Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Solar will force coal and nuclear out of the energy business

A solar energy revolution is brewing that will put the coal and nuclear industries out of business. Solar is already reaching price parity with coal in many parts of Australia. In contrast to coal and…

Solar is now a viable industry that should be taken seriously. AFP Photo/Sakis Mitrolidis

A solar energy revolution is brewing that will put the coal and nuclear industries out of business. Solar is already reaching price parity with coal in many parts of Australia. In contrast to coal and nuclear, solar is fully sustainable and safe. Solar is now an established industry that is growing very rapidly.

The CO₂ emissions from a modest four-star house with modern efficient appliances are about 6 tonnes per year. Emissions from a typical car driving 10,000 km per year are 1.5 tonnes per year. Installing a 5 kilowatt photovoltaic panel will fully offset these amounts of CO₂ by reducing the need to operate a coal fired power station.

We’re well on the way to grid parity

Photovoltaic power has reached retail grid parity for three out of four Australians – everywhere except Victoria, Tasmania and Canberra. Retail grid parity means that it’s cheaper to get electricity from photovoltaic panels on your house roof than to buy it from the grid.

In Adelaide, photovoltaic power is only two-thirds the price of retail grid electricity. By 2015, grid parity will be achieved in all of Australia, as well as in nearly every temperate country in the world – about 6 billion people.

Eliminating CO2 emissions from electricity production will be easier, cheaper and faster than most pundits predict. The faster that the solar energy industry develops, the less damage from greenhouse gas warming will occur.

Solar or clean coal?

At the moment, the only large scale energy sources are fossil, nuclear and solar energy (both photovoltaics and solar thermal). Other sources such as wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal and ocean energy can make large regional contributions, but cannot provide a global energy solution.

One of the biggest solar plants in France produces 36 megawattes of electricity AFP Photo/Boris Horvat

Currently, electricity in Australia comes mostly from coal, which produces lots of greenhouse gas emissions. So called “clean coal” technology with carbon capture and storage doesn’t exist on a commercial scale. It will be much more expensive than dirty coal, and is in competition with falling solar power costs.

Solar and wind already dominate new generation technology in many countries. Indeed, it could be that no new coal fired power stations will ever be built in Australia.

Is nuclear an option?

It is difficult to see how the nuclear power industry will cope with falling solar prices and increased perceptions of risk following the Fukushima accident. Solar and wind power will soon put the nuclear power construction industry out of business.

Solar energy is vast, ubiquitous and indefinitely sustainable. There will never be a major solar accident, there’s minimal waste disposal issues, and we will never go to war over solar energy. Solar energy systems utilise only very common materials that we could never run out of and there’s minimal need for mining (about 1% of that needed for an equivalent fossil or nuclear power plant).

Australia receives 30,000 times more solar energy each year than all fossil fuel use combined. Australia’s electricity consumption could be met from roof-mounted photovoltaic panels. About 0.2% of the world’s land area would be required to provide all of the world’s electricity from solar – much of it on building roofs and in deserts.

Solar industry is booming

Worldwide solar sales are 100 times larger than in the year 2000, and the industry turnover now approaches one hundred billion dollars per year. In Australia, industry sales have grown from 10 megawatts in 2007 to 350 megawatts last year.

Sustained expansion is rapidly driving down costs – they have halved since 2007. Further large cost reductions are in train, through both technical innovation and mass-production learning curves.

It’s possible to estimate the cost of subsidising and accelerating solar technology to provide most of the world’s electricity. We add up the declining price difference year by year between solar and wholesale fossil energy, until it reaches zero. It would cost about a trillion dollars, spread over the next 20 years. That works out at $1 per week for each of the billion citizens of rich countries like Australia.

How do we store solar energy?

As the solar industry grows it will eventually be necessary to store energy. By far the largest energy storage today is pumped hydro - about three times larger than Australia’s entire electricity capacity.

During the day, water can be pumped up a 500 metre high hill with solar power, and released at night through a turbine to generate electricity. Pumped hydro doesn’t need to be located on a river, since the same water goes round and round a circle. Since storage is needed only for a day, the water store can be quite small.

