Categories
Renewables

‘Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan’ – Critique

‘Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan’ – Critique

Download the printable PDF here

[An addendum on wind farm and solar construction rates, by Dave Burraston]

————————

Edit: Here are some media-suitable ‘sound bytes’ from the critique, prepared by Martin. Obviously, please read the whole critique below to understand the context:

  • They assume we will be using less than half the energy by 2020 than we do today without any damage to the economy. This flies in the face of 200 years of history.
  • They have seriously underestimated the cost and timescale required to implement the plan.
  • For $8 a week extra on your electricity bill, you will give up all domestic plane travel, all your bus trips and you must all take half your journeys by electrified trains.
  • They even suggest that all you two car families cut back to just one electric car.
  • You better stock up on candles because you can certainly expect more blackouts and brownouts.
  • Addressing these drawbacks could add over $50 a week to your power bill not the $8 promised by BZE. That’s over $2,600 per year for the average household.

By Martin Nicholson and Peter Lang, August 2010

1. Summary

This document provides a critique of the ‘Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan’ [1] (referred to as the Plan in this document) prepared by Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE). We looked at the total electricity demand required, the total electricity generating capacity needed to meet that demand and the total capital cost of installing that generating capacity. We did not review the suitability of the technologies proposed.  We briefly considered the timeline for installing the capacity by 2020 but have not critiqued this part of the Plan in detail.

In reviewing the total energy demand, we referred to the assumptions made in the Plan and compared them to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) report on Australian energy projections to 2029-30 [2]. The key Plan assumptions we questioned were the use of 2008 energy data as the benchmark for 2020, the transfer of close to half the current road transport to electrified rail and transfer of all domestic air travel and shipping to rail which could have a devastating impact on the economy. In the Plan, total energy demand was reduced by 63% below ABARE’s assessment. We recalculated the energy demand for 2020 without these particular assumptions. Our recalculation increased electricity demand by 38% above the demand proposed in the Plan.

We next turned our minds to the amount of generator capacity needed to meet our recalculated electricity demand. We assumed that the existing electricity network customers would require the same level of network reliability as now. At best the solar thermal plants would have the same reliability and availability of the existing coal fleet so the network operators would at least require a similar proportion of reserve margin capacity as in the existing networks. We kept the same proportion of wind energy as in the Plan (40%) and recalculated the total capacity needed to maintain the reserve margin. The total installed capacity needed increased by 65% above the proposed capacity in the Plan.

The Plan misleadingly states that it relies only on existing, proven, commercially available and costed technologies. The proposed products to be used in the Plan fail these tests. So to assess the total capital cost of installing the generating capacity needed, we reviewed some current costs for both wind farms and solar thermal plants. We also reviewed ABARE’s expectation on future cost reductions. We considered that current costs were the most likely to apply to early installed plants and  that ABARE’s future cost reductions were more likely to apply than the reductions used in the Plan. Applying these costs to the increased installed capacity increased the total capital cost almost 5 fold and increases the wholesale cost of electricity by at least five times and probably 10 times. This will have a significant impact on consumer electricity prices.

We consider the Plan’s Implementation Timeline as unrealistic.  We doubt any solar thermal plants, of the size and availability proposed in the plan, will be on line before 2020.  We expect only demonstration plants will be built until there is confidence that they can become economically viable. Also, it is common for such long term projections to have high failure rates.

2. 2020 Electricity Demand

BZE make a number of assumptions in assessing the electricity demand used to calculate the generating capacity needed by 2020. In summary these are:

  1. 2008 is used as the benchmark year for the analysis. BZE defend this by saying “ZCA2020 intends to decouple energy use from GDP growth. Energy use per capita is used as a reference, taking into account medium-range population growth.”.
  2. Various industrial energy demands in 2020 are reduced including gas used in the export of LNG, energy used in coal mining, parasitic electricity losses, off-grid electricity and coal for smelting.
  3. Nearly all transport is electrified and a substantial proportion of the travel kms are moved from road to electrified rail including 50% of urban passenger and truck kms and all bus kms. All domestic air and shipping is also moved to electric rail.
  4. All fossil fuels energy, both domestic and industrial, is replaced with electricity.
  5. Demand is reduced through energy efficiency and the use of onsite solar energy.

The net effect of these assumptions is to reduce the 2020 total energy by 58% below the 2008 benchmark and 63% below the ABARE estimate for 2020. The total electricity required in 2020 to service demand and achieve these reductions is 325 TWh. This is the equivalent of an average generating capacity of 37 GW over the year.

All of these assumptions are challenging and some are probably unrealistic or politically unacceptable. To address these concerns, we have adjusted the assumptions and recalculated the energy estimates shown in Table A1.3 of the Plan.

The revised assumptions are as follows:

  1. Comparing Australia’s energy use per capita with Northern Europe ignores the significant differences in population density and climate between the two regions. To address this, we have used ABARE’s forecast for 2020 as the benchmark year for our analysis. The ABARE forecast assumes energy efficiency improvement of 0.5 per cent a year in non energy-intensive end use sectors and 0.2 per cent a year in energy intensive industries.
  2. The export of LNG will continue. Much of the world may not wish to, or be able to, emulate this plan and the demand for gas as an energy source will continue for several decades. The other demand reductions shown in BZE assumption 2 above are included.
  3. A substantial modal shift in transport to rail is unlikely to be politically acceptable, particularly domestic aviation and bus travel. Domestic aviation and shipping will continue to use fossil fuels or bio-equivalents. In our analysis, nearly all road transport is electrified but without a reduction in distance travelled. Though this transport electrification is unlikely to be achieved by 2020, it is a realistic long term goal so has been included in the revised calculations. ABARE energy data are for final energy consumption so a tank/battery to wheel efficiency comparison should be made. This is considered to be a 3:1 energy reduction [3] not 5:1 as identified in the Plan.
  4. All fossil fuels energy is replaced with electricity as per the Plan.
  5. Demand is reduced through energy efficiency and the use of onsite solar energy as per the Plan but discounted by the energy efficiency already included in the ABARE data identified in 1 above.

These assumptions and recalculations are based on information provided in Appendix 1 of the Plan. Each SET column shown in Table 1 below are defined in Appendix 1. Recalculations are based on data provided in Appendix 1. ABARE provided data for 2008 and 2030 only so 2020 is our estimate based on the ABARE figures.

The net effect of these revised assumptions is shown in Table 1 which is a rework of Table A1.3 in Appendix 1 of the Plan. The total electricity required in 2020 to service the revised demand and achieve the energy reductions is 449 TWh or 38% more than the ZCA2020 Plan estimate of 325 TWh.

3. Total Capacity Needed

A number of assumptions have been made by BZE in assessing the generating capacity needed to supply the electricity demand in 2020. These can be summaries as follows:

  1. The Plan relies on 50 GW of wind and 42.5 GW of concentrating solar thermal (CST) alone to meet 98% of the projected electricity demand of 325 TWh/yr. In addition, the combination of hydro and biomass generation as backup at the CST sites is expected to meet the remaining 2% of total demand, covering the few occasions where periods of low wind and extended low sun coincide.
  2. In the Plan system design the extra generating capacity needed to meet peak demand is reduced relative to current requirements. The electrification of heating, along with an active load management system, is assumed to defer heating and cooling load to smooth out peaks in demand resulting in a significant reduction in the overall installed capacity required to meet peak demand.
  3. In the Plan, negawatts are achieved through energy efficiency programs which lower both overall energy demand and peak electricity demand as well as by time-shifting loads using active load management. Negawatts can be conceptually understood as real decreases in necessary installed generating capacity, due to real reductions in overall peak electricity demand.
  4. The current annual energy demand in the Plan is considered to be 213 TWh which can be converted to an average power figure of 24 GW. BZE assumes that the current installed capacity to meet maximum demand is 45 GW. The difference (21 GW) is then considered power for meeting the demand for intermediate and peak loads only. The peak load in 2020 is assumed to be equal to the average of 37 GW plus the 21 GW for intermediate and peak loads. This is then reduced by a 3 GW allowance for ‘Negawatt’ to give an overall maximum demand of 55 GW.
  5. In the worst case scenario modelled in the Plan of low wind and low sun, there is a minimum of 55 GW of reliable capacity. This is based on a projected 15%, or 7.5 GW, of wind power always being available and the 42.5 GW of solar thermal turbine capacity also always being available with up to 15 GW of this turbine capacity backed up by biomass heaters. The 5 GW of existing hydro capacity is also always available.

The key issues in these assumptions are that the maximum (peak) demand is 55GW and that the proposed installed capacity can deliver a minimum of 55GW at any time. We will deal with each of these issues separately.

3.1. Recalculation of peak demand

The ZCA2020 Plan proposes a single National Grid comprising the existing NEM, SWIS and NWIS grids. The current installed capacity and loads in the three regions are shown in Table 2. An accurate assessment of peak demand – not average demand – is critical for assessing the total installed capacity needed.

Reliability in each network is maintained by additional available capacity over and above the expected peak demand. This is to cover for planned or unexpected loss of generating capacity either through planned maintenance or unplanned breakdown. This additional capacity is often referred to as the ‘reserve margin’.

The current reserve margin in each network is approximately 33% higher than the actual peak load. Note also that the actual total installed capacity is 53 GW and average power is 26 GW across the three networks. These are both higher than suggested by BZE in assumption 4 above.

The anticipated electricity demand in 2020 from Table 1 is 449 TWh. Assuming no change in current peak demand we can expect the pro rata peak in 2020 would be 78.7 GW (39.7 x 449/227). If we apply the 3 GW negawatt reduction discussed in assumption 4, peak demand will become 75.7 GW as shown in Table 3.

3.2. Recalculation of required capacity to reliably meet demand

The Plan insists that the combination of wind power and solar thermal with storage can deliver continuous supply (baseload). The only way to accurately assess this and the capacity required to meed the performance demands on the network is to do a full loss of load probability (LOLP) analysis. This does not appear to have been done in the ZCA2020 Plan, or at least it was not discussed as such in the report.

It is also beyond the scope of this critique to perform an LOLP analysis. A reasonable proxy is to apply the reserve margin requirements currently in the network. To maintain reliability, all three network regions have a reserve margin of 33% above the anticipated peak demand.

The size of the reserve margin is, among other things, related to the reliability of the generators in the network. In the current networks the predominant generators are conventional fossil fuel plants supplying over 90% of the energy.

In the Plan, the predominant plants are solar thermal with biomass backup supplying just under 60% of the energy. The Plan states that “The solar thermal power towers specified in the Plan will be able to operate at 70-75% annual capacity factor, similar to conventional fossil fuel plants.” The remainder of the energy mostly comes from wind powered generators. It would therefore seem likely that the network operators would continue, at a minimum, to require a 33% reserve margin to maintain the current levels of network reliability. The reserve margin may well be higher given the proportion of wind power and the use of relatively new solar thermal/biomass hybrid plants.

Table 3 shows the anticipated peak demand and total capacity needed to meet the 2020 demand calculated in section 2.

3.3. Estimate of the required wind and solar capacity

As close as possible we have kept the percentage of energy coming from wind and solar the same as in the Plan. This means that roughly 40% of the energy will come from wind and 60% will come from solar thermal plants with sufficient biomass capacity and sufficient fuel supply system to back-up for when there is insufficient energy in storage.

40% of the 449 TWh demand required by 2020 shown in section 2 will require 68 GW of wind. This is 36% higher than the 50 GW of wind used in the Plan.

The Plan assumed that 15% of wind power would always be available (assumption 5 above). This is the capacity credit allocated when assessing network reliability. Dispatchable generators like fossil fuel plants typically have a capacity credit of 99%. [4]

For the purpose of this estimate, we have assumed that the solar plants will have sufficient biomass capacity and reliability to be given a capacity credit of 99%. This may require a higher availability of biomass at the solar sites than has been included in the Plan. Without an LOLP we are not able to make that assessment.

