Jo Nova’s article, $650 million in renewable energy didn’t save Broken Hill from blackout, centers on a critical observation regarding the limitations of renewable energy in protecting urban infrastructure during extreme weather events. Nova’s story note reveals a broader critique about the reliability of renewable energy, the effectiveness of government subsidies, and the often overpromised capacity of green solutions.
According to Jo Nova, a recent storm left Broken Hill, Australia, without power, despite significant investment in renewable energy—around $650 million over five years. She emphasizes that this blackout serves as a stark reminder that renewables, which rely heavily on weather conditions, do not offer the reliability needed in crisis scenarios. Nova underscores that during the storm, solar panels were rendered useless, and wind turbines also became non-functional. The renewable infrastructure could not deliver electricity when it was most needed, as stormy weather conditions forced solar and wind production offline.
The bad news is that when there is no reliable 50Hz baseload supplier of electricity, the solar panel inverters just don’t mesh well with the diesel generators. The frequency of the diesel generators varies slightly as the load changes, and these fluctuations cause issues with solar inverters, which need a stable frequency to synchronize properly.
Hence, in a blackout, the solar panels were not just useless, they were a threat to the system, so people were asked to switch them off:
Nova’s article also touches on what she sees as misplaced priorities in energy policy. She criticizes the Australian government’s allocation of funds to renewable projects while neglecting the necessary upgrades to power grids and the development of reliable backup systems. She argues that without robust energy storage solutions or alternative backup power (like coal or natural gas), heavy reliance on renewables makes cities like Broken Hill vulnerable during severe weather events. Essentially, Nova suggests that renewable energy alone is not a sufficient solution to ensure energy security, particularly in emergencies.
The core message in Nova’s story note is that while renewable energy projects often receive substantial financial support, their real-world performance during high-stress situations—like storms, heatwaves, or cold snaps—remains questionable. Nova uses this incident to caution against over-reliance on renewables without adequate grid resilience planning and backup capacity.
Even with a price tag, our renewables future is already broken
Nick Cater, The Australian
The Silverton Wind Farm and Broken Hill Solar plant were supposed to produce enough electricity to power 117,000 homes. They’re supported by AGL’s 50MWh battery facility at Pinnacles Place, one of the largest in Australia. Yet Broken Hill, population 19,000, has been in a semi-permanent state of blackout since a storm brought down the transmission line connecting the town to the east coast grid.
Some $650m worth of renewable energy investment within a 25km radius of Broken Hill has proved to be dysfunctional. The technical challenges of operating a grid on renewable energy alone appear insurmountable using the current technology.
This example from Broken Hill aligns with broader critiques of renewable energy systems worldwide, which often fail to account for their limitations in meeting constant demand, particularly during extreme weather. As policymakers continue to push for aggressive transitions to renewable energy, Nova’s article suggests the need for a more balanced approach that includes investment in grid infrastructure and reliable energy sources that can be activated when renewables falter.
Nova’s story raises critical questions about energy policy and the realistic capacity of renewables to provide energy security. While her perspective is skeptical of the efficacy of renewables in their current state, it emphasizes the importance of preparing for the unpredictability of weather-dependent energy sources. Her article serves as a reminder that in the rush to achieve net-zero targets, the reliability of power supply, especially during crises, should not be overlooked.
Instead of spending $650 million dollars on solar and wind and a battery, we could have bought two brand new useful diesel generators for every remote town in Australia, and then when transmission towers fall down, they won’t be left in the dark.
H/T tmatsci

Why does Brisbane get mentioned, the failure was in the south west of NSW, not Qld.
The large solar farms would have been able to work perfectly IF they generated their output using a large DC motor, (connected to the panels), spinning a large AC generator.
But that costs money compared to an inverter.
To Moderators and Author….
Whoever transferred the story from JoNova made the glaring error, that needs fixing !!
Jo did not mention Brisbane it is a transcription error
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/10/650m-in-renewable-energy-didnt-save-broken-hill-from-days-of-blackouts-after-a-storm-islanded-it/
No need for Rube Goldberg approach.
The point is quite valid. The nit is one can generate AC with a DC power source..
