First published JoNova: “… AEMO said the ever growing output from solar was posing an increasing threat to the safety and security of the grid …”
AEMO says emergency powers to switch off solar needed in every state amid ‘system collapse’ fears
By energy reporter Daniel Mercer
Topic:Energy Industry
Mon 2 DecThe body responsible for keeping the lights on in Australia’s biggest electricity grids wants emergency powers to switch off or throttle rooftop solar in every state to help cope with the daily flood of output from millions of systems.
In a report released on Monday morning, the Australian Energy Market Operator said “emergency backstop” powers were urgently needed to ensure solar installations could be turned down — or off — in extreme circumstances.
…
AEMO said the ever growing output from solar was posing an increasing threat to the safety and security of the grid because it was pushing out all other forms of generation that were needed to help keep the system stable.
And it warned that unless it had the power to reduce — or curtail — the amount of rooftop solar times, more drastic and damaging measures would need to be taken.
These could include increasing the voltage levels in parts of the poles-and-wires network to “deliberately” trip or curtail small-scale solar in some areas.
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-02/aemo-demands-emergency-backstop-to-switch-off-solar/104670332
…
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) is the industry body responsible for the stability of Australia’s East Coast electricity grid.
From the AEMO website;
Minimum operational demand
02/12/2024
The following quotes can be attributed to AEMO’s Executive General Manager – Operations, Michael Gatt.
Australia’s electricity system was originally designed for power to flow from large power stations through a network of substations and power lines into homes and businesses.
Today, electricity from millions of rooftop solar systems feed back into the grid, which can at times generate enough power to meet half of total demand across the National Electricity Market.
As the market operator, we’re aware that high contributions of rooftop solar coinciding with certain system conditions needs to be carefully managed to ensure electricity reliability and grid security while managing power system risks.
For several years, AEMO has flagged these emerging risks and with the support of state governments and network operators are developing appropriate emergency solutions.
AEMO’s ‘Supporting secure operation with high levels of distributed resources’ report provides stakeholders with a status assessment on some of the new capabilities required to securely operate the NEM in periods with high levels of generation from rooftop solar and low demand.
AEMO does not want to directly control people’s rooftop solar.
In rare circumstances AEMO may need to take action to secure the grid, such as directing off grid-scale generation, to solve these emergency events which often occur at the same time as unplanned generation and transmission outages.
However, after all these actions have been exhausted, the temporary management of rooftop solar by network operators under state government solar management programs may still be required although we expect this may only occur in very rare circumstances.
These actions assist in keeping the power system secure, while also enabling the growth of rooftop solar installations.
AEMO is supporting the continued uptake of rooftop solar, residential batteries and electric vehicles while maintaining reliable electricity support through a secure grid.
We’re doing this by contributing to new market designs, trials and research, which will continue through the National CER Roadmap, approved by Australia’s Energy Ministers in July.
The CER Roadmap sets out an overarching vision and plan to unlock CER at scale and identifies measures to “unleash the full potential of CER” by establishing the required mechanisms, tools and systems.
This includes measures to support ongoing power system security, particularly the requirement for backstop mechanisms to be in place by the end of 2025 for emergency response to ensure operational security when required.
It also includes reforms to increase the opportunities for market participation of CER, including through enhanced coordination, allowing customers to respond to market-based incentives which will also help meet the challenges of low operational demand.
Ends…
Background
State rooftop solar management programs: Queensland, South Australia, Western Australiaand Victoria.
Read more: https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/minimum-operational-demand
Spiking grid voltage, deliberately spiking grid voltage to trip safety systems seems insanely dangerous. Even a brief voltage excursion could start house fires.
Electronic devices are designed to run within a narrow band of voltage and frequency conditions. While some devices such as laptops and TVs are usually very tolerant of large deviations from the expected voltage band, other devices such as large electric motors, especially appliance motors such as clothes washing machine motors or electric clothes dryers, they might not be so tolerant.
In addition a voltage spike sufficient to trip solar panels could also trip house breakers, leading to food spoilage in refrigerators and freezers.
It is time to bring this insane rooftop solar experiment to an end. It clearly isn’t working, given the energy grid operator has suggested deliberately sabotaging grid voltage might be an acceptable emergency protocol to disconnect rooftop solar from the grid.
Update (EW): Brian provided a video which dates back to when Aussie politicians were proud of their ability to deliver affordable electricity.
Update (EW): stevekj found a reference to the AEMO plan to deliberately sabotage grid voltage to curtail excess rooftop solar on the AEMO website.
… If there are insufficient emergency backstop capabilities, alternative and even higher impact interventions may be needed, such as:
Read more (page 28): https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/electricity/nem/planning_and_forecasting/transition-planning/aemo-2024-transition-plan-for-system-security.pdf?la=en
- Distribution voltage management – in some regions, it is possible to increase distribution voltages to the level required to deliberately trip/curtail DPV. This is a valuable backup mechanism to resecure the system if needed in rare emergency events but should not be used on a regular basis. It may require jurisdictional support to operationalise. …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My off-grid system uses frequency shifting to control output when the sun is out, batteries full and the house loads low, works well but I use it rarely as I also turn on the immersion heater automatically first as the frequency first starts to rise. The Netherlands grid code also has frequency shifting baked in, starts at 50.2 hz and stops all output at 52 hz. Using voltage is a lot more dangerous than frequency, its only clocks using grid frequency to measure time that are effected.
Your situation is one PERFECT for rooftop solar. Off Grid. Rooftop solar in On Grid situations should only be used to charge/recharge back up batteries such as Power-Walls for back-up/night Peak usage.