Table 4 shows the amount of wind and solar needed to satisfy the network requirement for a total capacity of 101 GW calculated in 3.2 and shown in Table 3. The solar supply and biomass backup will need to be more than doubled from the present 42.5 GW to 87 GW.

4. Capital Costs

The Plan makes an estimate of the capital costs for the generators and the transmission lines. The Plan states that it “relies only on existing, proven, commercially available and costed technologies”. This is misleading. Although it is true that wind and solar thermal generators have been used commercially for a number of years, the particular products and product size suggested in the Plan are not yet available and caution is needed when estimating future costs for these products. Further, the Plan also assumes that baseload solar thermal is available today when the International Energy Agency does not expecting competitive baseload CSP before 2025. [5]

In this analysis we have compared the costs proposed in the Plan with known costs for solar and wind plants, together with ABARE’s suggested likely cost reductions over time.

4.1. Wind costs

According to ABARE [6, 7], current costs for wind farms in Australia are around $2.9 million/MW. In 2009 the costs were $2.3 million/MW – see Table 5.

The following assumptions have been made by BZE in estimating the cost of wind farms:

  1. The Plan involves a large scale roll out of wind turbines, that will require a ramp up in production rate, which will help to reduce wind farm capital costs and bring Australian costs into line with the world (European) markets.
  2. The 2010 forecast capital cost of onshore wind is approximately €1,200/kW (2006 prices) or $2,200/kW (current prices). By 2015 the European capital cost of onshore wind is estimated to be around €900/kW (2006 prices) (or $1,650 in current prices).
  3. It is expected that Australian wind turbine costs in 2011 will reduce to the current European costs of $2.2 million/MW. For the first 5 years of the Plan, the capital costs of wind turbines are expected to transition from the current European costs to the forecast 2015 European amount — $1.65 million/MW.
  4. In the final five years the capital costs are expected to drop to approximately $1.25 million/MW in Australia.

Wind turbines are not new technology and this would not normally suggest such significant falls in future costs. The 7.5 MW Enercon E126 turbine proposed is significantly larger than any currently installed on-shore commercial turbine and is still being developed. No firm costs for such a turbine are yet available. It seems very optimistic to suggest that the cost of these turbines will almost halve over the next decade. That projection is not supported by ABARE, which forecasts2 a reduction in the cost of wind power of 21% from 2015 to 2030. This is a simple average reduction of 1.5% per year.

Given the current cost of turbines in Australia ($2.9 million/MW) and accepting some economy of scale both in turbine size and volume purchased it might seem more prudent to assume the cost will fall from the current cost of $2.9 million/MW to $2.5 million/MW over the decade in line with ABARE’s forecast.

4.2. Solar costs

The solar plant proposed by the ZCA2020 Plan is a solar thermal tower with 17 hours molten salt energy storage. The proposed 220 MW plant is 13 times larger than any existing solar tower system. As with the wind proposal, no firm costs for such a large sized plant are yet available.

We have prepared an analysis of two solar thermal tower projects of varying sizes and using molten salt with varying energy storage sizes. These are plants where the capital cost could be identified and shown in Table 6. All costs are converted to 2010 A$.

Part of the variation in cost per MW is related to the hours of storage. The size of the solar field has to be increased to support more hours of storage as does the size of the storage tanks. According to the Plan (p140), 80% of the cost of a solar tower system using molten salt storage comes from the solar field and the storage system.  Scaling up the storage will increase the cost per MW. These costs have been adjusted in Table 6 to 17 hours storage as proposed in the Plan.

The Plan (p61) has applied the following pricing which falls as more solar plants are installed:

  1. The first 1,000 MW is priced at a similar price to SolarReserve’s Tonopah project at $10.5 million/MW.
  2. The next 1,600 MW is priced slightly cheaper at $9.0 million/MW.
  3. The next 2,400 MW is priced at Sargent & Lundy’ conservative mid-term estimate for the Solar 100 module which is $6.5 million/MW.
  4. The next 3,700 MW is priced at Sargent & Lundy Solar 200 module price of $5.3 million/MW.
  5. The remaining 33,800 MW is priced at $115 billion or $3.4 million/MW.

The Tonopah project is treated as a First-Of-A-Kind (FOAK) plant. Unfortunately the Tonopah plant has only 10 hours of storage [8] not 17 hours as required by the Plan. Grossing up the $10.5 million/MW from 10 hours to 17 hours based on the additional materials needed makes the cost $16.4 million/MW. For comparison, the Gemasolar plant shown in Table 6 has a scaled up cost of $25.7 million/MW.

ABARE2 forecasts a reduction in the cost of solar thermal with storage of 34% from 2015 to 2030. This is a simple average reduction of 2% per year. It might seem more prudent to assume the price will fall in line with ABARE’s assessment which will lower the price from $16.4 million/MW to $13.7 million/MW over the decade.

4.3. Assessment of generator capital costs based on revised capacity

In 3.3 we estimated the needed capacity to meet reliability standards in the electricity networks. From Table 4 the wind capacity needed was 68 GW and solar thermal plant capacity was 87 GW.

In this section we take the construction timelines suggested in the Plan (p57, p67) and gross them up to meet the capacity figures above. We then apply the prices calculated in 4.1 and 4.2 to calculate the revised total capital cost.

Table 7 and Table 8 apply a construction schedule as close as possible to the schedules provided in Table 3.7 and Table 3.14 of the Plan. The price each year is assumed to fall uniformly over the 10 years. We recognise this is not what would happen in practice but the end result would not vary greatly.

The Plan’s projected capital cost of wind = $72 billion.

The Plan’s projected capital cost of CST = $175 billion.

Because the required capacity for wind is 36% higher in this analysis than in the Plan and the capacity for solar is 105% higher, there is significant increase in capital cost over the Plan. This is particularly so for the solar component as the average cost per MW over the 10 years has increased from the BZE assessment of $4.1 million to $14.6 million. This a 3.6 times increase in average capital cost.

4.4. Assessment of the revised total investment cost

As the total installed capacity has increased then both the transmission system and biomass supply will also need to be increased. For the purpose of this assessment, the biomass is assumed to increase pro rata with the increase in solar thermal capacity. The transmission is assumed to increase pro rata with the total installed capacity. The actual increases could only be properly assessed with a full LOLP analysis.

The Plan assumes that the biomass fuel will be transported from the biomass pelletising plants, which are located in the wheat growing areas, to the solar thermal power plants by electrified railway lines.  It seems the Plan does not include the cost of these.  We have made an allowance of $54 billion for the capital cost of the electrified rail system for the biomass fuel handling logistics.  This assumes 300km average rail line distance per solar power site, for 12 sites at $15 million/km of electrified rail line.  This is included in our revised total investment cost shown in Table 9.

4.5. Uncertainty in the capital cost estimates

Capital costs for this Plan are highly uncertain.  None of the proposed generator types has ever been built.  Previous estimates for wind power and solar power have often proved to be gross underestimates. Our estimates include projections of cost reductions due to learning rates as does the Plan.  However, there is evidence that real costs have been increasing for decades so the learning rate reductions have to be considered uncertain.

The Plan calls for electrified rail lines to run from the pelleting plants in the wheat growing areas to the solar power stations but the capital cost for lines was not included.  We have included an estimate for this as discussed in 4.4.

There is uncertainty on the downside due to potential technological break-throughs which might make the learning curve rates forecast by various sources: Sargent and Lundy, NEEDS, DOE, IEA and ABARE achievable.  BZE projects a cost reduction of some 50% for solar and wind over the decade.  We will consider this to be the downside uncertainty.

There are several uncertainties on the upside:

  1. 1. A qualified estimator will state that the uncertainty on the upper end is as high as 100% for a conceptual estimate involving a particular design using mature technology for a particular site. The Plan and our estimates are for a concept that does not involve mature technology, without specific site surveys and without a system design for a totally redesigned electricity system.
  2. Previous estimates for solar thermal plants over the past two decades have often underestimated the cost of the actual plants.  For example, the estimated cost of Solar Tres / Gemasolar increased by 260% between 2005 and 2009 (when construction began).
  3. 3. A loss of load probability (LOLP) study would be essential to accurately estimate the generating capacity and transmission network requirements before this Plan was executed.
  4. The wind power contribution to reliability is based on an assumed firm capacity of 15%.  Many consider this highly optimistic.  Should the LOLP study suggest a significantly lower firm wind capacity, then much more solar thermal and biomass capacity would be required, increasing the total capital cost.
  5. Some consider that almost none of our hydro resource could be used in the way assumed in the Plan to back up for low sun and low wind periods.  If this proved to be the case then more solar and biomass capacity would be required.
  6. 6. All existing CST pilot plants have been built in areas that are relatively close to the necessary infrastructure such as road, water, gas mains and a work force.  This will not be the case for most of the 12 sites proposed for Australia.

In Table 9 , we have used a downside uncertainty of 50% and an upside uncertainty of 260% for solar plants and 200% for the other components.

5. Electricity Costs

The wholesale electricity cost, the price paid to the generator, makes up between 30% to 50% of retail electricity prices so any significant increase in the wholesale cost will impact consumer electricity prices. The Plan claims that wholesale prices will rise from the present $55/MWh to $120/MWh after  2020 (p122).

Table 10 shows estimates for the cost of electricity from solar thermal plants and wind farms for different years. It is clear that the Plan estimate for solar is significantly less than the other estimates. This would suggest a significantly lower capital cost for solar in the Plan than anticipated by these other assessments. The Plan does not offer an electricity cost for wind farms.

Based on the ABARE electricity cost estimates shown in Table 10. for solar thermal and wind, if the ratio of energy generated is 60% solar and 40% wind then the wholesale electricity price would need to be, at a minimum, $270/MWh by 2020 to cover the cost of generation.

However this is not a total system cost.  The wholesale cost of electricity would be about $500/MWh based on the capital cost of $1,709 billion, the supply of 443 TWh/a, a lifetime of 30 years and real interest rate of 10% pa.

If the capital cost is at the low end of the range, $885 billion, the electricity cost would be about $270/MWh.  If the capital cost is at the high end of the range, the electricity cost would be about $1200/MWh.

The $500/MWh cost is over 4 times the cost proposed in the Plan and nearly 10 times the current cost of electricity.  The low end of the estimate, $270/MWh, is more than twice the estimate proposed by the Plan and 5 times the current cost of electricity.  The high end of the range is over 10 times the cost proposed in the Plan and over 20 times the current cost of electricity.

6. Implementation Timeline

The Plan is not economically viable; therefore it will not be built to the timeline envisaged in the plan. As an example of how unrealistic the timeline is, the Plan assumes 1000 MW of CST will be under construction in 2011.   This is clearly impossible.  The first plant with 100MW peak capacity and just 10 hours of storage won’t be on-line in the USA until 2013 at the earliest.  It could be years before Australia can begin building plants with 17 hours of storage.

Trying to schedule the proposed build is making a category error. It is unlikely that any project manager would touch it. The project is simply not scoped.

We expect only demonstration plants will be built until there is confidence that they can become economically viable.  We doubt any solar thermal plants, of the size and availability proposed in the plan, will be on line before 2020. .

7. Conclusions

We have reviewed the “Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan” by Beyond Zero Emissions.  We have evaluated and revised the assumptions and cost estimates. We conclude:

  • The ZCA2020 Stationary Energy Plan has significantly underestimated the cost and timescale required to implement such a plan.
  • Our revised cost estimate is nearly five times higher than the estimate in the Plan: $1,709 billion compared to $370 billion.  The cost estimates are highly uncertain with a range of $855 billion to $4,191 billion for our estimate.
  • The wholesale electricity costs would increase nearly 10 times above current costs to $500/MWh, not the $120/MWh claimed in the Plan.
  • The total electricity demand in 2020 is expected to be 44% higher than proposed: 449 TWh compared to the 325 TWh presented in the Plan.
  • The Plan has inadequate reserve capacity margin to ensure network reliability remains at current levels. The total installed capacity needs to be increased by 65% above the proposed capacity in the Plan to 160 GW compared to the 97 GW used in the Plan.
  • The Plan’s implementation timeline is unrealistic.  We doubt any solar thermal plants, of the size and availability proposed in the plan, will be on line before 2020.  We expect only demonstration plants will be built until there is confidence that they can be economically viable.
  • The Plan relies on many unsupported assumptions, which we believe are invalid; two of the most important are:
    1. A quote in the Executive Summary “The Plan relies only on existing, proven, commercially available and costed technologies.”
    2. Solar thermal power stations with the performance characteristics and availability of baseload power stations exist now or will in the near future.

