Hooray! :) My question to mark Diesendorf, whose published research is excellent (I think) is as follows:

What percentage of gas is required to make your scenarios work and what are the emission levels associated with this use (including the life cycle of the fuel source or agricultural offset emissions if bio fuel) and what is the cost to implement such a scenario?

Mark Harrigan,

I can give you a preliminary response while waiting for Mark Diesendorf's answer. In the early work Ben Elliston did for his PhD, supervised by Mark Diesendorf, he modelled an NEM with 100% renewable energy to meet the 2010 demand profile (averaged to hourly demand demand, so lower peak than actual). That modelling required 13% of biofuels. It's important to note that this does not provide even close to the reliablity we demand, but Mark disputes that. Since biofuels are not viable in the real world, I substituted natural gas and estimated the capital cost, cost of electricity and CO2 abatement cost. You can see a summary of the results in Figure 6 here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

The cost of the total system, and cost of electricity from the total system is what is important.

They have done more work, but from what little I know of it, the criticisms outline in the link above remain and the reduced amount of back up generation they have calculated is not credible, IMO.

Thank you for your reply Peter Lang. I am passingly familiar with your work on BNC and the criticisms of Mr Diesendorfs approach.

I agree with your costs about the total system comment and would really like to see more public, civil discourse based on about this. I look forward to the forthcoming paper that Mark talks about and I hope we can have a good public discussion/debate about it.

I'm not sure who would be a good authority to contribute to the discussion but I share your concerns about reliability - especially as I recollect my reading of the 2010 demand modelling that Mark did was based on a number of "weeks" from the real demand - some "easy", some "average" and some "challenging". I gather that many power engineers have raised real concerns but alas the "blogosphere" debate too frequently descends into slanging matches about "baseloaders" versus "wishful thinkers" which i don;t think helps much.

Have you considered putting your conclusions and critiques into the peer reviewed literature as Mark does? Whilst I respect BNC very much it would be good to have the original work and the critiques subject to the peer review process.

What tends to get forgotten in discussions around intermittency of renewables and the need to maintain a stable grid is that generators and distributors are already pretty good at coping with less than fully predictable demand - they've simply had to be.

Therefore, while adding the issue of intermittency of supply (though this can be hugely mitigated through developing a range of technologies across the whole country, supported by increasingly effective storage systems like molten salt) to unpredictability of demand does add to the complexity of calculations, it's only a mater of degree not kind, and it's something we're simply going to have to learn to cope with.

The argument that it is difficult becomes pointless when stacked up against the glaring fact that we have no choice. The potential damage to machinery that Tony raises is genuine, but it pales into insignificance compared to the damage that will be inflicted by unrestrained climate change.

In short, I think we're in danger of ending up in the disastrous by refusing to deal with the merely difficult.

Tony,

biogas, geothermal, concentrating solar thermal with storage, conventional hydro and pumped storage hydro can all provide grid regulation functions in the same way as our existing grid generators. They are also arguably more flexible than our existing baseload generators.

Even wind and PV can provide a limited amount of grid support services if appropriately specified.

John. I know you are not a climate science denier so I am totally baffled by your argument.

"To be consistent the authors should renounce feed-in tariffs which to my thinking are unambiguous subsidies."

What are you on about? Of course they are subsidies. That is the whole point. Because of global warming, we need to encourage the uptake of renewable energy and discourage the use of fossil fuels. Anything that encourages the use of fossil fuels - whether it is a diesel fuel rebate or a set of steak knives with every drum of diesel should be phased out.

Renewables are not competing against fossil fuels.

Renewables are competing against fossil fuels + the damage being done to environment by continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere.

@ Mike and John - I think the whole "subsidy" debate is a bit of a furphy.

First we have a real definitional problem of what is a subsidy and what is not. Then there is the question of whether we are comparing apples with oranges. For example - is the diesel fuel rebate a "subsidy" for the generation of electricity delivered to homes and business by poles and wires? Clearly the feed in tariff is a subsidy but is this a bad thing?

Mark Diesendorf has cliamed the miners and farmers "don't need" the diesel fuel rebate - (I doubt you'd get many of them to agree!!) but I'm not sure it's relevant?

Globally the best data I can find is in the link below (global not local alas)

http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/relative_energy_subsidies.pdf

have a look at Table 1 on page 3. It shows that on a per kWh basis fossil fuels enjoy the lower subsidies and renewables the highest - but then - isn't that what it SHOULD be?

Dr Diesendorf's comments about reliability of a system with only 7% of electricity supplied by back-up are not credible. Table 4 here http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ suggest that 46% of electricity would need to be supplied by back up generators

Regarding biofuels, Dr Diesendorf never did answer these questions posed to him on the thread where he replied to my critique:

"1. Dr. Diesendorf says it is too early to focus on the costs of the system he has analysed and written about. The cost should be the focus from the start. Cost of the systems proposed by renewable energy researchers and proponents should have been the focus of their research and papers for the past 20 years. So to say it is too early to consider costs reinforces what many have been complaining about – the misleading information renewable energy advocates have been presenting for at least the past two decades.