Frequency in the US seems to be more tightly controlled than in Europe. Load shedding starts between 59.75 and 59.5Hz, with rolling blackouts starting at 59.25Hz. For the US, I would think that small scale solar system should start rolling back at 60.25Hz with supply completely shut off at 60.75Hz.
Another way is to use real time metering combined with some sort of curtailment signaling. This would be enforced by the utility disconnecting any customer who system ignored the curtailment signal. Another way of doing curtailment would be a real time pricing signal, with prices going negative when solar generation exceeds demand – and thus encouraging installation of batteries.
How about asking people to crank up their A/C to increase the load, and come home from work to a delightfully cool house?
Especially if the house has a lot of thermal mass to allow the A/C to be turned OFF when solar power production starts dropping off.
Another option is to have EV chargers placed where cars are parked in mid day so the excess solar power production can be stored. That would require that people in charge have an understanding of logistics, which may be asking too much…
In Ontario Canada there is negative pricing at certain times of the day, or grid conditions.
You can track it here:
https://sygration.rodanenergy.com/gendata/today.html
Most common negative [rice is charging to put wind power into the grid in the middle of the night. The distributor has to buy the power and pay NY State to take it through the interlink to Niagara.
Two issues:
Cars that use the roads and don’t pay fuel taxes to maintain them.
Solar PV that if fed into a network that doesn’t need the power.
Both are expensive.
Both require a healthy rethink on how the system is supposed to function as these technologies come to dominate. It was fine when the % was low but it is obvious that it is now unsustainable. Pie in the sky has become prices in the sky. It can’t work.
If you install a lot of solar PV, go off-grid, even in town. It will be cheaper, right? That’s what we are told. So do it, save money. Show us the way.
AEMO is a climate alarmist joke. An organisation dedicated to the ‘energy transition’, using a fantasy story book known as the ‘Integrated System Plan – ISP’.
AEMO’s vision, according to its website —- ‘Enable Net-Zero’ – AEMO needs to be abolished.
Australia won’t have to wait too much longer to be rid of the insane Chris Bowen, the federal energy minister, he and the rest of the Albanese clown show will be gone next year.
And a new clown show will roll into Canberra!
This is not new. The technique was discussed at the CIGRE Session in 2022.
Modern inverters have a throttle control but older ones don’t.
Excess PV on feeders causes voltage rise, which forces network providers to reduce the voltage along a feeder. If they don’t, the inverter trips.
If there is a need to trip older inverters to protect the network or maintain system security, an artificial voltage rise will trip off the inverters.
It is justified to maintain system security and power quality standards.
Note a pricing mechanism would be better (for example negative prices during periods of high generation) but most PV owners do not see the real price (or impact) of excess generation. If they did, they would have an incentive to either install batteries to soak up their peak output or not overbuild their PV systems (10kW is the average size in Australia now).
After which time they will automatically restart if they sense the AC voltage and frequency, so what does this accomplish?
It means that in response to the GUM, people including Nick who “invested” in solar stuff will never get their money back.
Now I happen to know of a perfectly faulty weather station at Marble Bar (I took a picture just last week) that shows no change in the climate.
All the best,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com,.au
/plonk/
“It clearly isn’t working”
It’s clearly working very well, if they have more power than they can handle. And so, of course, they should be able to only take in what they can manage. There are much better methods of achieving that.
They can power the windmills on windless days. It would create breezes on hot days.
🙂
No kidding, its a good idea.
roflmao.
NO, Nick it is NOT working.
You have yet again shown you have zero understanding how electricity supply and demand works.
Demand and supply must always match. Frequency MUST remain stable to within a quite small tolerance.
There are no other means except curtailment of wind and solar when the erratic wind and solar force the reliable suppliers off the grid.
Grid stability MUST be maintained, and wind and solar are disruptors to that stability, so they MUST be removed.
And of course, if wind and solar are subsidies to the wazoo and force reliable suppliers off the grid, the whole thing will collapse when wind and solar fail, as they are absolutely going to do.. regularly.
Sorry you are so ignorant about the absolute need for supply frequency stability and demand/supply management..
Got those wind turbines you have been asking for on the Moyhu hills yet.. Nick ??
Or are you a rabid NIMBY !!
Nick is such a total clown, posturing like he’s some kind of power engineering expert.
Here in the UK it is now costing electricity bill payers £1bn a year to curtail all the wind farms !
This scheme, and the one you mention, are nothing more than theft; in the Australian PV case, it is stealing energy from the homeowners.
Lower frequency causes transformers to get less efficient (higher loss, more current to achieve same voltage out, potentially melting insulation, worst case result is internal short). What’s the negative consequence of higher frequency?
A higher frequency will result in more magnetic losses in an iron core. I don’t think that it would really matter until the frequency was significantly away from the design values, eg well over a doubling.
So deliberately sabotaging the electricity supply network in order to mitigate the problems caused by these systems is “clearly working very well”?
You’ve sunk to new lows in your desperate attempts to support renewables, Nick.
No-one is deliberately sabotaging the electrical supply network.
They need to stop these dangerous renewable energy sources somehow. There’s no alternative, unless they get to control these solar panels and shut them all down when required.
In no way is that “working well”. It’s barely working at all!
“No-one is deliberately sabotaging the electrical supply network.”
THOSE PEOPLE PUSHING RE ARE !!
Allowing uncontrolled generation is sabotaging the electric power system.
You obviously don’t understand (or perhaps do not want to understand) how electric power systems work. Large grids have traditionally been stable because generation is coordinated, specifically that power production of individual generators will vary inversely with frequency. The other stabilizing factors are the rotational inertia of turbine generators and synchronous loads, the damper windings on synchronous machines (i.e synchronous generators, motors and condensers) and the voltage stabilizing effect of synchronous machines.
