Wind Generation and the Electricity Grid

[drron]

And maybe,just maybe SA's electricity is cheaper because it get's an $80+ subsidy from the taxpayers for each MW produced by renewables whereas the Coal producers pay $80+ for each MW.
So Victoria,NSW and QLD are subsidising SA yet again.

 

[Moody]

Of course Hazelwood was 52 years old and still capable of producing 86% of it's nameplate output at the end.That compares with wind at 70% of output at 20 years.
In the last 31 days of it's life it produced 15% more electricity than all of Australia's wind farms.
Hazelwood Power Plant Closing 31st March – Currently Delivering More Power Than Every Wind Plant In Australia (With Updates)
Now I agree that Hazelwood should have closed because it was amongst the most polluting of coal power stations but facts are still facts.

Yep - and those facts shame Australia and the reprobates that have championed coal-fired power plants over renewables.

 

[RAM]

The age of the unreliable 'reliable baseload coal-fired stations' has been with us for some years.

Earlier this year one of the youngest plants could not cope with the heat - so much for reliable baseload...

Even the nation’s newer coal plants are not immune. In January this year, for example, the NSW grid had to be protected from the possible failure of Queensland’s most modern coal plant, as it melted in the summer heat.

Then, without a hot day to complicate matters - the coal-fired stations were dropping like flies yesterday afternoon - there would have been wide spread blackouts in Vic, NSW and Qld if not for wind (& the last gasp of solar for the day).

1 unit down at Bayswater, 1 down at Yallourn, 2 down at Loy Yang A, 1 down at Gladstone, Kogan Creek limping - 5:48 PM - Nov 6, 2017

here's coal being reliable *again* Bayswater power station dropped 630MW this afternoon with no warning. the NEM is having a bad day! 5:35 PM - Nov 6, 2017

If you have a look at the Data dashboard – Australian Energy Market Operator page you can see how the power prices spiked and see how Tas, & SA predominantly provided the covering power.

BTW: the NEM times are not adjusted for daylight saving.

The SA inter-connector came in very useful yesterday, useful for keeping the egg off the faces of the Federal energy minister & friends.

Imagine the story that they would have tried to cook up to explain how unexpected problems with 6 fossil-fuel power stations had led to NSW, Vic and Qld suffering blackouts.

 

[drron]

And on many other days the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine so a day or a week is meaningless.
Remember onshore wind has a capacity factor of~34%.Hazelwood in it's last month at 52 years of age had a capacity factor of 86%.Far above the 50% wind supporters are often quoting.

 

[RAM]

And on many other days the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine so a day or a week is meaningless.
Remember onshore wind has a capacity factor of~34%.Hazelwood in it's last month at 52 years of age had a capacity factor of 86%.Far above the 50% wind supporters are often quoting.

and also remember in its last 12 months it was below 40%.
Flogging a dead horse to use up the remaining coal supply at the plant with no regard to what damage is caused to the plant is not a reliable indicator.

 

[RAM]

And on many other days the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine so a day or a week is meaningless.
Remember onshore wind has a capacity factor of~34%.Hazelwood in it's last month at 52 years of age had a capacity factor of 86%.Far above the 50% wind supporters are often quoting.

Only meaningless if it is not supposed to be RELIABLE & DESPATCHABLE.

Failed on both measures.

 

[drron]

Ram you need to read a little more widely and not to rely on Renewable generators spin(pun intended).

 

[RAM]

Ram you need to read a little more widely and not to rely on Renewable generators spin(pun intended).

Dear Drron - the information you continue to ignore comes from over 28 different sources including US Congressional reports.

There is a difference between fact and fiction.

 

[drron]

Not sure how many sources I use but way more than 28.And my US Govt sources are not congressional reports where it depends on which witnesses are called but Govt.departments such as the EPA and Dept of Energy.
Yes facts are facts.

 

[drron]

How appropriate.An email this morning with another informative post with links to a study showing nuclear energy decarbonises a nations emissions faster than wind or solar.Also nuclear decarbonises quicker than wind or solar.
The only nations who hace decarbonised as much as nuclear nations are ones who have reduced emissions intensity eg the UK who have switched from manufacturing jobs to service jobs-exactly why the rush to renewables here is having that effect.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...8f/1510080893757/Power+to+Decarbonize+(3).pdf

There is already a significant body of evidence showing that both deploying and phasing out nuclear plants have significant impacts on carbon intensity of energy at national levels. New nuclear construction was the key decarbonizing factor in both Sweden and France, two of the world’s currently least-carbon-intensive economies, after the international oil crisis in the 1970s.

With a recent increase in wind and drop in nuclear, Sweden now generatesabout 90 percent of its total electricity from zero-carbon sources, with the majority comprised of nuclear and hydroelectric power. With recent disruption in its nuclear fleet operations, France now generates above 70
percent of its electricity from nuclear and 90 percent from zero-carbon sources.

