Should we pay polluters to shut down

Originally posted by acorn ↑

The recent drama in SA and the discussion on here has prompted me to pose the question . I'm sure some will get a bit excited about it but here goes .

I think we can all agree that we are heading to a renewable future sooner or later whether we like it or not .

Even though I don't believe that renewable energy caused the SA issue last week , there is the possibility that it contributed to the slow restart with regard to no spinning reserve as previously posted .

Considering that renewable projects continue to get approval should we be getting more involved in how they will connect and therefore affect the grid ?

This means that money will need to be spent to make the grid more flexible and maybe new rules need to apply for these projects . Because grid sized storage that could replace the spinning reserve isn't available just yet we may need to keep our conventional power stations running longer , at least in part .
For example , there is talk of shutting down Hazelwood power station as it appears to be struggling financially . Companies are not going to invest in these stations if they think they are going to have a short life . Should we shut down units in these power stations progressively instead of in one hit ?

Should the public pay for them to keep going so that we can transition to renewables more smoothly ?

We subsidise all sorts of industries . Would it make sense to subsidise some of these power stations considering the long term goal of zero emissions which will benefit all of us ?

Instead of driving these companies out of business , as has happened in SA , should we manage it better ?

I have been reading about the new Hinckley Nuclear power station that is to be built in the UK . It has a guaranteed feed in tariff that is very high and the cost of the station is continuing to spiral up . From the outside it looks like it's going to be a massive white elephant .

Interested in people's views on this one .

Expand

On paper, at least, it is technically possible to operate with 100% renewables.

Ignoring nuclear and accepting that hydro is limited to topographically suitable locations, we are basically left with wind and solar.

The issue with wind and solar is that it is irregular and cyclic, i.e. does not offer baseload.

What does baseload provide? 1. continuous power 24/7, and 2. frequency control.

The issue of continuous power is addressable by grid scale batteries, such as VFBs (think grid scale UPS). It just means that for a 24/7 supply of 1000 MW it will be necessary to install perhaps 6000 MW of wind and solar. Maybe 4000 MW if the mix was dominated by solar in a location such as Geraldton and maybe 10000 MW if the mix was dominated by wind in Adelaide.

The issue of frequency control is addressable by the modifying the Steam Turbine-Alternator pairing to DC Motor-Alternator pairing, with the motor powered by a VFB.

Beyond that, it is all a matter of economics.