You need mo-gen sets with honking big flywheels to maintain frequency stability and smooth out random spikes (clouds move over)
See the Odessa Files:
https://practical.engineering/blog/2024/4/15/connecting-solar-to-the-grid-is-harder-than-you-think
IDNAU,
About year 2000 on a tour of an auto accessory plant, I saw routine quality control of speedometers being done by spinning them up with an electric drill of the home handyman type. Remember, if you car speedo is different to the police radar reading, problems can arise. But 1,440 rpm is a rather reliable marker. Geoff S
“According to Jo Nova, a recent storm left Brisbane, Australia, without power”
Well, she’s wrong.
“Well, she’s wrong.”
WRONG as always Nick. (only took a click on the link to confirm that.)
JoNova only mentions Broken Hill. She is totally correct
$650m in renewable energy didn’t save Broken Hill from days of blackouts after a storm islanded it « JoNova
Whoever transferred the story made the glaring error, that needs fixing !!
Nova did not say anything about Brisbane in her piece. The story is wrong in this respect. If you follow HB’s link Nova says in her piece that Broken Hill had a blackout. There are quite a few sources cited in Nova’s piece, so if she is wrong about Broken Hill she is in quite a lot of company.
You look stupid saying what I have already posted 15 minutes ago. !
You look stupid making a point out of it.
Yawn. !
Posts do not appear instantaneously.
You’ve parodied your persona into the deaf, dumb, and blind monkeys.
Nick, you knew this was just a transcript error before you typed your comment, and that others here would point out the need for a correction posthaste.
I noticed the blunder almost immediately too, but then I scrolled down to see that it had been highlighted almost immediately the story was posted.
Have you ever had your obsessive nit-picking diagnosed?
Fixed
🙂
Did you not follow the link, Nick, or were you nit-picking?
Nick, the error prone lack of research numpty strikes again. He is wrong.
Not unintended consequences because renewable limitations are well known.
Regardless of the detailed specifics, the basics Jo points to are unavoidable and inevitable.
PV solar does not produce at night. Never will. So needs backup.
Wind is useless when the wind isn’t blowing, or blowing too hard. So needs backup.
Both do not provide any grid inertia, which is essential—and comes free with large conventional spinning generators. Is an added significant expense from synchronous condensers for any significant grid penetration.
So renewables (about 20% CF for best located solar, about 30% CF for best located wind) need fossil fuel fired backup at least 70% of the time. Which means you buy two generating systems rather than one. Which means renewables will always be uneconomic.
“ Which means you buy two generating systems rather than one.”
They did that:
“One of the city’s two backup generators wasn’t operating, and the other failed.”
There is much blaming of Transgrid, the operator.
Wind and solar were working. The problem was that they couldn’t connect. It seems the system relied on the emergency generators to establish a frequency.
That is ALWAYS the problem with wind and solar.
Without a strong and steady synchronisation signal they can NEVER connect.
That makes them essentially USELESS in cases like this.
That is why having a grid with more than a small fraction of of supply is non-feasible.
That is why COAL FIRED power stations and heavy-mass gas fired power stations are SO IMPORTANT.
Rud
Nick
How many times have you been told on this site that spinning reserves are the only way to have a stable start-up frequency. Not even the synchronous condensers will provide this after a black out, they just don’t have the reserve power.
The big point that you missed is that 100% renewables just won’t work. You will end up with intermittent power, guaranteed.
“ Not even the synchronous condensers will provide this after a black out, they just don’t have the reserve power.”
They do have a battery big enough. The sad story of that is laid out here. One company, AGL, owns the battery, which did have that capability. However the company operating the grid, Transgrid, had contracted with another company to implement a compressed air scheme, not yet built. As a result, AGL said that they were requred to “inhibit” their frequency restoring capability.
Batteries are NOT a source of electricity, they are a storage.
They DO NOT provide strong synchronised power without a reference frequency.
Compressed air or unicorn farts?
LOL, this insanity is why YOU have no credibility here since you badly missed the point on why ruinables are bad for the grid.
Comes free? Its how they work. The stable frequency is vital when you have massive spinning generators that all need to be perfectly synchronised or else they destroy themselves. Bringing a generator online means very carefully synchronising it to the grid before it can join.
“Grid inertia” isn’t essential in principle. Its essential in practice with the way our grids and generators have been built using inertia as a stabilising energy source.
https://www.mes.com.sg/2020/11/04/3-consequences-of-improper-generator-synchronisation/
There is a test case in the UK which will prove your point.
Currently UK peak demand is a bit over 45GW. Probably 50-55GW in 2030 from heat pumps and EVs.