8. References

[1] Australian Sustainable Energy – Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan

http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf

[2] ABARE Australian energy projections to 2029-30

http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_10/energy_proj.pdf

[3] European Commission – Mobility and Transport

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/vehicles/road/electric_en.htm

[4] Doherty et al – Establishing the Role That Wind Generation May Have in Future Generation Portfolios IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, AUGUST 2006

[5] IEA – Technology Roadmap Concentrating Solar Power

http://www.iea.org/papers/2010/csp_roadmap.pdf

[6] ABARE’s list of major electricity generation projects – April 2009

http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_09/EG09_AprListing.xls

[7] ABARE’s list of major electricity generation projects – April 2010

http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_10/EG10_AprListing.xls

[8] SOLARRESERVE GETS GREEN LIGHT ON NEVADA SOLAR THERMAL PROJECT July 2010

http://solarreserve.com/news/SolarReservePUCNApprovalAnnouncement072810.pdf

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

By Barry Brook

Barry Brook is an ARC Laureate Fellow and Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania. He researches global change, ecology and energy.

363 replies on “‘Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan’ – Critique”

Thanks for this informative critique.
So the “plan” is a crock.That was obvious at a superficial level from just skimming through it as it raised all my sceptical hackles.
However,I’m sure that those in the renewable energy commmunity who are off with the pixies will quote it right ,left and centre.

Like

This critique is a sterling effort having been put together in a fraction of the time the original report must have taken. It might also serve as a template for critiques of similar plans given by Al Gore and in Scientific American. The level headed tone enhances its credibility. I wonder if some of the leading figures who have endorsed ZCA or plan to attend presentations may now wish to distance themselves.

Since ZCA lacks realism the practical effect must be brought home, namely that wishful thinking on renewable energy only prolongs dependence on coal and gas. This is timely since in the next fortnight one political party will claim that we could quickly switch to all-renewables if we really wanted to. No we couldn’t.

Like

Thank you for this work. It can serve as a jumping off point for further critiques of many such plans, which are regularly announced with breathless excitement and accomplish nothing beyond promotion of muddy and unrealistic thinking about energy and climate.

Meanwhile carbon concentrations continue their upward climb and the viable cornerstone solution, nuclear, languishes in many of the nations and economies most suited to take manage it well and advance its potential.

I hope this critique is published as widely as possible and distributed to as many thoughtful people as possible. I would suggest press visits and a presentation that highlights the key points, contrasting statements in the plan against known facts.

Like

Thank you for your comments. Please send it viral.

Forward to all you can, especially media today!

Forward with the Conclusions or the Summary (circulated by email by Barry last night).

Highlight the effect the plan would have on electricity prices; for example:

The ZCA2020 Plan would lead to a near 10 fold increase in wholesale electricity prices.

The current average wholesale price is 5.5c/kWh. The plan would raise this to 50c/kWh. This estimate is uncertain with range 27c/kWh to 120c/kWh.

(All prices are quoted in constant 2010 $)

Like

This seems to be a very thorough critique of the ZCA2020 plan.
I think there is one major error, in using peak demand of existing electricity and scaling to 2020 projected demand.

The 51GW av demand is increased by assuming much higher use of electricity for transport, based on no reduction in VMT. While this is a reasonable assumption, the consequences are going to be much more overnight charging and higher off-peak demand and consequently a much flatter peak demand.
Thus scaling peak demand at 75GW is too high.

A second error would be scaling reserve capacity to 25% above peak. Part of the high present reserve capacity is due to limited grid transmission links for example SA to VIC, Bass-Link, poor links from NSW to QLD. A larger unified grid is going to require a much lower reserve capacity.
A very inexpensive option to to retain 8GW of NG capacity as part of the reserve. If we are still exporting LNG, it seems reasonable to have a small amount of NG use for emergency situations one or two days per year. With a large part of demand for vehicle charging and space and hot water heating activities can can be shut down for minutes or hours this gives a lot more flexibility in managing grid failures, generator failure and exceptional demand spikes than is the case in 2010.

Like

I see the illuminati at the Sydney Town Hall meeting tonight include both pro and anti nuclear figures. The known anti is Sen. Ludlam while Bob Carr is pro. The combined heat and power bloke Allan Jones will be there who presumably won’t ‘buy’ gas free heat and power. Not sure about Turnbull. Then it’s on to pushbikes to watch Dick Smith on population ABC One at 8.30.

Like

Neil,

You have totallly missed the point. The total cost is around five to ten times higher than doing the job with nuclear.

Like

Peter Lang,
Costs are based on the revised assumptions of peak demand and reserve capacity. If these assumptions are wrong, costings will be wrong.
The BNC critique is assuming about double the CSP capacity, many to provide 25GW of peak demand and 25GW of reserve capacity. If neither are required, or there are much less expensive options the costs are being inflated by 100% as CSP is the major cost.
If the BNC critique gets this wrong it detracts from many of the other valid criticisms of the ZCA2020 plan.

Like

Re publicity. I will be writing an op-ed piece to go out early next week and Barry has agreed to put out a press release on Monday. He is travelling before then.

Is anyone going to the Sydney launch tonight? If so maybe a question from the floor referencing the BNC Critique might be in order.

Like

Neil, we did make it clear in the critique that a loss of load probability analysis was essential. No one can be certain how much reserve margin will be required. Clearly the way the reserve was calculated in the ZCA2020 Plan was wrong as we explained.

In the absence of an LOLP analysis we took the view that the existing network operators will demand a 33% margin above the peak as they do today. Yes we can argue what that peak might be and how much it will be flattened with load shifting and night time vehicle charging but we will only really know the answer to that as these things are implemented.

I think allowing 3 GW of negawatts (4% of peak) is not unreasonable. Load shifting is probably not going to do better than that.

Like

Fabulous review!
Well done, Martin and Peter.

Whether or not one thinks CO2 is a dastardly gas, Wind and Solar obviously are poor solutions to cutting CO2 emissions. This review shows just how many daisies there are in the ever-green paddock of “renewable” lotus land.

Like

Graham, Thank you.

This would be a great place and time to repost the very well presented posts you put on the previous ZCA thread. By putting those articles here, together, and early in the thread, people will be able to find them in future.

Your posts are a really good contribution to the discussion of the ZCA2020 Plan and cover important matters we were not able to cover given our time constraints.

Like

Martin Nicholson,
Isn’t a big part of the increase in demand from 26GW to 51GW due to heat pumps( hot water and space heating) and EV charging? Ev charging 15M vehicles would account for 120-180GWh/day, most of this off-peak, thats a lot of load shift certainly more than 3GW of peak.
If you are making assumptions about increasing demand by 25GW surely its important to include the probable changed energy use profile of this demand. We know >14M vehicles are parked from 8pm to 6am. This is excluding any V2G which is still an unknown put has great potential for short term load shifting.

Like

Victorian gas space heating

Page 21:

A concentrated effort to flatten the Victorian winter gas usage peak would yield major gains in flattening the Australian energy demand profile over the year. The flattening would be achieved primarily by thermal insulation of Victorian commercial buildings and households. This can reduce heating loads by a factor of 2-4. A program of replacing gas furnace heating with heat pumps would further reduce space heating energy demand by a factor of 4, given an 80% efficiency for gas furnaces and 320% seasonal average efficiency for heat pumps. It is therefore reasonable to assume that given widespread implementation of heat pump and building efficiency improvement in Victoria, “winter peak”, space heating requirements could be reduced by around a factor of 10.

The concept of shifting Victorian gas heating to electric heat pump may have a greenhouse advantage in the context of low emission generation, such as renewables or nuclear, but most greenhouse reduction strategies to date have focused on maintaining Victorian gas heating in preference to electric heat pump. While peak demand for electricity supply is a major challenge, natural gas supply only needs to meet demand on a day by day basis, rather than a second by second basis. Natural gas pipelines provide both a short term storage facility and transmission medium. The main pipeline from Longford to Dandenong is 750mm diameter and 174 km long. The linepack is a measure of the quantity of gas in the pipeline, and typically varies by 50% according to the daily difference between the regular supply, and demand which peaks around breakfast and dinner during winter.

In Victoria, there are approximately 780,000 gas ducted heating systems with an average 20 kW furnace consuming an average 58 GJ/annum, and 650,000 non-ducted gas heaters with an average 10 kW furnace consuming an average 29 GJ/annum. If there was a wholesale change-over to electric heat pumps, assuming a COP which is 3 times better than a gas furnace, would translate to 780,000 units at 6.7 kW(e) and 650,000 units at 3.3 kW(e). If all units were running at the same time, the total load would be 7.3 GW, which would likely lead to brown-outs based on current supply constraints. In practice, not all units would be on, and under normal circumstances, the units would be cycling. However, unlike commercial HVAC systems which are designed professionally and costed accordingly, domestic systems are sized according to budget and often aggressive quoted, and usually struggle in extreme conditions, so the assumption of cycling can lead to unpredicted outcomes. Peak demand is related to nameplate power and not “average” power, where extreme climatic conditions can result in the compressor running 100% of the time. Although the MEPS scheme for air conditioners is generally a step forward, budgetry constraints prevent a comprehensive audit process, leading to ongoing non-compliance with minimum standards

The report failed to observe that most heat pumps cut-out or perform poorly below around 5 degrees due to evaporator freezing and some utilize an electric element to provide back-up. In cool climates, such as North America, ground source heat pumps have been utilized for a number of years to overcome this problem, but costs are typically an additional $5,000 to $10,000 on top of the basic system cost. In the event of a wholesale conversion to heat pumps, there is likely to be significant problems with peak demand during the handful of near-freezing conditions that Melbourne experiences some years. It is also likely that a large number of households would need conversion to 3 phase power to provide the required power. Also note for reference that many Victorian households will typically consume twice as much gas as electricity, therefore probably doubling household electricity consumption with a switch from gas heating to electric. Of interest is that there is a substantial Australian manufacturing content in gas furnaces, but negligible manufacturing of domestic heat pumps.

The blase assumptions of reducing demand through insulation requires heroic assumptions regarding the existing stock of homes. Regrettably, we carry the legacy of poor efficiency standards with most homes generally rated from 0 to 2 stars. To bring a pre-90’s home to something remotely like current BCA 6 star building standards (http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/report_on_on_ground_assessment_pilot_study.pdf) would require ceiling insulation (mostly already done now but $1,600 otherwise), wall insulation (blown in fibretex at $3,000 to $5,000), double glazing ($5,000 to $10,000), under floor insulation ($1,000 to $2,000), roof sarking ($1,000), sealing and draught prevention ($1,000 to $2,000). If we conservatively allowed $10,000 per home for 1 million homes comes out at $10 B. Some classes of homes, such as the post-war pre-fab concrete homes built for returned servicemen, will remain inefficient for the life of the home. Note that new homes make up an additional around 2% to 3% per annum of total homes so the legacy of existing stock is long lived. The report doesn’t appear to make recommendations as to who should pay for this. Despite a number of energy efficiency measures, some of which have significant scope for expansion, a combination of increasing house size, “comfort creep”, expanding population and Jevon’s Paradox suggest that space heating consumption will continue growing for the foreseeable future.

