Entire state of South Australia has power black out because of flawed climate change energy policy

Governor Brown has California on same “dark ages” renewable energy path as South Australia

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

clip_image002

The entire state of South Australia suffered a complete power black out on Wednesday September 28  plugging it’s nearly 1.7 million residents, communities and businesses into darkness.

Loss of available power from transmissions lines feeding the region from other states coupled with South Australia’s ill-considered climate change energy policy of forced shutdown of the states operating coal plants to promote heavy use of renewable energy created this latest power debacle.

clip_image004

Last July the state barely averted energy black outs when reduced outside electrical energy supplies forced huge and costly purchases of needed power to restore electrical system reliability.(http://theconversation.com/south-australias-electricity-price-woes-are-more-due-to-gas-than-wind-62824)

clip_image006

The forced shutdown of operating coal plants and mandated increased use of renewables had significantly increased energy costs to consumers by eliminating production from low cost power plants while increasing use of more costly renewable energy which also requires the operation of higher cost natural gas power plants for reliability backup with these backup costs hidden from consumers. (http://www.smh.com.au/business/renewables-shift-brings-threat-to-power-supply-20160921-grl0bs.html)

clip_image008

clip_image010

The September 28 state wide black out is clearly creating challenges to the governments climate change policy initiative which is responsible for these power availability and high energy price debacles and which has jeopardized the power supply of the entire region. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-25/sa’s-power-price-spike-sounds-national-electricity-alarm/7875970)

clip_image011

Unfortunately Governor Brown has California on the same path as the state of South Australia where the present and future reliability of the states power supply is dependent on huge imports of power from adjacent states which provide 1/3 of California’s electrical energy.

clip_image013

Unlike a decade ago where use of this imported power was driven by considerations of lowering energy costs today this imported energy is absolutely essential for sustaining the states electrical system reliability.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

298 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter Morris
September 28, 2016 1:28 pm

Apostrophes, please. This article is darn near unreadable in its current state.
[?? The only unmatched apostrophes used begin the selected quoted paragraphs, and those paragraphs are no longer “editable text” but blocks (like a graph or an image). .mod]

Reply to  Peter Morris
September 28, 2016 1:52 pm

what are you talking about? Where are these supposed lack of apostrophes that are hindering your reading?

NeedleFactory
Reply to  Paul Murany (@PMurany)
September 28, 2016 2:49 pm

Perhaps Morris refers to the missing apostrophes in:
(a) the state’s operating
(b) the government’s climate change policy
(c) the state’s power supply
(d) sustaining the state’s electrical system
None too important in my opinion.

Reply to  Paul Murany (@PMurany)
September 28, 2016 5:21 pm

Perhaps another English or Journalism major? Perhaps, missing the science caused by a shortage of apostrophes and quotation marks.
A punctual problem with missing punctuations responding with self imposed civil authority for identifying and pursuing punctuation misuse.
One would think that after reading Lewserandumbsky’s and Crooks latest paper the other day, language disciplinarians would be inured or numb.

Jack
Reply to  Paul Murany (@PMurany)
September 28, 2016 5:25 pm

Wind powered apostrophes

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Paul Murany (@PMurany)
September 28, 2016 7:18 pm

Perhaps not important. To me it’s a matter of professionalism and attention to detail.

Jon
Reply to  Peter Morris
September 28, 2016 2:32 pm

Don’t u mean “it’s” ?
HAHAHA

rd50
Reply to  Jon
September 28, 2016 5:30 pm

+’s for your finding

Reply to  Jon
September 28, 2016 5:38 pm

His use of “its” (sans apostrophe) is grammatically correct.

Editor
Reply to  Jon
September 29, 2016 12:08 am

It’s or its?
from English Grammar Today
It’s is the contracted form of it is or it has:
Can you hear that noise? Where do you think it’s (it is) coming from?
It’s (it is) nearly the end of the month. It’s (it has) gone really quickly.
Its is a possessive determiner (like my, your, his) which we use when referring to things or animals:
Every house in the street has got its own garage.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/it-s-or-its

RCase
Reply to  Jon
September 29, 2016 10:33 am

Hopefully, you’re not laughing because you think you’re correct. I’m often surprised that the spelling and grammar in the comments of this site seems not to be commensurate with what I suspect to be the educational level and academic backgrounds of those who comment here.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jon
September 29, 2016 12:38 pm

More often than not, gramatical errors stem from habitual dependance on Spell Checking programs and zero attempts at proof reading. People are so accustomed to Spell Checking automatically correcting their errors that they never realize the errors anymore. And there is also the missused word that is still spelled correctly like THAN rather than THEN

Jon
Reply to  Jon
October 1, 2016 12:09 pm

Joelobryan the HAHAHA means the comment was s joke.