Their nuclear plant is closing down in 2027-8. The gas plant is at end of life.
The plan is to run the country on 90GW of wind and around 40GW of solar. This will deliver net zero in generation by 2030.
There are no definite plans for either installing gas or storage – battery or other. There is vague talk of using the Scottish Highlands for pumped storage, but the biggest of these projects, Coire Glas, will only have 30 GWh, if it is approved and built in time.
A couple of times a year the UK has calms of a week or ten days caused by a blocking high to the southwest. They regularly happen in January or February, when solar produces next to nothing. Currently there is about 30GW of wind, which during these calms can fall below 5GW for a week or more, and below 1GW for several days.
Nick and other advocates of wind and solar have to explain how this is going to work in 2030. What is going to happen at 4pm when its peak demand, its dark and wind falls off a cliff, and 130GW of renewables are putting out 10GW – if you are lucky – and this is going to carry on for the next day or two. And its going to be under 20GW for ten days. And even within that, the peaks are not going to coincide with demand peaks.
Nick needs to put on the back of an envelope some numbers showing how this is going to work. Where is the power going to come from? Not from interconnect, not on that scale. Not from nuclear, it will be turned off by 2030. Not by gas, it will be past end of life and there are no plans to replace it. What are you going to do? You have 50GW of demand, will have it again tomorrow and the next day. Your storage emptied in the first hour or two of the calm. And you renewables are putting out 10GW.
Give us some numbers. What are you going to do?
Perhaps the one “good” thing about renewables is that we might be able to eke out the remaining life in the gas plants for a few more years, maybe that can tide us over until SMRs become practical.
Maybe someone will see the light and replace Mad Ed with someone less deranged, I won’t hold my breath though.
Ed has already approved four of the five largest solar farms to be given planning permission in the UK and other proposals are coming in fast – two in the Grauniad today.
The first comprises 8 sites in Northamptonshire with up to two Battery Energy Storage sites (BESS).
The second is further north near Frodsham on the Cheshire Plain and also includes a BESS
Last week there was a proposal for a giant solar farm near Newark in Nottinghamshire which is twice as large as any such farm so far approved and would cover more than 11 sq miles.
All of these sites are in the proximity of decommissioned or demolished coal fired plants and their grid connections
Its absolutely crazy to be building solar as a main grid source in the UK’s latitude. And without even providing storage. Not that you could either get enough batteries or afford them if you could get them.
Anyway, even could you get them and afford them, it would not help for the three months of the year when there is minimal power coming from solar, either to charge them or to supply demand.
This government, like the last one for that matter, doesn’t seem to have any plan for how this is going to work. Or is there one, someplace, and I have just not found it? I mean, a plan that would answer my question above, what are you going to do when there’s ten days or so with no solar, minimal wind, and 50-55GW of peak demand.
How are you going to get through that without a nationwide blackout and a cold start? If you can even do a cold start having dismantled all the spinning generation. And even when you get it back and running, its just a matter of time before the next one.
Nick is going to follow Charlie’s plan for dealing with no power circumstances.
The location is not Brisbane, the capital city o f the state of Queensland on the east coast of Australia, but Broken Hill, a mining city in an isolated fairly arid location in western New South Wales close to the South Australian border. As described it has significant renewable energy structure, but the storm flattened the towers carrying the electricity link to the main NSW grid. Since there was no baseload power available for days, the renewables were supposed to pick up the slack. They didn’t, and other diesel equipment was insufficient for the task, for a number of reasons including failing to mesh with the limited renewable production.
Fixed.
The renewables have to mesh with the grid frequency. Not the other way around, as they cannot supply a frequency reference: the are programmed to lock onto whatever is the grid frequency.
Now, if you have a diesel generator offering 5 seconds of inertia at maximum output of say 10MW (i.e. 50MVAs), and add a 50MW solar farm with no inertia to supply grid demand of 60MW, you have a grid with less than 1 second of inertia (50/60 seconds): that scales as the response time to any demand fluctuations for matching the power output otherwise the frequency will go out of range, and the solar will simply track the grid frequency, and trip out on either RoCoF or low frequency along with the diesel generator – back to system black.
If your local grid is tied into the wider system with say 10GVAs of inertia for demand of 2GW, a demand change of 1MW will be inconsequential to grid frequency – and there will in any case be rather more time to adjust.