Of interest is that the Victorian VEET energy efficiency scheme already provides a rebate for the upgrade of a high efficiency gas furnace or the retrofit of new high efficiency ductwork, and the Victorian Government recently doubled the energy efficiency target.

http://www.esc.vic.gov.au/public/VEET/

In summary, given a conversion of generation to low emission sources, a long term strategy to space heating through electric heat pump may be sensible, but a prudent approach would be to put the low emission (renewables or nuclear) generation in place first with a planned conversion over years. Interestingly, there was a consumer led conversion from oil heating to gas heating in Melbourne in response to high oil prices in the 1970’s, leading to a 88% decline in oil consumption for domestic heating from 1977 to 1982. The issue of peak electrical demand would remain regardless, and in this sense, natural gas is a far better option. As a general principle, solar and winter are not good matches, particular in a context where solar has not reached viability in a summer context yet. The premature advocacy of the replacement of reliable, effective and relatively greenhouse friendly space heating with electric heat pumps is misguided and naive, and likely to lead to perverse outcomes.

Like

Victorian evaporative and refrigerated cooling

The adoption of reverse cycle heat pumps for winter would lead to increased penetration of refrigerated air conditioning during summer in preference to evaporative cooling, which has traditionally been widely used in Victoria. The Business Council for Sustainable Energy (2003) estimated that each additional 1 kW of load due to air conditioners costs an additional $3,300 in network and generation investment, translating to $10,000+ for an average home.

Click to access sub134.pdf

The encouragement of refrigerated cooling for Victorians is perverse in the context of the challenge of meeting the cost of network upgrades as well as the difficulty in meeting demand from non-schedulable generation assets.

Like

Smart grids

The ZCA plan aims to reduce total energy demand and variability, using a smart grid to smooth electricity demand. Although specific parameters are not provided, the program appears to rely on demand management as a key plank in the program. For example:

page 20

The energy demand profile will be further smoothed using smart-grids in combination with an electric vehicle fleet and demand-negating, small scale PV.

page 22

Under the ZCA2020 Plan, improved insulation and the use of ‘smart meters’ assists in levelling short term spikes in electricity demand.

page 93

The ZCA2020 Plan combats this variation in demand both through system design and active load management, using Smart Grid technologies.

There is substantial activity both in Australia and worldwide on researching and developing “smart grid” components. The future of smart grids is arousing a significant amount of interest and research funding, and offers some exciting possibilities, particular with remote appliance control and electric vehicle recharging. For example, the Federal Government has the “Smart Cities Smart Grid” program

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/programs-and-rebates/smartgrid.aspx

and there are a number of initiatives including, for example, the development of Australian Standard AS4755.3.1 for smart meter interfaces.

Click to access 09%20BRWG%20Workshop%2007%20-%20NSMP%20and%20the%20AS4755%20Appliance%20Interface%20version%203%20-%2016-17%20Sep%202009.pdf

However, smart grids are in an early stage of development, and while there may be some rewarding payoffs at some stage, future outcomes remain uncertain. The inertia inherent in energy systems, the existing stock of consumer appliances and large penetration of air conditioners, and the usual development cycle mean that smart grid technology is inevitably a long term venture. The report appears to accept the most optimistic potential outcomes of smart metering as an article of faith, and appears to assume fast-track implementation, although no detail is provided.

One of the main planks of the report appears to be the ability to readily implement air conditioner demand management strategies, through smart metering, with, presumably, differential pricing. There is no a priori reason to believe that socially palatable differential pricing is going to drive substantial reductions in air conditioner demand on the hottest days. Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that even householders that use their cooling systems sparingly will nonetheless use them on the few 40 degree plus days.

In a submission to the Australian Energy Regulator, Origin Energy notes:

There is little evidence in the Australia context of significant reductions in energy consumption resulting from the move to interval meters. It is uncertain whether the meters will lead to a sustained reduction in consumption and, if so, over what period.

Click to access item.phtml

Contrary to the ZCA report, the (now suspended) Victorian smart meter rollout does not expect the meters to provide demand management in the early stages, but rather, the meters will assist customers to get real-time information, and allow retailers to implement differential pricing. For example a recent Essential Services Commission report notes:

Customer bills are most impacted by the costs associated with growing network peak demands and generation, which suggests that it would be beneficial for customers to see and be charged directly for these distribution and generation costs.

Click to access DDPDraftDecisionSmartMetersRegulatoryReview20100721.pdf

In summary, the report assumes a best-case, fast-track scenario for smart grids despite the available evidence suggesting a marginal role for the foreseeable future.

Like

Natural gas conversions

The ZCA report states:

page 71

Heating loads currently delivered by natural gas and other fossil fuels can be delivered by renewable electricity, while solar thermal co-generation can provide both electricity and direct heat, saving on costs significantly.”

For each gas application there is an available electrical substitute. Electrical heating methods have advantages over other forms of chemical combustion in regards to: precise control over the temperature, rapid provision of heat energy, and ability to achieve temperatures not achievable through combustion.

The ZCA report aims to convert all fuels to electric, however it neglects to discuss the implications for peak electrical demand and other issues including the significant cost advantage of gas over electricity in Victoria, and the costs in proposed conversions. Taking the case of Victoria due to its widespread availability of reticulated natural gas and significant winter heating demand, the hourly peak demand is 82 TJ/hour, which equates to 23 GW continuous over one hour. Peak demand occurs during the cooler months of June through September, and Melbourne makes up typically 70% of this demand.

Click to access 0400-0003.pdf

Click to access 0400-0012.pdf

The instantaneous demand will be higher than the hourly peak, but the AEMO report does not provide finer resolution because natural gas pipelines act as a short-term buffer. For comparison the Victorian peak summer electricity demand is 10.6 GW and winter peak demand is 8 GW, suggesting that there is not a significant headroom to enlarge winter electrical demand.

As discussed in an earlier post (https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/#comment-90272), the portion of the demand that is converted to electric heat pump for space and water heating will incur an energy saving of typically 60 to 70% due to the higher COP of heat pumps versus gas furnaces. Around 7% of annual consumption is due to gas power generation, with 4% of peak demand attributed to gas power generation. Industrial processes that are converted to electric would be expected to derive an estimated 20% energy reduction due to the higher end-use efficiency of resistance and induction heating versus gas combustion. Industrial processes are not generally suitable for conversion to heat pumps due to the higher temperatures required, although in some limited cases, high-temperature heat pumps may be suitable, in for example, some boiler applications.

Depending on specific user tariffs, consumers will typically pay between 3 and 4 times more per unit of energy for electricity compared to gas. In applications, such as heat pumps, which derive a significantly higher end-use efficiency, the additional costs are largely offset, and may even work out slightly more cost effective if the highest efficiency heat pumps are utilized. On the other hand, conversions with lower efficiency gains, such as a switch to resistance heating will incur both energy, and peak usage cost increases. The report makes the valid point that co-generation offers opportunities for reduced energy use, but strangely, seems to exclude its use with natural gas, which is where its obvious strength lies, favouring its use with solar applications.

Many small enterprises that currently use natural gas combustion processes may also incur the installation cost of a local transformer to supply the additional load. The report does not address a myriad of other issues such as the widespread use of natural gas boilers in large HVAC applications, and the non-trivial task of replacing these in high-rise buildings.

The ZCA report appears to have addressed aggregate, average, energy consumption with a number of assumed efficiency savings, without consideration of peak loads and the practical consequences of shifting natural gas loads to electric. The mind can only boggle at the over-build required for solar-based generation infrastructure trying to supply a dramatically higher demand in winter, and it is left to others to consider doing the calculation.

Businesses, both small, and large, are unlikely to look favourably on needing to retrofit or change-over natural gas processes with electric, incur potential additional costs for the installation of a local transformer, and pay 3 to 4 times more for energy costs, assuming that the network is capable of reliably supplying the power. The ZCA report seems at odds with mainstream opinion regarding Australia’s substantial indigenous natural gas resource, which is seen as a significant asset in the context of an (eventual) carbon price. As discussed in an earlier post, it may be sensible to implement policies encouraging the conversion from natural gas to electric given the availability of low emission generation in the long term, however it is clear that current natural gas loads, and dramatically higher costs, preclude a sensible discussion about conversion in the short to medium term.

Like

The future of electric Cars

Electric cars have held allure since before Thomas Edison promoted the electric car in the early part of the twentieth century, utilizing the nickel-iron battery, competing with steam powered and internal combustion engines. The conjunction of climate change, predictions of peak oil, and improving battery technology has spurred renewed interest in electric vehicles, and the ZCA plan takes this interest to its (assumed) logical conclusion stating:

page 13

Under the Plan, oil and LPG production ceases and the inefficient internal combustion engine is replaced with a combination of electrified heavy and light rail, electric vehicles, and some range-extending biofueled hybrid- electric vehicles.

and achieving this through:

page 17

The plan proposes a large scale upgrade of public transport services, supplemented with a smaller-than- current private vehicle fleet, consisting of electric, battery swap and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Where plug-in hybrid vehicles exist in the fleet, the plan proposes that they use green biofuels instead of petrol or diesel fuel. However, the plan recommends a focus on development and rollout of zero-emission electric vehicles, rather than that of low emission fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. Additional energy savings can be accessed by reducing average distances travelled through better urban planning and localised access to services. A renewed emphasis on cycling infrastructure will encourage the use of bicycles in urban areas.

The modal shift from private passenger vehicles to shared electric rail vehicles has the capacity to reduce the private car fleet by around 50%. The average car will travel 8000km p.a. instead of the 15,000km travelled today. ZCA2020 aims for Australia to have six million pure electric, plug-in hybrid electric and battery swap electric vehicles by 2020.

The introduction of 6 million new vehicles in 10 years may seem a challenge, but Australians currently purchases around 1 million new vehicles every year. Demand for new vehicles is therefore strong enough to drive the introduction of appropriately-priced zero emission vehicles. The Australian fleet currently numbers some 12 million private vehicles. The Plan does not attempt to replace all 12 million vehicles, as it anticipates vast improvements to public transport, higher fuel prices, and hence reduced demand for private vehicles.

It is difficult to comprehensively critique the EV proposal because of a complete absence of detail. It is not clear whether the proposal is included in the plan as a serious proposition, or a thought experiment in what could be technically possible if Australians were to theoretically install a benevolent dictator or wise king. There is a fundamental tension between, on the one hand, considering the proposal as a legitimate starting point for a discussion about future possibilities, and on the other hand, the serious implementation of the plan, given the assumed reduction in oil consumption (page 13).

Possibly the most authoritative commentary on the future of EV’s is laid out in the International Energy Agency’s, Technology Roadmap: Electric and Plug-in Electric Vehicles (2009). The road-map suggests the possibility of global sales of

0.7 million PHEV and 0.5 million EV in 2015 and;
4.7 million PHEV and 2.5 million EV in 2020

noting

This is an ambitious but plausible scenario that assumes strong policies and clear policy frameworks, including provision of adequate infrastructure and incentives.

and further noting

This scenario achieves 50 000 units of production per model for both EVs and PHEVs by 2015, and 100 000 by 2020. This rate of increase in production will be extremely challenging over the short time frame considered (about ten years).

Click to access EV_PHEV_Roadmap.pdf

But, the ZCA plan states:

page 17

At the beginning of World War II, Holden was transformed from a struggling automotive manufacturer to a producer of high volumes of cars, aircraft, field guns and marine engines. Increased production to 900,000 vehicles per annum across the three existent auto plants is certainly achievable in the twenty-first century, and would allow the production of six million plug-in electric vehicles by 2020.

It is hard to reconcile these competing claims, particular given that Australia represents 2% of the global car market, and further, the ZCA plan does not make recommendations as to what type of regulation or legislative process would be used to implement the industry and transport policy. A myriad of questions are not addressed such as; what do the other 37 makes of cars, selling more than 200 models in Australia do, who will decide which models to produce, how will the political ramifications of denying consumers the right to purchase cheaper petrol or diesel cars of their choice be handled, what should happen to the existing fleet of cars, how will retraining of the motor mechanic workforce be handled, will compensation be provided?