Jon
Reply to  Jon
October 1, 2016 12:11 pm

Or, rather “a” joke!

mike
Reply to  Peter Morris
September 28, 2016 5:50 pm

Peter Morris
So the above post reports a dire, electrical “black-out” situation in the state of South Australia, caused (if the post correctly reports the matter, of course) by lunatic “green” energy policies. And, you, Peter, after reading that post, and gaining the “pole position” (the very first comment) advantage, with regards to all the other comments that follow, then choose to lead off the discussion with…with…well…with an attention-seeking, preening, booger-flick complaint about some missing apostrophes, accompanied by the assurance that, for exquisitely-sensitive, grammar-geek fuss-pot, you, Pete, ol’ sport, those truant apostrophes make the post “durn near unreadable”. And that’s it! That’s all you apparently gotta say, guy.
Hmmm…you know, Pete, ol’ buddy, you’ve really gotten moi scratching moi’s head. I mean, like, I keep askin’ myself just what sort of a “Peter Morris” would pull such an improbable, school-marm scold stunt?

Reply to  Peter Morris
September 28, 2016 11:51 pm

I liked ‘plugging into darkness’ as well. Is this a new form of renewable energy?

bud
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 29, 2016 10:33 am

Dark energy of course.

Barbara
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 29, 2016 2:48 pm

The Climate Group States & Regions
Government partnerships:
Includes The State Of South Australia, p.2.
Also has Canadian and U.S. members including California.
http://www.theclimategroup.org/partnerships/government

Barbara
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 30, 2016 7:23 pm

“Canadian-U.S. Environmental Cooperation: Climate Change Networks and Regional Action”, H.Selin, c. Aug 2005
Download at:
http://www.worldpapercat.com/1124/Article164883.htm
Follow the links to download the article.
Journal, American Review of Canadian Studies original source?

ddpalmer
Reply to  Peter Morris
September 29, 2016 1:53 am

Leaving out apostrophes decreases the number of pixels required, thus saving electricity and reducing CO2 release.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  ddpalmer
September 29, 2016 12:42 pm

definitely true: its require less space and fills the 4th space taken only by the ‘ which are a few black pixels on a white background. Thus its blackens more the screen then it’s which give me a microwatt of power saving.
okay can i now have my grant for a green power saving grammar and spelling reform? LOL

DD More
September 28, 2016 1:32 pm

Wonder how much food is going to waste from non-operable coolers. Just add that to the bill.

Catcracking
September 28, 2016 1:36 pm

I assume “plugging” is plunging?

Felflames
Reply to  Catcracking
September 28, 2016 1:46 pm

I thought the same thing.
Then i read it again , and “plugging into darkness” seems to often be the result of relying on renewables for critical infrastructure.
[But one gets as much energy “plugging into darkness” as you do plugging into a energy grid that relies on too many expensive renewables. .mod]

emsnews
Reply to  Felflames
September 28, 2016 4:21 pm

They plugged into the Outerdarkness energy feed.

September 28, 2016 1:37 pm

Damned if you, damned if you don’t:
As loads in supplying regions grow, power costs to CA go up (or are curtailed).
Increased imports to CA overload existing intertie capacity, resulting in blackouts.
We told the State that same thing in 1979. Guess what happened in 2000 and subsequent years?
Here we go again.

Reply to  charlieskeptic
September 28, 2016 3:26 pm

Once an outside back-up source becomes the only option, the price jumps through the roof. Shades of Enron following “de-regulation”.

emsnews
Reply to  charlieskeptic
September 28, 2016 4:23 pm

I was in NYC living next to a slum when we had a two day power failure in 1977. My wonderful neighbors fixed this by lighting up the night via burning the entire neighborhood to the ground, totally destroying it. But I did have plenty of light! The noise, though, was like a million demons screaming.

Tom Halla
September 28, 2016 1:42 pm

I was in California during the blackouts, and the state apparently did not learn how fragile an electrical grid is. Blaming the malign influence of Enron was sufficient.
I am just suprised that the grids in South Australia and Germany have not crashed earlier.

auto
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 28, 2016 1:58 pm

And – this winter, perhaps – the UK.
Yeah – I know – we have deals with small scale diesel generators . . . .
Auto – with gas heating in one room!

Reply to  auto
September 28, 2016 6:51 pm

Far more likely in Scotland, than the ‘UK‘, because they have way more intermittent renewables, and few dispatchable sources left:
* One Step Closer to Blackouts
* Beginners Guide to Blackouts

yarpos
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 29, 2016 2:02 pm

The Germans have the luxury of playing renewable games and then leaning on the French nuclear power industry when in need. They also retained coal plants. I doubt the Germans are quite as stupid as the Aussies. South Australia had a trial run two months ago when the excess of wind turbine sources acted as designed on a no wind day and they had the inter connector to the neighbouring coal fired powered State down. They then had to go cap in hand to gas generators they had previously thought they didnt need. They got ad hoc pricing and then complained about it. They are a special lot.

Griff
Reply to  yarpos
September 30, 2016 2:47 am

That’s not the case – Germany frequently exports power to France. I believe in fact more power than it imports… It has stopped building coal power plants and is about to start switching off a small number (it is trade union power which prevents shut down, not power supply concerns!)