“you have a grid with less than 1 second of inertia”
BH has a big battery, 50 MW, 50 MWh, with the capability of providing synthetic inertia. But it was not used for that. The battery is owned by AGL; Transgrid is responsible for grid security for BH, and had apparently contracted with Hydrostor to provide a compressed air backup (sometime). AGL says that their capability had to be “inhibited” so as to not conflict with this arrangement.
AFAICS the battery has been out of action since 15th July – before the first storm on the 17th July. It had only just got going, cycling about 100MWh a day. Perhaps someone should ask them why they stopped operations and at least according to AEMO data (via https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/facility/au/NEM/BHB/?range=1y&interval=1d ), have yet to resume them.
I think that page is not up to date – there is a warning at the head. It just doesn’t have data since July. If you try to make it give recent numbers it doesn’t say they were zero. It just says it doesn’t have the statistics.
That is the standard behaviour of the site software for plants that are under maintenance. You can check out the AEMO source data here
https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/market-management-system-mms-data/generation-and-load
I found what happened. On 17 July 2024 the battery was assigned a new DUID. It had had two – BHBL1 and BHBG1 but after that date, the single DUID BHB1.
So the battery kept operating. Its data was put in a different place, which your source has not kept up with.
Here’s the diesel – not involved in July, and perhaps some hiccoughs in October.
Chart:
Here’s the solar, which has had several shutdowns, and is not back since 17th October.
Giles Parkinson has been following this with a lot of detail
Giles has a habit of censoring detail that doesn’t match his agenda and exaggerating or giving irrelevant emphasis to things that do. You always have to ask about things he omits.
He omitted to mention that the battery went out of action on 15th July, 2 days ahead of the storm and has not been seen since. He made no attempt to investigate that, but extensively reported the cover story that the battery was told not to operate in grid forming mode. There is no good reason for the adjoining diesel and nearby solar and wind (Silverton) to have maintained reporting and the battery not, except if it has been out of service. Part of the grid code is to report.
What add fuel to the story now is that the grid connection has apparently been restored in recent hours. The diesel standby generator switched off, and the solar park resumed (albeit with curtailment presumably mainly for rooftop solar), as has the windfarm. Still no sign of the battery. They’ve had a long time to fix any telemetry and metering issues, if any. Fixing an inverter might be different: parts have to be ordered made and delivered before they can be replaced.
“He omitted to mention that the battery went out of action on 15th July, 2 days ahead of the storm and has not been seen since.”
Storm on 17th July? I think you are relying on a site which just doesn’t have data since July. This graph from wattclarity clearly shows it functioning right up to the storm:
Being where it is, Broken Hill should have its own RELIABLE electricity supply.
The link to the NSW is long, and obviously not secure enough.
Two possibilities I can see offhand….
1… A gas pipeline link from the Cooper Basin -> Adelaide pipeline + gas fired power station.
2… A small coal fired power station and get coal, probably from Lithgow, via returning mining train.
(IIRC… Broken Hill used to have a coal mine somewhere, but the coal was hard to get at and not of good quality.)
My main memory of Broken Hill is walking into a public bar and asking the barmaid if I could get a bottle of cabernet shiraz to take to the Chinese BYO restaurant.
All nearby drinkers’ conversation stopped.
The barmaid said to me –
“we should have that stuff, love – I’ll check in the freezer”
Good thing this didn’t happen in the middle of summer !!
(meant as reply to Mr.)
Unless I am mistaken
1. It would not be possible to have a pipeline link om the Cooper basin to Adelaide pipe line. Not sufficient excess capacity for this.
2. The mining train goes to Port Pirie if I remember correctly, not Victoria. There is as I understand it, no direct link between Broken Hill and Melbourne/Latrobe.
1… plenty of gas in the Cooper Basin.. the gas for Broken Hill would be minimal. Pretty silly if the gas line isn’t big enough.
2…The Broken Hill railway line, extending 801 kilometres (498 miles) from Orange, New South Wales to Broken Hill, is now part of the transcontinental rail corridor from Sydney to Perth.
Good coal is available around Lithgow in NSW on the Sydney – Broken Hill line.
(Ctrl-F) search on “nuclear” comes up 0/0 pretty much all you need to know.
Broken Hill is too small to rate even a SMR. Only some 17,500 people.
They can sell the excess to areas dumb enough to rely on wind and solar.