Assuming that the EV proposal is plausible, the ZCA plan assumes a dramatic ramp-up in public transport, resulting in a 75% reduction in total passenger vehicle kilometres. Infrastructure Australia produced a recent report detailing which public transport projects it considered high-priority, noting

Australia relies heavily on the productivity of its cities for national prosperity. The majority of our population and businesses are located in urban areas, and our cities are hubs of economic activity that link Australia to the global economy. The rapid growth and development in these hubs has imposed challenges relating to patterns of growth, water supply, urban congestion, patterns of advantage and disadvantage, climate change and adaptation, and pressures on public finance. Australia’s transport systems are especially struggling in the face of these challenges with public transport growing rapidly in recent years and reaching capacity limits in most major cities.

Click to access National_Infrastructure_Priorities.pdf

To address the most the most immediate, Infrastructure Australia produced a list of 11 public transport projects, totalling $38B. The implementation of these projects would allow, broadly, Australia to maintain business-as-usual in the context of increased economic activity and population increase. It is difficult to estimate the cost of building public transport infrastructure, combined with improved town planning, that would allow a 75% reduction in total vehicle kilometres, and the absence of detail in the ZCA plan does allow allow a critique of the proposal. Indeed, such a dramatic reduction in the context of increasing vehicle usage seems implausible at face value and no evidence is provided to support the contention that such a dramatic shift has ever been achieved in a prosperous, functional, democracy at any time.

In summary, a considered debate might well conclude that carbon pricing, corporate average fuel economy standards, research and development funding, industry tax concessions, among other incentives, might assist Australia’s transition from oil dependence, and indeed, Australian policy development has lagged global developments. However the ZCA proposals appear to have emerged more as a thought bubble than a realistic appraisal of achievable outcomes, and perversely, retards genuine debate in making that transition a reality.

Like

Peter, tried posting the electric car critique 3 times but the site doesn’t seem to be accepting the post ??

Like

I am used to the lunatics like Lisa Jackson in charge of the EPA in the USA. Somehow I thought that Australians were too down to earth to put up with such nonsense. Now I am beginning to wonder whether the rot has spread all the way to the antipodes.

Apparently you good folks have a government organization called ABARE that writes reports containing statements like this:
“The key Plan assumptions we questioned were the use of 2008 energy data as the benchmark for 2020, the transfer of close to half the current road transport to electrified rail and transfer of all domestic air travel and shipping to rail…….”

The only way to achieve the scenario described is for the government to take direct control of transportation across the nation. That implies nationalizing those industries. Can any sane person seriously advocate such a policy? This kind of thing has been tried all around the world with disastrous results. Why would something that has never worked anywhere else be a success in Australia?

Like

Peter,you, and now Martin, provide a much need voice of quantitative reason in the ongoing renewable at any cost crusade. Whether your analysis is 70 percent or some other percentage correct, its real importance is that it shows the unworldliness of the ZCA2020 plan.

It is time we started calling wind for what it is, renewable, but no saver of GHG and therefore to be dismissed instead of being dressed up with OCGTs or much less credible and even more wasteful “solutions.
Perhaps then we can move on to a totally realistic analysis of real options, very limited as they are. The Renewables Crusade still, after nearly a decade of wandering in the technical wilderness, needs to be based on a very clear definition of the problem; always the classic start to any search for a solution.

Wind is clearly renewable. that is as long a s the sun shines, but we have no technology to turn it into GHG savings. It really is, to be kind, a faux renewable and a huge waste of public and private assets.

Like

Galopingcamel, we can’t blame ABARE for that statement. That is from the authors of the report, a group that calls themselves “Beyond Zero Emissions”. ABARE is an a authoritative source of information on Australian resources and energy matters, although even they sometimes bend to the politics of the times, such as the 2010 update of the Projections of Energy Demand and supply to 2029-30. They dropped the BAU projections and replaced it with a projection that includes the mandated Renewable Energy Targets. That makes it impossible to get base figures for what would be the case without the political intervention. I believe this was a serious mistake by ABARE and clearly driven by election year politics and ideology of the government. When we reach the stage of having our base statistical projections manipulated, we are in trouble.

Like

That review shows that the plan works and the comments show that it can still be improved.
Maybe it would require (forced) investments from energy producers. Just make sure there is no excessive profit for some years until the plan is on rails.
There is also a lot of work to be done in building an renovation standards.
There should be a change to ground heatpumps and water-water heatpumps.
Distributed heat in communitys that is more predictable and can be planned with reserve so that no pump has to run 100%.
If you give free loans for heat pumps you can make conditions (smart grid, load balancing, excess capacity).
Another part to work on is the wind/solar industry.
Also there shoud be no problem with 60c kWh. In some parts of Europe the price is higher.
Its not free but it is a goo plan.

Like

When they get serious, they can do it!

The point with electricity is that most of us will just charge from home. The average trip is what, 30km to work? 40? The Better Place mass-produced EV’s are expected to have a range of about $150km (and that’s NOT your top-of-the-line luxury EV that already has a range of 300 MILES).

Most of us will just charge overnight at home, and not need the street-parking charging points. EV’s already HAVE an infrastructure. Peak oil hits soon. Electricity is estimated to cost half the price of oil on a / km basis. I’d gladly pay $1000 to get a charge box attached to our car-port. There’s 90% of my driving looked after right there!

And about 50 to 70% of our driving can be powered from the spare off-peak capacity.

But wait there’s more! Employers will quickly install charge points for their employees. Shops may attract customers by adding charge points. EV plug-ins will become the new priority parking, down near the Disabled spots. (As has been the pattern in Israel as Better Place is deployed).

So yes, London is disappointing. But as a species we only tend to act when we have to. Just wait till after peak oil.

Like

@Stephan

I think you are making things up. Domestic electricity at lower use rate (ie the higher rate) in France is 0.138 euro per KWh. All the EU prices are here: http://www.energy.eu/#industrial I don’t see anything that looks like AUD 0.60 per kWh.

It should be obvious by now how politically difficult it is to get any serious action to mitigate climate change. If the price is too high, then it is not going to happen. That’s the way it is whether we like it or not.

Like

Just a reminder that the prices referred to in the Critique are wholesale prices not the price the end user pays. So be careful what prices we are comparing.

Like

Martin Nicholson is a writer at online opinion. I’m sure he could offer a corrective.

If you don’t believe the ZCA study, do the modelling yourself.

Sounds like a good idea Peter – have you thought of doing this?

Like

Somebody on thepunch mentioned the Cloncurry 10MW CSP power station with graphite storage that got lots of publicity a couple of years ago. Things have gone very quiet now. Has it been abandoned and if so why?

Like

eclipsenow,
For once I agree with you. An affordable electric commuter car is something that many people would buy, especially as the operating cost would be much lower than your average automobile.

Such a vehicle was test marketed by General Motors in California over 20 years ago. Many people liked its performance even though the range was limited. Sony made a movie about it called “Who killed the electric car?”

General Motors is now launching the complex and expensive Chevrolet “Volt”. Certainly not the commuter car that many of us are looking for.

Peter Lang,
I am relieved to hear that ABARE is not going the same way as the EPA!

Like

The problem is you technical boffins have a very difficult message to communicate. Dick Smith did a great job of illustrating the risks of a “big Australia” last night because there are such concrete examples of where it can go wrong. EG: Visiting nice little old ladies living in their homes with 5 and 6 story monster apartments going up around them, public transport crowding, dying soils, dying rivers, etc.

But the nuclear V renewable message is so much harder to communicate the REAL and concrete issues involved in it because those issues are not as demonstrable in real life.

It’s all tables and charts. As a lay-reader the closest thing I’ve seen to a concrete example is the French V Denmark poster idea by Marion.

So I’m wondering if anyone has any mates in movie production? We need a DVD to hand to a “Dick Smith” sponsor for nuclear power activism… someone rich with some time on their hands. Any suggestions on a DVD or on a sponsor? We need it.

Like

Wright was interviewed on ABC Midday Report and gave the impression that the launch went well. The host quizzed $37bn X 10 years as unrealistic without querying if even that was way too low. It would seem that the ZCA ‘thought experiment’ could now be laid to rest. However I suspect politicians will henceforth use it as a copout.

Whenever clean energy comes up they will say the ZCA plan is there but the people don’t have the will to implement it. Bollocks. It’s the politicians job to help solve the big problems like the low carbon transition. If they believe in fantasies they are not fit for office.

Like

@J Newlands, re: ZCA:

Mark Aarons in his “The Monthly” (Melb.) video interview just now as ex-NSW-ALP-insider seems to agree with and add to you by saying the following:

Federal politics in AU is driven by what will play to the focus groups of voters in ca. 20 marginal swing seats. What plays is perceived by the party functionaries as “hip-pocket, what’s in it for me, I’m alright, Jack”. Like you, Aarons deplores this slavish following, rather than leading, of voters.

Question: how to get from here to there? That is, it seems that only noticeably cheaper power from nuclear than coal straight away will appeal to those focus groups, at least as perceived by the party campaign planners.

Like

Gallopingcamel,

I’m not so sure that Gen IV nuclear is available right now at commercial prices. I would be happy to see real starts on 1 Gen III+ nuclear power unit annually – say 800MW/year.

Unfortunately, Australia closed its door to nuclear generation a couple of decades back and went so far as to pass federal laws preventing even costed proposals from being considered. This happened when coal fired power stations were being added to the grids at an average of at least 3%pa.

Short of a revolution in public opinion and action by the politicians, those who would like to consider nuclear options don’t even get a seat at the table.

Like

John Bennets,

You are dead right. Even if there is a seat at the table – the 150 people citizens assembly proposed by the government – the representatives will be seleted to ensure the majority backs the government’s policies. What a farse!

Peter Lalor

You are correct on one point. We need real leader ship from our governments for the long term good of the country.

Unfortunately, you and I are diametrically opposed on what we believe is the long term good of the country and the world, and even further apart on the best way to achieve what is best.

Like

I’m amazed you have a clue what Lalor even wants. I find his writing some kind of creepy post-modern mystical experience of cynical nothingness.

Have you found his Little Red book or something?

Like

@Palmer and Bennetts:

I see that you are implying that the Gorton govt. of 1969 was interested only in civilian nuclear power. Thus is history suppressed on BNC for current purposes. Have you never seen film of, or do you remember, Baxter/Titterton?

The much-reviled Diesendorf is not the only one in AU to have drawn attention (eg during his Adelaide debate with Brooks and Blees) to lines 1 and 2 of the ABC “Rear Vision” link that Palmer has set as a URL.

So it would seem incumbent on you for the sake of your PR to highlight the ostensible lack of any link, historically or technically, between A-weapons and civilian NPPS.

Like

Thanks and kudos to Peter and Martin for the critique.

It remains clear that, contrary to its presentation, the ZCA Plan is aspirational. It is useful to have this expounded on in some detail, but unfortunate that some may take this as a lay down misere against renewables.

I want to add to what Neil Howes has already said in relation to keeping some (and maybe quite a few) gas turbines in the mix. Calculations on getting supply to meet demand in an electricity system can be exquisitely sensitive to what happens at the extremes, and what happens temporally. I recognise that the LOLP comments are a sort of caveat in this regard. There may be, and probably are, substantive sensitivities to (i) the degree of renewable penetration (50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 100%); (ii) the sophistication of the system and market in being flexible with demand. The natural match between solar output and aircon use may also have a major impact on the calculations. Maybe it is for me to do the work I propose, but one way or another I look forward to seeing these sensitivities examined.

Remember also that it’s about The Story – it usually is. I reckon that many are taking the ‘Climate Change’ story too literally, in much the same way that some do with the Old Testament / Torah (and I mean no disrespect to these important texts). Renewables are another sort of story, which can lead to another brand of zealotry – one that is rightly criticised on BNC.