Reply to  Griff
September 30, 2016 10:13 am

[Un]Scientific American and “cleanenergywire” – kinda like quoting wikipedia, isn’t it?

commieBob
September 28, 2016 1:51 pm

The trick is to make the correct politicians bear the blame. I suspect that people will become a lot more skeptical about CAGW when the consequences (blackouts and expensive electricity) begin to bite.

techgm
Reply to  commieBob
September 28, 2016 2:21 pm

Then they can wait a decade for the missing/lost/mothballed capacity to be restored or built new.

bit chilly
Reply to  commieBob
September 28, 2016 3:38 pm

yep. it won’t be my fence or shed or roof trusses that will be going in my wood burner 😉

Alan Robertson
September 28, 2016 1:53 pm

The entire NE USA has come perilously close to the conditions which trigger full Winter blackout on several occasions in recent past. With most modern homes dependent upon electricity to operate heating systems, the result of such a Winter blackout could prove fatal for many people. Lets hope that those responsible for grid operations are staying a step ahead of the political forces which endanger grid reliability.

September 28, 2016 1:54 pm

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“The September 28 state wide black out is clearly creating challenges to the governments climate change policy initiative which is responsible for these power availability and high energy price debacles and which has jeopardized the power supply of the entire region.” – who would have thunk?!
Sceptics have been rightly warning of the disastrous consequences of the ideological scramble toward renewable (unreliable) energy under green central planning for many years. And on September 28, the chickens certainly came home to roost with South Australia’s *complete* and total state wide power blackout.
I will be posting more on this on ‘Climatism’ later, including information from a scathing report on the dangerous shift to renewable energy, put out by the Grattan Institute – “Keeping the lights on: lessons from South Australia’s power shock.”
Thoughts go out to those affected by the SA blackout. Hoping services return to normal soon.

September 28, 2016 1:56 pm

An entire state?? I could see a large city perhaps but an entire state is without power? Sounds like a problem

Reply to  Paul Murany (@PMurany)
September 28, 2016 2:28 pm

The US has had a couple power outages that covered several more populous states. The best known is the great northeast blackout of 1965 Nov 9.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-great-northeast-blackout

Reply to  Paul Murany (@PMurany)
September 28, 2016 2:32 pm

A report on what happened during the 2003 version of a northeast blackout: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/reliability/blackout/09-12-03-blackout-sum.pdf

J
Reply to  Paul Murany (@PMurany)
September 28, 2016 3:01 pm

Just like Puerto Rico recently.
Crippled the grid to the point of no redundancy, one problem, and people are in the dark.

Ozwitch
Reply to  Paul Murany (@PMurany)
September 28, 2016 8:57 pm

Yes, it was. There was not enough baseload i.e. fossil fuel power to keep the grid stabilised. SA gets its backup power from Victoria via an interconnect. This crashed last night. It recently shut down 2 coal stations which could have provided sufficient backup power. Renewables were unable to provide sufficient supply to meet demand (it was night, and it was windy, hence no wind power and no solar.)
SA is a state of 1.6 million people, so it is small in population, but big in delusions of a green utopia run by people with lots of Gaia love but no brains.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Paul Murany (@PMurany)
September 29, 2016 4:20 pm

Texas? Do people realize that South Australia only has a population of 1.6 million, and that most of them live in one small corner of the state?

lewispbuckingham
September 28, 2016 1:58 pm

This will focus the minds of three year term politicians of the societal need to give stable base load power to the population.
All airconditioning and ventilation systems would have shut down.
The hospital system would have to rely on backups.
Traffic control would be impossible. It would be interesting to know how the mobile phone network fared.
Hopefully the report into nuclear energy will be revisited
http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/system/NFCRC_Final_Report_Web.pdf
Especially pg 52 about costs and reliability of power supply.
If SA wants to attract high tech business it needs reliable power.
To build our strategic subs the Commonwealth, with constitutional defense power, must mandate base load power,preferably nuclear, to have the subs built.

Hivemind
Reply to  lewispbuckingham
September 29, 2016 1:17 am

You forgot refrigeration systems. Think of all the food that would have spoiled in a 6 hour blackout.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Hivemind
September 29, 2016 8:22 am

“Think of all the food that would have spoiled in a 6 hour blackout.”
Only 6 hours? None, if they had the sense to keep the refrigerator/freezer doors shut. Almost none, if they didn’t.

Reply to  Hivemind
September 29, 2016 11:56 am

Read the local news sites. Much longer than six hours and numerous reports of retailers throwing out spoilage.

September 28, 2016 1:59 pm

“policy of forced shutdown of the states operating coal plants”
There was no forced shutdown. SA has few coal resources, and has relied on low-grade coal in a remote location. The private firm responsible (Alinta) couldn’t operate it profitably any more.

Felflames
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2016 2:03 pm

The government changing legislation to make the business less profitable didn’t help either,

Flyoverbob
Reply to  Felflames
September 28, 2016 2:43 pm

Is it more accurate that the government made the business non-profitable.

Reply to  Felflames
September 28, 2016 2:44 pm

There is now a national grid and energy market. Leigh Creek could not compete with power from the East, even if that comes with some risk of storm outages. That is a reality independent of efforts to also make use of solar/wind.

gnomish
Reply to  Felflames
September 28, 2016 2:46 pm

come on – they can ship it to china but they can’t get it around the coast? get a clue.