But the AEMO is seeking to control it, and Eric is objecting. In fact, the generation is now being controlled. It requires cooperation from the States, which is forthcoming.
What I meant by “coordinated” is where each generator is given a frequently updated set point for how much to produce along with an inverter control scheme that varies the supplied power when frequency varies. Most inverters simply try to supply maximum power. What AEMO is proposing sounds more like an on/off switch, which could create disturbances in grid operation.
Keep in mind that there are two limits for transmission line capacity. One is the thermal limit which can be exceeded for a short time. The other is the pull-out limit, which means loss of synchronism which can lead to a widespread blackout. The Northeast U.S. blackout of 1965 was caused by a relay trip which induced a cascade of lines losing synchronism.
By the way, my name is spelled with a “k” not a “c”.
Eric Worrall is the objector.
There is no reason why the AEMO would want to switch off a large number of solars simultaneously.
You didn’t read the article again.
“No-one deliberately sabotaging the electrical supply network.”
ROFLMAO.
Wake up Nick, that is EXACTLY what they are proposing !!
Spiking the voltage to trip the inverters isn’t “sabotaging” the network. Contrary to claim
Voltage spikes happen regularly on the grid and its why we have surge protection for sensitive devices.
The grid varies a lot in spec.
And inverters trip out at 258V according to the standard. Hardly “insanely dangerous”. Hyperbole much, Eric?
AEMO said
So in rare circumstances AEMO will induce voltages that happen naturally already. I’ll bet they’ll target specific minimalistic regions by substation too.
So what do you want to call it? Negligent or incompetent management?
Call what?
What you referred to as “deliberate sabotage.”
I said there is none.
“It’s clearly working very well”
Nick, you seem to have forgotten that the goal is to control the climate, not power the grid. How’s that working for you?
On topic story tip:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-02/uk-is-paying-1-billion-to-waste-a-record-amount-of-wind-power
It’s a windy morning here in Ontario, and 94% of our wind power is being exported at a loss.
“Ontario is currently paying $151 per megawatt hour (MWh) of wind power. Ontario taxpayers subsidize 70 per cent of that price. Power users pay the rest. Subsidies to keep wind and solar power superficially affordable for power users cost the government $3 billion a year.”
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/wind-power-ontario-energy-strategy#:~:text=The%20report's%20author%2C%20Toronto%20economist,in%20the%20next%20supply%20procurement
Maybe I grew up in a different reality, but my understanding is if it costs the government, it costs the people.
Of the people, by the people, for the people.
So in this alternate reality where it costs the government (not the people), why do people need to pay taxes?
Subsidies of this nature are merely redistribution of wealth, aka socialism.
Note: I agree with your post.
Doesn’t cost the gov’t. a dime. The TAXPAYERS ARE THE ONES ROBBED.
Has the 17% hydro has been used to cover a lot of non-hydro problems? If so, then honesty looms.
How do you know it is at a loss? Do you know what they were paid for it?
A very valid point Nick. The price varies, but this morning was typical.
• Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP)
In 2024, the average weighted hourly price is 4.33 ¢/kWh in January and 3.78 ¢/kWh in July.
https://www.ieso.ca/power-data/price-overview/hourly-ontario-energy-price
That is the average. But they export when the price is highest.
From the article: “Ontario is currently paying $151 per megawatt hour (MWh) of wind power,” the export price peaked at $80 per MWh in 2017, the average is $43.
Excess wind power is always sold at a loss. It would not be produced without subsidies.
To my point Nick, what is the effect on the ‘climate thermostat’ from all this effort?
Well done. Give those guys a bonus.
“you seem to have forgotten that the goal is to control the climate”
Perfectly encapsulates the entire movement.
Why are intelligent people in denial about intermittency? Its not working, it generates lots of power when there is too little demand, and none when there is lots of demand.
Its like a factory that insists on being paid not to make Christmas decorations in April, and then when December comes refusing to supply any. Its completely ridiculous to advocate this as any kind of solution to electricity generation.
Whatever technology you use, it has to be able to supply when there is demand, and not supply when there is none. This is so obvious, why do people keep denying it?
Why? Because they have been “trained” to do so.
They are saving the world.
Nick is famous for declaring that wind power is cheap because the wind is free.
He has also declared that every watt/hour generated by renewables means a watt/hour less of fossil fuels will be burned.
Having more power than they can handle is the definition of not working.
No. They just have to figure out how to switch it off. Which they are doing. You need that capability with any generator.
Indeed. Let’s switch it off … by not allowing grid connectivity at all. Force solar and wind systems to run exclusively on isolated grids.
Let’s see how well it’s working without any backup from hydrocarbon or nuclear power.
This was an inevitable outcome of focussing on increasing non-dispatchable generation rather than storage. Now the focus must be on increasing storage to alleviate power surges that cant otherwise be managed. It shouldn’t take too much storage to reduce the risk significantly but it probably needs to be reasonably well distributed.
Wake up Nick. Struggletown can’t afford delusional middle class twits and their exorbitant fickles fantasy-
Lifespan of four nuclear power stations extended
Cold will kill them if they can’t afford their own reliable backup generation and the means to use it.
PS: Silly me I shouldn’t have doubted the climate changers for a minute-
‘Absurd’: Greens latest proposal would be ‘economic vandalism’
Meanwhile in another country thousands of miles away….
Tuesday’s low winds meant the UK had to import up to 14pc of its electricity from Europe.
Fears about demand outstripping supply also prompted Neso to briefly activate its anti-blackout plan, telling power companies to bring gas fired stations out of hibernation in case they were needed. A “capacity alert” was issued for the second time this winter as generation from wind turbines fell, though it was later withdrawn.
