
Australia has enough solar, wind storage in pipeline to go 100% renewables - chdaniel
https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-has-enough-solar-wind-storage-in-pipeline-to-go-100-renewables-81953/
======
clomond
As an observer following the space, it is fascinating to me how everything in
a given electricity/energy market changes once a given technology (solar,
wind, energy storage) becomes "economic". Or, in other words, the
best/cheapest on balance option for delivering electricity or primary energy.

Be aware that many current policies in Australia and vested interests are
actively AGAINST further development of renewables. So all of this is actually
IN SPITE of the regulatory environment, rather than because of it.

It will be interesting to see how prices move given all this new volume that
will be coming online in the next decade.

Note for the curious: The reason the above is even possible is because solar
and energy storage prices follow the same kind of principles / learning curve
behind the proliferation of the microchip and Moore's law. While the curve and
"speed" of cost reductions for renewables are no-where near as fast as
MicroChips, I can only hope that this trend continues. See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law)

~~~
cal5k
For large-scale solar you need batteries, and batteries do not follow this
kind of cost curve.

Countries that are truly interested in _sustainable_ energy production should
be building nuclear power plants. France & Germany will come to deeply regret
their decisions to decommission old reactors and not build new ones, since
nuclear is an incredibly safe source of baseline power.

~~~
kuzehanka
I'd give this multiple upvotes if I could.

I don't know how or why it happened, but solar/wind has become the most
prominent notion of sustainable power generation.

It isn't. Not by a long shot. We don't even have a workable way to recycle or
decommission photovoltaic solar panels after their useful lifespan. Reflector
based solar plants and wind plants are causing so much ecological damage that
their initial designers and proponents are now advocating against their use.
At the same time these plants are consuming huge amounts of land that must be
cleared of native flora and fauna. The guys building the Ivanpah solar plant
have been walking off their jobs because of the wildlife destruction they were
causing[1].

Wind and solar are a feel-good distraction which fall an order of magnitude
short of meeting our projected energy demands. I'm not fundamentally against
these power sources, but ignoring their limitations and trying to scale them
to tackle climate change is absurd.

Nuclear is literally the only path forward. Nuclear fusion preferably, but
even nuclear fission with all its downsides is currently the lowest deaths per
kWh and lowest ecological/climate impact per kWh power source that exists
today. Nuclear is also the only power source where we can internalise the
waste product and store it in an inert form instead of immediately inflicting
it on the environment. It's an order of magnitude better than solar/wind on
those metrics.

This is not a controversial fringe view. This is what pretty much everyone in
the sector has converged on over the last decade. It just hasn't filtered down
to become popular opinion for some reason.

[1]
[https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/00000144-0a3...](https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/00000144-0a33-d3cb-a96c-7b3f547d0000)

~~~
sametmax
I'm pro nuclear, but it's hard to be. The communication around the nuclear
industry has been anything but honest.

Typical nuclear plant costs, when compared to wind power in France, do not
include decommissing of the plant or the cost of cabling while it is for wind
turbines.

Also accidents side effects are downplayed so much it's insulting. According
to the french medias, the tchernobyl nuclear cloud never crossed the french
border. Yet we know now that thyroid cancer near said border spiked during a
decade, and it's impossible to sell nuclear energy to one of my best friend
whose life has be shatered it.

So the first step to promote nuclear power would be to actually respect
people.

~~~
kuzehanka
> Also accidents side effects are downplayed so much it's insulting

I think you might have fallen for media bias. While the nuclear industry
doesn't have anything resembling a flawless safety record, it's still orders
of magnitude safer than all mainstream power sources which see no scrutiny due
to the dilution of their impact.

Nuclear accidents are viewed as bad in the same way that airline crashes are
viewed as bad, despite airlines being the safest mode of transport and safer
than the car journey to the airport. They are extremely rare, and they impact
>100 people when they happen so they're always newsworthy. Unlike the 4.6M
people that die due to fossil fuel related air pollution worldwide at a steady
state each year.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents)

I'm not pro or anti nuclear. I'm just a random AU citizen following the
gradient descent path towards a future that least fucks our children.

~~~
sametmax
What bias ?

Telling the population the border is safe knowing it's not and then they get
cancer is quite factual.

I'm not talking about potential risks, I'm talking about actual confirmed
events and the way they have been handled. It's not speculation, it's history.

The problem here are not the victims. It's not the risk or the stats. It's
respect.

E.g: I can read your comment calmly. My friends with his scar in the throat
and his helicopter pilot career down the toilet ? He would insult you and you
would lose any chance of convincing him and hence his social network about
nuclear.

So yeah, the pro nuclear community has a serious communication problem.

~~~
mbell
> Telling the population the border is safe knowing it's not and then they get
> cancer is quite factual.