Reply to  Felflames
September 28, 2016 2:53 pm

“they can’t get it around the coast”
They could, but it costs. A firm that did that could not compete with energy generated on site in NSW, and transmitted by wire. Just business economics, not government meddling.

Analitik
Reply to  Felflames
September 28, 2016 6:30 pm

Utter bull$hit by Nick Stokes. The Northern and Playford stations were made uneconomic by a huge increase in the frequency of the negative pricing events caused the large deployment of wind.
The Heywood interconnector has been in existence since the last century/millenium. MurrayLink was commissioned (came online) in 2002 – they didn’t sudden get constructed in the last 5 years and lower the market pricing in South Australia.

Reply to  Felflames
September 28, 2016 8:31 pm

“they didn’t sudden get constructed in the last 5 years”
Well, Alinta say they have lost $100M over the last four years running Leigh Creek/Flinders. Competition from wind is also a factor (it does work). But bottom line is that Alinta closed coal because they couldn’t make money against competitive sources.

AndyG55
Reply to  Felflames
September 28, 2016 11:26 pm

“But bottom line is that Alinta closed coal because they couldn’t make money against HEAVILY SUBSIDISED sources with idiotic feed-in mandates.
There, Fixed it for you.

Brian
Reply to  Felflames
September 29, 2016 12:30 am

From what I understand, coal needs to keep running all the time to supply baseload, but the market is setup to pay any wind generation first. So coal is being consumed with no return on the expense. End result is that coal fired stations lose money, not because they are uncompetitive, but because the fragile renewables get first dibs at the cash. But they are necessary to supply the major effort in an essential service like power.
The biggest issue is that no new generation and highly efficient coal power stations are being built. Now I wonder why that is…?

gnomish
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2016 2:31 pm

and yet they are the world’s largest coal exporter… fourth largest natural gas exporter…
splain that?
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4050

Reply to  gnomish
September 28, 2016 2:48 pm

Australia has ample good quality coal, in NSW and Qld. None in SA. So it makes sense to generate energy in those states (plus hydro and a rather unique brown coal situation in Victoria), and supply to SA. Better to send by wire, even with storm risk, than ship the coal.

gnomish
Reply to  gnomish
September 28, 2016 3:00 pm

better to send by wire? oh- so that’s why there’s no blackout! now i know.

gnomish
Reply to  gnomish
September 28, 2016 3:02 pm

and now i also know why china finds it uneconomical to import australian coal, too.
yazza.

gnomish
Reply to  gnomish
September 28, 2016 3:05 pm

i guess that’s why all the power in the midwest usa used to be generated in wyoming, too- cuz those 2 mile long coal trains couldn’t get it to the to illinois cheap enuff.

Reply to  gnomish
September 28, 2016 3:20 pm

“that’s why there’s no blackout! now i know”
There is no state blackout now. There was for a while last night. They could set up a system with more security but greater ongoing cost. People seem to prefer the risk.
Not all US states are self-sufficient in electricity. They make similar trade-offs. It’s the point of having a national grid.

tony mcleod
Reply to  gnomish
September 28, 2016 5:02 pm

“please splain”. Mmm, where have I heard that before.

janama
Reply to  gnomish
September 29, 2016 4:34 am

Nick Stokes – I’m sorry but SA has vast amounts of coal – over 10 billion tons of the same quality coal you find in the Galilee Basin and in the Hunter. It’s in the Arckaringa Basin.

Flyoverbob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2016 3:04 pm

The government may not have ordered the company to shut down. However, with policies that made the company NOT profitable the government most certainly did force the company to shut down.

Reply to  Flyoverbob
September 28, 2016 3:24 pm

The relevant policy was setting up a national grid and energy market. Eastern sources can supply power cheaper. Do you think that should be prevented?

Wally
Reply to  Flyoverbob
September 28, 2016 5:17 pm

It’s curious how when we had local generation burning Leigh Creek dirt (which was put in by a politician who was tired of having coal supplies chopped off by the eastern states), we had far far cheaper power than now.
Since the national grid and “cheap power down the wire from the eastern states” our power prices have more than doubled, and we have the most expensive electricity in the world.
At the same time Aust is exporting vast amounts of natural gas (which uses 1/3 of the gas taken in compression to liquify the remainder). This has caused gas shortages, and a rise in gas prices. The price is gas is now so high that the gas fired power stations find it difficult to run and make a quid. The old Torrens Island power station that was original built to use fuel oil. It was converted to use natural gas about 30 years ago, and the fuel oil was “never to be used again”. Guess what they burn most of the time now? Yep, fuel oil, cos its cheaper to IMPORT fuel oil than to use our own natural gas! [This from an inside source who works there.]
Worlds gone mad, and we’ve been fed a pack of lies for a very long time.

lewispbuckingham
Reply to  Flyoverbob
September 28, 2016 7:41 pm

Point taken Wally.
We manage to export LNG to SEA and Japan at bedrock prices while having resale price maintenance for our own domestic supply.
Even the USA now has cheap domestic gas.
As Nick says ‘people seem to prefer the risk’.
But which people?
The ruling class or those who suffer the outages and ongoing price hikes?

