nomadpete Posted Saturday at 08:58 PM Posted Saturday at 08:58 PM (edited) The big problem that I see is lack of timely pumped storage. Queensland put in 600MW of pumped storage way back when the state gov't owned all generators. But since then none of subsequent governments want to spend on big social essential infrastructure. There has not been any more such projects. Hence we have a nationwide lack of energy storage. Rising prices are mostly a result of lack of proper planning and commitment by governments. Had they planned over the years, there would already be storage in place that would minimise the power generation gas bills. I give up. I am costing up a private solar plus battery. For me, it's an investment. Even if I die (or move) before it pays for itself, the resale value of the house will be higher. Meantime, I am insulating myself from the problem. Edited Saturday at 09:03 PM by nomadpete I am avoiding a Grammer Police attack. 1 1
Siso Posted Saturday at 11:37 PM Posted Saturday at 11:37 PM intermittents are cheap, SA should be closing the gap compared to other states. We are using less gas and we are at 70+% intermittents. Fossil fuels are yesterdays tech, but will need them for a while, ask Germany France exporting 13GW at the moment https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/FR/live/fifteen_minutes 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted yesterday at 12:23 AM Posted yesterday at 12:23 AM As @octave mentione, the wholesale prices are down, and a lot of what is being paid is infrastructre. Remeber, SA is what, the third largest state/terriroty in Australia, and has 1.8m people scattered over it, far less than the other states, and bigger than the NT and ACT. That requires a decent amount of infrastructure to maintain, which will reduce with a full transition to renewables with batteries. France exports a lot of its energy to the UK. Why? Because, since before I was involved in the UK electricity industry, way back in 1996, the government was paralysed 2with its energy policy,. Then some bright sparkdaid gas is cheap.. Let's build a bunch of gass fired generation plants with a 15 year life span, and not have to maintain them in that time (largely not maintain, anyway). At the same time, the same bright spark said let's privatise Nuclear Electric (client of the company I worked for) and Scottish Nuclear (not a client of ours) and form British Energy and float it on the stock exchange. No prizes for guessing what was going to, and did happen to British Energy. It virtuallywent bust because the gas plants could churn out electricity at next to nothing.. At the same time, there were something like 8 operating plantes for British Energy - all due to decommission within the then next 15 - 20 years. At the time, with renewables technology where it was, nuclear was still the best technology. Some plants of other companies were tconverted to biomass burners, but they have their own problems. And, in reality, they are anly renewable after a 20 year cycle or thereabouts. However, renewable technology has come leaps and bounds, but the problem in the UK is planning laws are archaic, dreadfully painful and slow. This didn't impact the gas plants as these were built on existing decomiossioned sites. But, if you want to build capacity in a new site, the planning process can take years. Hinkley Point C, the new build at an existing generation site for the now decomissioned Hinkley Point A and B took over 15 months. Greenfield bew build planning permissions can take years.. The Sizewell C plant had been locked up in planning 26 months.. again at an existing plant. Renewablesin the UK has been deployed - a mix of solar and wind. Plannign takes forever, even for offshore stuff. Coal plants have been decomissioned as have been the expired gas plants. Nothing new has been built, so the UK for many years has been importing from France. However, since renewables have come online, remebering not a single new nuclear or fossil fuel plant has been built in the UK since 2012 (fossil, I think nuclear was 1996). But since renewables have been being installed, on an annualised basis, the UK was a net exporter of Electricity to France in 2022. This may seem o blip, but there are a lot of factors in electricity demand. And the UK has been reducing its reliance on imports over the last 5 or so years, since the UK has been bringing online more and more renewable generation capacity. 2
octave Posted yesterday at 12:34 AM Posted yesterday at 12:34 AM 4 minutes ago, Siso said: Fossil fuels are yesterdays tech, but will need them for a while, I have no problem with that statement. A key issue with power prices is that the savings from cleaner technologies often follow upfront investment. My rooftop solar looked expensive at first, but once the installation cost was paid off, my electricity became extremely cheap. The same applies to buying a more efficient car. No matter how we generate power, Australia needs to build a modern grid. That cost doesn’t disappear if we choose coal. It’s also worth noting that existing coal stations were built by governments — effectively, taxpayers. If we wanted new or upgraded coal plants today, the bill would again fall on taxpayers or consumers through higher tariffs. Meanwhile, real-world data shows the transition is already lowering costs. AEMO’s Q3 2025 report shows wholesale prices in South Australia have fallen, with renewables, storage and interconnectors putting clear downward pressure on prices. So the argument is simple: upfront investment can look costly, but over time it delivers cheaper, cleaner and more reliable power. 2
onetrack Posted yesterday at 12:38 AM Posted yesterday at 12:38 AM The miners in the W.A. Outback and remote regions are showing the way. https://reneweconomy.com.au/off-grid-gold-miner-achieves-record-renewables-with-101-consecutive-hours-with-engines-off/ 1
octave Posted yesterday at 12:41 AM Posted yesterday at 12:41 AM Just now, onetrack said: The miners in the W.A. Outback and remote regions are showing the way. https://reneweconomy.com.au/off-grid-gold-miner-achieves-record-renewables-with-101-consecutive-hours-with-engines-off/ Yes indeed. I have read a lot of articles lately about how the mining industry, in many ways, is leading the way.