It's not so clear cut. Thyroid cancer rates started increasing dramatically
almost everywhere in the world in the mid 80's. Diagnosis rates in the US for
example have tripled since 1980, in South Korea they have gone up 13x since
1993. Meanwhile the mortality rate has been completely flat. The most likely
cause of this is increase in both screening and the sensitivity of testing
[1]. There is also a current debate about if we should be screening / treating
thyroid cancer the way we are, i.e. it seems like we're detecting a lot of
innocuous thyroid cancers and then operating without need resulting in
unnecessary life long complications for the person.

This is why there is a lot of research out there indicating that the vast
majority of the increase in thyroid cancer diagnosis in areas like France is
unrelated to Chernobyl.

[1]
[https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5745](https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5745)

~~~
sametmax
I understand your reasoning, but my point is precicely that it's the way we
talk about this that is important.

This is the official story we had after tchernobyl:

[https://www.bastamag.net/IMG/png/journal_televise_antenne2.p...](https://www.bastamag.net/IMG/png/journal_televise_antenne2.png?1461740160*)

This is the reality we measured:

[https://img.lemde.fr/2016/04/26/0/0/956/687/688/0/60/0/cb64c...](https://img.lemde.fr/2016/04/26/0/0/956/687/688/0/60/0/cb64c47_7635-l6ilh5.PNG)

It is worst than this, of course, because some plants accumulate radioactivity
and we ate them. No recommendation had been given to the general population at
all.

The region with the most thyroid cancers in the 20 years following is the
Isère, at the center east of this map.

Now let's say we end up calculating that the actual number of cancers is,
let's say, 100 more in France because of the cloud. It would not be much, and
would not be worth acting on it: the flu would be more dangerous.

That's not the problem.

The problem is the way we communicate on this.

------
rb808
I really dont believe this for a second.

[https://www.energymatters.com.au/energy-
efficiency/australia...](https://www.energymatters.com.au/energy-
efficiency/australian-electricity-statistics/) is a great website that shows
the mix of current generation. Right now coal is running at 90%.

The though that in 10 years time the whole country will completely switch
energy source to new renewable sources that haven't even been built yet is a
joke.

~~~
diafygi
Hmmmm, so I work in renewables, and while I don't work in the Australian
market, I would like to take issue with your assumption that a massive
transition to renewables in 10 years is a joke.

If you look at most utility procurement plans, the vast majority are
renewables, and prices are only getting cheaper. They are getting so cheap
that new solar and wind are starting to beat _currently running_ coal. Also,
beating existing gas on price is expected within 5 years.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plu...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-
prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-
coal/)

So the current behavior in the industry is that utilities are starting to
close existing coal power plants and are expected to close existing gas power
plants well before their lifespan is up simply because it's cheaper.

~~~
rb808
Hi! Yes I agree its entirely possible that renewables will make a big impact
and that should be encouraged. I'm sure in Australia with enough backing they
could get to 30% or even 50%.

I'm sure you realize though that even 80% renewables has some huge challenges
with storage. Its hard to guarantee power will always be there. There are a
lot of hot nights with no wind.

Combined with Australia having some of the cheapest coal in the world, such
headlines are just click bait.

~~~
diafygi
Hmmm, but renewables + storage is set to compete for both peak and baseload by
2035.

[https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/batteries-
renewables-...](https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/batteries-renewables-
displacing-gas/)

~~~
rb808
South Australia is a small state with green minded politicians.

------
Simulacra
I worked on trying to get this solar updraft tower built in Australia many
years ago, and it still breaks my heart we weren't able to make it happen.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tWlP0knKQU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tWlP0knKQU)

~~~
jahnu
That was a really interesting project. What were the main reasons it failed?

The one in Spain seemed to show it was feasible.

~~~
ekianjo
A 1000m tower is expensive and long to build. We have never built something as
high so far (tallest building so far is 828m).

~~~
jacobush
Crazy thought - could a mountain be converted? Build two tunnels, one
vertical, one horizontal. Probably crazily expensive, but known engineering...

~~~
ekianjo
Not sure if we have experience building such vertical tunnels in mountains
though? This would have to be much, much larger than your regular mine.

------
roenxi
reneweconomy.com.au is close to tabloid quality; the odds are good that they
will correctly report the blindingly obvious but questionable otherwise. They
are a few bars above an actual tabloid, I suppose, because at least they
aren't trying to run human interest stories.

They push a pleasant barrow in that it will be nice if renewable are the
economically best option now; but that site is the last place to look if you
want evidence that it is happening.