The area of lake required to provide one day’s storage of Australia’s entire electricity production is 5 m2 per person. There are thousands of suitable sites in Australia.

Join the conversation

58 Comments sorted by

    1. Dejan Tesic, PhD

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Luke Monahan

      Luke, how do the subsidies look when expressed on a per unit of production basis? Let me guess that solar and renewables do not look that good on such a basis.

      report
    2. Paul Richards

      In reply to Stephen Weston

      Stephan,
      in drawing our attention to the subsidies, have you been honest with yourself and reflected on the subsidies the Petrochemical industries have benefited from since the days of early exploration?

      report
    3. John Barker
      John Barker is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Adjunct Professor at Murdoch University

      In reply to Stephen Weston

      Stephen- although you are correct that price parity has been reached by subsidies, the fact is that PVs no longer need to be subsidised to be competitive. One only has to google "pv learning curve" to see how the price has been a function of cumulative production volume.

      The learning curve effect is used by governments and industry alike to manage innovation.

      The present price has been reached with about 100 GW of production, which is only about 3% of the global electricity production capacity. Extend that curve to 1000 GW- about 30%- and there is no electricity source remotely near it. Add to that, the fact that carbon based electricity prices are continue to rise as costs all along the carbon chain rise- even without a carbon tax.

      It is important in these discussions to keep real numbers- not outdated memes- front and centre .

      report
  1. Zvyozdochka

    logged in via Twitter

    "storage is needed only for a day"

    Simplistic statements like this very seriously damage the credibility of renewable advocacy in my opinion.

    Having said that, I think there ARE ways to create a renewable energy system that once in balance (source types, interconnects, geographic diversity) requires very little backup with an extremely high confidence level.

    report
  2. Will

    logged in via Twitter

    I'll just leave these here for the perusal of others:

    http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/tcase14_f1.jpg?w=468&h=213
    It's a chart taken from a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy (link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421000602X )

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/05/pumped-hydro-system-cost/
    This is in response to some of the claims made about pumped hydro. As the article linked says:

    "The Tantangara-Blowering pumped hydro scheme would be…

    Read more
    1. Paul Richards

      In reply to Will

      Will,
      I am familiar with George's stance, and followed his career closely until he changed his position. I know the discussions well, and now will be aware of your mindset.

      "... It's about solar power and the challenges" Will

      Yes, I am glad you recognise this.
      It is good to know the bias of writers here.
      Thank for your reply.

      report
    2. Will

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Paul Richards

      Yes, all sorts of things come out of the woodwork when you engage in constructive conversation :-)

      report
    3. Hamish Jackson

      Physician

      In reply to Will

      Hi Will,
      thanks for the various links - I found them useful. George's position is a really interesting one. Personally I think it hard to be a strong advocate for nuclear after Fukushima, but George does provide useful scrutiny to various points being discussed.
      Regarding his optimism about nuclear safety, do you think he might have written his piece (http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/) a little early - ie before good data was available?

      I noted this article recently (http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/08/03/fukushima-disaster-exposed-far-worse-than-a-nuclear-bomb

      Read more
    4. Will

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Alastair Leith

      That graph has been lifted from this article:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?_r=3

      The editor's note from that article states:
      "An article published July 27 in an Energy Special Report analyzed the costs of nuclear energy production. It quoted a study that found that electricity from solar photovoltaic systems could now be produced less expensively than electricity from new nuclear power plants.

      In raising several questions about this issue and the economics…

      Read more
    5. Will

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Will

      Correction: The graph is from the study that the NY Times article was covering. The study was prepared by an anti-nuclear organisation and is not peer-reviewed, so it is expected to have an anti-nuclear bias.

