Electric cars not the best option

Originally posted by Penny Pincher: ↑

I guess I am a good example of basing a decision on the information available to me at the time. Doesn't necessarily mean it's the best decision but you can only work with what you have at that moment.

That kind of self-awareness and humility makes you a very rare animal here on HC.

The first thing I would say is that there is a certain theoretical flavor to his presos that is typical of academics, scientists and engineers . Saying things like " we'll just build that " and it will " cost a bit extra " without dealing with the practicalities of the same is a bit typical.

That said, based on his presentation his case is compelling. I wasn't aware that all the data he presented was available. That is a bit of a game changer for me.
Wow, so you are able to critically examine new information and make a judgement about what is being presented - again, a rare thing to witness here on HC!

I actually agree with your assessment. It is of course easy to pigeon-hole all academics and scientists and engage in name-calling. But like anywhere in life, there are smart academics and there are some who absolutely live in cloud cuckoo land. Just like there are some really really smart company directors while others are just so full of themselves that they can not see beyond their own self-importance and ignorance.

I believe that if you look at the credentials of Andrew Blakers, you can be quite comfortable that the data he presents is accurate. Yes, as an academic he might lack experience in seeing how long it takes in the real world to get things done, but all his data comes from what has been published based on real-world experience (i.e. articles, reports, research and other publicly available and - dare I say - peer reviewed by others).

I still don't agree with his vew that we don't need storage up til 50% or so. I think we need that storage now with a progressive build that attempts to capture all the renewable energy that's available.

Neither do I. Theoretically, this might be correct - but only if you manage peak demand and do load balancing, etc. In reality, you will want to start building up meaningful storage ASAP (if only to avoid having to even think about switching off PV systems when the sun shines). I 100% agreed with your second statement - ie. start a progressive - but also aggressive - build out of storage ...immediately.

I think part of this plan should include supporting the existing fossil in that we need to keep the grid as stable as possible going forward rather than repeating the South Australia and Hazelwood debacles of a few years ago. We simply can't afford to go backwards on reliability and peak costs.

On this I strongly disagree. What needs to be supported is not "existing fossil" to keep the grid stable, but rather the grid infrastructure itself must be improved and upgraded. If you read the final AEMO report on the South Australia blackout, the problem was not so much the shutting down of the wind farms, but poorly designed grid infrastructure or even just protocols as to how the grid ought to respond to certain sets of circumstances.

AEMO clearly stated that the wind turbines were not material contributors to the incident:

In other words, the South Australian black out could have been avoided if various parts of the grid simply had different system settings or followed different protocols. The narrative that the blackout was somehow due to the wind farms was one established by the Liberal party within less than 24 hrs of the blackout event - this conclusion was not supported by the AEMO report following several months after the event and after careful examination of what had actually occurred. Fossil Fuel Industry PR Machine 1: 0 Truth

I still think there will be execution issues that make it a bit harder than Blaker's suggests but that is also the situation with the alternatives.
Yes, I agree. It might even be that in very rare circumstances, the ONLY viable option is to install a gas-fired power station. However, rather than gas being the default solution, gas ought to be considered only after every other alternative that moves us towards a more sustainable energy supply has been examined.

There is a huge opportunity to reshape the Australian electricity system for the next century. And do it cost effectively.

I totally agree. Instead of taking advantage of Australia's world-leading PV solar R&D or other emerging renewable energy technology (or as you mention HVDC technology), people are pushing obsolete and toxic generation that is often developed overseas.

Anyway, I enjoy a robust discussion - even with people who have different views to mine. When I argue my points, I am often trying to stress-test my own beliefs. Like you, I try to examine new information presented by those with different views to mine.

Expand

I'm not being critical of Blakers in any way. I respect his views and his work. It's just that in my experience sometimes the theory doesn't pan out as smoothly as some would like.

I have a strong view that people like Blakers should have a seat at the table. He is a great example of the smart, experienced experts we have in this country that are available. Home grown experts that we should be utilising for Australia.

Why aren't we getting all these people in the room at the same time ? Instead we are getting a stacked group of people possibly making biased decisions.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/23/covid-commission-boss-nev-power-steps-back-at-gas-company-amid-conflict-of-interest-concerns

We should be building, or working toward building, some strategically placed phs right now. The trouble is, we aren't working on a long term plan. It is pretty clear where we are going to end up in the future with regard to energy storage. The planning is crucial in order to make this as quick and efficient as possible. Unfortunately, there is no plan so there is nothing to argue against when silly gas proposals and the like are put forward.

I reckon you've misinterpreted my view on supporting existing coal.

It ties in with the lack of storage until 50-60% renewables idea.

At the moment we need coal. In 2020 we can't do without it. We can't start introducing more renewables without infrastructure ( storage plus connections ) because if we do, we will see more instability.

We need coal to help us get to 99% renewables. What we don't want is to end up with avoidable shocks like the coal shutdowns in SA and in Victoria with Hazelwood and the one that Andy Vesy threatened with Liddell. They way we are going at the moment with a lack of policy, we are destined to have more shocks.
Privately run companies will get to a point where they will just say " too bad, we're shutting this power station down " despite what the government wants. We saw it with Engie at Hazelwood. Despite the treasurer of Victoria flying to Paris at the last minute to meet with the board of Engie, it was still shutdown.

The result ? The consumer got it in the neck.

Make no mistake, this isn't in support of cfp per se. This is in support of sensible policy that will make sure we don't get price shocks, power shortages and business disruptions. We need a progressive plan that will allow power companies to transition smoothly. Business has been asking for some kind of mechanism for more than a decade. The BCA was happy to accept Turnbull's NEG as a way to get the ball rolling and tweak it along the way. The NEG would've provided certainty for business to invest in the future. They don't have that now. At the moment they are shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Companies that operate large coal fired power stations now have an attractive asset in their grid connections. Large sites with hv grid connections and all the support services they need.
We have already seen how renewable projects can utilise existing infrastructure to maximise their potential. As per Blakers preso, rather than build solar and wind in the perfect spot a long way from the grid, build them adjacent to the existing infrastructure and make use of it.
Existing power stations can be both potential connection sites for new generation and storage , but they can also be supply sites for new industries. If we get to the point where we have large amounts of renewable energy that is very cheap, then businesses that were previously unviable due to power prices can be built at those sites because the infrastructure and the workforce is already there.

However, without a plan, this opportunity will be lost.

I think by utilising some existing coal cleverly and building some phs sooner rather than later, we could avoid having to build any more fast start gas infrastructure at all. Don't forget that to build this gas generation, you're going to have to develop these gas assets ( national pipeline ??? ) that we don't have. We are short on gas now and there are no real big prospects on the east coast. Seems like it's money that we should be diverting to energy storage and grid upgrades and simply bypassing this extra gas step altogether.

It's something that should certainly be debated by the experts. Not the government lackies.

I guess when you step back and look at it, the underlying problem is that we are missing a 50 year plan. We know where we need to end up. We know we have the ability to do it. We simply don't have a solid plan and because of that, all these issues that we have discussed continue to impede progress.

Pretty frustrating .......