~~~
ipoopatwork
Thanks. That explains the graph where both storage and production are in MW

------
southern_cross
No doubt yet another article about renewables which ignores the fact that
_nameplate_ capacity is not at all the same as _average actual_ capacity. To
wit, average actual capacity is often only about 1/4 of nameplate capacity. So
take any power generation numbers quoted here and divide by four and you are
probably much closer to the actual truth of the situation.

------
ipoopatwork
Graphing storage and production in MW, side by side? The whole article looks
like a joke after that.

~~~
Brakenshire
Why not? That’s a valid and important metric for storage.

~~~
_Tev
Storage should be measured in MWh.

When you measure it in MW (i.e. how much power it can generate _per second_)
the important variable is for _how long_ you can do it - getting you back to
simply using MWh.

~~~
Brakenshire
Yes, I understand the difference between power and energy.

Both are important and widely discussed variables for energy storage.

------
syntaxing
What ever happened to the huge Tesla power bank that was installed? Did it
work out?

~~~
antt
An ant farting in a hurricane.

It provides enough power to run he state for 6 minutes or so [0] [1]. Useful
for peak lopping, but if batteries would be used to store renewables the bills
would be about 20 times higher than they are now and Australia already has
some of the most expensive power in the first world. South Australia is the
most unhealthy energy market in the developed world, and several developing
countries would be embarrassed by it.

[0] [https://aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-
Market-...](https://aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-
NEM/Data-dashboard) current demand is 1300 MWh

[1] [http://theconversation.com/yes-sas-battery-is-a-massive-
batt...](http://theconversation.com/yes-sas-battery-is-a-massive-battery-but-
it-can-do-much-more-besides-88480) 130 MWh of storage

~~~
BLKNSLVR
_An ant farting in a hurricane._

and then

 _It provides enough power to run he state for 6 minutes or so_

Powering an entire state for 6 minutes is massive. That's not what it's
designed for, however. From what I've read it's designed to be a 'smoother' in
times when the power system is under duress.

 _South Australia is the most unhealthy energy market in the developed world_

I think you mean all of Australia. The market is severely gamed by primarily
the gas generators at times when members of the aging coal fleet trip during
either the night or when there's little wind, and so gas is left as the
saviour. There have been times that gas generators have intentionally left
turbines switched off so that the electricity from the operating turbines is
of more value, as well as ignoring advice of the Market Operator to have
generators 'ready to fire up' due to predicted dips in generation from the
rest of the market.

The current government believe in 'the free market', which would ideologically
allow gaming of the system by the few participants who can jump in at times of
need. However, this is what's a significant part of the cause of power prices
in Australia being some of the highest in the world, and thus resulting in
some people not being able to afford their bills.

Imagine, in 2019, having to go back to candles? What an age we live in. A
government at the helm when people were having to go back to reading stories
by candle-light might have some multi-generational difficulty repairing their
reputation. So they've been feebly attempting to bring the generators to heel.
With little success.

(There's also a lot of validity in the arguments about poor building
regulation resulting in poorly- and un-insulated homes where electricity is
used to fill comfort void whether for heating or cooling or both. New housing
estates in Australia are a series of snug-fit cardboard boxes with pitched
roofs)

~~~
perilunar
> The current government believe in 'the free market'

Good that you put that in quotes, because of course they don't really. They
are crony capitalists at best. They killed a decent free-market approach to
climate change (Emissions Trading Scheme) in favour of more subsidies
(Renewable Energy Target).

> New housing estates in Australia are a series of snug-fit cardboard boxes
> with pitched roofs)

It breaks my heart when i drive past them. Ugly boxes with no attempt to match
the environment. They fill up the whole block almost, leaving hardly any space
for a garden. No verandahs, tiny eaves, small windows, hardly any trees.
Horrible things.

~~~
taneq
> They fill up the whole block almost, leaving hardly any space for a garden.

You're welcome to live in a tiny house on an otherwise empty block if you
prefer. Me, I like to have room inside my house where it's nice and air
conditioned.

Or are you saying people should just be rich and be able to afford nice big
houses on even bigger blocks of land (but still within a reasonable commute
time of the city)?

~~~
BLKNSLVR
It sounds as if you're intentionally misrepresenting the argument the parent
is making.

The problem is poor regulatory standards, which is a leadership problem.

------
blakesterz
I wondered what that "got" meant in this headline, the actual headline is a
bit more clear "Australia has enough solar, wind storage in pipeline to go
100% renewables"

------
youngtaff
Other part of the equation is how do we reduce consumption e.g. moving to LED
based lighting, natural cooling etc.