2. Gas turbines running on biofuels. The capital cost of the fuel collection, processing, storage and distribution system has to be included either in the cost of the fuel or in the capital cost of the system. I chose to include it in the capital cost of the system so I could make visible the total capital cost of the system. Dr. Diesendorf refers to only the capital cost of the actual gas turbine generating plant. He does not mention the cost of the fuel collection, processing, storage and distribution system.

3. Reliability: Peak demand in the NEM in winter 2009-10 was about 33 GW, and the installed capacity was 49 GW (mostly reliable fossil fuel plants). Some 33 GW of gas turbines running on natural gas and our existing 7.1 GW of hydro would probably not meet the AER’s reliability requirements. You don’t need an loss of load probability (LOLP) analysis to recognise that 24 GW of gas turbines running on biofuels, and the same capacity of hydro, CST, PV and Wind as assumed in EDM-2011 would not go close to providing a reliable electricity supply.

4. Dr. Diesendorf says:
"the maximum demand on the NEM in the year we simulated, 2010, was 33.65 GW at 3 pm on 11 January. Our baseline renewable energy mix met this demand with several GW of gas turbines in reserve."

This statement refers to summer peak demand. The statement is misleading. The issue is meeting the winter peak demand when the renewable energy output is not even sufficient to recharge the solar thermal storage let alone the pumped hydro. The simulation shows that the system cannot meet all the demand. That is the case even with their highly optimistic assumptions of: unjustifiably high capacity factors, perfect reliability for renewable energy generators in remote areas far from service centres, and copper-plate transmission system with presumably perfect reliability."
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/27/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-response-to-lang/#comment-151865

Other comments on this thread are also informative

@ Mark Diesendorf - 1st thanks for taking the time to engage with some of the comments - not many writers do but those that do really add to the collective learning I feel.

However I would like to challenge some of your statements about subsidies and Chris Reidy's work (and also seek your comment on broader matters)

If you would care to comment that would be great?

If I've read Chris's work correctly of the $10B in fossil subsidies (based on 2005-6 figures I believe) , over $7 Billion is to transport - and of that some $4.7 Billion is the so called "Road user Deficit" - the cost of providing road transport versus the cost paid for it- and much of this came from excise credits - in other words a reduced tax or failure to levy a tax. Isn;t this a bit disingenuous? One might well argue that the cost of prociding Health Care (for which tere is a levy and some exemptions) suffers from the "Health User Defcit" - but we don't go down that path

So is it not misleading to use this figure of $10B when talking about power generation - isn't the real figure for power generation more like less than $3B?

I agree we should be reducing this (aim for zero) and increasing the support for renewable and emissions free technologies from their currently low levels. I think Chris shows they were less than 10% of the fossil fuel electricity generation subsidies - and I suspect you would get a lot of public support for changing that but isn't it better to use the actual figure?

Also - have you done any work on what the renewables subsidy SHOULD be to increase the level of renewables to, say, the same level as in SA?

On a broader matter - given the importance of emissions FROM the transport sector have you done any modelling work on what INCRESASED generation capacity would be required to meet the demands of a private, public and commercial transport fleet that was predominantly electric in nature (where possible - heavy transport might be better with bio fuel diesel). Do you envision that can be from renewables? If so, how, given that often the private "fleet" would require charging at night and (sometimes) on calm evenings?

Lastly - and controverisally, have you done any modelling that INCLUDES a fleet of nuclear plants that comprise relatively small reactors (e.g. <500MWe) but with a common owner that can do effective load following through the selective use of grey rods and managed rod cycle insertion at selected plants? This is what the French do to enable nuclear to vary its output relatively quickly without too negative impacting the Capacity factor economis of the whole fleet - I understand nuclear plants cannot vary their output very quickly when they are well into the nuclear cycle but they can vary well early in their power up and the French have done some clever things by having a schedule of reactors in this "standby" mode. I understand nuclear is a "bad word" and many people shut down when they hear it but given the expertise of your group it would be good to see this option properly evaluated.

@ Mark Harrigan: regarding a possible role for nuclear power in Australia's future, we need to remember that nuclear power in Australia is can only be located near the coast due to the absolute lack of environmentally acceptable water supplies anywhere inland.

So, what factors must then be considered? The factors I can think of include
1. Geology/soils.
2. Seismic risks.
3. Environmental impact of warmed cooling water discharge; this will include the warmed deoxygenated hypersaline desalination reject stream, which will be mixed into the general warmed cooling water stream before discharge to receiving waters.

I don't know much about factors 1 and 2, but I do recall reading that the Fukushima meltdown would not have occurred had they bothered to isolate the backup generators from the risk of tsunami inundation.