Lenny
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2016 5:13 pm

Nick,
The reason the coal power went out of business was the government mandating that renewables come first on the grid. This is government meddling in the grid. This is the major reason why it was no longer financially viable, to operate / maintain / re-invest in the coal plants. Also the local state government has stated very clearly that it want to go to 100% renewable, killing off the inventor confidence in coal backed power.
There was a major issue earlier in the year, but they demolished the last coal plant three weeks ago.
Last night they lost an entire state, from the latest local report I hear, due to a frequency response that was a result of the wind power dropping, too much wind, and a storm took out a tower that impacted the frequency on the inter-connector. It went outside of tolerance, it drops the state – by design.
Whilst this storm was a bit usual, large storms, thunder storms are not usual in that part of the world.
This is a direct consequence of local government policy.

Reply to  Lenny
September 28, 2016 10:42 pm

“The reason the coal power went out of business was the government mandating that renewables come first on the grid.”
The government doesn’t mandate that. It’s just the way the market system works. Suppliers bid to supply at a certain price. If the wind turbine is spinning, the supplier needs to sell, and with no fuel cost can underbid any gas/coal generator. Basically all wind product will be sold, at any price.

nc
Reply to  Lenny
September 28, 2016 11:13 pm

Nick you should read up on synchronization inertia. Wind and solar do not supply the inertia. With no heavy rotating inertia and base generation, voila outage. It is my understanding if the coal plants where still operating there may not even have been an outage.
I am a retired grid operator and just shake my head how the green folly is reducing grid stability all over the world. Oh I have back up generation, fuel for two weeks and a month of food.

Reply to  Lenny
September 28, 2016 11:35 pm

“Nick you should read up on synchronization inertia.”
Maintaining an old system which required mining in remote area and transporting low grade coal 230 km is a very expensive way of achieving synchronization inertia.

yarpos
Reply to  Lenny
September 29, 2016 2:20 am

and what is your option Nick ? it has actually worked well for us for many decades and we stupidly turn our backs on nuclear. So what do you recommend? right now I mean, not something thats coming, will be developed or is powered by rainbows and unicorns.

angech
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2016 8:06 pm

Double the price Nick, it would still be cheaper than subsidized intermittent renewables. It would have been profitable at a higher price, just the interstate coal electricity was “”cheaper”
Come on, Aussie, you know that is true.

Peter
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2016 9:05 pm

Alinta can run coal power stations in inter- state but not South Australia. Legislation forced an increase in costs. Leigh Creek and Port Augusta were shut down, as was intended when the regulations went into effect. The current South Australian Government is very proud of the current fiasco, it’s all part of a grand plan to attract new industry. The South Australian Government boasts about how it got rid of Leigh Creek. The Government gets very very angry when the facts contradict the policy, such as businesses closing and leaving. The Government is very very angry at what happened last night, and it’s everyone else’s fault.

Reply to  Peter
September 28, 2016 11:48 pm

“Alinta can run coal power stations in inter- state”
Not true. The list of Alinta stations is here. The SA ones now closed were the only coal stations.

Hugs
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 29, 2016 12:02 pm

SMH: “But Wednesday’s event will trigger renewed debate over the state’s heavy reliance on renewable energy which has forced the closure of uncompetitive power stations, putting the electricity network in South Australia under stress.”
There is only one error, the word uncompetitive. The competitive but now non-profitable coal has been forced out.

Marcus
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 29, 2016 4:01 pm

….Ummm, South Australia doesn’t have coal …..Ummm, are you saying North Australia can ship coal to China, but not to south Austrailia ? Talk about digging holes !

Felflames
September 28, 2016 1:59 pm

Just to add a comparison for those not aware of how large this blackout is,South Australia covers an area of 983,480 square kilometres (379,725 sq mi), it’s the fourth-largest of Australia’s states and territories and has a population of 1.7 million people.

yarpos
Reply to  Felflames
September 28, 2016 3:26 pm

Yes some key transmission line got blown over, historically some of the older SA ones look like tin foil. However in the lead up to the event wind turbines were shut down due to excessive wind, and for many hours into the event once transmission was sorted out there was still no wind turbine power with gas and diesel supplying what was available . Right now 8AM the day after, the State is running on 90% gas , although that may be business as usual if the wind has died away.
Of course the its nothing to do with renewables. The fact that the State has had multiple outages in a year since going 40% plus renewables is because Unicorns.

yarpos
Reply to  Felflames
September 28, 2016 3:29 pm

To be fair most people are clustered in a 100km radius around Adelaide, the rest is pretty much desert.

gnome
Reply to  Felflames
September 28, 2016 3:36 pm

You forgot to add that it has the country’s most expensive electricity, the most renewable electricity (except for Tasmania which has good hydro-electric conditions) and the most unreliable electricity.

Bruce Cobb
September 28, 2016 2:01 pm

Have you thanked a Warmist yet today for all they do?

Chris Hanley
September 28, 2016 2:01 pm

It’s a crying shame, at the same time very funny.
South Australians are sitting on the “the largest known single deposit of uranium in the world” (Wiki: Olympic Dam mine) but the government intends to pursue the crazy ‘renewables’ policy.
Will Steffen from the Climate Council: ”… these conditions, driven by climate change, are likely increasing the intensity of storms like the one in South Australia …”, it follows that if S A were 100% wind and solar storms like the one that blacked-out the state wouldn’t happen.