Siso Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago So where SA loses in having the cheapest form of energy, we will lose the savings in uderutilised infrastructure. We still dont know if it will work before the country goes broke. No one has ever built a grid on intermittent weather dependant renewables. It is criminal to even try when we have other proven options. Pity there wasnt a way to hold politicians to account for bad uninformed decisions they make while in power, 1 1
octave Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago 3 minutes ago, Siso said: So where SA loses in having the cheapest form of energy, we will lose the savings in uderutilised infrastructure. To use the example of my rooftop solar SA (and Australia generally) is still at the stage of absorbing the cost of changing to a system that will be cheaper. If you want an instant reduction in your power bills, then what is your solution? No businesses want to build new fossil fuel power, and those companies that are in fossil fuels are moving away from it. AGL has a commitment to move away from fossil fuels by 2035. This is not because they are green hippies, but it is the rational business way to go. The rest of the world is moving in this direction again not from ideology but from financial pragmatism. 12 minutes ago, Siso said: We still dont know if it will work before the country goes broke. As a country, we are not at the leading edge. The transition is quite slow and steady. The Middle East has become immensely wealthy because of its oil. Australia is well placed for the next energy revolution. We have vast amounts of uninhabited land, and we have the minerals required for batteries, etc. I am in no way saying it is all easy. 20 minutes ago, Siso said: No one has ever built a grid on intermittent weather dependant renewables. So far. Many countries are 100% renewable, but they rely on hydro or geothermal energy. The thing about being weather-dependent is that in Australia, it is usually sunny or windy somewhere. This is why we need a smart grid. 24 minutes ago, Siso said: It is criminal to even try when we have other proven options. So what are these other options? Do you want AGL to be forced to refurbish or build new coal infrastructure? Do you think this would bring you cheaper bills? If, as you say, moving towards renewables is a recipe for disaster, then you would expect this to reveal itself through countries like Denmark (70% wind). What could be criminal is if we go in the opposite direction to the rest of the world. We could end up as a quaint backwater. Coal plants in Australia are aging and need to be replaced with something. Replacing coal plants is far more expensive than renewables plus firming. Coal is now the most expensive form of new energy. I personally am not totally against nuclear; however, the 2 problems I see are the economics and the time required to build. Gas is useful at the moment for peaking, but it is very expensive. 2 1
octave Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago 7 minutes ago, pmccarthy said: No country is 100% renewable. Technically true. However, there are many countries that are close in terms of electricity generation. I am not sure if I have used the term 100% and I do think that is something for the future. It is not the case that it is 100% or failure. Even leaving pollutants out of the equation, surely we would not want to build new coal or gas, as it is the expensive option. Switching to renewables is not just an ideology; it is an economic imperative. Albania: Hydroelectric[48] American Samoa Tau: ~100% solar power, with battery backup[69] Australia Tasmania: Hydropower supplies 100 percent of Tasmania's electricity. (Pending legislation plans for %200 renewable power by 2040, with the remainder to be sent to mainland Australia via submarine power cables)[70][71] Austria Lower Austria: 63% hydroelectricity, 26% wind, 9% biomass, 2% solar[72] Bhutan: Largely hydroelectricity; exports 70% of its production due to excess energy generated; no fossil fuel power plants.[73] Canada British Columbia: 97% hydroelectric[74][75] Manitoba: 97% hydroelectricity, 3% wind, <1% petroleum (diesel in four off-grid communities), <1% natural gas[76] Newfoundland and Labrador: 95% hydroelectricity[77] Quebec: 99% renewable electricity is the main energy used in Quebec (41%), followed by oil (38%) and natural gas (10%)[78] Yukon: 94% hydroelectricity[79] Costa Rica: 99% renewable electricity. Hydroelectric (90%), geothermal, wind (and others)[80] Democratic Republic of the Congo: Almost 100% hydro, but only 9% have access to electricity.