Regarding factor 3, the choice of coastal location must be on open, exposed coast, NOT on enclosed lagoons or semi-enclosed embayments.

Potentially suitable locations for nuclear power plants might then be
1) Nullarbor coast, west of Ceduna (also excellent for wind power, and adjacent Nullarbor Plain would be suitable for solar thermal). This location could help power a trans-Continental high speed rail line, as well as augmenting a trans-Continental HVDC power link that connects the eastern states grid with that of WA, and also connects all the Nullarbor solar thermal and Bight coast wind farms with both grids.
Load smoothing due to time differences between Perth and Eastern states might also be advantageous, although transmission losses could be problematic.

2) Pilbara coast, where a large continuous power supply will be required for electrolytic iron production (climate change means the carbothermic blast furnace iron reduction process must be phased out in the next couple of decades).

3) Weipa and Nhulunbuy, where large continuous power supply will be required for aluminium production (although the shallow submarine topography of Carpentaria waters may make this difficult).

@ David - yes some good points about siting issues. But 1 & 2 are pretty good in Aus and point 3 applies to pretty much any large scale thermal plant - coal, nuclear or CST. And yes Fukushima was poorly sited and not properly shielded - although it's interesting to note that Fukushima Daini (just 11 kilomteres away from Fukushima daichi) the shutdown for the tsunami was NOT a problem

http://safetyfirst.nei.org/safety-and-security/fukushima-daini-model-of-a-safe-shutdown/

Of course this gets no press because we don't focus on what doesn't happen.

"One problem is the incredible difficulty in maintaining a consistent supply of power to the grid when wildly fluctuating renewable output has to be balanced by input from conventional power stations."

This is an important point that most people do not appreciate. To provide some insight, I'll post a copy of an email I received today.

"This is not a simple problem, as the outcome depends upon whether the OCGT is a single shaft unit or not and on the size of the frequency drop – which in turn depends on the “size” of the power system. Small power systems will experience a frequency drop of around 0.5 to 2.0 hertz over around 6-7 seconds. Df/dt might be around ???. Large power systems will have a frequency drop od maybe 10% of that in a small power system.

If single shaft, the front-end compressor section, the power turbine and the alternator are all on the same shaft and this affects the dynamic response of the unit. Essentially, as the frequency drops in a small power system we have the following taking place:
· The alternator - and turbine – rotational speed drops and
the governor sends a signal to the throttle lave to open and add more
fuel;
· However, the slowing of the rotational speed of the coupled
compressor section results in less air being added to the combustion
chamber;
· Less air plus more fuel results in the fuel “burning rich’
and so raising the combustion chamber and power turbine temperature;
· This increase in temperature results in the throttle being
backed off resulting in less power being provided by the GT. Therefore, over the first few seconds following the frequency drop the GT backs off which is the opposite of actually providing reserve.

We noticed this behaviour in New Zealand in the 1990’s and could not work out what was happening. It was a key contributor to the 1996 Blackout in Malaysia and the analysis after that event demonstrated the above behaviour. A good example of standard dynamic models used not capturing all of the factors involved."

@Geoffrey Henley

Geoffrey. You were bragging about your superior knowledge of the scientific method on a previous thread. Why is then that you always make claims that are never ever backed up with references so that your claims can be checked?

Fortunately we have Google at out disposal.

Here is a quote I found
"One is that it becomes incredibly difficult to maintain a consistent supply of power to the grid, when that wildly fluctuating renewable output has to be balanced by input from conventional power stations. The other is that, to keep that back-up constantly available can require fossil-fuel power plants to run much of the time very inefficiently and expensively (incidentally chucking out so much more “carbon” than normal that it negates any supposed CO2 savings from the wind)."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/germanys-wind-power-chaos-2012-9#ixzz2DK3MllgR

Well what do you know - that is what you said - almost word for word.

No wonder you do not give references - you outsource the research - in this case to notorious UK climate science denier Christopher Booker*.

I think that is known in the trade as plagiarism.

How embarrassing.

No wonder you do not declare your institution on CV. No matter - people can always google your name.

* The Guardian newspaper launched a prize in 2009 to be "presented to whoever crams as many misrepresentations, distortions and falsehoods into a single article, statement, lecture, film or interview about climate change". This was called the "Christopher Booker prize"

Thanks for that information about intermittency of renewable energy generation, Geoff Henley & Peter Lang.

It's true that solar thermal and solar PV are intermittent, but at least we know (millenia in advance) WHEN the sun is shining, and the maximum insolation that any particular installation will receive. We know with a day or two's notice, the amount of cloud cover that will restrict solar PV, and require solar thermal to resort to drawing down on its stored heat.

Hmm ... matter of fact, solar thermal draws down on its stored heat every night, so there's your intermittency problem solved.

Similar considerations hold for tidal power.

The upshot if, the only really intermittent renewable power source is wind power. Luckily, free market economics can come to the fore here, because it demands that wind turbines are installed in locations where the wind blows more often.