      With regard to subsidies, the nuclear industry in America does get more money from the government than solar, as does fossil fuels. However, on a per KwH basis the solar industry gets a much higher subsidy. From a comment on an article at the Energy Collective that also covers the Duke University…

      Read more
    6. Eclipse Now

      Manager of Graphic Design firm

      In reply to Paul Richards

      I can't believe Paul quoted Caldicott. Caldicott is sounding more and more unbalanced as the years wear on. Her recent debate with Monbiot over nuclear power was cringe-worthy. George wanted to discuss the peer-reviewed work on radiation sickness and deaths at Chernobyl, Helen wanted to shriek like a crazy old bat about world conspiracies to hide the truth. She sounded like the "Moon Landing was faked" mob — with almost the same voice as Professor Umbridge from Harry Potter! I seriously cringed…

      Read more
  3. Askgerbil Now

    logged in via Twitter

    The technology-change strategy to achieve 100% use of renewable energy with the least investment is the capture and storage of solar energy by biomass.
    Plants have undergone millions of years of evolution, and are self-manufacturing.

    Investment in one power generation and distribution system, using methane and/or hydrogen, can be fueled by natural gas, and/or synthetic natural gas from coal, and ultimately, synthetic natural gas from biomass.

    An alternate technology-change strategy that requires…

    Read more
    1. Mark Duffett

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Andrew Starcevic

      Even three days might be on the optimistic side. Where I live, we recently went over a week without seeing the sun, and being in the middle of winter means even when it does come out it doesn't have a lot of oomph. And remember you need the full storage capacity at both the top AND bottom if you're going to run it as a closed system. The storage/intermittency issue is the showstopper, and the whole section on 'How do we store solar energy', is way, WAY too glib as a response. It invalidates the rest of the article. It doesn't matter how cheap solar panels are if they can't help microwave my WeetBix at 7 in the morning.

      report
    2. Mark Duffett

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Andrew Starcevic

      "...minimal need for mining (about 1% of that needed for an equivalent fossil or nuclear power plant" is another statement requiring a lot more support. I've seen estimates that, MW for MW, solar requires 15 times more concrete and 75 times more steel than nuclear (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/06/tcase7/). This is presumably why, over facility lifetimes including decommissioning, MWh for MWh, solar is responsible for around 10 times more CO2 emissions than nuclear (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn268.pdf).

      If not the above aspects, what is the point of the comparison? The land area covered by solar collection would certainly be much more than ever required by fissionables mining.

      report
    3. Hamish Jackson

      Physician

      In reply to Mark Duffett

      I am about to start living in solar powered house in Tasmania - some friends have lived in it for some years prior. I guess i am envisaging not using a microwave, or heating my breakfast except on special occasions. Mark - is this really such a problem for the domestic sector? Is not the case our society needs to change some of its attitudes for a successful transition away from oil/coal anyway? The in built awareness of power usage that comes with solar is very useful in encouraging respect for footprint. It would be useful if more people moved away from assuming a right to huge power use, all the time.

      I appreciate your other points about storage and oomph all the same - very important I agree, especially for the commercial sector.

      report
  4. Stephen Prowse

    Research Advisor

    Can someone please point to an analysis comparing solar, wind, coal, gas and nuclear re cost and carbon footprint that is independent and free from vested interest

    report
    1. Will

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Stephen Prowse

      Depends on what you mean by 'independent and free from vested interest'. I've already cited a peer-reviewed study of the Levelised Cost of Electricity of those power sources if you want something fairly objective.

      report
    2. Alastair Leith

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Will

      I can't think of a more single-minded and determined paper to determine that nuclear power has a bright future. So many convenient assumptions and cherry picking of data.

      For example the paper takes a momentary snapshot on cost relative to output but totally ignores the trend curves and learnings curve (how the deployment of actual plants reduces the cost of future deployments) of those energy types. To summarise solar thermal, very expensive now (ignoring 'externalites' of FF which will cost us…

      Read more
    3. Will

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Alastair Leith

      UsefulDesign wrote:
      "Should we likewise de-couple coal from the social, political (and health aspects). A recent Yale paper estimated the cost to the environment of coal at over 1 trillion dollars *per annum*. Including things like water consumption and pollution, health costs from respiratory disease, cancers etc etc."

      I'll quote the paper's title for you:

      "How carbon pricing changes the relative competitiveness of low-carbon baseload
      generating technologies"

      Additionally the article actually…

      Read more
    4. Alastair Leith

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Will

      I think you've missed my point or are choosing to ignore it.

      report
  5. Jim Fredsall

    retired

    Pumped hydro storage is great but the greenies won't allow dams to be built - not even for drinking water.

    report
    1. Alastair Leith

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Jim Fredsall

      That's not true. Greenies, if I may speak for them, would have preferred a dam to the Victorian pipline from the already parched Murray/Darling system to Melbourne. The important thing is not to dam rivers but have the dam capacity off the river. Either that or a pipeline from Tassie where there is surplus water unlike Murray/Darling.