[81][82] Denmark Samsø: Net greater than 100% wind power and biomass, connected to mainland for balance and backup power[83][84] Ethiopia: Mostly hydroelectricity (>90%). Smaller quantities of wind, solar, and geothermal. 45% of the population has access to electricity As of 2018, and there is a 100% access target set in 2017 for 2025.[85] Germany Aller-Leine Valley: 63.5% wind, 30% biogas, 10.7% hydro, 3.1% solar[86][87] Wildpoldsried, Bavaria: 500% wind, solar, hydro[88] Greece Tilos: 100% wind and solar power, with battery backup[89] Iceland: 72% hydroelectricity, 28% geothermal, wind, and solar power, less than 0.1% combustible fuel (off-grid diesel)[90] Norway: 96% hydroelectricity, 2% combustible fuel, 2% geothermal, wind, and solar[90] New Zealand South Island: 98.2% hydroelectricity and 1.6% wind. Around one-fifth of generation is exported to the North Island.[91] Tokelau: 93% solar power, with battery backup and 7% coconut biofuel[92][93] Paraguay: Electricity sector in Paraguay is 100% hydroelectricity, about 90% of which is exported, remaining 10% covers domestic demand[94] Tajikistan: Hydropower supplies nearly 100 percent of Tajikistan's electricity.[95] United Kingdom Scotland: 97% of electricity (2020) produced from renewables, mainly wind followed by hydroelectric.[96] United States Kodiak Island, Alaska: 80.9% hydroelectricity, 19.8% wind power, 0.3% diesel generator[97] Palo Alto, California: 50% hydro, rest a combination of solar, wind and biogas[98] Aspen, Colorado: Hydroelectric, wind and solar and geothermal[99] Greensburg, Kansas: 100% - wind balanced with grid connection[99][100] Georgetown, Texas: 100% - 154MW solar and wind balanced with grid connection[101] Burlington, Vermont: 35.3% hydro, 35.3% wood, 27.9% wind, 1.4% solar photovoltaic[102] Washington Centralia: 90.6% hydro, 7.9% nuclear[103] Chelan County: 100% renewable energy made up of 99.98% hydroelectric and 0.02% wind power.[104] Douglas County: 100% hydro[103] Pend Oreille County: 97.1% hydro[103] Seattle: 86% hydroelectricity, 7% wind, 1% biogas[105][103] Tacoma: 85% hydro, 6% wind[103] Uruguay: 94.5% renewable electricity; wind power (and biomass and solar power) is used to stretch hydroelectricity reserves into the dry season[106] 1 1
octave Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago 12 hours ago, nomadpete said: I am costing up a private solar plus battery. We priced a battery, but due to our already low bills, it did not stack up economically. It does, of course, provide backup power which is useful. Our thoughts at the moment are that when we need to replace our car (next year or the one after), we will get an EV capable of V2G. This would suit us perfectly. The car is often parked here during the day, and we have excess solar, and it can be on standby for the occasional power cut 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago 4 hours ago, Siso said: So where SA loses in having the cheapest form of energy, we will lose the savings in uderutilised infrastructure. We still dont know if it will work before the country goes broke. No one has ever built a grid on intermittent weather dependant renewables. It is criminal to even try when we have other proven options. Pity there wasnt a way to hold politicians to account for bad uninformed decisions they make while in power, The reality is continual investment in obsolete infrastructure will further result in underutilisation costs, because a lot of it is manifactured/fabrcated by global companies and Australia won't have the economic size to warrant whole production facilities and global supply chains to maintain them. Of you can absolutely pay through the nose and then some to maintain the ability to replace and increase capacity using the obsolete infrastructure. One of my nuclear clients had to do just that and ended up paying virtually all it would have made in profits by retaining old technology. They eventually bit the bullet and upgraded their infrastructure. At some stage, you have to run down the use of obsolete infrastructure. If that means you are decommissioning plant and infrastrcuture before the end of its useful life, that is your bad planning