educated on power use..the key is you get out what you put in..much like the banks once with money.

[Retrograde (Pete)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Distorting a free market for idealogical reasons ALWAYS backfires, no matter how well-intentioned it may have been.

So what about the at least $10 BILLION in subsidies that the fossil-fuel industry receives every year in Australia?

This is a far greater market distortion than the RET but it is entrenched and largely uncommented on in our media.

The forces behind the climate-change denial industry (and an industry it most certainly is) hate renewable energy because they don't own it and can't sell it. They even dreamt up a fake illness called 'wind-turbine syndrome' that doesn't actually exist in order to demonise renewables.

Renewable energy is the future because it's essentially free - yes I know there are significant set-up costs but that's like complaining about free petrol because you have to buy your own car .
The issues surrounding constant supply of renewable energy can be overcome in the future by improving electricity storage technologies and modest add-ons from other sources in the mean-time at times of peak demand.

All of Australia's electricity needs can be satisfied by a solar collecting area a bit larger than the ACT (and we don't have to use the actual ACT although.....).
Australia has a huge potential advantage in solar that our coal-powered government is determined to ensure we miss out on as it has been bought-and-paid-for by the mining industry.

[Redshift13 (Rohan)]

Originally Posted by Retrograde

All of Australia's electricity needs can be satisfied by a solar collecting area a bit larger than the ACT (and we don't have to use the actual ACT although.....).

The ACT (Parliament House, specifically) should be used as a centre for thermal energy - it's full of hot air!

[glend (Glen)]

Wind energy has to be the most over-hyped generation method of them all. Those towers and turbines cost a fortune, and the payback period on that investment is decades, and by then they need to be replaced. The wind turbine that sits on the side of Cormorant Road in Newcastle NSW (ironcially positioned next to the coal loader) is being dismantled and removed, its been there for years but the thing doesn't generate much power and is expensive to keep running. There is no business case that makes sense, especially for a country like Australia with so much natural solar capability.

I am in the process of going off-grid, or at least to only use it for off-peak charging in an emergency. I looked carefully at wind generation but the NSW regulations for residential use make it impossible. Secondly residential sized wind generators are very expensive to buy and maintain and are terrible KW/H generatrs compared to the economics of solar.

Sadly at the very time we should encourage solar the retailers are all cutting the buy back rate to prop up their revenues ahead of having to hand back money to customers due to the Carbon Tax repeal. The IPART report that came out in late June this year recommended that for un-regulated solar buy back customers (which is all of us not on the $0.60 KW/H or $0.20 KW/H regulated rates) the rate should be set at from 4.9 cents to 9.3 cents per KW/H. Many retailers were paying 7.7 cents KW/H, and they are now using that IPART report to justify a reduction to around 5 cents - which is rediculous as the old rate was within the recommended range. They (the retailers) are just using the IPART report as an excuse. I rang the NSW Energy Ombudsman's office about this behaviour and was told they don't set a specific rate but leave it to the market to sort out. Well I am not going to take it anymore.

[casstony]

Rooftop solar with 3 or 4 Kwh of storage (when battery prices drop) for evening consumption makes a lot of sense, except for incumbent energy providers who are attacking solar to protect their profits.

[rustigsmed (Russell)]

i'd prefer if governments stopped fussing about with type 0 civilisation energy sources, aimed high and invested their money on fusion, bring on the type 1 i say.

[AndrewJ]

But renewables are not going far without batteries.