Networking of distributed generation sites increases the security of supply.

Then there are backups that can be switched on at short notice: biofuel combustors, and hydro power.

The Other Good News? Stand-alone battery systems are now available, for individual premises (eg Zen Energy Systems have a refrigerator-sized unit that stores and distributes 20kWh http://www.zenhomeenergy.com.au/news/zen-unveils-world-first-energy-storage-solution-for-householders-businesses-and-utilities).

@Mike Hansen.

So I quoted from an article by Christopher Booker without attribution. Big deal. The problems with the fluctuating nature of renewable energy and it's affect on managing a power grid are well known and well documented. Same for the large differential between rated capacity and actual power generated. Nothing new there. Been said many times before. Your accusations of plagiarism are baseless because I'm not presenting new information and claiming it to be by own work.

The Guardian ran stories on Lewandowsky's lamentable 'moon-landing' paper and Joelle Gergis's discredited and now retracted 'Australian hockey stick' paper, so their credibility in the area of climate science information is almost non-existent.

BTW, I did mention my institution in a previous post. So you messed up there.

Better link for the last link above:
"nuclear is safer than any other electricity generation technology, including wind and solar:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html";

30,000 tonnes! Is that a lot? How much does a nuclear reactor weigh and how much of it is recyclable?

Peter,

you conveniently select the upfront materials usage and capital costs for comparison (also using the most expensive renewables you can find) while ignoring whole of life issues.

Yes, renewables typically have high upfront costs and materials usage but they have little or no ongoing costs and materials usage, unlike nuclear and fossil alternatives.

Nuclear proponents commonly crow about the negligible fuel usage of reactors but they neglect the actual mining required to acquire the fuel. World production of uranium oxide last year was about 55000 Tonnes. Seems tiny to supply 370 GW of commercial reactors. However ore grades are usually very poor for uranium, commonly << 1%. Combined with incomplete recovery from acid leaching; the actual ore mined would be of the order of 100 million Tonnes. Based on the 370 GW of operating reactors and for a 40 year reactor lifetime, the actual mined ore usage would be something like 10000 Tonne per MW. Makes the 262 T/MW sound a bit more attractive.

Of course then there is the impact of millions of tonnes of radioactive tailings on the environment.

David Jones,

You said: "Peter, you conveniently select the upfront materials usage and capital costs for comparison (also using the most expensive renewables you can find) while ignoring whole of life issues."

No this is wrong. You have a misunderstanding. Levelised Cost of Electricity" includes full life time costs. Everything is included.

The rest of what you say is equally wrong. There is no point in just regurgitating the nonsense the anti-nukes have been dishing out for decades. If you are interested try doing some unbiased, impartial research. No point people like me trying to explain this to people who's minds are locked shut. If you are interested, you can do the research. The information is readily available.

This particular Spiegel Online article was briefly top of the pops at climate science denial blogs in August.

The fact that the data from the German Federal Regulator actually shows a decrease in System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) since 2006 was an inconvenient fact never mentioned.

http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cln_1931/DE/Sachgebiete/ElektrizitaetGas/Sonderthemen/SAIDIWerteStrom/SAIDIWerteStrom_node.html

(you will need to translate the link from German)

If a millisecond in voltage fluctuation can cause major damage at large industrial firms this might explain the collapse of Australian manufacturing because the existing grid has these problems all the time, long before the first wind tower hooked in.

We know of firms who have had $40,000/month repair bills fro electrical equipment from brief "brown outs", indeed it is an excellent reason to have some stable onsite power production from biomass for example.

Peter Lang,

Thank you for your much more detailed response.

No I stand by the order and importance of the barriers I listed, though I agree there are only a small number of sites where a 30MWe biomass plant would be appropriate. This scale seems to have come about by the "burn it and boil water" brigade who need this size to capture their own version of economies of scale.

We did a market assessment way back in 2006 and whilst I don't have the original sources to hand, it showed from then published data that the "low hanging fruit" of point source biomass waste from sawmills, ag processors and councils amounted to about 700MW of capacity in NSW alone (where the minimum amount of already aggregated material exceeded 10,000 tonnes). I am sure others can better quantify and update such figures than I.

Beyond this though the challenges of accessing otherwise diffuse biomass resources should not be underestimated. What we do know is that any time you load it on trucks and travel more than a few km's the economics and the rationale fall over rather quickly, so your questions are quite valid if you are attempting to aggregate material for what amount to mega regional plants in a biomass context.

Though we are confident the successful gasifier we have would be eminently well suited to powering trains with wood pellets.

Transport opportunities aside the aggregation issue is why we focused on development of mobile multi function plants which can readily access seasonal surpluses and follow the biomass, or even work at smaller scales in fixed positions, after all, electrons don't take much to carry if you can hook into a passing power line.