IF one believes that it is necessary for Australia to *totally* remove coal and gas from the generation mix in the next decade or two, then on this basis it is probably correct that Nuclear is the dominant viable option. But the presumptions here are global: who really thinks it wise to promote the rollout of many thousands of Nuclear Power plants into all parts of the world? Many say NO; some say Yes, and quite a few (including myself) judge this as a premature / last-worst option.

Please let us not be distracted by extreme plans underpinned by extreme assumptions and presumptions.

I say we have both time and a responsibility to make significant efforts in developing and integrating renewables into the energy mix; these discussions aid that development. I very much hope that, collectively, we can take this discussion forward and look more carefully at the extent to which Australia can develop renewables; both for our own energy needs, and to contribute to the development of these technologies for global deployment.

Like

Oh man… if only I wasn’t in a career change…

Sounds great Ms Perps! I’m wondering who should contact?

With today’s technology people can get good HD home video cameras, shoot a few takes of various scenes, send mail them to the willing editor, and the editor/writer can co-ordinate the rest from their! Professional productions like Dick Smith’s last night of course have footage of him walking all across the country, but we don’t need that.

Barry as a talking head in one seat, other experts as talking heads in other settings all break up the monotony.

Cool music, a few graphs of the points we are making, and a story that creatively works through the history of renewables and nuclear and compares and contrasts them could do the job.

The DVD is already half written with the Q&A post here. Footage of a few of the scientists Barry’s met in the USA might not hurt either.

But the ultimate goal is a cheaply produced activist DVD that we can download and burn to DVD and hand out ourselves, much like the Chris Martenson peak oil DVD project. (This is about 3 hours of lectures… he calls it the “Crash course!”)

Like

Just musing:
This price of CSP at ~15 million dollars per Mega Watt translates directly to $15 / Watt. Straight PV solar is now only a few dollars per Watt, although I must immediately note that PV has a capacity factor of ~25% and no storage capacity. None-the-less, peak demand associated with aircons is directly matched with PV supply. Maybe PV isn’t as economically stupid as I have thus far thought, given the way in which the price has dropped. Anyone with information on what the floor is for PV pricing?

Like

Francis PV-AC is too expensive for 7 million homes and who knows how many offices, factories and shopping malls. If a typical ‘inverter’ air source heat pump draws 2500w then PV at $6/w will cost $15,000 per house plus the cost of the AC installation. Admittedly many of those rooftops could be feeding the grid while the owners are out. If I recall Graham Palmer said centralised grid generation and transmission to cover AC needs cost $1,300 per household. Shame it has to be coal or gas fired.

Then you have the problem of the hot night when humidity retains the heat of the day. If I recall the week when outer Melbourne got to 48C one evening it was still 35C at midnight. Without even more costly energy storage solar electric AC won’t help at night. I expect southern Tasmania to routinely hit 40C each summer which was almost unheard of in the 20th century. With an ageing population heat waves become a public health issue. Whatever the answer is I don’t think PV is it.

Like

Fancis,

Your posts give me the impression you are advocating RE no matter what the cost just because you believe it is good. That worries me.

The cost is the key issue in the end. Nuclear would cost about 1/5 to 1/10 as much as RE to do the job. And any mix of technologies that includes RE (wind solar and the other fringe technologies) is going to be higher cost than nuclear (even cheaper with a little pumped hydro storage, but of the type that is suitable for matching with baseload power supply, not that advocated by Neil Howes).

You make many statements that are not valid. For example, “PV gives 25% capacity factor”. It does not. And solar is perfectly matched to peak demand. No it is not. These statements are just false. Solar can play a small role in helping with peak demand, but is is a very high cost solution.

If we don’t consider cost, then the arguments are irrelevant in the long run. No amount of wishful thinking can make these 100+ year old technologies (wind and solar thermal power) suddenly become economic.

We are wasting our resources chasing the renewables dream. We’re wasting our wealth and wasting time. On that latter point, if the arguments you present, had not been presented with such passion and effect for the past 40+ years, and entrenched in laws some 20 years ago, we’d have much lower emissions than we do now, and be well on the way to the zero CO2 emissions stationary energy society.

By the way, I have no problem with rolling out nuclear across the world. Small units like the hyperion would be ideal if the cost was competitive. I believe the best we can do for humanity is to provide low cost, clean reliable electricity supply. Renewables fail on all three of those requirements.

Also note that nuclear is about the safest of all the electricity generation technologies that are capable of meeting the requirements we place on our electricity supply system. Nuclear is about 10 to 100 times safer than coal. By opposing nuclear (in reality you are whether or not you state it that blatantly), you an dothers who make these arguments are in effect prolonging the time until we, and the world, can have cleaner, safer electricity.

Like

Francis,

You say:

This price of CSP at ~15 million dollars per Mega Watt translates directly to $15 / Watt. Straight PV solar is now only a few dollars per Watt,

Very interesting topic. I’d be very interested to hear what you believe would be the cost of solar thermal electricity with 17 h storage?

Once you’ve checked that out, then tell me what it would cost for solar thermal with adequate storage to get through 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, 90 days of the worst winter conditions that could ever occur.

If you want to use biomass backup as ZCA does, then lets have a proper cost for the logistic system to collect the wheat storks from the wheat fields and get it to the solar power stations (without using any fossil fuels).

Regarding having gas back up generators. Of course that is what would be done with any solar plant. All the other plants being proposed around the world are solar/gas hybrids. If we simply want to back up with gas, then we’d need a massive build of gas generation. Add that cost to the cost of the ZCA plan. If we want to replace the biomass heaters at the solar power stations (the ZCA plan proposes that pelletised wheat storks will heat the molten salt energy storage when the sun isn’t shining), with gas heaters, then there is a high cost to get run high capacity gas lines to the twelve proposed sites for the solar power stations.

Francis, think cost!!!

Like

Peter, just some quick points in response:
1. As you may know I do not think it useful to speculate on individual motivations; worry away if you must, but please be careful about what you imply.
2. I worry when I see the words “not valid”, especially when followed by misrepresentations of what I actually said.
I’m leaving it at that, for now at least, as I do not think my comments have been taken in the spirit I intended.
3. I’m at a loss to understand what you have read into my solar comment.
As it happens it’s 1am where I am now, so maybe I’ll be able to make more sense of this another time.

Like

Francis,

You say:

Straight PV solar is now only a few dollars per Watt.

No, it isn’t.

The Windora solar PV station at Windora in central Queensland provides an insight into the real cost of current state of the art PV.
http://ecogeneration.com.au/news/windorah_solar_farm/011780/

The reality is, this state-of-the-art solar PV station costs $34.6/kW and that is for a part time power supply that is backed up by fossil fuel generators. That is the reality of where we are at.

Here are the figures:

Commissioned date Oct-09
Capacity (nominal) (MW) 0.13
Energy (MWh/a) 360
Capacity Factor 32%
hybrid % ?
Capital cost (M) $4.5
Capital Cost ($ million) $4.5
Cost per kW $34,615
Cost per average kWy/y $109,500

Like

Fancis, sorry if any offence was taken. None meant. I am simply using your comments as a good opportunity to explain what I think needs to be explained for many readers, not all of whom are posting comments here but are still gaining information from the discussions.

Like

Peter Lalor, you said

“I see that you are implying that the Gorton govt. of 1969 was interested only in civilian nuclear power ..”

Why did you make this up? How could you possibly have created this idea in your mind from my post?

I posted the link for interest – the first half of the program was devoted to weapons!

Like

Mistake:

“The reality is, this state-of-the-art solar PV station costs $34.6/kW and that is for a part time power supply that is backed up by fossil fuel generators.”

The figure should have read $34.6/W or $34,600/kW

Like

That $6/w for residential PV I quoted is after rebates. What I fear now is that gas boosting of solar thermal will be treated as ‘honorary renewable’. First gas boilers on the CST site then later standalone gas generators in other locations that appear to serve the CST unit. There is a precedent for such doublespeak since heat pump water heaters became eligible for solar rebates even if they live in a dark cupboard.

Heaven help us if gas indirectly receives RECs or feed-in tariffs (Greens policy) because it is deemed renewable by association. Note in another ‘2020’ report the transport gurus think both gas and electrification must address Australia’s growing oil import dependence. Automotive Australia 2020

Like

Francis, You say:

It remains clear that, contrary to its presentation, the ZCA Plan is aspirational

“Aspirational” is not the word I would choose to describe the ZCA plan. Words that come to my mind a re:
misleading
greenwash
evangelistic
irrational

I say misleading because of the many false and misleading statements throughout, e.g.

1. the plan is based only on commercially available, costed technologies

2. baseload solar power exists now

3. Discount rate used in analyses of 1.4%

4. risk rate for a very safe investment (no one would invest in this scheme; it is extremely high risk)

5. All domestic ship and air transport would be converted to electric rail (in ten years!!!). Just think bout what that would mean in terms of electric rail lines being run all over the country to every town where there is an airport or airfield. The rail lines at $15 million per kilometre. None of that cost is included in the plan.

6. all bus travel would be moved to electric trains (in 10 years!!)

7. half the road transport and road freight would be moved to electric vehicles and electric trains ( in 10 years!!!!)

And to think that people swallow this sort of complete and utter nonsense. Francis, please find a more appropriate word than “aspirational” to describe the ZCA report.

Like

@ Peter Lalor, on 13 August 2010 at 22.05:

Said: “@Palmer and Bennetts: I see that you are implying that the Gorton govt. of 1969 was interested only in civilian nuclear power. Thus is history suppressed on BNC for current purposes… highlight the ostensible lack of any link, historically or technically, between A-weapons and civilian NPPS.”

Peter may believe that there is always a direct link between nuclear generation and nuclear weapons proliferation. I do not. The reasons have been well explored by Barry on this site, as well as elsewhere by many others.

Peter, rather than sit by making personal attacks based on things which I have NOT said, please read “Why Vs Why – Nuclear Power”, Pantera Press, 2010, by B Brooks and Ian Lowe. This small, cheap book states quite clearly the two opposing cases and presents basic discussions of each others’ points of view. After reading this book, we could perhaps resume this discussion, but based on a set of commonly held facts and easily understood principles.

I have no interest in re-living, for no other reason than because that is where you choose to start, the years 1955 to 1980 of my life. In 2010 the options available to us are urgent and the consequences of failure dire. I certainly was anti-nuclear till a few years back. Now is the time for all of us who were anti-nuclear in 1980 to clear our heads and to determine the least worst solution to our grandchildren’s problems.

Like

the least worst solution to our grandchildren’s problems.

This may be the way ahead for some. I don’t love nuclear power. I kind of think it is a ‘necessary evil’. I love POWER, civilisation, energy, and all the good things they give us. Having studied the energy collapse scenarios for 6 years and freaking out about the potential risks ahead, it is the simple fact that we just don’t have any other choice that has won me over.

Like

Neil Howes,

You said:

Peter Lang,
Costs are based on the revised assumptions of peak demand and reserve capacity. If these assumptions are wrong, costings will be wrong.

The statement is partly true. The revised cost estimate is also partly based on the revised unit cost ($/kW) of the generators.

Martin answered your comment up thread. But I’d like at add another point. There has been a history on BNC of attempting to raise a relatively a small issue, make an issue of it and then exaggerate that to say ” the costs are being inflated by 100%” as you said in your comment. This demonstrates an inability to see the order of magnitude of the components. Some peak shaving, probably more than is possible in 10 years, is already included in the revised estimates. The amount of peak shaving due to late night chargjng of electric vehicles and improved network is simply not going to give the enormous benefits you are arguing – not in 10 years. Graham Palmer has coverd this in one of his posts.

I would urge you to consider just how significant is the error you feel you have identified when you put it in perspetive. How significant is it given that the revised estimate is at least 5 times higer than the cost of the nuclear alternative to the ZCA plan. I hope you will actually consider this, provide your revised assumptions and the costs rather than more arm waving like

If neither are required, or there are much less expensive options the costs are being inflated by 100%

I should also repeat that the ZCA assumptions about what can be achieved as far as moving transport from fossil fuels to electricity are totally unrealistc. I’d suggest your point about the peak demand and reserve capacity margin are wishful thinking rather than a rational assessment of what is possible to achieve in 10 years.