and management and mothing else. This is done by winding down the investment in obsolete infrastructure while investing on the new, far more efficient infrastructure. Indeed, even maintaining the existing infrastructure eventually moves to minimum to keep what is needed going while comissioning the new infrastructure, and keeping some of the obsolete stuff going in parallel to mitigate teething problems. This is called transitioning and is not a new concept. The problem is, the LNP government from Howard on were sponsored by the fossil fuel industry right at the time it was right to start the transition, both ecologically and economically. However, they fought against it and, with the help of the Murdoch and to a lesser extent, then Fairfax press, were able to maintain power and further delay the inevtiable, resulting in the cost of underutilised and increasingly obsolete infrastructure to increase, rather than transition to superseding infrastructire while optimising the life of what would have remained. The other side of it is finding the finance to fund the operations of fossil plants. Do you not remember the Morrison/Dutton government pressuring the Aussie banks to lend for new fossil fuel generation when they weren't prepared to? Banks will generallly lend to lawful etnerprises as long as the risk adjusted return on their capital meets their desired threshold. Even arms dealers can get funding, albeit with more stringent checks before that funsing is provided. Yet reputable banks are unwilling to lend to new fossil fuel electricity generation projects. Even with government pressure to try and get them to lend, why do you think that would be? I can tell you first hand. When we lend for project finance (the model commonly used), we have to work out the economic viability of the plant over the time horizon the finance is sought. We are often talking billions of USD (sorry, @randomx - USD is still the global currency) and usually over multiple decades - sometimes the expected life of the plant (ex. extestions). And, with the global electricity generation industry in its advanced state of transition, the risks are too high that we will lose on the deal. This is happening all over the world.. yes, there are developing economies where you can still get finance for new builds, but ultimately, they will fall away, as well. And we are now seeing, thanks to modelling other climate risks into the equation, operational funding on the decrease in these industries, as this compounds the risk of the probability of default in these sectors (and some others). We see plant of all different types (not just electricity generation, but manufacturing, processing, distillation, etc) being mothballed aand those costs have to be borne. But to continually invest in ne but obsolete capacity and try and be the last man standing and carry the costy of all of that is,well, quite nuts both at a micro and macro economic level. 1 1
Siso Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago Denmark is not relevant for Australia. Australia has no France or Sweden. All these other countrys have small grids and are third world countrys. Would you like to live in Ethiopia or the Congo. I think not. Or there grids are majority conventional hydro. Australia has only 7% traditional hydro and not likely to get more. No One has ever done what Australia is trying to do with weather dependent intermittent generation on a grid the size of Australia. You are correct, we don't want coal, so the obvious answer is nuclear. We should start looking at it very seriously. We may have to work with coal again. Look how Germany is doing. France currently exporting approx. 12.5GW. Windy in UK, it is exporting 885MW to france and is exporting slightly more than it is importing exporting 3 importing 2 Quote Quote 1
Siso Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 20 hours ago, octave said: So far. Many countries are 100% renewable, but they rely on hydro or geothermal energy. The thing about being weather-dependent is that in Australia, it is usually sunny or windy somewhere. This is why we need a smart grid. That's OK then, we should "usually" have electricity then. Check out the wind drought around April to June 2024. https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2024/06/13june-lowwind/ How much transmission are we going to have to build to Power Victoria from Queensland.