Which brings me to grid infrastructure, yes it is a problem that the "gold plating" reported by others doesn't seem to have fixed. Many parts of the grid where farmers can be found is still decades old and designed it seems for energy flows in only one direction. This places maximum connection scales of <250kW exist for many smaller branch lines (even though they might be carrying >1MW in the other direction...), although there are usually regional points near towns (and labor) where 2-5MWe can be input without too many dramas.

So if it is uneconomic to purposely aggregate large volumes what about if the individual farmer instead supplies his crop residues or deliberately grown woody biomass fuel crops (hopefully planted as part of a broader landscape and biodiversity enhancement strategy) for say a 100-200kWe farm scale plant of their own or their neighbours? Even more so if they are avoiding their own grid electricity costs and getting biochar as a soil amendment back as part of the process.

Finding 20,000 to 30,000 sites across the Eastern states suiting these intrepid land managers is certainly not out of the question, effectively giving you a +3 gigawatt embedded dispatch-able generation with much more likely 85% capacity if properly structured. Certainly enough in their own right to make a very reasonable dent in the 24GW at 13% capacity factor referenced in your reply, even without the already mentioned point source biomass waste sources motoring away.

Such a plan would also create 10,000 permanent new jobs along the way, but who cares about the Bush when they can advocate putting Big Corporate owned Nuclear Power stations on the shores of our fisheries instead?

Peter Davies,

Thank you for further explanation of your concepts. My impression is that there is a very long way to go to develop your concept. The logistics will be a key. You can't just move around and plug into power lines. The issue of regional crop failures and long periods of droughts, biomass storage and/or biofuel storage will be huge cost items to provide reliable supply through seasonal events. The capital cost of everything has to be included in the fuel cost. I'd urge you to get an experienced engineer to review your concept at an early stage. I doubt you could get funding for a proof of concept at the moment. My impression is that the concept is nowhere near to being viable, especially if the idea is to provide backup for renewable energy as proposed in the Ben Elliston et al paper (back up is only required in winter and then up to 30 GW of back up power are required).

@ Zvyozdochka - I'm not sure you are helping. Claim and counter claim without substantiation, or acknoeldgement of the reality of the issue do not assist learning or the discussion.

'Renewable Energy Deniers" as you call them overstate the case if they claim that varaibility of supply (a fact with renewables) makes their 100% deployment "impossible". But Renewable Energy Boosters are guilty of fanciful wishful thinking if they wish to claim, as you appear to, that is an issue of the same proportion as already exists.

Yes, the grid IS used to dealing with variation in Demand - but variation in Supply does not make the task easier - quite the opposite.

I think the most authorittative and reasoned source I have been able to find on this matter is this one

http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/upload/integratingelec.pdf

From the American Physical Society. They make the point "The variability of renewables due to the characteristics of weather is high, up to 70% for daytime solar and 100% for wind, much larger than the few percent uncertainty in load that the grid now accommodates by dispatching conventional resources in response to demand." - which I think suggests you might be gilding the lily?

But, they also state

"The high variability of renewable generation, up to 100% of capacity, makes forecasting critical for maintaining the reliability of the grid. Improving the accuracy and the confidence level of forecasts is critical to the goal of reducing the conventional reserve capacity, and will result in substantial savings in capital and operating costs.

The variability of renewable energy is easily accommodated when demand and renewable supply are matched—both rising and falling together. However when demand and renewable supply move in opposite directions, the cost of accommodation can rise significantly. For example, if the wind blows strongly overnight when demand is low (as is often the case), the renewable generation can be used only if conventional base-load generation such as coal or nuclear is curtailed, an expensive and inefficient option that may cause significant reliability issues. Alternatively, on calm days when there is no wind power, the late-afternoon peak demand must be met entirely by conventional generation resources, requiring reserves that effectively duplicate the renewable capacity. Reducing the cost of dealing with these two cases is a major challenge facing renewable integration."

In other words - it isn't impossible but it DOES present challenges that need to be met.

The main solutions it proposes are storage, better transmission technologies across more widely co-ordinated grids and developments in forecasting technologies (for demand AND supply).

Although it is talking about the US Grid I can see no reason why it's conclusions aren'tt applicable here

"The challenge of variability can be met by switching conventional generation capacity in or out in response to sophisticated forecasts of weather and power generation. This can be done by large scale energy storage by heat; by pumped hydroelectric or compressed air: by stationary batteries designed for the grid, or by national balancing of regional generation deficits and excesses using long distance transmission. Each of these solutions to variability has merit and each requires significant research and development to understand its capacity, performance, cost and effectiveness. Variability is likely to be met by a combination of these three solutions, and the interactions among them and the appropriate mix needs to be explored.

The long distances from renewable sources to demand centers span many of the grid’s physical, ownership regulatory boundaries. This introduces a new feature to grid structure and operation: national and regional coordination. The grid is historically a patchwork of local generation resources and load centers built, operated and regulated to meet local needs. Although it is capable of sharing power across moderate distances, the arrangements for doing so are cumbersome and inefficient. The advent of renewable electricity with its enormous potential and inherent regional and national character presents an opportunity to examine the local structure of the grid and establish coordinating principles that will not only enable effective renewable integration but also simplify and codify the grid’s increasingly regional and national character."