Like

PV and air conditioning

The combination of solar and air conditioning has been researched a number of times in Australia, including a study conducted by Muriel Watt from UNSW with support from Origin Energy

Click to access value%20of%20PV%20in%20summer%20peaks.pdf

It turns out, not surprisingly, that solar output tracks peak demand from air conditioning reasonably well during the middle of the day. The problem occurs during the afternoon and early evening when the residential peak remains but solar output drops to zero. The installation of west facing panels, in preference to the usual north facing, improves afternoon output, but will substantantially reduce aggregate annual output. The other obvious problem is cloud cover or rain on an otherwise hot day. Watt notes that the correspondence of high solar output during the middle of the day may offer opportunities to improve the value of PV by supplementing peaking plant during periods of high wholesale price. Certainly, the opportunity for householders to access high wholesale prices would be an advantage for PV, but the feed-in tariffs have essentially superceded the opportunity to access high spot prices, giving consumers artificially high prices all year round. Watt notes that PV on commercial premises provides a better match for commercial air conditioning than residential.

In another report, ESTA Utilities noted in a study on demand side management trials in South Australia:

This trial highlighted the benefits to be obtained from PVs for feeding electricity into the grid from an alternate and renewable energy source. However it also highlighted that, as expected, this energy is not available to meet residential peak demand as the peak PV output is not coincident with the residential peak demand.

The conclusion to be drawn therefore, is that PVs are of little use as a mechanism for reducing peak load. This is a reasonable proposition, however smart grid technology and the evolution of legacy networks into smart grids holds the potential of changing this.

http://www.etsautilities.com.au/public/download.jsp?id=11891

In summary, although rooftop solar offers a partial solution some of the time, it does not reduce the requirement for network or generation upgrades, and “poles and wires” remains the preferred robust solution to maintaining a reliable network.

Like

no worries Peter, I can appreciate the frustration, although my frustration is located elsewhere.
The principle point I wanted to make is that critiquing the costs of a 100% renewables transformation in a decade does not usefully address the question of what achieving 50% (say) renewables in two decades might look like. Thus far at least, I’ve got no problem with burning some more gas. I can understand if you, or others, do not see this as a question that you are inclined to engage with, but if it can be treated as something akin to gentlemanly sport (in good humour, some give and take), then maybe we can set some boundaries for an OzEA analysis of this sort.

As initial thoughts, such an analysis needs to: (i) be considered principally as an exploration with costings developed over several iterations (rather than as some sort of bullseye blood-sport), (ii) be predominantly empirical in the temporal analysis of both supply and demand (i.e. no blunt capacity credit calculations), and (iii) be mildly generous in the demand-flexibility stakes (i.e. tentatively accepting of plausible mechanisms for establishing a rational electricity market in a renewables context). I’m not big on electric cars. And I’m not looking to fudge over the variability problem; I want to face it square and establish what solutions, costs and compromises are involved in handling it.
This is what I want to be doing in any case, and I’d be pleased to discuss the framework a little here if others are interested.

Finally, while keeping an eye on BNC, I have only read a small part of the blog. Is there a post, or a small number of posts, that give an overall plan (with costs) for a Nuclear rollout in Oz?

Like

Is there a post, or a small number of posts, that give an overall plan (with costs) for a Nuclear rollout in Oz?

Good question Francis. Peter Lang did a ramp-to-replace-coal calculation in the Emissions Cuts Realities paper. It calculates the costs and the CO2 savings over time assuming present black coal is decommissioned at 1 GW/yr and brown coal at 0.4 GW/yr, while nuclear, and various other technologies, are ramped up to fill the gap to projected demand.

This is not an overall ‘plan’ though. I think one reason is that for renewable technologies the big question is one of capability – can renewables service our power requirements, can they work? The case has not been made that they can work at any price, and attempting to make this case is really the point of the ZCA2020 exercise.

Whereas, there is no such question with nuclear power. We know it can work because I can point to France as an existence proof, with a nuclear-hydro grid, and a slip of fossil fuel that probably hasn’t been retired yet solely due to gallic equanimity. And we know how much it cost, and the cost of electricity it produces.

Unlike renewable power, we don’t need to cover the credibility gap of storage, of intermittency, of demand reduction and management and of heroic transmission system upgrades. A nuclear rollout plan is not much more complicated than ‘choose your desired coal plant retirement schedule, and build new nuclear and current contract rates to replace coal and meet new demand’. Its not very exciting, or technically very interesting.

But I think this would be an excellent project to pursue. Not in the aggregate economic approach Peter used, but at the level of the discrete generating units, ie a shutdown schedule for named coal and gas power plants.

The key question for renewables is capability, and the various plans try to address this question. The key question for nuclear (in Australia) is social and political acceptance, and a simple rollout plan does not address this or demonstrate anything we don’t know already. Thats why I think there aren’t any similar nuclear rollout plans.

Like

Francis,

You said:

The principle point I wanted to make is that critiquing the costs of a 100% renewables transformation in a decade does not usefully address the question of what achieving 50% (say) renewables in two decades might look like.

We’ve alread done this here: https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/

The conclusion here and in all rational analyses comes out the same, no matter how it is done. Renewables (wind, solar and the other fringe ideas) are very expensive and any mix that includes them in any proportion will be more costly than nuclear.

This is the vision we should be striving for in two decades:

This is the lowest cost claan electricity we can get. I agree, at the same time, we must and we will improve efficiency, improve demand side management and improve end use management (smart grid) as part of all this. But we must do so at a rate that is economically viable.

You ask:

Finally, while keeping an eye on BNC, I have only read a small part of the blog. Is there a post, or a small number of posts, that give an overall plan (with costs) for a Nuclear rollout in Oz?

The link posted above considers six options for transitioning all our electricity generation to zero carbon technologies. It compares the six options on the basis of:

Total Capital cost
Capital expenditure per year
CO2 emissions per year
CO2 emissions avoided per year
Cost per tonne of CO2 avoided
Electricity cost for the replacement technologies

The six options compared are:

1. Business as Usual (using the ABARE projections to 2030 and extended to 2050)

For all other options we decommission coal powered stationsat the rate of 1 GW/year black coal and 0.5GW/year brown coal). The five replacement options are:

2. Combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) only

3. Nuclear and CCGT

4. Wind, CCGT and OCGT

5. Solar thermal and CCGT

6. Wind, Solar Thermal and CCGT

Like

Francis,

I posted my reply above before I read John Morgan’s much better response. He also knows the ‘Emissions Cut Realities’ paper better than I do. He is correct that the assumed rate of decommissioning brown coal is 0.4GW/year.

I also left out the link to this excellent site that shows what fuel is generating France’s electricity and shows how much CO2 is being emitted now.
http://www.rte-france.com/fr/developpement-durable/maitriser-sa-consommation-electrique/consommation-production-et-contenu-co2-de-l-electricite-francaise
Scroll your mouse left and right over the stacked area chart and notice the changes in the pie chart below. Notice how much electricity is being generated by fossil fuels. Notice how much is being generated by wind and solar. This is the real world, Francis. This is where we are at after 30 odd years of people before you trying to make wind and solar power a viable technology for supplying our electricity.

Like

David Benson,

Thank you for that (new?) NEI link to the small reactors. http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/newreactordesigns/
I notice the claimed cost of the Hyperion is only $4/W ($100 million for 25 MW). Wow! If that is even close to correct there would be nothing to stop these or the PRISM being installed in small towns all over the developing world (with an interconnecting transmission grid of course).

That is how we could really bring low cost, clean, reliable electricity to the developing world and bypass the fossil fuel stage that these countries will inevitably go through if they cannot get access to cheap clean electricity.

It is so clear to me, why can’t everyone see it?

Francis and Neil Howes,

I hope you may respond to this question. I am genuinely interested to hear why you persue and advocate the renewables dream. I can understand why people who haven’t crunched the numbers are ‘RE believers’ and call people like me “RE Deniers”, but I don’t understand why people who have crunched the numbers are still RE advocates.

Like

Has anyone done a plan for a complete replacement of all fossil fuels with nuclear power, especially nuclear?

When peak oil hits, all bets are off in terms of which way governments might respond in the panic. It would be great to have a nuclear plan geared towards solving peak oil!

How would that work? 97% of Australia’s freight is by truck. (Source: “Australia Pumping Empty”). When one considers the fact that oil is the means by which we construct nuclear power plants, we can see the sheer urgency of having a plan that addresses oil vulnerability in the agriculture, transport, and construction industries. We need time to build out the next generation of energy systems.

The Guardian is even saying that peak oil is the ‘villain’ that western governments need to get started.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/aug/11/peak-oil-villain-governments-need

Like

David B. Benson, on 14 August 2010 at 10.37:
That was a very interesting link you supplied. One of the topics discussed was how the licensing process that regulated the first 104 NPPs in the USA has been improved.

Then I asked myself why so few NPPs are scheduled in the USA over the next 10 years. I suspect the biggest problem is the new “streamlined” licensing process, Take a look at:

Apparently, “streamlined” means a 10 year process even if nothing goes wrong!

Like

John Bennetts, on 13 August 2010 at 19.21 Said:
“I’m not so sure that Gen IV nuclear is available right now at commercial prices. I would be happy to see real starts on 1 Gen III+ nuclear power unit annually – say 800MW/year.”

There are plenty of great BWRs designs that have been proven in the field. These present low technology risk choices for Australia.

In my more fanciful moments it occurs to me that even a country with limited resources (e.g. Australia) is capable of developing small Gen IV reactors on its own. A very large country with a low average population density needs small, cheap NPPs so as to reduce the need for extensive high voltage distribution networks.

Personally I distrust NPPs that have flammable materials inside the core of the reactor. The graphite in the RBMK is what spread the fallout from the Chernobyl disaster over a large area. IFRs may be Gen IV but they use sodium that reacts violently with both air and water. Fortunately, there are alternative designs such as LFTRs that operate at one atmosphere pressure while using no flammable materials at all.

When my feet are back on the ground I realize how hard it will be to get even one NPP commissioned in Australia. If there ever are cheap factory built LFTRs they will probably be developed in India or China.

Like

Peter Lang,
I am genuinely interested to hear why you persue and advocate the renewables dream. I can understand why people who haven’t crunched the numbers are ‘RE believers’ and call people like me “RE Deniers”, but I don’t understand why people who have crunched the numbers are still RE advocates.
Firstly renewables are not a dream, Australia is currently generating about 1.5GW av hydro and 0.6GWav from wind. The other viable low carbon sources of electricity, nuclear, solar and geothermal are generating zero or a very small amount of power at present.
Secondly I am in favour of Australia building nuclear as fast as possible but dont realistically see even 1GW of nuclear completed before 2020, and it would be a stretch to have >5GW by 2030. Thus to reduce or eliminate almost all coal-fired power we need to expand the present wind power, start on solar, nuclear and geothermal but accept that they are not going to contribute before 2020.
What can wind power contribute in next 10 and 20 years? With suitable transmission upgrades to high wind sites on EP(SA) SW coast (TAS) and SWcoast (WA) we should be able to build an additional 20GW capacity( >35%capacity factor) by 2020 to generate a total of 7GWav(22GW capacity), and >14GW av( 42Gw capacity) by 2030. If solar nuclear and geothermal together generate 7GW by 2030 this would totally replace all coal-fired power. Additional potential demand would have to come from either using more NG or greater reduced demand or a combination of both. We would still be producing CO2 but it would be much less than at present even if NG fired power is increased.
Beyond 2030 all options from going >80% nuclear to >80% renewable would still be open. If instead we decide now that only one option is going to be viable(CCS, nuclear, wind , geothermalor solar,) we are not going to be able to phase out coal-fired power by 2030 and we may find the chose option is the most expensive.
If oil availability is severly limited by 2030, we are going to need to transition most cars and light trucks to electric or PHEV. You are probably correct that VMT will not significantly reduce becasue of the problems of switching to mass transit. This is going to mean an additional 20% increase in demand for electricity but mainly at off-peak periods.