      Incase of hydro-reserve no river system need be destroyed like they were with the Snowy and several Tassie dams.

      Greenies who are also permaculturalists have been promoting Keyline irrigation devised by Ken Yeomans for decades. It uses a system of dams high on farm properties.

      report
  6. James Doogue

    logged in via email @doogue.net

    This is excellent news Andrew. I guess that mean there will be no need for taxpayer funding of the solar industry any more?

    report
    1. Hamish Jackson

      Physician

      In reply to James Doogue

      James does your point add anything to the useful points made above regarding subsidisation (from both sides of the debate)? It would be great to get good info on this important area: how much subsidy has the coal/oil industry received in the past? How much has been 'black' money (my speculation only: like the financing for forestry industry hidden from public scrutiny)? There certainly has been a long history of Australians subsidising dirty industries, is it a such problem if we transition subsidising a greener one?

      report
    2. James Doogue

      logged in via email @doogue.net

      In reply to Hamish Jackson

      Hamish, I'm not the one who claimed, "Solar is already reaching price parity with coal in many parts of Australia.". I'm just responding to that claim. However I will say that you can't be one sided and add to the 'cost' of fossil fuels due to health or environmental issues without adding to the 'benefits' column any indirect benefits achieved through technological developments, better health service delivery, improved lifestyles, etc etc afforded by access to cheap fossil fuels. You can't just pick up one side of the equation.

      report
    3. Leon Smith

      logged in via email @gmail.com

      In reply to James Doogue

      Seems to me there's no need for the subsidies if people can look 20 years into their future. A domestic 2.1kW system of good quality panels and inverter should set you back ~$15-20k (installed) going on the prices at apolloenergy.com.au. That's about the size I reckon I need to match my annual consumption in a grid connected setup. My current ACT electricity bills are ~$1000 annually which includes heating energy, but not cooking. Comes out about even over 20 years with no subsidies.
      My main concern is that each one of us who installs solar panels is actually lowering the price of coal fired power. Until the coal-fired power is decomissioned don't they just keep running them at a steady (high) rate and vary the price of the power such that demand matches the supply, allowing high cost, load-responsive supplies to be kept for peak times?

      report
  7. Luke Weston

    Physicist / electronic engineer

    We do not need to have any kind of argument or debate about whether solar energy is expensive or not expensive, or whether nuclear energy is too expensive, or not.

    What we need to do is to replace coal-fired generation with non-fossil-fuel based energy generation, in a realistic fashion, with the same amount of energy available, at the same high capacity factor, at the lowest practical cost.

    It's very easy to figure out how to do that.

    We should keep the market as free as possible. In a free market…

    Read more
  8. Ken Fabian

    Mr

    If climate scientists are right then we may consider it worth sacrificing some of our profligate energy use along with our sense of entitlement to it. We won't be impoverished by doing so. It does sound like we really, seriously won't like what it's going to be like if we favour excuses for failure on emissions over solutions; that a greater likelihood of impoverishment will come by not facing this square on with the seriousness it's due.
    This news about solar is good news - an achievement that I recall people saying could never be done. From here it doesn't look like the well of innovation is anywhere near run dry on PV. It's rate of growth is seriously impressive. On the back of subsidies, sure, but a level playing field is and always will be a hypothetical figment; we need outcomes and options and a thriving PV industry is giving us real options.

    report
    1. Ken Fabian

      Mr

      In reply to Ken Fabian

      I'd like to add that variability of supply would bring consequent fluctuating energy pricing and growing demand for energy storage, but I'm not convinced these are the impossible to live with insurmountables they are often portrayed as.