Steven F
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 28, 2016 5:26 pm

No amount of coal or uranium will prevent a bllack out when a storm takes out the grid. which is what happened.

Jantar
Reply to  Steven F
September 29, 2016 12:12 am

Except that the storm did not take out the grid. It took out a few transmission towers on a single line in the north of the state.
SA operates a similar N-1 Electricity security requirement to what we have in New Zealand. That means that the system can withstand the largest contingent event being the loss of a single generator, or Transmission circuit without any noticeable effect. There should always be sufficient reserve generation connected to the system to allow for this, and still have sufficient standby reserve (not necessarily connected, but available) to cope with an extended contingent event, being the loss of a second generator, or transmission circuit. In the is case that was not sufficient as the wind generation ramped down, and individual wind turbines are not large enough to be included as contingent plant. But when 40% of the State’s energy is coming from that source, and they all ramp down then there are problems.
From a report on http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/84813559/parts-of-south-australia-may-face-prolonged-power-outage
“Lightning strikes knocked out transmission towers in the north of the state. That shouldn’t have taken out the rest of the state,” the industry figure said.
“Clearly something’s broken; there should have been some protection.”
Ad Feedback
A limited population base and the closure of large cheap power stations as its reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind has risen has raised a series of technical issues which the electricity transmission companies in South Australia are now grappling with.
“The generation profile in South Australia doesn’t help,” another industry source said, referring to the loss of some so-called ‘baseload power capacity which operates 24 hours a day as the use of renewables has risen.
“But AEMO ‘going black’ by shutting down the industry due to a weather event is highly unusual.”
It is believed AEMO sought to shut down parts of the system which “triggered a full shutdown of the system to protect itself”, was the way one industry figure put it.

Bulldust
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 28, 2016 5:43 pm

Never mind there was a worse storm 50 years ago… Steffen has absolutely no shame. I am hoping we can export him like Lew and Cook soon.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 29, 2016 12:02 pm

“….these conditions, driven by climate change, are likely increasing the intensity of storms like the one in South Australia …”, it follows that if S A were 100% wind and solar storms like the one that blacked-out the state wouldn’t happen.”
Seriously?? They actually are doubling down on stupid.

Ben of Houston
September 28, 2016 2:02 pm

While reliance on imports does increase vulnerability to storms, I have to agree that it’s a rather severe omission.

DCA
Reply to  Ben of Houston
September 28, 2016 2:59 pm

One has to wonder how vulnerable windmills and solar panels are to the storms as well.

JohnB
Reply to  Ben of Houston
September 28, 2016 4:23 pm

Not really Ben. South Australia is about 1.5 times the size of Texas. No “storm” is going to take out that area. Similarly there are no trees near the major transmission lines for two reasons; a: The towers are taller than the trees and b: they get trimmed regularly.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
September 28, 2016 4:34 pm

“South Australia is about 1.5 times the size of Texas.”
I’m sure the area supplied by mains power is a lot less. But the fact is that it was storm damage that brought down the system. Here is a map of the affected area:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-28/sa-power-networks-outage-map/7886534
Most of the population, but only a fraction of the state’s area.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
September 28, 2016 4:45 pm

comment image

Wally
Reply to  Ben of Houston
September 28, 2016 5:11 pm

SA resident here. Nick Stokes the entire state has insufficient capacity to support its own demand, it relies on 2 x interconnectors from other states – one of which is down for maintenance. A severe storm took out a 275kV line to an area that USED to have a coal fired power station. That being taken out caused a cascade, where the interconnector dropped off. Then local generation was insufficient so it all isolated as well, leaving the entire state with no power.
Thats the entire 1.67 million residents. AND YES the ENTIRE STATE does have mains power from the grid, there has been a grid build program over about 50 years to do that. There are 2 or 3 very small isolated local generation pockets but these amount to around 50k residents or thereabouts.

Steven F
Reply to  Ben of Houston
September 28, 2016 5:17 pm

One big part of the problem in Australia is that high winds (up to 140kph according to the news) and a possible tornado toppled a major transmission line. The line was not damaged by falling trees, the wind folded the towers in half. Rainfall of about 100mm in one day also caused flooding doing even more damage to the grid.
While the article is quick to point the finger at renewables. The news reports indicate it is nothing more than major grid damage due to high winds, flooding and downed trees. Grids entirely powered by fossil fuels will and have failed due too conditions like this.

Peter
Reply to  Ben of Houston
September 28, 2016 8:55 pm

The rest of Australia frequently gets storms with 140 km/hr winds. That the transmission towers could not stand up to this wind is appalling.
The towers may have failed, but up until recently shutting down coal, the state wide black out would not have occurred. The fact remains, under current policy, the infrastructure is inadequate to cope.