Dunno. The latest work on liquid salts storage looks promising.
Maybe no good ( yet ) for individual houses, but if built as a unit to supply say 10 linked houses, it may be possible to use this mechanism in a cost effective manner.
Lots more environmentally friendly ( relative to current batteries )
Also lots of good work is going on here, but unfortunately, most is now being done overseas as we have killed off any incentives here.
There was a doco on recently where a uni had gone back to the past.
They were testing the use of a modern variant of a 2 stage "low pressure" reciprocating steam engine, which would make the technology feasible for small installations. Very interesting stuff getting done.
Ahh found it
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/sola...m-engine-10979
Still early days, but selecting an "engine" to match the available storage, vs the other way round is a neat bit of thinking.
I see an Aussie is part of the design team,


Andrew

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by glend

Wind energy has to be the most over-hyped generation method of them all. Those towers and turbines cost a fortune, and the payback period on that investment is decades, and by then they need to be replaced. The wind turbine that sits on the side of Cormorant Road in Newcastle NSW (ironcially positioned next to the coal loader) is being dismantled and removed, its been there for years but the thing doesn't generate much power and is expensive to keep running. There is no business case that makes sense, especially for a country like Australia with so much natural solar capability.

These things work very well in the northern sea where the rain falls horizontally 300 days in a year. That's why the largest manufacturer of wind turbines is Danish. Now they flogged them all over the world. Well... some are still made by GE. Still, as you pointed out massive production and maintenance costs. They look pretty though.

[The_bluester (Paul)]

I have been looking into rooftop PV for some years. While it would have made sense financially at the personal level, I have thought that the premium feed in rates were a stupid idea as they distorted the market badly, and they end up coming back to us in the rates for conventionally generated power anyway.

I think what Alex wrote above is quite true, Solar PV with storage would teach people a lot about energy consumption. I am holding off any decisions at the moment to see if the much promised storage solutions actually do appear soon. If that is the case then suddenly a spend on solar PV makes a lot more sense for us.

As things stand we could probably justify a modest grid connected system with no storage, we have two people at home during the day every day so offsetting our daytime consumption with locally generated output would probably be financially viable. Better still would be a system which could provide enough current to run our aircon either in cooling mode in summer or as a heat top up in winter. It would be nice to be able to switch it on without wondering if the flicking sound from the fan is a $100 note being shredded rather than a leaf that has been sucked in!

Solar PV and storage would be even better, our location means that electric cooking is about the only viable option, being able to harvest and store enough excess during the day to cook our dinner after dark would be a godsend in the almost certain TOU future where it might cost 60c/KWH to cook dinner in peak time, useage that can not be readily pushed outside peak times if you have a child in the home.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

Renewable energy is the future because it's essentially free - yes I know there are significant set-up costs but that's like complaining about free petrol because you have to buy your own car

Given that the typical capacity factor of a wind turbine in Australia is 30%, that still means you have to buy fuel (i.e. natgas) 70% of the time -- and pay for that plant too. The myth that renewable energy is in any way 'free' (and, along with solar, is like dollar bills on the pavement that no one is picking up) is one of the biggest impediments to a rational energy policy in Australia.

[glend (Glen)]

The problem with salt storage for mini-grid communities is that you can't control peoples usage behaviour and someone will always use way more power than someone else on that mini-grid. You would need a mechanism to equate costs to usage and eliminate the 'free-riders'.

Personal systems are the only way to have effective control over usage and allows selective sacrifice when necessary. We are too use to being able to use any appliance at any time without regard for consumption costs. When you are faced with the choice of having the heater running or being able to cook a meal it will hit home.

I am very much against the trend for wood fired heaters in homes, not just for the obvious health risks inside the home, but the pollution these things put out. There are alot of these things around my area and you can see the smoke haze in the evening as people get home and fire them up. I am worried about this trend continuing in the face of ever rising costs, but the wood cutters are making money. They have the potential to impact astronomy activities as well (smoke hanging in inversion layers, columns of heat affecting seeing, etc).

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Given that the typical capacity factor of a wind turbine in Australia is 30%

and 35% maximum regardless, even if it's windy enough. If it is too windy then they have to shut them down. Talked to my dad recently and all the wind hype hasn't been faring too well in Europe for the past two years especially in Germany. Denmark are the first to admit it's BS, well not on the official channels because it is one of their core business. Just Google 'Energiewende'. It's paints a pretty accurate picture of what's been going on.