      I tend to agree with the economists who point out that fluctuating energy supply leads to fluctuating electricity prices and this will bring on adaptations and solutions - and these are vey unlikely to won't cripple us. It will bring incentives to make hay - or…

      Read more
  9. wilma western

    logged in via email @bigpond.com

    Good suggestion Stephen Prowse. It is depressing how often articles about renewable enrergy etc get bogged down in bickering about subsidies,nuclear,etc. And why do so few even mention wind, the most mature and cheapest renewable source available in Australia? I want to know if it is true that the Australian grid cannot at the moment deal with much more renewable feed-in - that it needs upgrading to deal with fluctuations. If so how is the upgrade progressing if at all? Glib statements that all…

    Read more
  10. Jonathan Maddox
    Jonathan Maddox is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Software Engineer

    Very very late to the party, but in case anyone is still interested, the discussion of electric power storage should have been much wider than it was.

    Pumped hydroelectric storage is cheap only where hydroelectric resources (steep, dammable river valleys with water to spare) already exist. Norway is an extreme example where, having built already enough hydroelectric power to provide all its domestic needs year-round, the country now finds that it can profit greatly by acting as a nation-size…

    Read more
  11. Andrew Blakers

    logged in via LinkedIn

    Jonathan, Pumped hydro does NOT have to be on a river. The same water goes round and round a circle.A trickle-feed of new water for the initial charge and to replace evaporation is all that is needed A steep 200-1200m high hill in a non-environmentally sensitive area will do, preferably near a city or a power grid. A key point is that the volume/area of lake is remarkably small to provide 24 storage - enough to smooth out short term fluctuations and provide day/night storage - about 5 m2 per person. Essentially, oversize farm dams are sufficient. There are thousands of suitable sites along Australia's Great Dividing Range.

    report
    1. Eclipse Now

      Manager of Graphic Design firm

      In reply to Andrew Blakers

      We *could* build a 7km diameter saltwater storage pond only 20m high off the Nullarbor plain, and run the water over the cliff. This *could* hypothetically become a giant battery that could power the whole of Australia for 10 hours! This *could* come in at about $35 billion dollars (or more, I forget which bit involves building the storage pond and which is the actual hydro generators!)
      http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/uploads/Australian_Sustainable_Energy-by_the_numbers3.pdf

      You STILL have to build…

      Read more
    2. Jonathan Maddox
      Jonathan Maddox is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Software Engineer

      In reply to Andrew Blakers

      If you can allay my concerns, Andrew, that's fine!

      I'm not opposed in *principle* to an expansion of pumped hydro storage in Australia; just concerned about the costs and about the numbers of your specific proposal involving numerous new shallow reservoirs. I've been thinking that some existing large valley reservoirs, some of which have not been full for years -- Warragamba for example -- might usefully be used for pumped hydro storage by adding an upper dam, without flooding land that hasn't…

      Read more
  12. Andrew Blakers

    logged in via LinkedIn

    Pumped hydro is >99% of all storage today because it is the cheapest option. There is ~140,000 MW installed, with a median height difference between reservoirs of 400m. The energy storage is mass*height*gravity*efficiency. Taking 400m height difference, 30m deep reservoirs and 80% round trip efficiency, and dividing total daily Australian electricity consumption by the population, yields a required reservoir area (upper + lower) of 5m2 per person - smaller than your car and a tiny fraction of current…

    Read more
    1. Eclipse Now

      Manager of Graphic Design firm

      In reply to Andrew Blakers

      Hi Andrew,
      I agree it's technically possible. As I mentioned, there are plans for a massive 7km diameter seawater pond that uses the Great Australian Bite. There's only desert and scrub-land out there, and lots of it, so there's no environmental problem. But once again you've forgotten the *cost*. I'd bet you that a Gen3.5 (and later Gen4) nuclear mix would end up about a third or even quarter of the cost. Or let me put it another way; show me a country that runs on wind and solar and hydro-storage? (Not some rare country or region like Tasmania that has awesome hydro rivers, but 'hydro-batteries' only). Show me one! It doesn't happen. Wind and solar are just too unreliable, and just assuming a super-grid and super-hydro-storage schemes will overcome this is not a costed, hard-nosed, scientific policy. It's wishful thinking.