Chris O’Shea, chief executive of British Gas owner Centrica, which also owns a stake in the four nuclear plants alongside EDF, said: “In an energy system that is becoming ever more intermittent, baseload power generation that doesn’t depend on the sun shining and the wind blowing is essential to keeping the lights on.”
This is from the Telegraph. In the same story it seems that EDF, conjectured to be acting under pressure from the Government, is extending the life of the existing nuclear power stations, which it had been planning to close in the next couple of years.
Miliband is also now majoring on nuclear in public pronouncements. He is quoted as saying:
“These extensions are a major win for our energy independence. This will come alongside our backing for new nuclear, including supporting the completion of Hinkley Point C, confirming £2.7bn for Sizewell C, and pressing on with contract negotiations for our small modular reactor competition.”
This is once more wishful thinking to the point of outright delusion. Extending the nukes by a couple of years is a detail, doesn’t address the real problem at all. The problem is intermittency of the chosen generating technology. What happened on Tuesday was also a very mild symptom of the problem. The question for Miliband is, OK, you extended two years and you got through one day in early December.
But what are you going to do three or four years from now, in January or February, when your problem is not one day’s calm, its a one week or ten day calm, not just over the UK, but over all of Western Europe, and when your nukes have now closed and you cannot import and your gas capacity has reached end of life?
And why anyone would think or say that importing 14% of power supply from the EU is energy independence? But then, this is the political party that has allowed Miliband to assert, unchallenged, that the move to wind will lower electricity prices when in fact it has obviously increased them and will inevitably increase them further.
They can extend all they like, first sign of a crack and game over, it has to be shutdown as happened to the previous graphite enclosures.
Miliband is as dumb as they come, although he might come ahead of Lammy in an IQ test.
“bring gas fired stations out of hibernation in case they were needed”
A situation ripe for abuse. Perverse incentive to inflate backup capacity with Potemkin Plants.
A gang of burly men standing in front of equipment they would not remember how to operate even if it still worked, quietly hoping they don’t need to try?
Good thing I use surge protectors on anything critical.
I’m sure the insurance companies will love the result for these random spikes in the system.. NOT
If something expensive gets destroyed, or life lost, and it can be proven to be from a deliberate spike… someone will be paying out A LOT of money, or could end up behind bars.
At the other extreme:
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/12/renewables-star-state-urgently-wants-to-force-two-diesel-plants-back-to-stop-blackouts/
“Spiking grid voltage, deliberately spiking grid voltage to trip safety systems seems insanely dangerous. Even a brief voltage excursion could start house fires.”
In fact there is nothing in the AEMO docs to suggest such an intention. It seems to be entirely a speculation by the journalist, David Mercer (of things he thinks they might do).
Just because you can’t find anything in documents after a rapid search (unless you know them all by heart already), it doesn’t mean it is not under consideration.
It means there is no evidence that the AEMO is considering it.
How do you know that for certain, are you privy to all their behind closed doors discussions?
This story of Eric is totally off the beam. It is the states who have to mandate the installation of appropriate control devices, and they are doing it. See the state links at the end of the AEMO quote.
You haven’t said how you know for certain what you claimed is true. You’ve tried to divert attention to Eric.
In other words you’ve NFI about it.
I said that there is no evidence that they are considering. You provided none. Of course they might be considering using kangaroos on a treadmill. We just don’t know.
So, you acknowledge that you are speculating on something that you have no special insights on.
“kangaroos on a treadmill”? Yes.
That’s funny.
Wouldn’t ‘roos prefer a trampoline?
Escape velocity is a problem.
And there is no evidence that they are not considering it. If they are considering solutions to solve the problem of the grid ‘working well,’ as you maintain, then they are demonstrating incompetence if they are not considering all the potential solutions. So, are they not considering all solutions, and if so, why? If it is reasonable to believe that they are in fact considering all feasible solutions, then we have the inferential evidence that AEMO IS considering it.
Spot on.
Is there perhaps another way to curtail (force offline) rooftop solar breakers to open to balance load vs generation?
“Smart” metering. Big Brother would have to know which meters have PV behind them.
Are you suggesting the Government ABC journalist is lying?
What journalist? It is speculative rubbish from someone who knows nothing about how the local street voltage is being managed to spread the available demand as equally as they can to the rooftop generators.
https://www.sapowernetworks.com.au/future-energy/projects-and-trials/enhanced-voltage-management/
I actually wonder whether it’s possible. A lot of the system is designed to suppress transients so it would be difficult to spike “far” without destroying “near”. I don’t doubt it’s possible, I do doubt the system is built for it. A lot of the power system runs on very old equipment, and despite intimidating acronyms and billions of dollars it’s orders of magnitude less high-tech than iPhones.
Eric,
“ABC journalist is lying?”
No. What he said is true:
“These could include increasing the voltage levels in parts of the poles-and-wires network to “deliberately” trip or curtail small-scale solar in some areas.”
Well, they could, and as he said, it would work. But where is AEMO saying they plan to do that?
Where is AEMO saying they do not plan to do that?
Here
Nick wrote:
“In fact there is nothing in the AEMO docs to suggest such an intention [Spiking grid voltage – skj]. It seems to be entirely a speculation by the journalist, David Mercer (of things he thinks they might do).”
Wrong as usual, Nick. In their Transition Plan report ( https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/electricity/nem/planning_and_forecasting/transition-planning/aemo-2024-transition-plan-for-system-security.pdf?la=en ) , on page 28, it says: (emphasis mine)
“If there are insufficient emergency backstop capabilities, alternative and even higher impact interventions may be needed, such as:
• Distribution voltage management – in some regions, it is possible to increase distribution voltages to the level required to deliberately trip/curtail DPV”
Are you going to apologize?