The issue is that these approaches come at a cost. And in some sintsances depend on technologies - espeically large scale storage - that we don't yet have at economical levels (which is why the APS calls for R&D in their report).

I also note they don't talk about gas as backup (bio gas or otherwise). But the issues raised by Peter Lang in that department are legitimate. Have proper studies been done on reliability of supply at the necessary plants to provide gas backup and has proper consideration been given to the full costs of the distribution of the fuel source to the point of burning - including land use and other relevant requirements?

We are only going to get somewhere practical in this discussion if we acknowledge the realities of the issues we face - not overstate them or pretend they do not exist.

"I now recognise it (nuclear) is not close to being competitive for Australia, and the denial of that fact by the nuclear supporters on this web site has reinforced for me that there is no hope of us tackling the underlying problems that make it too expensive."

Peter Lang, http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/10/15/open-thread-19/#comment-138650

"It is pretty clear that nuclear will not be an economically viable option in Australia for a very long time."

Peter Lang, http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/10/15/open-thread-19/#comment-138651

Zvyozdochka,

Thank you for linking to comments I posted on BNC in October 2011. However, you could have mentioned context, couldn’t you. If you’ve been following my comments and posts you’d know that I’ve been advocating that, if the world is serious about reducing global ACO2 emissions, nuclear power will be the least cost option by far for making substantial cuts.

I also acknowledge that nuclear is uncompetitive with fossil fuels in Australia at the moment and will remain that way until we can address the issues of public paranoia. The reason is 50 years of irrational anti-nuclear advocacy which has caused wide spread paranoia and nuclear phobia amongst the population in the rich countries. That is the position Australia is in. Progress was set back 15 years at the 1993 election of Paul Keating and another decade or more when the Rudd Labor government was elected in 2007. So called ‘Progressives’ have been blocking progress for 50 years.

I expect much of your irrational paranoia about nuclear power has to do with your ideological beliefs, right?

The (partial) context of your comments is that without deconstructing the extensive safeguards in place in advanced countries (like Australia), nuclear isn't economic.

Putting to one side the near hopeless economics of nuclear, it will not find social license in Australia and you wish to make that a more difficult hurdle by also weakening controls?

Meantime, renewables are actually getting on with the job, albiet at a much slower pace than is required and with some real issues for sure.

Australians like renewable energy, they support it, we could be doing MUCH more if it weren't for the misplaced efforts of people like Barry Brook, yourself Peter and a host of others trying to refloat the Titanic.

Fossil and energy businesses hate renewables because it means the certain end of their business model. It's the one true indicator that it works. We renewable advocates call it the SQUEEL test.

Zvyozdochka,

It seems you have misunderstood. Renewable are far more expensive than nuclear (see previous comment). Yes, nuclear is not economic compared with fossil fuels in Australia, but what does that say about renewables? They are far more expensive so far less economic. I didn't expect I'd have to explain that to someone who comments on The Conversation. But clearly, I do.

Not only is nuclear much less costly than renewables, it is safer too. And requires and order of magnitude less material.

Your only argument is that it doesn't have social licence. And that is thanks to irrational zealots like you. So called 'Progressives' have been blocking progress for 50 years.

"Renewable are far more expensive than nuclear"

Except the bit about them driving down wholesale power prices where they are used, eating the lunch of the existing centralised generation interests. South Australia is an example.

Germany has had 12 straight months of cheaper wholesale electricity pricing than France.

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-baseload-power-cheaper-than-french-12-months-running/150/537/57302/

Oh, an EON in Germany can't make money and has cancelled coal plant construction;

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-13/eon-may-shut-plants-as-generation-unit-faces-huge-challenges

@ Zvyozdocka - sorry but your point and your article about "baseload" prices is misleading - to the point of being a virtual falsehood

1) The article refers to "spot prices" which it then claims are "baseload prices". But spot prices are, as you should know, an average of the price on the day for the different forms of power pricing - base, peak and off peak. In addition it can be driven highly by the "spare" power available to be dispatched to meet excess demand

2) Industry does NOT as the article claims always pay the spot price. Although it varies from country to country most industry - for obvious reasons of predictability, pays a contract price, few elect to buy on the spot market. It is usually the traders who act as go betweens for the suppliers and the consumers who attempt to leverage greater profit through the spot market.

http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/afstversl/tm/Jongen_2012.pdf

3) The price of electricity in France is far more highly regulated than in Germany

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/energy/electricity/electricity_en.html

The truth is, on any reasonable comparison -which should be the long term average is that French prices are below german ones. (see table Electricity price comparison – NUS Consulting Group)

http://www.esaa.com.au/content/detail/internationalAustralianelectricityprices

The fact is german Industry knows this - which is why they are worried

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/us-germany-power-vattenfall-idUSBRE87Q0JA20120827

It doesn't help your argument to promulgate falsehoods.