octave Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 21 minutes ago, Siso said: Denmark is not relevant for Australia. Australia has no France or Sweden Denmark is relevant not because it is identical to Australia, but because it demonstrates what is technically possible: High penetrations of wind (often >70% of demand) Stable grid operation Large-scale integration of storage, interconnectors, and flexible demand Australia will not copy Denmark, but Denmark proves that variability can be managed at the national scale. Whilst it does import power (about17%) it also exports. 38 minutes ago, Siso said: All these other countrys have small grids and are third world countrys. Iceland → virtually 100% renewables, advanced grid Norway → >95% renewables Uruguay → ~95% renewables, stable and wealthy by South American standards Portugal → frequently >80% monthly renewable generation Scotland → >100% wind generation equivalent to demand They are not “third world,” and they demonstrate that stable, high-renewable grids are entirely achievable Ethiopia or Congo are irrelevant—they rely on hydro because that’s their resource. Australia’s mix will be different. Australia is not physically connected to big neighbours. But we dont need to be. Australia’s strength is spread over a huge geographic area, which actually reduces variability when linked with transmission. Australia also has: Vast land for large-scale storage Strong rooftop solar penetration Mature markets that reward firming and flexibility Growing pumped hydro, battery, and demand-response capabilities We don't need a France next door when we can build storage and firming solutions domestically. 41 minutes ago, Siso said: Australia has only 7% traditional hydro and not likely to get more. Notable pumped-hydro / hydro projects in Australia (2025) Project (or Site) Status (as of 2025) Capacity / Storage Notes / Timing Snowy 2.0 Pumped Storage Power Station (NSW / Snowy Mountains) Under construction ~ 2,200 MW / ~ 350,000 MWh storage potential Wikipedia+1 Links two existing reservoirs via a 27 km underground tunnel + new underground power station. It’s a major national-scale storage project. Estimated commercial operation ~ 2028. DCCEEW+1 Kidston Pumped Storage Hydro Project (QLD, repurposed old gold mine) Under construction / near-commissioning (entered NEM 2025) waterpowermagazine.com+2pumpedhydro.com.au+2 250 MW / ~ 2,000 MWh (≈ 2 GWh) pumpedhydro.com.au+2Genex+2 First new pumped-hydro energy storage facility in Australia in nearly 40 years. Uses two old mine pits (upper + lower) as reservoirs. Expected to deliver dispatchable energy to the grid from 2025. Genex+2Energy-Storage.News+2 Mt Rawdon Pumped Hydro Project (QLD — former gold mine) Proposed / in development / feasibility + design + government backing State Development Plan+1 ~ 2,000 MW / ~ 20,000 MWh (20 GWh) proposed PV Magazine Australia+2pv magazine International+2 The proposal involves converting the decommissioned mine pit into the lower reservoir + a purpose-built upper reservoir, with underground tunnels & powerhouse. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) active; expected construction start around 2028, with commissioning in early 2030s if approved. mtrawdonhydro.com.au+2State Development Plan+2 Borumba Dam Pumped Hydro Project (QLD, near Gympie / Mary Valley) Proposed / planning & early works / design stage pumpedhydro.com.au+2Queensland Hydro+2 ~ 2,000 MW / ~ 48 GWh storage proposed pumpedhydro.com.au+1 The state-owned developer is currently doing technical investigations, site planning, project design and community consultation. Business case refresh expected by mid-2026; no firm construction start date. Queensland Hydro+1 Glenbawn Pumped Hydro Project (NSW, Upper Hunter) Early-stage / feasibility (under development by private energy co.) WaterNSW+1 ~ 770 MW / ~ 7.7 GWh proposed pumpedhydro.com.au+1 The project was acquired by an energy company in 2025. Preliminary steps (land-use agreements, studies) are underway; no committed construction date yet. WaterNSW+1 Glennies Creek Pumped Hydro Project (NSW, Upper Hunter) Early-stage / feasibility (like Glenbawn) WaterNSW+1 ~ 623 MW / ~ 6.2 GWh proposed pumpedhydro.com.au+1 Bought by the same energy company in 2025; still in early development with no confirmed build schedule. World Energy+1 Several other proposed/screened sites (various states / dams / water storage assets) Proposed / “potential / identified for study / early-stage” pumpedhydro.com.au+2WaterNSW+2 Varies — many in the low-to-mid hundreds of MW; small-to-mid GWh storage For example: sites identified by state dam-owners for feasibility studies. Projects have not yet been confirmed. WaterNSW+2NSW Climate and Energy Action+2 48 minutes ago, Siso said: We may have to work with coal again. Look how Germany is doing. Germany’s temporary coal use was due to: The Russian gas crisis Closing reactors without adequate alternatives ready A conscious political decision, not a grid technology failure Meanwhile: Germany’s coal is trending down long-term Wholesale prices in Germany have stabilised Germany added record renewables in 2023–2025 Also important: Germany's grid has remained one of the most reliable in the world, even with high renewables. I