Hivemind
Reply to  Ben of Houston
September 29, 2016 1:01 am

“While the article is quick to point the finger at renewables.”
It was the irrational belief that renewables would cover it, that left South Australia without spare capacity. Note the graph that showed they had been completely taken out of the supply mix.
The power lines that failed went to Port Augusta, where the coal power stations used to be. Windmills have to be feathered for their own protection and solar is blocked by storm clouds. The immediate trigger for the blackout may have been because of storm damage, but the fundamental cause was because there was no backup generation capacity.

Marcus
Reply to  Ben of Houston
September 29, 2016 5:34 am

…Stupidest comment of the year goes to….. Nick Stokes…”Most of the population, but only a fraction of the state’s area.”….The only “AREA” that matters is WHERE THERE ARE PEOPLE ! I really don’t think the Scorpions in the desert are too worried about electrical power for their families needs…

Reply to  Ben of Houston
September 29, 2016 11:54 am

“Here is a map of the affected area:”
How nice of the storm to stay on one side of the state border.

a happy little debunker
September 28, 2016 2:11 pm

That SA’s infrastructure is so vulnerable to a single storm (not even a state-wide storm) after 20 years of ‘gold plating’ the poles and wires – should give all Australia cause for concern. This is a massive failure in energy policy.
In the meantime Business rightly expects Tasmania’s state owned hydro supply should hold significant reserves (up to a year) to avert any future crisis caused by extended drought & basslink failure. The Hydro boffins are publicly reluctantly citing opportunity cost – the opportunity cost of filling the dams.

tony mcleod
Reply to  a happy little debunker
September 28, 2016 4:50 pm

What a crock! No mention of it being the worst spring storm in 50 years, winds clocked at 120km, but no, it’s all caused by a rampant ideology.
Straight from the busy, WUWT, ridiculously long bow department. SMFH.

a happy little debunker
Reply to  tony mcleod
September 28, 2016 9:14 pm

Sure, SA had wind gusts of up to 120 k’s – but this happens regularly and at a higher wind speed in other parts of the country – without all consuming power blackouts.
It has happened 3 times this year alone in Tassie – along with floods, drought and snow!
But, I suppose those spring storms are so much worse than Summer, Autumn and Winter Storms.

September 28, 2016 2:14 pm

And the Australian state of Tasmania had to import 150 diesel generators when a low-rainfall period reduced hydro power output while, at the same time, the coal-power umbilical from another state, Victoria, went down.
We have three jurisdictions in Australia that are acting out the pretence of moving towards fully ‘renewable’ energy and each one of them quietly maintains a backup umbilical to coal-fired power plants in other locations, in much the same way that Germany claims to have abandoned nuclear generated power yet imports it from across the border. This is all so that they can act out their fantasy of living in a pretty little world where everything is powered by the sun, with everyone travelling around in magic cars and planes that somehow propel themselves, working in magic jobs that come from ‘somewhere’, being paid with magic money that comes from ‘somewhere’ and using that magic money to buy magic consumer goods that somehow just appear from ‘somewhere’. To fully understand the mentality at work here, picture all of this and then imagine its advocates skipping through the forest to the sounds of the children’s song The Teddy Bears’ Picnic. These are adults, but they have the naivety of children. They think that for something to be true they only have to wish it were true. Unbelievably, these are the people who now control public policy.

rw
Reply to  BCS (@PumpysDad)
September 29, 2016 12:26 pm

This matches my impressions perfectly. Just add a complement of mile-thick ego-defences, and you begin to see the real nature of the problem.

gnomish
September 28, 2016 2:16 pm

yeah!!!!

[Best to never cheer another person’s problems and discomfort. Even it is their country’s fault, their country’s leaders’ faults. .mod]

gnomish
Reply to  gnomish
September 28, 2016 2:44 pm

i LOVE consequences because it’s what keeps people honest.
this is a GOOD thing. i won’t fake sympathy for stupid , no way , no how.
i like to see just desserts served in heaping helpings.
it is an act of moral embezzlement to deprive somebody of that.
i don’t have to; i don’t want to; i won’t. like it or lump it.

yarpos
Reply to  gnomish
September 28, 2016 3:35 pm

There will be no consequences. Queue the “perfect storm” speeches and media releases saying it had nothing to do with renewables. Personally I think in this case renewables had a secondary role in slowing down response in that they were offline due to excessive wind and would be the last thing you want in any network trying to bootstrap itself back up into operation , even if avaialbale.

angech
Reply to  gnomish
September 28, 2016 8:09 pm

Coal comes in lumps, too.
Quite right statements gnomish

Robert from oz
September 28, 2016 2:25 pm

South Australia had zero green house gas emissions for a while there so it’s not all bad .

Gamecock
Reply to  Robert from oz
September 28, 2016 2:44 pm

Zactly. All the commenters here act as if it is a bad thing. For all we know, families have gathered around a candle and patted themselves on the back for their helping reduce carbon (sic) emissions. They elected their leaders; surely they have embraced their rhetoric.

Lil Fella from OZ
Reply to  Robert from oz
September 28, 2016 3:22 pm

Yep, and now no power due to renewable scramble. You still need base power.

yarpos
Reply to  Lil Fella from OZ
September 29, 2016 2:37 pm

and if you say that you are a “baseloader” yet another little put down the renewables/alarmist camp use. They seem to think they have a new paradigm that exists beyond the laws of physics. Once they are allowed to do more than dabble around the edges, we find those laws still applly.