We’re sorry. Nick is currently unavailable while he searches for some plausible deniability.
“Are you going to apologize?”
Selective quoting. What they actually said was:
“Distribution voltage management – in some regions, it is possible to increase distribution voltages to the level required to deliberately trip/curtail DPV. This is a valuable backup mechanism to resecure the system if needed in rare emergency events but should not be used on a regular basis. It may require jurisdictional support to operationalise”
IOW, the AEMO doesn’t plan to do it, and it isn’t even within their power.
Aha. The word “Spike” might or might not describe what happens. I do not doubt they can raise or lower voltage, but when I see/hear spike I think about seconds not hours. The existing system can institute a rise and fall that takes hours – all those coils and long, thin lines prevent actual spikes.
WOW, you are such a low-life POS, Nick !
Direct evidence in front of you, and you still try to DENY it.
Ugly little person !!
You are demonstrating selective logic. From the statement, it is obvious that they have done the research and know it is possible, albeit possibly needing “jurisdictional support to operationalise.” The operative word is “may.” They don’t say that they can’t get the power to do it. They acknowledge that it should only be used in “rare emergency events.” However, if they don’t do everything to “operationalise” the ability, they would be unable to act and implement such a “valuable backup mechanism” during a “rare emergency” event.
They can’t get the power to do it. Street voltage is controlled by local authorities.
What is in the background is that the only state to really have a problem so far is South Australia. And their authority, SA Power Networks, has considered it as an option. But they too have now adopted a system for remote control which makes this all moot.
Today. Are you suggesting that it is impossible to change who controls ‘street voltage’ if a compelling case is made that there will be catastrophic failure of the grid if the state isn’t given the authority? That is a good way to insure that grid failure will happen.
You seem to be unable to catch up. They are installing a direct signalling system. No-one will need to try to do this via voltage manipulation.
And if the PV system owner has a loan on the system, the government/utility/big brother pushes the payback date on the system into the future.
Theft, pure and simple.
Not selective at all, Nick. It directly contradicts what you wrote. David Mercer didn’t “speculate” anything – he reported that deliberate voltage spikes to trip DPV inverters are a possible supply management mechanism, which is what AEMO reported. So your statement that there is “nothing in the AEMO docs to suggest such an intention” is false, i.e. a lie. On the contrary, they regard it as a “valuable backup mechanism”, and describe it as “possible“. What do you think the word “intention” means?
Your new claim that okay, maybe I’m right and it is in the document, but “AEMO doesn’t plan to do it” requires mind-reading an intention on their part which is contrary to the verbiage in the written report. What has AEMO told you that they haven’t told the rest of us?
As far as “not within their power”, literally no one said AEMO personnel themselves were going to go street to street and cause voltage spikes by hand. But you knew that, of course.
No apology from you, though, as expected. You’re a lying weasel.
“You’re a lying weasel.”
As to lying, let’s review your quote again. The AEMO said
“Distribution voltage management – in some regions, it is possible to increase distribution voltages to the level required to deliberately trip/curtail DPV. This is a valuable backup mechanism to resecure the system if needed in rare emergency events but should not be used on a regular basis. It may require jurisdictional support to operationalise”
You plucked out the first sentence, but did not show the next, which clearly has the AEMO saying that it should not be used on a regular basis. By whom? Not by the AEMO, but by the jurisdictions (reflecting the fact that the AEMO is not responsible for street voltage anyway).
That is thoroughly dishonest.
As to what I wrote
“In fact there is nothing in the AEMO docs to suggest such an intention”
well, there isn’t. Eric gave this link to support his claim
https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/minimum-operational-demand
There is nothing in that doc, or anything that it links to, which suggests such an intention. I did not say nothing written by AEMO anywhere – you have quoted from somewhere entirely else.
But even that does not support such an AEMO intention; it disavows it. It certainly does not support Eric’s headline – “Aussie AEMO to use Voltage Spikes to Force Disconnect Rooftop Solar”. It has the AEMO saying it should not be used, and it is in any case outside AEMO’s area of control.
No, Nick. You said “nothing in the AEMO docs to suggest such an intention. It seems to be entirely a speculation by the journalist”
There is no “speculation” by David Mercer (or Eric). David told us, clearly referring to “a report released on Monday morning”, that “These could include increasing the voltage levels in parts of the poles-and-wires network to “deliberately” trip or curtail small-scale solar in some areas.” (bold emphasis mine, red text in original) And that is exactly what it says in the AEMO report “released on Monday morning”.
The fact that you can’t find that report from only the direct links he provided is a reflection of your poor comprehension and researching skills, not ours. I found it in a matter of about two minutes, since I am not a demented epileptic blind monkey.
So your claim, that there is nothing in “the AEMO docs” to suggest this, is false. Note that you did not say “nothing in only the set of AEMO docs directly linked by David Mercer or Eric“, which is what you are now apparently trying to claim you meant (and which would have been a dumb thing to write anyway). This gaslighting is extremely dishonest of you, well beyond your usual mere nitpicking.
Your claim that I am being “thoroughly dishonest” is also a lie. You base this on AEMO’s report claiming that this mechanism should not be used on a “regular basis”. Nowhere did I, or David, or Eric, claim that it should be. David (and AEMO) describe this mechanism as being intended for “emergency backstop” purposes under “extreme circumstances”. That is literally the polar opposite of a “regular basis”. Nevertheless, the mechanism is clearly on the table, which is the entire point of Eric’s article.