Like

Camel,
how is Australia’s resource for LFTR’s? Do they burn waste? Not sure about thorium, and don’t have time to read pages and pages… what’s the message in a nutshell?

EG: How bad is the waste, can it be burned like in IFR’s, etc.

Like

Neil,

I have difficulty with what you say and believe.

First, why do you refer to hydro as part of your solution?. There is no more economically viable hydro available. And as we’ve discussed many times the little hydro we have already is needed for stabilising the grid (providing power and frequency balancing) even when we have responsive fossil fuel generators. You cannot assume the hydro we have is available to be used for firming wind. Forget that idea, it won’t happen.

Second, you seem to believe that wind power would be reliable if we had a large enough grid. There is no evidence to support that belief. In the absence of such evidence we should assume the firm power from wind is near zero.

The fact that wind is generating 0.6GW average is irrelevant. We don’t have energy storage and we have plenty of evidence that wind often generates zero power over the whole of the NEM. Wind is a massively expensive, highly subsidised, toy that is being built purely because of irrational policies driven by belief in the population. The belief is being driven by the sort of arguments you and other RE believers continually propagate.

You seem to ignore the fact that wind power avoids next to no CO2 emissions when emissions from the back-up generators are included. So why are we spending so much money on subsidising wind power for effectively no CO2 savings?

The cost of the grid you want is huge, and for little benefit. So why advocate it?

You say:

What can wind power contribute in next 10 and 20 years? With suitable transmission upgrades to high wind sites on EP(SA) SW coast (TAS) and SWcoast (WA) we should be able to build an additional 20GW capacity( >35%capacity factor) by 2020 to generate a total of 7GWav(22GW capacity), and >14GW av( 42Gw capacity) by 2030.

I ask “So What”. What is the use of 14GW average power if it is sometimes zero or near zero and we don’t have energy storage? (and please don’t repat the hydro nonsense again)

Regarding what could be done with hydro, if we adopt the same assumptions as the ZCA report, we could have 1000MW of nuclear under construction next year! And have all our electricity provided by nuclear by 2020!

Although this is ridiculous, we could certainly cut CO2 emissions much faster by focusing on nuclear than we will by wasting our time and resources rolling out wind and solar.

Importantly, as long as you and other RE believers keep pushing RE as a major part of the solution, as you do, you give the impression to the public that we do not need nuclear. The little aside statements you make to say we need nuclear too don’t count, because in effect you keep pushing renewables, not nuclear. This is very damaging and is delaying progress. We had the same words being said by some back in the 1990’s. We haven’t moved forward. We are still blocking nuclear and you are doing nothing to overturn that. In fact you are doing the opposite.

By the way, I find it annoying when you mislead by implied misquote. Including hydro in your renewables totals is misleading. We do not have more hydro sites. Its share of electricity generation is steadily decreasing and is now less than 5%. What we are talking about is wind and solar trying to provide a large share of our electricity generation capacity. It is impossible. Any that we build are very costly. They avoid next to no CO2 emissions and any they do avoid are at very high cost.

The cost of wind power that can meet our needs (i.e. including the back up generators) is about three times the cost of nuclear:

Pumped-hydro energy storage – cost estimates for a feasible system

And saves no CO2 emissions: http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/subsidizing-co2-emissions/

Like

Congratulations to Martin and Peter on a solid critique.

one typo … page 14, $15 billion/km of electified rail looks like it should
be $1.5 million.

Regarding Bob Brown and others. The interesting thing about this
critique is you actually have to read it to find out that a bunch of
“small” changes to assumptions can make a huge difference in
the bottom line. There isn’t one killer assumption that destroys
the BZE report, it is a collection of little things (some may disagree
about what constitutes “little” :)).

One confusion I had, reflecting my lack of background in the
technicalities is the precise meaning of “17 hours storage”.
Does this mean that each solar plant can
store the equivalent of 17 hours at peak output? If so, then as you
add more reserve margin, you may not need to scale the 17 hours
up. The demand won’t increase just because you add more reserve.
So the number that seems to be important is how many hours of
expected demand can be supplied by the system at night (ie zero sun) without
a breeze. Maybe this number is harder to calculate, but it seems
to be crucial.

Like

Geoff Russel,

You are correct about the typo error of $15 billion/km. In fact it is out by three orders of nmagnitude, not ther one odrder you so kindly suggested. But it is a typo in the text, not an error in the calcualtions. the figure should read $15 million/km and is based on the BZE figure from here and several other sources:

Beyond Zero Emissions (2009): Fly by rail – zero emissions transport capital to capital
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/node/64

Like

Geoff Russel,

You asked:

One confusion I had, reflecting my lack of background in the technicalities is the precise meaning of “17 hours storage”. Does this mean that each solar plant can store the equivalent of 17 hours at peak output? If so, then as you add more reserve margin, you may not need to scale the 17 hours up. The demand won’t increase just because you add more reserve. So the number that seems to be important is how many hours of expected demand can be supplied by the system at night (i.e. zero sun) without a breeze. Maybe this number is harder to calculate, but it seems to be crucial.

Yes, 17 hours storage means 17 hours of generation from storage at full power.

You say/ask “The demand won’t increase just because you add more reserve.”

I think you may be misunderstanding what the reserve capacity margin is. It is the extra capacity we need above peak demand to allow for the fact that not all our capacity will be available when called on. Some power stations are not available and some will or may go off line at the time of peak demand due to unscheduled interruptions. The operators require 33% reserve capacity margin in our systems, as they are now, to cover for these potential problems. As we point out, the correct amount of reserve capacity margin could only be calculated with a proper loss of load probability analysis (LOLP).

In my opinion a much higher reserve capacity margin would be required with a system that relied on new, immature technologies like wind power, solar power and a supply of wheat storks from the wheat growing areas for the times when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining!

Seventeen hours storage is not enough to ensure even one day of full power, as admitted in the Plan. We can run for days at a time with overcast weather. The ZCA plan assumes we can run on wheat storks during that time! And the wheat storks will be transported from near the wheat fields to the power stations by electric train. I am being a bit sarcastic, but you get the gist of how ridiculous their plan is.

The calculation of reserve capacity margin in our critique is not dependent on the hours of storage. It depends only on the calculated peak demand and the 33% reserve capacity margin.

Our critique generously assumed that the solar power stations (with wheat storks back-up) would have the same reliability and availability as our coal and gas fired power stations, no matter what the weather conditions. A very generous assumption!

Like

Martin and Peter,

Congratulations on an informative post.

Peter:

It seems to me to that you do little to enhance your cause by failing to appreciate that not everyone shares your absolutist point of view. Although I, personally, come very close to being in full agreement with you, it must be evident that, at present, most Australians apparently don’t.

As an example, you ask Francis to explain why it is possible for someone “who has crunched the numbers” to continue to pursue “the renewables dream”. The inference is either that you genuinely wish to have your views challenged and possibly altered or that you are trying to pick a fight. As far as I am aware, Francis is not pursuing any sort of dream. He is leading an open science research project, a project that is fully endorsed by Barry, which seeks to discover in an objective fashion what, if any, level of wind penetration makes economic sense. It is clear that, given your views, your answer would be none and that of Neil Howes might approach 40%. Don’t you think that it might be more politic to allow Francis to get on with his job? If what you believe is correct, Francis’ result will be closer to your figure than Neil’s and will be more likely to be taken notice of because of his perceived lack of bias.

However, the absurdity of a renewables only solution probably does need a full frontal assault, not least because it tips the playing field against nuclear power, misleads the public and its attempted implementation will prove extremely costly to taxpayers.

Finally, given your penchant for sarcasm, perhaps you could appreciate the following; Unless you have a unique species of avifauna in Australia that has useful Phoenix-like tendencies which render it useful as a source of biofuel, I must suppose that the storks to which you refer are, in fact, wheat stalks, generally known as straw.

Like

Barry:

Could you or, alternatively, a guest contributor produce posts on the following issues?

1) The different ratios of total costs to overnight costs of different generating technologies and the influences of plant size and discount rates.

2) The adverse impacts of energy market liberalisation on nuclear deployment prospects and the optimum ways of addressing them.

I understand, in a very hazy sort of manner, that over half the LCOE derived from nuclear power is due to financial charges which are influenced by build time and discount rates. Charles Barton has been suggesting that building costs of smaller nuclear plants (say 100MW) do not suffer from lack of scale on a $/w basis relative to those of their big brothers and, further, that they should be capable of more rapid deployment ( which should reduce finance costs and risk premium). Are there persuasive contrary arguments in favour of larger plants other than the fact that there are currently few licensed designs of the smaller versions?

Congratulations on your science communication award.

Like

Wheat stalks, wheat storks, straw, hay – it didn’t matter – I laughed at Peter’s post until my jaw was sore and my family told me to shut-up so they could watch the television.

Like

France’s electricity generation yesterday

3% = export (constant throughout the day)
0% = coal (all day)
1%-2% = gas (all day)
1% = wind (all day)
2%-12% = hydro
82% – 92% = nuclear
600 – 1000 t/h CO2 emissions from all France’s electricity generation

It works!
It has been working for 30 years.
It is cheap.
It is clean.
It is safe.
What else do we want?

http://www.rte-france.com/fr/developpement-durable/maitriser-sa-consommation-electrique/consommation-production-et-contenu-co2-de-l-electricite-francaise

Like

Combining biomass boilers with CST would present similar problems to converting coal stations to nuclear since what should be a clean operation will be contaminated with grime. Dust and soot will settle on mirrors. Huge sheds will be needed to keep the straw dry. The straw boiler would need to be close to the molten salt heat exchanger. It may need to be kept permanently hot to enable quick power up. The ash will be discarded nearby when it really should go back on the fields in the high rainfall areas. I would like to see one real world example of a CST plant combined with a straw boiler even allowing for delivery of straw in non-electric trucks.

Like

what I find remarkable is the reliance on wheat stalks as backup power. They intend to produce 15GW of power from wheat. That’s more power than all the coal power stations of NSW combined.

Currently the sugar mills Condong and Broadwater burn the waste from sugar cane (bagasse) grown in the northern rivers and produce a mere 60MW on a good day. How they intend to get 15GW from wheat escapes me.

Like

Regarding wheat stubble/stover/stalks/residue. Here’s a quote from
one of the world’s foremost soil scientists, Rattan Lal from a letter to
Science last year (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/326/5958/1344-b.pdf)

“The agrarian stagnation and perpetual food deficit in sub-Saharan Africa is attributed to severe soil degradation (1, 2), caused by extractive farming practices that involve continuous removal of crop residues for use as traditional biofuels and cattle feed. This has created a negative nutrient budget.”

Australian farmers are similarly running down soil by removing
crop residues which they regard as untidy waste … which is part of
why the biggest expense on almost all Australian grain farms is
fertiliser … which small scale African farms can’t afford.

Like

@ John and Geoff,
and so why oh why farmers don’t gather all the crop residues and biochar them totally baffles me. That, combined with ‘crop and cow’ rotation and other methods of recharging the soil, could radically increase carbon retention in the soils AND reduce the amount of high-embodied energy fertiliser applied to the soil. It also reduces fertiliser run-off into rivers, and dead zones in the ocean. It also reduces much more powerful nitrous oxide emissions.

It’s win – win – win – win – win, and why we aren’t doing it now beats me.

Like

@ Peter Lang,

What else do we want?

I’ll tell you what I want, freedom from OIL! I know this is a critique of the BZE Stationary energy plan, but didn’t they write it to also cover transport energy?

Like

Leave a Reply (Markdown is enabled)