Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Australian Energy Market Operator, the government body responsible for ensuring the stability of Australia’s energy supply, has issued a stark warning that closure of coal plants will dramatically increase the risk of widespread blackouts – that building additional renewable capacity will not compensate for the loss of coal capacity.
MEDIA RELEASE
THURSDAY, 11 August 2016
Strategic, efficient investment required to support Australia’s energy transformation
The Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) 2016 Electricity Statement of Opportunities (ESOO) report released today illustrates the growing importance of network and non-network developments to securely manage an evolving, lower carbon electricity generation future.
The 2016 ESOO provides National Electricity Market (NEM) participants, investors, and policy-makers with a projected 10-year outlook to 2025-26 of supply adequacy under a number of scenarios, and this year further generation withdrawals have been modelled in response to the COP21 emission abatement commitment1.
“As the NEM generation mix continues to keep pace with new technology and policy changes, future supply adequacy will depend on the availability and capability of new supply options providing electricity services when needed,” said AEMO Chief Operating Officer Mike Cleary.
From the information provided by industry, and assuming no additional generation withdrawals to occur between now and 2025-26, the only projected supply shortfall in the 2016 ESOO occurs towards the end of the outlook period in New South Wales.
“The 2015 ESOO identified New South Wales (NSW), South Australia and Victoria as potentially being at risk of breaching the reliability standard at various points over the next decade. The latest information suggesting only a shortfall in NSW in 2025-26 takes into account a reduction in demand forecasts, and illustrates a market response with some planned plant withdrawals deferred and an additional 537 MW of wind generation capacity announced,” said Mr Cleary.
However, additional to the information already announced by market participants, AEMO has modelled scenarios that assume the COP21 commitment is achieved, investigating the impact of potential, but not announced, generation withdrawals to meet the electricity sector target agreed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Energy Council.
“AEMO has modelled the impact of withdrawing a further 1,360 MW of coal-fired generation capacity to meet the COP21 commitment under AEMO’s neutral scenario, with results suggesting potential reliability breaches occurring in South Australia from 2019-20, and New South Wales and Victoria from 2025 onwards.
“These breaches would most likely occur when demand is high (usually between 3-8pm), coinciding with low wind and rooftop photovoltaic (PV) generation, and low levels of electricity supply imported from neighbouring regions.
“In this scenario, the majority of coal-fired generation withdrawals are assumed to come from Victoria, which would reduce that State’s generation output to support South Australia and New South Wales via the interconnected network,” said Mr Cleary.
The 2016 ESOO report outlines the importance of maintaining power system security during this period of rapid transformation, and with the potential withdrawal of coal-fired generation across the NEM, a number of support services will need to be provided by other resources.
“The secure operation of the NEM’s 40,000 km transmission network – which transports generated electricity to demand points – is reliant on support services that manage the rate of change of frequency and system restart services.
“AEMO is signalling potential future supply gaps in providing these important stability services, gaps which could be met through prospective new forms of electricity generation, or alternative technologies.”
“To maintain a secure electricity supply demand balance during peak demand periods, AEMO is working closely with industry to identify both network and non-network developments. Possible solutions could include an increased interconnection across NEM regions, battery storage, and demand side management services,” said Mr Cleary.
AEMO’s 2016 ESOO follows the recent release of the 2016 National Electricity Forecasting Report, which looks at forecast electricity demand trends over a 20-year horizon. The ESOO analyses these demand trends against future generation availability to identify any potential breaches of the NEM reliability standard, which requires that no more than 0.002% of annual operational electricity consumption should go unserved for any region in any year.
AEMO will be hosting a roadshow for industry participants to critically examine and discuss options to maintain the high security and reliability standards that most Australians have become accustomed.
Ends
2016 ESOO scenario reference table
a) A centralised source for electricity refers to the national electricity transmission grid.
b) “Engagement” refers to the extent to which consumers proactively exercise choice of energy sources
and usage patterns.
For more information:
AEMO Media
Mobile: 0409 382 121
Email: media@aemo.com.au
This warning confirms my assertion in a previous post that South Australia cannot provide stable electricity grid supply without access to Victorian coal power, supplied via the interstate interconnector. South Australian political pretensions to renewable policy success are nonsense.
The report leaves open the possibility that more battery capacity, massive investment in more interconnectors, or supply management might reduce instability.
In my opinion arguing that more connectedness will lead to stability doesn’t pass the smell test.
Imagine if all the interconnections anyone could want were available. Imagine say half of Australia was covered in clouds. The solar arrays in the sunny parts of Australia would have to produce not only enough power for local needs, they would also have to produce enough power to supply the parts of Australia which weren’t able to carry their own load.
Carry the game a little further. Say 4/5 of Australia was covered in clouds. Or 7/8 of Australia was covered in clouds.
As you explore increasingly unlikely but still very possible adverse conditions, you quickly reach a point where a significant chunk of Australia would have to be covered in expensive renewable installations, to provide the massive supply overcapacity required to achieve partial stability through interconnectedness.