Eric’s headline could have been more cautious, yes – he could have said “AEMO considers using voltage spikes to force disconnect”, or “acknowledges the possibility of“. That would be more accurate. The AEMO didn’t promise to do it in any specific time or place, and certainly not regularly, but they are definitely considering it – and nothing in their document would lead anyone other than you to believe that they have “no intention” of doing such a thing. Instead they describe it as “possible” and “valuable”. Those words are quite far away from “no intention”.
So you are still, as I said, a lying weasel. At no point in your rambling incoherent response to Eric’s article were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
(okay, the copy and paste from David’s article didn’t format exactly the way it looked in preview, so in my paragraph 2, instead of “bold emphasis mine, red text in original”, please read “first bold emphasis mine, second corresponds to red text in original”, i.e. I emphasized the “could” and only that)
I wish I could give you more than one up-vote!
Thanks Clyde 🙂
Speaking of being “thoroughly dishonest,” the emphasis should be on the words “regular basis.” That is because there are risks associated with the approach. You claim that “there is nothing in the AEMO docs to suggest such an intention.” Yet, they state clearly that it is a “valuable backup mechanism.” They wouldn’t be in a position to make that assertion if they hadn’t considered it and explored the ramifications. Thus, while they haven’t come out and said that they will use that approach, it is obviously one of the ‘arrows in their quiver’ that they have considered, with the caveat that is shouldn’t be used regularly.
Yes, that phrase “regular basis” seems to be the main thrust of Nick’s otherwise largely incoherent and indeed insulting response. But he is hallucinating if he thinks that anyone other than himself has suggested this. I guess hallucinating is easier on his ego (or his paycheque) than having to admit that he was wrong.
He did indirectly make two correct, but largely irrelevant and worthless, points while attempting to avoid admitting his fundamental error: 1) that the title of Eric’s article could have been less dramatic, which is fair enough, but that also applies to just about every news article in the history of news, so why complain about this one, and 2) David (or Eric) could have provided a direct link to the AEMO report – also a fair point. But it’s not one that’s going to trip up anyone with more than two brain cells. The report is published on the AEMO web site, after all, and not hard to find, given the clues we had. (And at least the link is there now after Eric updated the article.)
Thanks Steve.
Meanwhile, at the other extreme:
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/12/renewables-star-state-urgently-wants-to-force-two-diesel-plants-back-to-stop-blackouts/
Again with words… “force”. Not the word I’d use to describe telling carpenters to start using hammers and saws that I told them to stop using.
This is what you get, politicians know nothing and have no knowledge. Why are all the engineers? They must know the impossibility. While having solar panels and storage can drive you cost down it doesn’t change anything about the needed national capacity. When the sun doesn’t shine those people also need to draw electricity from the power grid. But in Australia with home storage it might work, you have a lot more sun than the UK for instance.
They are in high demand and being paid well to sort the problems that the politicians did not see coming.
It is not up to engineers to take time off paid work to convince the voting public that their academic institutions are colluding with the UN to perpetuate the climate scam.
I get upset when the MSM claims “educated people” support certain political ideas.
Educated in what? It usually matters.
(And who decides which educations count? cf “Climate Scientist”)
It is a not so subtle insult that if an individual were to use in a comment to a ‘news’ article might well get the comment deleted, with no remnant of the original comment to jog one’s memory as to the reason it got deleted, were they to want to try again with a different approach.
Hey, Eric, you might remember these Sydney County Council electricity commercials from the mid-1980s promoting the state’s cheap, reliable, and abundant power.
Given what happened in NSW last week, they reveal just how much damage government ‘climate policy’ has done to our living standards.
https://youtu.be/tEpXRt0AFxY
Thanks for the video link Brian. We can only wonder what the politicians back then would think of today’s shower of incompetents.
Would they not claim success?
In fact, the issue here is that while AEMO controls the grid, the rooftop solar programs are the domain of the states. It is they who need to require the installation of proper control devices, and they are doing it. Here is Victoria’s program.
What a mess.
“”Blackout risk warning as scorching temperatures forecast for parts of NSW
Power supplies will become tight in New South Wales and Queensland this week,””
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/25/blackout-risk-warning-as-scorching-temperatures-forecast-for-parts-of-nsw
Rather you than us.
That story is ten days old.
There was no blackout.
It shouldn’t happen at all. You know that.
From your link:
“As of this morning, almost six gigawatts of coal-fired power stations were unavailable because of planned and unplanned maintenance, according to Dylan McConnell, an energy specialist at the University of NSW.”
That means they have to activate alternative supplies, which they did.
Pre-unreliables any works were programmed – at least in the UK, they were. And there was never any question of the lights going out – at all, save for industrial action.
Like I said…. What a mess.
About half that 6GW was programmed. What was not programmed was the heatwave.
The difference between supply and demand is weather-dependent, whether you have W&S or not.
What can NEVER be planned is anything to with the amount of wind and solar that is available.
And yes Nick, they knew there was a heat wave coming at least a couple of days before… it is called weather forecasting.
I take it that weather forecasting is as poor in Australia as in the USA. Actually, US weather forecasters do a reasonably good job of forecasting temperatures; where they fall down is the high rate of false-positives for precipitation. It is rare in the US for us to get surprised by an unexpected heat wave.
Forecasting is fine. The coal generators are not going to postpone a planned outage (which may anyway have been going on for weeks) for a weather forecast. That is someone else’s problem.
What is the point of weather forecasting if it won’t be used by people to prevent problems?
I understand how it is easier to just down-vote a comment than to respond to an uncomfortable question.
Nick seems to believe that there is no cost to having GW of generating capacity, sitting around is costless.
Echoes of the petition of the candlemakers of Paris. The Sun means that our candles lie idle throughout the day. Please put a roof over Paris so that the candles can be fully utilized, creating further employment and wealth.