It is the reality for long terms prices that matter. It's great that Wind is doing well, especially in places like SA and germany etc - the question is whether or not that can continue into the future - as I have poimted out elsewhere (and you have not answered) the reliability of the supply-demand mismatch (and hence prices too) becomes more and more problematic when the mix of power sources that is intermittent (e.g. wind) becomes a greater share of the whole.

http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/upload/integratingelec.pdf

Anton Lang,

You asked:
"Now, understanding that Wind and Solar currently generate 700MW, and with Wind so variable, running at around a 30% Capacity Factor, might someone here explain to me how, in the foreseeable future, say even out to 2025, 2030, how we can get that current 700MW up to even the Absolute requirement of 17,000MW to 18,000MW,"

I think some readers may not realise from this comment, that the important issue is that at times the wind across that whole region generates no power whatsoever. Sometimes, wind power over that entire region generates virtually no power for days at a time. (The region where the wind farms are located spans 1200 km east-west by 800 km north-south.)

This is the really important point that many people do not understand. So when people are told "the wind farm will supply x houses" they should immediately think: BS!. Wind power and solar power cannot supply any houses, because they do not provide power all the time, and cannot supply power to meet demand. Electricity cannot be stored economically at the scale required, so energy storage is not an option.

For an estimate of the costs to power the NEM with mostly renewable electricity (some gas) see here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

"...using costs derived for the Federal Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET, 2011b), the costs are estimated to be: $568 billion capital cost, $336/MWh cost of electricity and $290/tonne CO2 abatement cost.

That is, the wholesale cost of electricity for the simulated system would be seven times more than now, with an abatement cost that is 13 times the starting price of the Australian carbon tax and 30 times the European carbon price. (This cost of electricity does not include costs for the existing electricity network)."

Anton Lang,

Another cost that is often omitted in comparing technologies are the grid-level system effects. I just saw this (released today):

“Grid-level system costs are the costs above plant-level to supply electricity to the grid. Broadly these comprise costs for additional investments to extend and reinforce transport and distribution grids, as well as to connect new capacity; and the costs for short-term balancing and the maintenance of long-term secure electricity supplies.

The study considers six technologies in detail: nuclear, coal, gas, onshore wind, offshore wind and solar. It finds that the so-called dispatchable technologies - coal, gas and nuclear - have system costs of less than $3 per MWh, while the system costs for renewables can reach up to $40 per MWh for onshore wind, $45 per MWh for offshore wind and $80 per MWh for solar.”

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-Levelling_the_playing_field_of_grid_cost-2911128.html

I just checked the additional costs for transmission and distribution I calculated for a mostly renewable NEM and mostly nuclear NEM.

The estimated additional costs for transmission and distribution are:

– mostly nuclear system = $4/MWh (of which $2 is for nuclear and $2 for the already committed renewables) (Appendix 2)

– mostly renewables system = $37/MWh to $58/MWh (Figure 7)

http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf

My estimates are remarkably close to these newly published figures. That's encouraging given the criticisms by Mark Diesendorf and others for most of this year.

Anton,

An excellent contribution to the discussion. I can't answer for the renewable s mentioned but in terms of distributed biomass (stored solar) approaches our own modelling suggests an upper limit contribution to the target of about 5 gigawatt by 2025 without radically altering current land use, or roughly 20% of the absolute generation required, and more importantly delivering this capacity in a daily weather independent dispatch-able form.

Projected capital costs for this are in the order of $2 billion per gigawatt, that is only one fifth of equivalent wind capacity, and provides a host of other benefits. Also the strategy assumed taps into existing infrastructure within normal costs of "business as usual" replacement & upgrade.

Finally the technology used (gasification) works equally well with coals but unlike conventional thermal plants has very fast response times and a readily managed load following ability, allowing a high degree of plant redundancy and co-firing capacity where this is appropriate to ease transition.

@ Anton Lang

This is an excellent example of the baseloader/renewable-denier "limits analysis" straw man.

How many monkeys on bicycle generators would be required to power the economy?

The required anaylsis, after a mix of renewable technologies has been proposed, is the co-incidence of generation and demand. Then you have the top-up/backup amount required (probably gas of some sort) which, with further adaption (even demand control) and learning can be eliminated (more storage, geothermal).

Anton Lang, any relation to Peter?

Peter Davies,

I suggest what you have written is extremely misleading and I understand it is promoting your own commercial ideas. Biofuel electricity generation is not viable at the scale required. Not even close to being viable. See the explanation here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

And explained further in reply to Mark Diesendorfs comments here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/27/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-response-to-lang/#comment-152532

Anton and I are not related as far as we know. We've never met except on line.