Batteries are also not a real solution, at least with today’s technology. Storage systems such as organic redox batteries, which in theory might one day provide energy storage on the scale required, are still very much a laboratory toy.
The third possible solution, “supply management” – South Australians have already had a taste of that. I doubt a “supply management” policy of deliberately encouraging spot power prices to spike up to $14 / KWh when renewable generation fails will attract many supporters.
Of course, the obvious solution is to keep the coal generators running – but this would require an outbreak of political common sense.
So what AEMO did say was that there was a really small chance of a blackout in 2019/20 SA given the most aggressive and neutral economic growth scenarios. In the low growth scenario – the most likely scenario given the Car industry is closing down and the Subs are the only thing set to replace it- there was no such problem.
What forward looking younger people in the industry can see is that renewables provide a set of energy sources that have little or no fuel cost. That is what will kill fossil fuels. There will always be a cost of digging stuff up – and whats more the commodity markets are always at risk of speculation, withholding of supply, and basic miscalculation of demand and supply that plays havoc with the costs. As costs of wind and solar( and batteries) continue to come down this will make it increasingly difficult for fossil fuels to compete. Gas is the fuel that will compete with Batteries for grid stability – FCAS, inertia and peak load – and frankly the cost of gas is only going in one direction in Australia ( give you a hint the cost of solar and batteries is going the other way).
What will be required are sophisticated grid management and demand side management systems (turning people’s supply off or down in exchange for money) as well as improvements in batteries, EV and Vehicle to Grid capability as well as Building and home energy management systems. So smart utility folks now have new and exciting tasks to keep them busy. So instead of the money flowing to miners and speculators – this should in the next decade flow to smart engineers and programmers and entrepreneurs who can solve these problems.
Keeping prices stable and the (LED) lights on.
No one has ever been right telling us the the sky was going to fall in.
Sounds like a comprehensive survey of the future options to me…
Though do note grid storage is excellent at frequency response/grid stability, responding quicker than gas can…
The Germans are already working on that… as is UK National Grid..
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/UK-Developers-Surprised-by-National-Grids-Storage-Contract
“No one has ever been right telling us the the sky was going to fall in.”
It is rather odd, on a site that posts many articles complaining about alarmism over climate issues, to then see such alarmism over power generation and distribution.
Apparently nature and humanity can survive climate change just fine, because the planet has been around for ages and so have we, but it’s our power network that’s going to lead to catastrophe.
Is this you?
http://cormologist.blogspot.com.au/
wait and see.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/06/climate-tensions-still-running-hot-within-the-democrat-party/comment-page-1/#comment-2253292
Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I debated the Pembina Institute in 2002 in the PEGG – the Journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta.
Our debate is now available at:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
Our eight-point Rebuttal includes predictions that have all materialized in those countries in Western Europe that have adopted the full measure of global warming mania. My country, Canada, was foolish enough to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then wise enough to ignore it.
[Our 2002 article is in “quotation marks”, followed by current commentary.]
On Green Energy:
8. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Governments that adopted “green energy” schemes such as wind and solar power are finding these schemes are not green and produce little useful energy. Their energy costs are soaring and these governments are often in retreat, dropping their green energy subsidies as fast as they politically can.
_______________
So we told you so – 14 years ago.
Regardless of the serious unresolved questions of the global warming scientific debate, wind and solar power do NOT contribute reliable, economic electric power to the grid.
This is a simple and proven hypothesis, yet trillions of dollars have been wasted globally on this green energy nonsense.
Wind power is a mature technology so it is unlikely to ever become economic.
Solar power is more costly than wind power now, but major technological improvements are still possible.
We tried to explain the fatal flaws of wind power to the public and our politicians without success. I concluded a simpler message was required, so that our politicians and their green minions could understand it.
Years ago, I wrote the following:
Wind power – it doesn’t just blow – it sucks!
Solar power – stick it where the Sun don’t shine!
Apparently this is still too complicated for our politicians and the greens.
Regards to all, Allan 🙂
for Allan MacRae:
Wind power is NOT a mature technology, as there are many areas that are improving annually that reduce installed costs while increasing output per MW of capacity. See e.g. Sandia’s flexible blades for 50 MW offshore turbines. http://energy.gov/articles/enormous-blades-offshore-energy
Onshore wind turbines are benefiting from much taller towers that use cast-in-place concrete. Also, onshore wind power has shown substantial annual installed-cost decreases.
Wind power is already economic in the Great Plains region of the US. It will become even more economic with the taller towers and flexible blades. Flexible blades allow turbines to continue generating power in very high winds instead of shutting off.
Various low-speed wind turbines are in development and will add to the sites that can economically produce power.
Solar power with PV technology is also economic in areas with sufficient insolation, such as Southern California, Nevada, and Arizona.