The less energy we consume, the less energy we need to generate

~~~
kerbalspacepro
You either have to build more efficient buildings or retrofit existing
buildings. Most home/office energy expenditure is on
heating/cooling/fridging/hot showers. Only 10% is based on lighting [1].

The best way to tackle cooling/heating is by improving insulation, but
unfortunately, there is little ability/reason to. Those that would get the
most utility out of it are poor and therefore cannot afford it. Those who can
afford it are rich, and therefore don't care about a few dollars lost to
heating/cooling the outside air. Even if the rich do care, it often isn't
worth the emotional/mental hassle of having massive construction done to your
abode.

[1][https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/)

~~~
youngtaff
Depends where you are… in the UK domestic electricity consumption fell by 2.4%
between 2016 and 2017 due to increased efficiency lighting / appliance
efficiency [1]

There was a noticeable decrease in our personal electricity consumption when
we switched to LED bulbs (our heating and hot water are gas)

[1]
[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729317/Energy_Consumption_in_the_UK__ECUK__2018.pdf)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Consider switching your heating and hot water to heat pumps.

------
linsomniac
I get really frustrated with politics surrounding fossil fuels vs. renewables.
I feel like renewables are the future, will add a valuable skillset, and are
very achievable.

But then it feels like we have a significant number of politicians who won't
push for renewables because they are holding onto this "climate change is a
myth" narrative, and are getting money from fossil fuels.

This is why we can't have nice things.

~~~
kerbalspacepro
Politicians don't push for renewables because it doesn't get them any points
with their constituencies. You can point to energy lobbyists as a reason for
this, but it isn't necessary to do so. You can just ask the average citizen-
"how much do you care?" and the answer is low to not at all (ignore the polls,
look at their actual actions and behaviors).

------
schappim
We may have the renewables, but sadly we don’t have the investment in the
network to support the transmission of these renewables.

------
intothemild
It won’t happen, because people like Gina Reinhardt won’t let it happen.

(She owns most of the Coal in Australia)

~~~
nat8265639392
Iirc, she also has or had quite a bit invested in Australia’s media.

How would I find out which companies are invested in the media and the cross
over between it and mining companies? That would be something I want to read.

I’m not saying that they uses that to influence public opinion. But I do worry
that it could be that way. The media here loves going on about the ‘baseload’.
What ever that means.

------
k__
I don't understand why so many people insist on using fossils.

On the one hand, "the west" is hating on Russia and the middle east for
whatever reasons, on the other hand, they pour money into them like there is
no tomorrow.

~~~
WhompingWindows
Who is "so many people"? From my view, 95% of the people I know (in a very
liberal area, btw) don't consider their carbon footprint at all. They don't
want to give up cheeseburgers, fancy cars (aka 2 ton wheelchairs), or living
in their specific way. The idea that I want to bike to work, for health and
emissions, is met with: "Wow, you're taking your life into your hands whenever
you don't drive a car".

------
antt
It won't and it can't. Rather it can at the cost of ~20 trillion dollars
(23GWh [1] at 900 million [0] for GWh for the Tesla battery).

You need all that energy storage for when it's not sunny (like at night) and
not windy and when you're in the middle of a decade long drought [2]. All
things Australia is likely to get in the next 15 years.

If you want power without CO2 you either go nuclear or you expect 90% of your
grid to go offline about monthly.

[0] [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-27/tesla-battery-cost-
re...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-27/tesla-battery-cost-revealed-two-
years-after-blackout/10310680) $90 millio for 100 MWh

[1] [https://www.aemo.com.au/](https://www.aemo.com.au/) current total demand
~23 GWh.

[2] [https://opennem.org.au/#/all-regions](https://opennem.org.au/#/all-
regions)

~~~
mojomark
> It won't and it can't. Rather it can at the cost of ~20 trillion dollars
> (23GWh [1] at 900 million [0] for GWh for the Tesla battery).

Sorry, this statement is incomplete and as a result, leads to an incorrect
conclusion.

Tesla (and other Li-ion batteries) are suitable for certain applications
(e.g., powering cars, power tools, phones), but bulk energy storage is not one
of them. Saying you want to store grid-scale power with tesla batteries is
analogous to saying you want to replace the lights in a football stadium with
thousands of mobile phone screens. You can do it, but screens are good at
displaying image content to single users and not meant for general
illumination, and would cost prohibitive from an acquisition standpoint not to
mention the ancillary cost issues (e.g. lifetime, replacement).

All you need to do is find an energy storage technology that is appropriate,
and the solution suddenly becomes viable. Molten Salt storage, for example, is
33 times cheaper than Li-ion storage. Other much more appropruate mass energy
storage options includes H2 production, or 'simply' pumping water upstream of
a hydroelectric plant.

1\. [https://www.solarthermalworld.org/content/molten-salt-
storag...](https://www.solarthermalworld.org/content/molten-salt-
storage-33-times-cheaper-lithium-ion-batteries)

~~~
Sabinus
Why is this downvoted? He's even got a source.