Jon
September 28, 2016 2:36 pm

Why don’t they simply run a pipeline to the bottom of the ocean?
We’ve been assured there’s an over-abundance of excess heat there!

Jon
Reply to  Jon
September 28, 2016 2:38 pm

At the very least there’s potential for a big study requiring big grants. I wonder if the state could be run off the potential energy from that potential?

arthur4563
September 28, 2016 2:46 pm

I see that California generates roughly 8% of its power from renewables, although they will, of course, misleadingly claim that “12% of our power generation is from renewables.” That’s “generation”, not consumption. South Carolina will shortly bring online two more nuclear reactors, giving them a total of
nine reactors.and a power generation system over 75% carbon free. Anybody want to estimate when
the California Fools will ever achieve this level and at what cost?

Tobyw
Reply to  arthur4563
September 29, 2016 1:17 am

When California nukes??? When they get a smart conservative government like SC, that’s when! But I wonder how much the cost of the change to SC nukes has been, the cost of operation and electric bills. A RINO like Arnold married to a Kennedy queen will not do! They need to change the legislature too.

Lil Fella from OZ
September 28, 2016 2:48 pm

They are blaming the STORM. I can imagine that is will be 1 in 100 year storm by the time all the excuses finish. Nowhere near as bad as they have stated. I live in this State. A coal fired power station was shut and then they used a connector to another coal fired power station in another State (Victoria). Wise move. Wind turbines is the way to go, so they have told us for years. That is as long as you don’t put them in my ‘backyard’! There is no real base load power supply. So what is inevitable happened and it is not the first time either. The last time was a cover up.
They have lost control of producing power. It is not really necessary for business!??? This State also has the highest unemployment of the nation. Needless to say I have independent solar panel with batteries as my back up.

Robert from oz
September 28, 2016 2:57 pm

The “experts” have said the blackout in South Australia had nothing to do with the renewable energy mix they have .
It’s just been confirmed that the bird killing wind farms were not working at the time of the blackout because it was too windy .
If south oz still had only coal electricity generation would the blackout still have happened ??
This question needs to be asked .

yarpos
Reply to  Robert from oz
September 28, 2016 3:38 pm

and would recovery have taken so long

tomo
Reply to  Robert from oz
September 28, 2016 4:48 pm

and the windy millers pocketed constraint payments I guess when it’s too windy – just maybe?

Wally
Reply to  Robert from oz
September 28, 2016 5:22 pm

Oh it was a storm all right, which led to a cascade failure that isolated the interconnectors, and local generation does not have the capacity to supply the whole state. So the local generators isolate to protect themselves and bingo, no power for you!
Of course the system is designed to protect itself, and a jolly good thing too. BUT… its the endless meddling by well meaning idiots which means that because we don’t have the capacity to be self sufficient we can’t run anything when we don’t have the interconnect teat there to feed us. Stupid design.

MarkG
Reply to  Wally
September 29, 2016 7:09 pm

“its the endless meddling by well meaning idiots”
What could possibly make you believe they’re ‘well meaning’?

Voltron
September 28, 2016 3:09 pm

The ABC link that was mentioned in the article, while sounding like it was critical, actually encourages MORE renewables. Apparently the massive cost blowout was a failure by states and territories to have a distributed renewable system across the nation and an agreement to phase out coal. I didnt follow the logic until I realised there was no logic. Not surprising for an ABC article, disappointing, but not surprising.

Lil Fella from OZ
September 28, 2016 3:23 pm

Not forgetting power prices are the highest in the nation.

Reply to  Lil Fella from OZ
September 28, 2016 3:39 pm

And were long before any renewable policy.

Wally
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2016 5:23 pm

Actually Nick thats not so. Perhaps you should live here before you post comments like that.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2016 7:32 pm

OK from IPA (Publisher of Climate Change the facts, advertised here), prices in about 2000:comment image

angech
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2016 8:13 pm

Those 4 states are not the nation are they, Nick?
You seem to have left out WA NT Canberra and Tassie, Well OK to leave out Tasmania with it’s Hydro, but, Come on Aussie, get real.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2016 8:32 pm

WA/NT, for obvious reasons, are not yet on the national grid. Anyway, that’s how IPA saw it.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2016 11:46 pm

Electricity prices have risen across Australia, since the late nineties after the Federal Labor government encouraged State’s to privatise their utilities to become “more competitive” (that went well did’nt it?). The increases coincide with the privatisation of those utilities and renewables have just made the increases worse. comment image

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 29, 2016 1:27 am

“Federal Labor government”
A bizarre spin. Howard was elected in 1996. Privatisation was pushed through by State governments, usually Liberal, who wanted the cash. Generally Labor opposed. In my state, the Liberal Treasurer, Stockdale, was the enthusiast. In South Australia it was the Liberal Olsen who pushed through the privatisation of ETSA (electricity generation and distribution).

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 30, 2016 4:38 am

So blame Howard eh Nick? Pathetic!

1 2 3 4