Peter Lang,

If & when I ever gain a commercial interest from bio fuels I will be truly surprised. My wife and I developed the technology with the assistance of friends & family, but at this time we are neither employed by or have a share in any company taking it on.

Even if the reverse was true the numbers I gave are as accurate as several decades of involvement in rural and land management issues can make them and shared in good faith. The costs are based on real numbers of the technology components as available right now.

So the first demonstration of your biased ignorance is dismissed as just that.

That I am neither driven by love of money or held hostage to it is also why a public authority attempting to gain control of the technology through financial bullying failed in their attempts, then got a thorough beating in Victorian court earlier this year. As my son might say "This man, he don't care!".

Precisely why things don't work when intuitively they should is a particular interest of mine. In this case biofuels, since my background is practical application of sustainable farming & forestry. Many of the studies and predictions surrounding biomass that informed early Greenhouse policy in Australia failed miserably because they neither understood the true nature of the resource or the people that managed it.

The only potential for misleading is in the assumption that Governments & power industry players actually want this to happen and so arrange their affairs in a fair and unbiased fashion. Or the trumpeting of closed minds incapable of understanding the true nature or capacity of need driven innovation.

Peter Davies,

My apologies if I misunderstood your previous post. I thought you were advocating a product you were trying to develop and sell.

Regarding the costs you claim, they are not credible. Can you provided these cost items and the basis of estimate for them:

Total Plant Cost (sent out) ($/kW)
Plant size (MW)
Ammortisation life for the plant (years)
Average capacity factor for life (%)
Fixed O&M ($/kW/yr)
Variable O&M ($/MWh)
Fuel costs ($/GJ)
Thermal efficiency (%)
Discount rate (assume 10% for consistency with AETA Report, 2012).

The fuel cost need to include all the costs for:
- production and transport of biomass
- long term storage of biomass
- long term storage of biofuel
- transport/transmission of biofuels
- contracts with biomass producers to supply with near 100% reliability through all seasons, including decades long droughts, crop failures, bushfires, etc.

The additional grid costs also need to be included.

Once you have all these costs, and the basis of estimates, we can review them. Until then, your claims are unsubstantiated and not credible.

If you want, you can download the Excel spreadsheet from here and do the calculations yourself:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

Peter Lang, Your apology is accepted in the spirit it is offered.

Please don’t talk to me about “credible” in tones of such pre judgement. The technology I speak of was successfully and very publicly demonstrated on the lawns of Parliament House Canberra in front of dozens of pollies and their minders in June 2009, running both an IC engine and a clean gas flare on waste wood pallets and recovered plantation wood salvaged from the 2003 bush fires.

Despite this Government agencies and publicly funded research institutions mostly continue to pretend it doesn’t exist. Except where they think they can advantage themselves, in 2010 a public authority offered a project and very modest funding ($135,000, the same amount others wanted to conduct a paper study) to put in place a physical plant using a commercial scale module which would have proved the utility and economics of the system and design concepts. Instead at a point where the business was most vulnerable after the company delivered the working plant to the nominated site at its own full technical and financial risk the Authority involved repudiated the contract and attempted to secure the IP for themselves through unilaterally issuing a new contract with the threat of with holding lawful payments until the new agreement was accepted, and when they failed in this they then killed off the project entirely. It is worth noting that at no time during these events or indeed in the subsequent court action (that they decisively lost) did they ever claim the plant did not work.

Thank you for your offer of your excel spreadsheet, I prefer the back of used envelopes and napkins myself (hey it was good enough for Lang Hancock and the multibillion dollar mining empire). It may also surprise you to learn that good farmers are familiar with managing production risks. In any case much of what you ask for requires me to breach the confidences of third parties, which I am not prepared to do.

In the context of barriers to biofuels generally my wife and I authored a business proposal following the 2003 fires at the personal request of the ACT Head Forester to use the fire killed plantation around Canberra. The proposal was good enough to attract written commitment from all the equipment and service providers required (here and overseas) as well as an unsolicited offer from a Belgium shipping company to put a dedicated ship on and access to distribution networks to service lucrative EU markets for all of its projected 200,000 tonnes per year output. It also received an offer of 100% funding from the Australian representative of Lloyds of London (who use somewhat more sophisticated financial modelling tools which we had to prepare and prove data for, so are not novices in this and the resulting 100% offer should be a testament in itself).

Instead of approving the plant the Chief Minister of the ACT at the time decided to literally bulldoze and open air burn the +1.5 million tonnes of waste timber at a net cost of millions of dollars to ACT ratepayers for no community benefits whatsoever. Why? Because in his entrenched ideology and arrogance he thought this had the least political risk, based on the certain knowledge that the benefits people never saw they would not miss even though his decision was not technically, financially or even morally “credible”.

These are real experiences not “modeled” outcomes and you can sit in a comfortable chair somewhere (at least I trust it is comfortable) in the bright glow of a radium lamp and dismiss the credibility of others all you like, the true barrier to uptake of alternatives is not financial or technical.