      report
    2. Leon Smith

      logged in via email @gmail.com

      In reply to Eclipse Now

      So 4th Generation nuclear stations will eat up the waste created by 70 years of previous nuclear technologies. Great news.
      But what will happen to us when something craps out and another nuclear station melts down?
      Which is really the same problem with big hydro. That dam wall isn't going to last forever...
      Which is pretty similar to the B-Double through your house issue that came true in Urunga a few days ago. We close our eyes to the problems and think, 'Hey, great this land/electricity is cheap, why don't I buy this [unsafe] option.'

      report
    3. Eclipse Now

      Manager of Graphic Design firm

      In reply to Leon Smith

      Hi Leon,
      can you please tell us what 'Neutron Leak' is and how it works as a safety feature? Which reactors have it? Or which reactors are designed with liquid nuclear fuels that just drain away into a non-reactive tank the moment there is a power failure to the cooling systems?

      In other words, if a tiny birthday cake candle is covered by a giant water balloon hovering *just* above the candle flame, and that candle for some reason burns brighter, does anyone have to do anything to put out the flame? No. The laws of physics take over and shut it down for us. So too with modern reactors.

      You just don't know what you're talking about.

      report
  13. Leslie Mandre

    Student

    I seriously hope that day comes sooner than later, when every home in the world will be powered by renewable energy from the sun that is produced in a manner that is non-damaging to the environment. Perhaps the thing that deters a lot of folks who want to go solar is the startup cost that is needed to make the switch, however sites like http://gomakesolarpanels.com/ are doing a wonderful job of providing instructions on how to get the job done without burning a crater in the wallet.

    report
  14. Eric Huttlestone

    Public

    Are you aware of the ITER construction of a nuclear fusion reactor in France?

    The first experiments are scheduled in 2020. The aim is to create a little “sun” on Earth.

    Have a look at http://www.iter.org/proj/itermission

    The cost benefits and safety issue of using ubundant and non-polluting hydrogen make this a very worthwhile project.

    report
    1. Jonathan Maddox
      Jonathan Maddox is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Software Engineer

      In reply to Eric Huttlestone

      I'm wholeheartedly in support of nuclear fusion research. Like the Large Hadron Collider, it opens a window on the fundamentals of the universe. And it may provide useful energy one day.

      However please don't allow yourself to think that controlled terrestrial fusion is

      (a) cheap : controlled nuclear fusion is a hard, hard problem. It has been done experimentally at great expense for many decades (first experimental fusion achieved in 1932; first experiments directed towards harnessing fusion…

      Read more
    2. Eclipse Now

      Manager of Graphic Design firm

      In reply to Jonathan Maddox

      You actually said that ... out loud? "Oh the humanity!" "Realised at scale" is the key part here Jonathan. Every had a mobile phone drive an electric car very far? Power your air conditioner for long? Getting it yet?

      report
    3. Jonathan Maddox
      Jonathan Maddox is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Software Engineer

      In reply to Eclipse Now

      Electric cars have their own batteries. Which are exactly the same technology as in mobile phones -- just a few hundred mobile phone batteries per car. You did spot the word "billion" didn't you?

      Air conditioning is an *excellent* application for thermal storage. If it's a temperature differential you want, store the temperature differential, don't bother with reproducing electricity from storage.

      http://www.transgrid.com.au/network/nsdm/Documents/Littles%20Pharmacy%20Heat%20Ventilation%20and%20Air%20Conditioning%20(HVAC)%20case%20study.pdf

      Getting it yet?

      report
    4. Mark Duffett
      Mark Duffett is a Friend of The Conversation.

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Jonathan Maddox

      'At scale' means doing big stuff 24/7, not billions of mobile phones. Trying to equate them is a bit like saying a thousand bicycles can deliver the same power as one semi-trailer. Sure they can - but try carting several dozen refrigerators using a thousand bicycles. There's much more to a modern economy than consumer gadgets.

      Blakers' notions about the practicality of pumped storage are naive in the extreme. Apart from the space being far more limited than he paints (try getting approval to find space for the equivalent of a million-space car park in the Adelaide Hills), his calculations are predicated on *average* *daily* electricity consumption. Neither factor goes even close to characterising the reality of peak loads and multiple consecutive days of low power input.

      report