I don’t think you realise where Broken Hill is…
… just how far it is from anywhere except Nowhere. 🙂
Just as EVs are not a substitute for gasoline and diesel cars and trucks, wind and solar are not a substitute for fossil fuel and nuclear. Stop wasting our time, money and resources.
A good hailstorm, or even a desert dust storm, would soon sort those panels out.
And while dust storm are much more prevalent…
.. hail storms have been known to occur out there, even in the recent past
Tornados, too.
“Instead of spending $650 million dollars on solar and wind and a battery, we could have bought two brand new useful diesel generators for every remote town in Australia, and then when transmission towers fall down, they won’t be left in the dark.”
They did exactly that:
“One of the city’s two backup generators wasn’t operating, and the other failed.”
…
“The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) and the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) are both investigating Transgrid to determine whether the company breached its obligations or license requirements.“
They bought two new diesel generators instead of spending $650 million on solar? You make a really queer argument.
It isn’t my argument. It is what they did.
Remote locations like BH should have emergency capability, with or without VRE.
AGL spent $450K on a wind farm and about 100K on a solar farm. But Transgrid had the responsibility for maintaining supply to BH, and they did it their way.
VRE can NEVER be classed as “emergency” supply..
Neither can batteries, because the long term capacity costs way too much.
Unfortunately, they have WASTED a whole heap on money on weather dependant garbage.
Being where it is, Broken Hill should have its own RELIABLE electricity supply.
The link to the NSW is long, and obviously not secure enough.
Two possibilities I can see offhand….
1… A gas pipeline link from the Cooper Basin -> Adelaide pipeline + gas fired power station.
2… A small coal fired power station and get coal, probably from Lithgow, via returning mining train.
Wind and Solar can NEVER be classed as back-up or reliable supply.
Unless I am mistaken
1. It would not be possible to have a pipeline link om the Cooper basin to Adelaide pipe line. Not sufficient excess capacity for this.
2. The mining train goes to Port Pirie if I remember correctly, not Victoria. There is as I understand it, no direct link between Broken Hill and Melbourne/Latrobe.
See above.
Broken Hill is not large, not a lot of gas needed.
Lithgow is on the Sydney to Broken Hill line.
A pipeline for not a lot of gas is costly for the amount of gas it delivers.
Either you lack reading comprehension or you are just lying. It’s pretty plain.
Under reporting the costs by a factor of 1,000.
Yes, for K read M
You did note that they didn’t say bought two NEW generators, merely said they had two. One wasn’t generating? Down for maintenance? A new generator failed? That’s going to be a compensatory nightmare.
They were new when they bought them.
They didn’t buy new generators. They bought second hand. From ABC:
Well, it depends on who “they” are. Essential Energy is the distributor for BH, Transgrid does transmission. Sounds like the same generators in place, just change of ownership.
Transgrid doesn’t come out looking very good!
Mr. Stokes: Until you were caught in a false statement, you knew exactly the “they” you were talking about. Instead of simply admitting the mistake, you want to air out the word “they”??!! When did you decide Bill Clinton was your english mentor?
“They” are the people responsible for grid security. They bought and installed new generators. Some time later (2022) the entity responsible changed, and the equipment, in place, had a new owner. Do you think that change made the generators “second-hand”? Should they have bought new ones just because of the change?
Perhaps they should have bought new ones. It seems their due diligence failed to pick up the condition of the generators.
“islanded it.”
Huh?
Separated it from the rest of the grid.
The $650 million is gone. It was wasted on an unreliable, short-lived system in a country with HUGE reliable resources right nuder their feet, more than enough for generations to come. But, just leave hydrocarbon energy resources the ground. Right?
It is OK to destroy far greater regions to excavate the ground to feed the metals and minerals to feed the maw of ‘erratic energy,’
Do the virtuous persons feel the REAL $650 M was worth it; to be stuck now with wreckage?
WUWT bloggers told you so. But, WUWT bloggers are nice folks and will not remind Texas, Australia, and many others of their blunders. These regions paid their dimes and now must take their chances. The odds are NOT in their favor.
This future is now a growing global regret after over 10 $trillion is gone forever and hundreds of $trillions more are programmed by the glorious elite. The rest of us have only energy poverty to show for it.