The real improvement, though, with game-changing implications is the development of grid-scale, low-cost storage batteries that use the BioSolar patent-pending polyacetylene technology.
All these are very good things, as the US is nearly out of coal (running out in less than 20 years), and the world coal supply will be exhausted within 50 years. These facts are for economically recoverable coal, not ultimate coal resources.
The facts completely refute your assertion above, “wind and solar power do NOT contribute reliable, economic electric power to the grid.” As an example, California annually obtains 5 to 10 percent of all electric power into the grid from solar and wind power. Iowa obtains more than 30 percent of its power from wind power, and has one of the lowest electricity prices in the country. Several states obtain more than 20 percent of their electricity from wind power.
“All these are very good things, as the US is nearly out of coal (running out in less than 20 years), and the world coal supply will be exhausted within 50 years.”
Utter drivel.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/21/ben-santers-damage-control-on-uah-global-temperature-data/#more-53471
The essence of any competent practitioner’s credentials is the ability to predict a result.
However, NOT ONE of the scary predictions of the global warming alarmists has materialized.
The global warmists have NO PREDICTIVE SKILL!
In fact, their predictive skill is negative – to date, their dire predictions have all been FALSE!
Anyone who still listens to them is clearly unaware of this critical fact, or is so brainwashed that facts no longer matter.
Given the negative track record of the warming alarmists, just ask yourself one question:
Would you hire someone with this dismal track record to paint your house, tow your car, or fix your toilet?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/27/exxon-stands-up-to-the-green-bullies/comment-page-1/#comment-2154602
On Energy:
I have worked in the energy industry for much of my career.
When challenged on the global warming question by green fanatics, I explain that that fossil fuels keep their families from freezing and starving to death.
Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.
Furthermore, I suggest that recognition of this reality is an ethical and a professional obligation.
The following numbers are from the 2015 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, for the year 2014:
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2015/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2015-primary-energy-section.pdf
Global Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel is 86% Fossil Fuel (Oil, Coal and Natural Gas),
4% Nuclear,
7% Hydro,
and 2% Renewables.
That 2% for Renewables is vastly exaggerated, and would be less than 1% if intermittent wind and solar power were not forced into the electrical grid ahead of cheaper and more reliable conventional power.
This is not news – we have known this energy reality for decades. As we published in 2002.
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
On Grid-Connected Wind and Solar Power:
Wind Power is what warmists typically embrace – trillions of dollars have been squandered on worthless grid-connected wind power schemes that require life-of-project subsidies and drive up energy costs.
Some background on grid-connected wind power schemes:
The Capacity Factor of wind power is typically a bit over 20%, but that is NOT the relevant factor.
The real truth is told by the Substitution Capacity, which is dropping to as low as 4% in Germany – that is the amount of conventional generation that can be permanently retired when wind power is installed into the grid.
The E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005 is an informative document:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
(apparently no longer available from E.ON Netz website).
Figure 6 says Wind Power is too intermittent (and needs almost 100% spinning backup);
and
Figure 7 says it just gets worse and worse the more Wind Power you add to the grid (see Substitution Capacity dropping from 8% to 4%).
The same story applies to grid-connected Solar Power (both in the absence of a “Super-Battery”).
This was obvious to us decades ago.
Trillions of dollars have been squandered globally on green energy that is not green and produces little useful energy.
On Global Warming Alarmism:
We also write in the same 2002 article, prior to recognition that the current ~20 year “Pause” (actually a Plateau) was already underway:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
I (we) now think global cooling will commence after the current El Nino runs its course, prior to 2020 and possibly as soon as 2017. Bundle up!
Regards to all, Allan
Allan MacRae said:
“We also write in the same 2002 article, prior to recognition that the current ~20 year “Pause” (actually a Plateau) was already underway:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
I (we) now think global cooling will commence after the current El Nino runs its course, prior to 2020 and possibly as soon as 2017. Bundle up!”
Well, good luck with that. We’ll know soon enough!
I hope to be wrong about global cooling Phillip. Here is why:
COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER
June 13, 2015
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
Cold weather kills. Throughout history and in modern times, many more people succumb to cold exposure than to hot weather, as evidenced in a wide range of cold and warm climates.
Evidence is provided from a study of 74 million deaths in thirteen cold and warm countries including Thailand and Brazil, and studies of the United Kingdom, Europe, the USA, Australia and Canada.
Contrary to popular belief, Earth is colder-than-optimum for human survival. A warmer world, such as was experienced during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, is expected to lower winter deaths and a colder world like the Little Ice Age will increase winter mortality, absent adaptive measures.
These conclusions have been known for many decades, based on national mortality statistics.
Cold weather kills but runaway warming has lead to extinction in the past.
By the way Electricity price spikes have been a result of energy companies “gaming” the system and exploiting their unusual market power to charge “monopoly rents”, according to an in-depth report by the Melbourne Energy Institute.
I’m not sure what any of that has to do with why you might be wrong about imminent global cooling?