dont oppose nuclear, however it does have some drawbacks. Nuclear is a valid technology—but it does not solve Australia’s challenges: New nuclear is the most expensive form of new generation in the OECD Construction times are 10 to 15 years Requires large water supplies Needs a massive regulatory, licensing, and workforce base Australia does not have CSIRO GenCost: nuclear is many times more expensive than firmed renewables If the aim is lower prices quickly, nuclear cannot deliver that. 53 minutes ago, Siso said: Windy in UK, it is exporting 885MW to france and is exporting slightly more than it is importing exporting 3 importing 2 Nuclear is a valid technology—but it does not solve Australia’s challenges: New nuclear is the most expensive form of new generation in the OECD Construction times are 10–15+ years Requires large water supplies Needs a massive regulatory, licensing, and workforce base Australia does not have CSIRO GenCost: nuclear is multiple times more expensive than firmed renewables If the aim is lower prices quickly, nuclear cannot deliver that. 54 minutes ago, Siso said: Look how Germany is doing. France currently exporting approx. 12.5GW. Windy in UK, it is exporting 885MW to france and is exporting slightly more than it is importing exporting 3 importing 2 Cross-border flows fluctuate every hour. One snapshot doesn’t prove stability or superiority. France often exports, but it also imports during cold weather or reactor outages. The UK also imports and exports constantly. The presence of imports and exports is not a sign of weakness—it’s how interconnected grids work. 54 minutes ago, Siso said: Check out the wind drought around April to June 2024. https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2024/06/13june-lowwind/ As the report says - From a VRE perspective, remember that this is early afternoon so we would hope (I have not checked) that solar yield was cranking at that time To be clear, I think we are many years away from, shall we say "near 100% renewables" I believe in the short term, gas will most likely be our backup. 1
facthunter Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago There's also tidal. 8+ metres at Broome and very reliable. Wind doesn't NEED strong winds. Focussed SOLAR can provide extremely HIGH temperatures of say, SALT. You can do a Lot with that. WA is NOT on the THE grid. Properly Organised it Has Great variation of clean energy potential.. We've hardly scratched the surface with Pumped Hydro. Whatever WE do transmission over significant distances will Be Part of it But stand alone solar and Batteries may be an "off grid "answer for a lot of the dry inland. Nev 1
octave Posted 42 minutes ago Posted 42 minutes ago I have just been digging around in the Battery capacity stats. Residential (3.6 GWh) + Business (0.5–1.0 GWh) + Grid (6–12 GWh) → ~10.2 GWh to ~16.6 GWh operational mid-2025 (range reflects uncertainty in business & grid totals). Committed / near-term additional capacity (next 1–3 years): Under construction (end-2024): 23.3 GWh (utility). Clean Energy Council At/near financial close (pipeline): 37 GWh (Rystad — larger pipeline beyond those under construction). pv magazine International If the under-construction + near-financial-close projects all proceed, Australia’s total installed (homes + business + utility) could reach dozens of GWh (40–70 GWh) within a few years. Also, the 410000 EVs (approx) in Australia at the moment have a combined capacity of 30GWh. Vehicle-to-grid is now happening, albeit small at the moment. I think those countries that embrace technological innovation will thrive.
facthunter Posted 35 minutes ago Posted 35 minutes ago (edited) Electrons can do almost anything. So much Potential. Nev. Edited 32 minutes ago by facthunter typo 1
Siso Posted 8 minutes ago Posted 8 minutes ago Pumped hydro does not make electricty, Iceland → virtually 100% renewables, advanced grid- Geo thermal. While Australia has some it is not accessible easily Norway → >95% renewables- Huge amount of traditional hydro Uruguay → ~95% renewables, stable and wealthy by South American standards-Huge amount of traditional hydro for size of grid approx 1.5GW Portugal → frequently >80% monthly renewable generation- interconnected, small demand/grid- looks like Max demand of 6MW Scotland → >100% wind generation equivalent to demand- interconnected with the UK, Australia has only about 7% traditional Hydro. A country of 26 million people is going to have to pay and build the Transmission infrastructure. I stand by: No One has ever done what Australia is trying to do with weather dependent intermittent generation on a grid the size of Australia. Gen cost has very rubbery figures. Give NP a life of 30 years. not true and easily founnd not to be true. A lot of NPP are having life extensions to 60 years, no reason not to believe new builds won't last 80- 100 years. France exports a lot more than it imports. UK imports more than it exports. Saying a region makes enough energy to support itself is also misleading. have a look at open nem shot from June this year, We weren't doing any where near 70% intermittents in SA but the publicity says we are for the year. See energymaps
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now