Because Japan did not increase its per-capita solar, wind, or hydro in significant quantities between 1965 and 1998, and because nucleardirectly replaced carbon-intensive fossil fuels used for producingelectricity, we can conclude that nuclear caused the decarbonization of
energy in Japan during the period between 1965 and 1998.
Adding robustness to this causal claim is the recarbonization of Japanese energy supplies following the replacement of nuclear plants with fossil fuels after 2011. In the two years following the 2011 nuclear accident in
Fukushima, Japan halted nuclear electricity generation and replaced it with fossil fuels including coal, oil, and natural gas. After that occurred, the carbon intensity of energy in Japan rose to 236 gCO 2 per kWh, undoing 36 gCO 2 per kWh of the 49 gCO 2 per kWh of emissions reduction progress Japan made between 1965 and 1998 in just two years.

 

[Moody]

So ..... replacing nuclear-based generators with coal/gas generators is moronic because it recarbonises the energy sector? But you love coal, drron! Coal is good for humanity, remember? It elevates millions of people in India and China to the middle class. Pity that hundreds of thousands of them will go to an early grave from the increased pollution, and let's not dwell too much on the climate change issues.

So since Australia is not going nuclear any time soon I guess there's no choice but to continue polluting and killing ourselves. Pity about that, but it seems there is no viable alternative. Science has apparently failed to warn us or give us an alternative. Idiots - what use are they?

 

[drron]

As if on cue.Australia's Mawson base in Antarctica got most of it's electricity from it's 14 year old wind turbines.
Until yesterday.

 

[Moody]

Yes drron - your blistering rhetoric blew it down. I'll send your apologies and are you going to suggest they build a small scale fission reactor or one of those new coal-fired babies that don't pollute nearly as much as the old ones? They're waiting for your call.

 

[tgh]

Settle petals.. here is a bit of light entertainment for y'all.
On a recent cruise , I was mistakenly invited to coughtails in a suite .
No sensible suite dweller would invite such trash.. but anyway it happened.
Imagine the odds , we had two civil engineers , a mining engineer, and a nuclear engineer…amazing.
My contribution is that the nukeisicist struggled to explain any really sustainable solution to waste.
My reading of his words and body language was that this was indeed the achilles heel of the genre.

 

[drron]

Moody it would be great if just once you could use some facts.Until then bye,bye.
Of course as is usual it is now a diesel generator they are using.

 

[Moody]

Moody it would be great if just once you could use some facts.Until then bye,bye.
Of course as is usual it is now a diesel generator they are using.

Que? I was matching your schadenfreude with sarcasm, but if that is the trigger for you to take your pointless nuclear energy discussion out of this thread then you won't get any complaints from me.

 

[drron]

Just because Australia has no nuclear power or any plan for such doesn't mean I and others will stop trying to promote it.The science of nuclear power is far stronger than the science behind Al gore's predictions on future weather events.
As I have said before one of the people behind the push for greater use of nuclear power is James Hansen.And those who don't know who he is really haven't an in depth knowledge of Climate Change.He believes that renewables aren't the way to enough CO2 emissions reduction and in the long run not economically viable.Hence the push for the nuclear option.

 

[tgh]

trying to promote it.

You are personally happy with the risks, including the waste issue ?

 

[straitman]

[mod hat]It is time for several people here to have a think about their posts. Argue as much as you like BUT STOP the NAME CALLING![/mod hat]

 

[drron]

trying to promote it.

You are personally happy with the risks, including the waste issue ?

Absolutely.The waste from nuclear power plants will get less with time.The heavy metals from older solar panels will never be safe.Often just dumped in landfills with the the metals then leaching into groundwater.

With nuclear wastes the most harmful to human health are those with short half lives because they emit their radiation quickly.Dont believe the Helen Caldicotts of the world saying the waste will be radioactive for millions of years so never safe.
An isotope with a half life of a million years will on average emit 0.00005% of it's radiation per year,half of that in the second million years.Not going to be distinguishable from background radiation.
Their are credible and proven safe ways for handling nuclear fuel waste.Holding the spent fuel under water for 4-6 years sees up to 95% of the radioactivity gone.
For information go to these sites-
Storage and Disposal Options for Radioactive Waste - World Nuclear Association
Used Nuclear Fuel Management - Nuclear Energy Institute

The Australian Government is still actively looking for a site for our nuclear waste disposal-basically medical waste.
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility

What we are not seeing is discussion of what we are going to do with the waste from windfarms and solar farms.They are going to produce much more waste than has ever been produced in nuclear power stations and a lot of it toxic.

Along with that consider the land needed to produce the energy.The Diablo Canyon reactor in California occupies just over 2 acres.The wind farm to replace 50% of the energy it produces will be just over 1200 acres.So to save the environment we will destroy the environment.