They dodged the bullet this time. That doesn’t prove there is no problem.
Nick, evidently you don;t understand that Victoria agrees with the article’s conclusion: “It is time to bring this insane rooftop solar experiment to an end. It clearly isn’t working, given the energy grid operator has suggested deliberately sabotaging grid voltage might be an acceptable emergency protocol to disconnect rooftop solar from the grid.”
And from your reference: “…this means the power you generate and feed into the grid can be remotely turned down or switched off in an emergency, as a last resort.”
So to stabilize the grid due to the intermittency of renewables it is better to turn them off remotely.
Why does adding renewables to a grid ALWAYS result in adding costs?
Why do you never answer this question?
“ as a last resort”
Be careful not to enable a tool for regulating others that might be pointed in the other direction some day.
Why not admit use of renewables for base load replacement is/was a mistake? Then the extreme “last resort” options won’t be needed.
“Why does adding renewables to a grid ALWAYS result in adding costs?”
Mining for coal costs plenty.
Drilling for gas costs plenty.
Adding a remote control costs almost nothing.
BS ALERT
Conveniently neglecting to mention that construction of wind and PV generation is impossible without mining for coal and drilling for petroleum.
Adding a remote control to ONE rooftop photovoltaic system costs very little, aside from the cost of technicians traveling to the site to wire it in. Adding it to hundreds of thousands of sites will get very expensive – and I suspect that getting this done in a few years instead of decades will require hiring and training several times as many technicians, buying several times as many vans and tool kits, etc..
STORY TIP
The Arctic could be ice free by 2027 – marking an ‘ominous milestone’ for the planet, scientists
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14151889/Arctic-ice-free-2027-warn-scientists.html
What, ice free again? We’re getting very used to the Arctic being “ice free” by now. It’s predicted at least once every year.
Just never happens to happen…
“Warn scientists…”
aka need more grant money
“…scientists…” aka “welfare queens in white coats”, a phrase coined by Penn. U. material scientist Rustum Roy many decades ago.
It’s all going jolly well.
needs to be carefully managed
emerging risks
new capabilities required
In rare circumstances
very rare circumstances
contributing to new market designs
measures to support ongoing power system security
allowing customers to respond
None of that lingo bingo and the associated mental gymnastics were ever necessary before wind and solar.
I guess you could say they need….
throws the dice…. gets 4, 3, 7… looks them up on lingo-bingo chart…
A systematised reciprocal projection.
AEMO:
Understanding how the grid actually works would reveal a workable approach. Its frequency that controls the grid. Above 50(60) Hz is an indication that too much power is being generated, too low and more power is needed. This happens over a narrow range, about .05 Hz +-. Dispatchable power plants do this all day to maintain frequency. So all that is needed is to scale back roof top solar starting at the nominal grid frequency. Just make sure they are all different so that they don’t all cut off at the same time.
Fixed it for you
And ensure the roof top supplier is charged for the management need as well as grid usage fees, while dropping the subsidies causing this problem.
If you don’t randomly assign, on a day to day basis, who is forced off the system first, you can expect lawsuits from the guys who are regularly dropped first.
Thanks. I was about to write the same comment.
(On special days, the assigner of sheep and goats would become important)
They didn’t think of that years ago when promoting green energy?
It is belated. But it requires actions by the States, and so far it is only SA that has had a problem. Anyway, it is happening now.
This is poorly worded and gives the wrong impression. It is nonsense.
The Enhanced Voltage Management method was developed in South Australia years ago to help balance the input from rooftops. The objective is to give rooftops fairer access to the demand. It followed customer complaints that their output was constantly limited by the street voltage sitting at the maximum allowable of 254V while others were never limited. So SA Power networks set about increasing the number of on-load tap changing transformers to help continually balance the system to give each suburb similar access to the grid demand.
Rooftops in South Australia have provided the entire state demand at times. The system kept stable by the synchronous condensers and additional load through the Victorian interconnector.
Australia is heading down an obvious path where those with capital and space will make their own electricity and leave the grid to those who cannot afford to leave. The ever increasing costs will be borne by an ever diminishing consumer base. The destiny of the Australian grid was terminal demise from the time the first intermittent generators were permitted access on highly favourable terms.
Hogwash: “The destiny of the Australian grid was terminal demise from the time the first intermittent generators were permitted access on highly favourable terms.”
What is the backup “to the intermittent generators” during major wind/solar disruptions? More non-performing intermittent generators? And, any back up solution just adds more cost to the grid.
Most of what you wrote seems correct, but I’m going to quibble with this claim:
“This is poorly worded and gives the wrong impression. It is nonsense.”
How does it give the wrong impression? It is exactly what AEMO is suggesting, literally paraphrased from their document. And spiking street voltage in an attempt to trip off DPV safety switches sounds quite dangerous to me! What is that trip threshold for a typical inverter, anyway? How high do they need to spike the voltage in order to ensure that most inverters (even the old, badly adjusted, or poorly designed ones) will trip?
I believe it is the over voltage leading to fires part. Most homes should be capable of handling voltages well above the level that would cause the breakers to trip.
However, I believe Rick is not considering older homes with aged breakers. There’s no guarantee that the breakers in these private homes will always trip reliably.
Yes, the concern appears to be primarily for fires and equipment damage. I don’t imagine that most homes’ branch wiring will arc or melt if the voltage goes up 10% or 20% or whatever the trip threshold is. But a lot of equipment inside the houses might not like that, and quite a bit of that kind of equipment might be fairly expensive. And the internals of such equipment might fail in catastrophic ways, and potentially start fires. Still sounds like a terrible idea to me!