Today’s teenagers will be crushed and struggling for their entire lives under the financial and tax burdens of servicing the astronomical interest on national debts inflicted on future taxpayers by the current cabals of renewable energy zealots.
And millions of acres devastated to install these “solutions.”
$650 million Australian dollars is
$427.5 US dollars today
Nova has always used Australian dollars in the past.
$650 million Australian dollars is
$427.5 US dollars today
Wow.. that is some exchange rate! 😉
( I assume it was a typo. 🙂 )
$427.5 million US dollars
There never should have been a SUGGESTION that “renewables” can “provide energy security.” They require 100% backup, as this event illustrates in painful fashion, and are thus a worse-than-useless and unnecessary waste of resources.
How do you sync the grid? Electricity has a finite speed. Which means the generators must be out of phase as measured from GPS (for example) to be in phase over a length of wire
It is a simpler problem if there is only 1 master for the system, but as soon as you add a second master how do you handle the timing problems?
There needs to be a point from which the phase radiates outwards. Even then two branches of different length would be out of phase if you tried to rejoin them.
1860 miles per second in copper.
The problem is there were too many different frequencies inserted into the local power grid and the solar/wind inverters just could not find a frequency which to synchronize.
The real point is, resynching the solar and wind was needed in the first place.
1860 miles per second
======
so less than 20 miles difference sets two legs 180 degrees out of phase.
60 hz equates to 16.67 msec per cycles. 180 out of phase is half that or 8.33 msec.
If my quick numbers are correct, 15.5 miles.
But, if the incoming AC amplitude is sufficient, all the small inverters will synch to it. At that point the solar and wind power comes back online.
Not knowing what any of those inverter capabilities, one does not know their range of phase for synchronizing or how many cycles it takes.
Australia runs at 50Hz.
“1860 miles per second in copper.”
Speed of light is 186000 miles per second. In copper only a % or 2 less.
The real calculation involves the self capacitance and inductance of the transmission line. This results in progressive phase shift. An introduction to the calculations
https://www.electrical4u.com/transmission-line-in-power-system/?utm_content=cmp-true
Here it is for Australia.
https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/electricity/nem/security_and_reliability/ancillary_services/guide-to-ancillary-services-in-the-national-electricity-market.pdf
Relatives in Florida were bragging about a friend who had roof top solar and a Tesla home battery system. Until Helene. The friend was flooded and had no power. Luckily, water didn’t get high enough to start the – larger than an auto – battery on fire. On a related note, can you power your whole community with roof top solar if the power lines are down?
Almost certainly no. For various reasons, your system will disconnect from the grid, even if you can operate your home like that. Most home systems don’t have that ability – they depend on the grid for a frequency reference.
https://practical.engineering/blog/2024/4/15/connecting-solar-to-the-grid-is-harder-than-you-think
Impedance problems make distributed variable AC power systems like 100% wind and solar physically impractical. We would need to switch the grid to DC.
In effect the network wire lengths are changing electrically as new generators are added and removed, taking the network out of phase. This is not simply a matter of syncing to the AC signal. You nèed capacitors and inductors.
From chatgpt:
Transitioning to a DC backbone would involve significant upfront costs in retrofitting and setting up HVDC lines. However, for future grids with high renewable penetration and distributed generation, a DC backbone offers strong economic and operational advantages.
And every home owner would need to replace clocks, TVs, ovens, refrigerators, etc., or buy a very expensive DC to AC convertor that would require annual maintenance and sometimes repair/replacement.
On top of that, consider the wild fires caused by 120/240 AC power lines falling. Replacing them with 5000 Vdc lines is an improvement?
No wind and solar means no back up is needed, much cheaper.
The UK is going to raise taxes into the billions and ‘invest’ in carbon capture and wind energy. Why don’t people just send their paycheck to the government and have it burnt? I’m so happy I no longer pay taxes, I couldn’t bear the idea of a government wasting my money like that.
The government does not want burnt paychecks. They want the paychecks intact.
So, we have been bombarded with reports of the climate apocalypse, that sever weather will only get worse unless we net zero.
We are also told that even if we achieve net zero it will be years or decades before the climate returns to “normal.” Normal does not eliminate severe weather, just less severe and lower frequency.
So how is it that solar and wind are zero risk solutions? Why is this not addressed within the IPCC (and media, government, etc.)?
Curious minds want to know.
I guess the first demonstration project failed and there are lessons to be learned.