Engineers and graybeards said increased penetration of solar would cause grid instability. They were right. Why did no one listen? Why do we keep throwing money down into this abyss?
Key word: money.
Technologically incompetent legislators listen to lobbyists who recommend things that will lead to their employers making a lot of money.
All true and the legislators then get money for their pockets and for their re-election.
Certain engineers and graybeards thought computers and the Internet were a dumb idea.
They may yet prove to be right.
So, more and more, we are seeing the old axiom being true and it applies to wind and solar electrical generation:
Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.
Without a proper and comprehensive analysis of alternatives, unintended consequences always appear with devastating results.
To have a stable grid requires a continuous and dispatchable generated input, whereby demand and supply can be balanced instantaneously.
So… physics. Intermittent supplies cannot provide a stable grid. Surprise.
We have intermittent supplies and the grid is table.
Perhaps “metastable” would be a more accurate characterization. Having frequent close calls does not bode well for the future.
I remember once seeing a car driving down the road with no rear tire. The heat generated from the rim rubbing on the pavement had caused the grease in the axle-bearing to ignite, with flames coming out. The car was still moving forward, the only flames were at the rear axle, close to the fuel tank. What’s to worry about?
Solar inverters use MTTP (Maximum Power Point Tracking) to extract the most energy from solar panels, and they use Power Point Tracking to REDUCE the output when the amount required reduces. If all these inverters are just pushing as much power as possible back onto the grid, all the time, then obviously these problems will happen. They should be connected to some sort of control system which the grid owners control, which tells each inverter how much electricity they can put back into the grid, at any moment. Inverters react instantly – zero milliseconds, to change. My standard Voltacon inverters (no big deal, £700 each, I have two) can switch from solar to battery instantly – I can have 2kW coming from my solar panels, and then turn on a 3kW oven, all the while running two computers, and the inverters automatically and INSTANTLY take the extra 1.5kW from the batteries.
So there is no real problem here – just that the grid owners may have allowed too many people to have solar inverters, and all feed into the grid, without any system to decide how much they should be feeding into the grid.
Again – it is not a problem of ‘too much solar power’, because inverters constantly control the amount they take from solar panels, to match the load.
I have 12kW of solar panels. If my batteries are fully charged, and I am only using 500W in my house, the inverters do not continue to take 12kW from my panels on a sunny day – the Power Point Tracking adjusts so that only 600W is taken (allowing 100W of losses).
For some reason, several people here believe that all inverters are constantly taking the maximum possible amount from their solar panels, and they actually believe that there is some sort of giant heatsink in my two small inverters, which can get rid of 11.5kW of power, for hours and hours at a time! They didn’t even bother to look at the INSIDE of an inverter, to see that this is impossible… LOL
This is a non-story – the grid owners need to set up a live control system that simply sends data to the inverters in every house, and tells them how much to export.
And that is happening. Here is Victoria’s program
If you do not have rooftop solar, or you have an existing rooftop solar system installed before 1 October 2024, then these changes will not impact you.
Yes. It would be better if they had started earlier, but retrofitting is expensive, and may be breach of contract. Victoria does not yet have a problem. When they do, they will have ample means to control it.
Zero milliseconds? False.
Inverters include capacitors and inductors neither of which can discharge in 0 msec.
As to a control network. How many inverters? How do the lines connect? What kind of control system and where is the brain behind this management. This is neither simple nor cheap.
Ah, put it on the internet. We all know how perfectly reliable and secure is the internet.
Unless a Chinese ship is dragging its anchor! The under-sea cables are a particularly weak link.
IIRC, inverters are required to disconnect themselves within one cycle if the AC voltage-frequency goes away.
Voltacon’s summary information may be a little misleading. MPPT is on the DC power/battery management side. The inverter takes the (12|24)V DC and converts it to whatever AC waveform is required for your location. It appears your Voltacon units are a combined PMS and inverter, but that isn’t necessarily the case for all systems.
Is this an islanded system, or grid-connected without any feedback capability?
It seems to be a combination of factors – how much they export and how much they don’t import.
There are (probably) apocryphal stories of UK power companies having to kick in peaking power at half time in the FA Cup final and during Coronation Street ad breaks when everybody put the kettle on.
I am not against rooftop solar panels. Home owners must pay the full cost of the panels and the installation. There will be no tax credits or subsidies. If solar is a good deal you should be happy to pay for it yourself. You will not be hooked up to the grid to sell your excess energy, the only connection to the grid will be for you to buy power from the grid when your solar system isn’t sufficient for your needs. If you don’t want to lose excess power then it is up to you to buy and have installed backup storage. The grid is far too valuable for intermittent energy entering or leaving the system randomly.
AEMO reports from about 5 years ago were influential to the design of our present electricity systems. They were optimistic about the feasibility of high penetration renewables, like up to 90%. There was little discussion about weaknesses of renewables and there was no discussion of alternatives like nuclear.
Often, there were caveats or disclaimers to the effect that AEMO dealt only with generation methods aligned with government policy, noting that policy was for net zero carbon by 2050.
I complained back then that there was no Australian body appointed to warn Australian governments of dangers arising from policies.
Today, as problems are becoming more evident and can be seen as potentially serious, it is sad but amusing to see AEMO trying to distance itself from the problems. It is near certain that they were well aware of these problems back then, when they chose to play the goody goody bureaucrat role and charge on with their beliefs that renewables were a gift from God, irrespective of the huge damage bill that was there in coming years.
We made the mistake, again, of allowing extraordinary powers to be wielded by unelected, unvetted people appointed by governments on a mission. We, the people, had no say. Geoff S
All we need to fix this is batteries and a Future Made in Australia-
Redflow was the great hope of Australian manufacturing. Its collapse left customers with broken batteries