Let us hope those are properly assessed and applied before people die.
Hmmm . . . the distance between Broken Hill, Australia, where the above-mentioned solar PV farm is located and Jamestown, Australia, near where the massive Tesla-built Hornsdale Power Reserve battery storage complex is located is about 320 km (200 miles).
I guess Hornsdale didn’t have enough reserve battery capacity to offset the downtime at Broken Hill.
BTW, the initial 2017 construction cost for Hornsdale was 90 million A$, and an expansion project in 2020 cost an additional 82 million A$ . . . for a combined construction cost of 172 million A$. The battery complex receives 4 million A$ per year for essential grid security services. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve )
Bottom line: sometimes you don’t get what you paid for.
Don’t know where Wiki get their info. This is sourced from AEMO data. Most of their income has come from gouging charges for FCAS – grid stabilisation. They make rather less from charging up at lower prices and discharging at higher ones – Energy arbitrage. They’ve not been doing quite so well recently, because there is much more competition from other batteries now, and they’ve been suffering performance degrades again. They’ve made back over A$150m so far.
As anyone can discover by reading Wikipedia’s website article on the Hornsdale Power Reserve, they give the following references for the cost numbers that I stated:
For the initial 90 Million A$ cost:
“3. Revealed: True cost of Tesla big battery, and its government contract”. 21 September 2018. Retrieved 19 December 2019.
“4. Tesla completes its giant Australian Powerpack battery on time”. Engadget. Retrieved 7 August 2018.
“5. @elonmusk (9 March 2017). “Tesla will get the system installed and working 100 days from contract signature or it is free. That serious enough for you?” (Tweet) – via Twitter.”
For the 82 million A$ expansion cost:
“6. Parkinson, Giles (19 November 2019). “Tesla big battery adds new capacity and services on march to 100pct renewables grid”. RenewEconomy.
“21. Warrick, Ambar (18 November 2019). Pullin, Richard (ed.). “Neoen to Expand World’s Largest Lithium Ion Battery in Australia”. Reuters. Bengaluru. Retrieved 22 November 2019.”
For the 4 million A$ per year for essential grid security services:
“24. Parkinson, Giles (9 November 2020). “Revenue from Tesla big battery at Hornsdale falls by half in third quarter”. RenewEconomy. Archived from the original on 9 November 2020.”
I posted the weekly cumulative revenues since the HPR started up, through mid September this year. AEMO only report FCAS revenues a few weeks in arrears when metering adjustments are known.
As you can see, by the time of the report quoted by Giles Parkinson, cumulative revenue was over A$80m, with a big boost in early 2020 from massive FCAS revenue caused by a shortage of dispatchable inertia providing generation, for which they were rightly accused of price gouging. Parkinson was trying to pretend that the battery was a good thing and the lack of dispatchable generation was not a bad thing..
Since I used to work for North Broken Hill before they were taken over, please permit an observation or two.
There is limited value in reading the armchair observers comments here. The mining companies operating at Broken Hill are well aware of the vital role of electricity. Indeed, historically, they led some important developments of electricity in mining. Before about 1927 the separate companies there generated their own electricity, with some history references mentioning coal. Diesel became the main fuel and still is for many remote Australian mines.
The mining companies have competent engineers easily able to design and implement a reliable, low cost electricity supply. That is not the problem.
The big problem is that they are not given free choice to exercise their intellect. They are under political pressure to favour renewables, with insidious, creepy effects to help them introduce such non-optimum generation.
You would think that some electricity users with strong demand for non-intermittent supply might be given a national ticket-of-leave, allowing them to operate the optimum system irrespective of political aspirations for net zero. If you want to expend personal effort on this topic, write to governments and promote this type of exception to net zero carbon plans, in the national interest.
The decades that I spent in the mining sector as a geochemist had a major, unwanted theme – combatting the silliness of political decisions. I spent far too much time battling with bureaucrats when I could have been out there finding more and better mines for the future prosperity of the nation.
It has become worse in the decades since 2000 and the degree of worseness is accelerating. There is too much stupid input from people with “ambition” in politics, mainly green, increasingly frustrated female and certainly mostly ignorant of real life in the wild.
Much depends on the USA elections next week. President Trump knows about these things and he has a package of solutions. They will affect Australia deeply, yet our pollies do not have the guts to make such matters public and offer parallel solutions to those of President Trump.
Geoff S