News Brief by Kip Hansen — 9 December 2024 – 500 words
Sometimes we feel that we, and our allies in the energy/climate battle, are the only ones that face the reality that a national or regional electrical grid can be overloaded with wind and solar resources to the point that the reliability of the grid itself is threatened.
Almost always, those acting on the other side of the controversy, those who are adamant that fossil fuels absolutely must be abandoned at any cost, speak to the media and say that our views, our facts, are false, and that anyone presenting evidence contrary to their anti-fossil fuels views must be engaging in intentional disinformation.
So, when we, the climate deniers, shills for fossil fuel companies all, point out the obvious truths about the problems caused by adding too many intermittent renewable energy sources to electrical grids without adequate reliable dispatchable backup, we are brushed off, denigrated, ignored, mocked, and vilified in the press.
I have written about it here on WUWT. Roger Caiazza wrote recently on this situation in New York state.
There are energy professionals, grid building and maintaining professionals, that have tried to get this message across to legislatures and the public as well. But they too are ignored, for the most part.
But when real-world reality strikes it produces news coverage like this in Australia’s SkyNews two weeks ago:
Oscar Godsell — November 27, 2024
“Residents in Australia’s largest state have been issued a bizarre dictate to choose between using the dishwasher or suffering blackouts as the government is accused of placing the burden of the renewable energy transition on Australians.”
….
“The Minns government asking consumers to rearrange their schedules and swelter through hot temperatures to support the grid is an inevitable result of the government’s attempt to build a renewables-dominated grid.
“Our energy grid has traditionally relied on dispatchable coal and gas generators that can reliably provide enough supply during times of peak demand – like during a heatwave.
“But now our grid is increasingly relying on wind and solar generation which cannot be switched on when we need it.”
….
“We’ve been notified by AEMO that there are insufficient reserves in terms of generation available over the coming day,” Mr Minns told reporters.
“The reason for that is that solar production in the energy market starts to come off from 3pm at exactly the same time as people return home from work.”
As solar energy production decreases in the late afternoon, demand spikes as people turn on air conditioners and other appliances to cope with the heat.
The situation has sparked debate over the future of Australia’s energy policy as Nationals Leader David Littleproud told SkyNews.com.au Labor’s “all renewables approach” wouldn’t meet “practical reality”.
“It cannot work, it will cost more and we are now seeing it is also dangerous. A first world country like Australia should and must have energy during a heatwave,” he said.”
You can read the whole story at the link at SkyNews. Those Aussie journalists are not cowed by the Climate Cranks….they tell it like it is.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Now even the MSM, at least in Australia, is beginning to realize that the “all in for all renewables” push may lead to loss of the reliability of electrical grids wherever it is implemented. They were warned, but did not listen. Now their citizens are paying the price.
The worst case scenario is a total grid failure requiring a “black start”.
It will get worse as they continue to starve our electrical grids of dispatchable electrical power.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
There is a well known aphorism:
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
Steve ==> Wife and I actually taught that to our kids for real — they were in charge of collecting the eggs from the chicken coop.
But, as I know you know, but perhaps not all our readers, the renewables/dispatchable issue isn’t quite/just that. The grid needs “spinning” power sources to help keep the frequency spot on and to fill in when demand surges or things can go to heck quickly.
I fail to see your point. The Green Mob wants to be all electric. No gas stoves, water heaters, dryers, furnaces, grills, and emergency generators. Is the mob going to ban kerosene lanterns too? That spinning power source you mention is steam turbines where the steam is generated from a heat source, be it coal, oil, gas or nuclear, that isn’t at the mercy of regular hours of darkness or fickle wind.
It would be nice if grid power were to continue to be nearly 100% all the time, but the Green Mob seems to think that roving black outs are an acceptable reality of the future. Considering the way things are going, that may be the case. So a realistic response is to deal with that possibility. One important response is the ballot box.
Renewable energy is a cuckoo’s egg put in our energy basket.
So called “renewable”
Coal energy is renewable as uranium energy as solar renewable.
That is, it is not or it is, depending on your definition.
The material is not energy.
The Sun is not energy, it’s a body.
The “energy” here is available energy for consumption.
It is not the energy that is found by the multiply by speed then integrate that is used in mechanics to get to 1/2 m v^2.
Blackout Bowen & Albosleazy are driving our country into poverty and energy disasters and the greens and teals are sitting by with popcorn!!
And don’t forget Penny Wrong showing what good socialist foreign policy looks like as she destroys the good name of Australia with the rest of the world!
The northeast US experienced two black start failures BEFORE renewables were part of the grid—1965 and 2003. In both cases, restoring power took days and there were resulting deaths. 1965 was in November before severe winter cold. 2004 was in August. Both cases were caused by improper grid software settings causing a failure cascade. A UK winter renewable failure (no software settings to compensate) black start would predictably cause thousands of deaths from cold.
Most don’t appreciate how difficult and slow a black start technically is. In one designated generating station, a battery starts a big BSDG (black start diesel generator). Remember, that BSDG has to also power up all the station ancillary generating support systems also down. When that BSDG comes up to load (frequency and voltage), it energizes one main several hundred ton generator to start rotating. When that one main generator comes up to powered frequency and voltage, it will then start any others at that station. When that station is finally fully powered ‘up’, it begins to feed a specific transmission grid sub segment placed ‘on line’, that then starts the next generating station…until finally after days the full grid is back on line with stable frequency and voltage.
Rud ==> and the somewhat ironic that even a hydro power plant needs a diesel gen set to get going at all. (I think…)
And you’d be wrong. The Australian State, Tasmania survived on Hydro Electric power alone for many decades before its cable to the mainland was added. And it successfully went through a cold start following a cascading failure many years ago before suitable safeguards were put in place.
Kip,
a black start is one of the reasons behind the building of Doinorwic hydro pumped storage power station in the U.K., about forty years ago..
Iain ==> I am a fan of pumped hydro. Shamefully, one f the first “big wins” for eco-nuts in NY State was the blocking of the building of pumped hydro power storage at Storm King Mountain.
Typo ‘Dinorwic’
All utility electric generators use a rotating electromagnetic field to produce power. If there are no generators running and the grid is down, then there needs to be a source of power to “flash the field,” or provide the current to establish that electromagnetic field. That can come from a purpose-built battery or diesel generator
oeman50 ==. That’s the issue I was speaking of just above. Wasn’t sure about the guts of it– just the spinning part.
I don’t think many folks appreciate the size of a power station generator. Think about what several large train locomotives weigh. I know wind generators look small when perched several hundred feet up in the air, but think about stacking several of those end to end. Power station generators are humongous pieces of equipment. They don’t start spinning by pulling a starter rope on a gasoline engine!
It wasn’t even a particularly hot day, just typical summer temperatures.
Street ==> (can I call you “Street?”) Electrical demand just keeps rising and any unusual demand creates a situation requiring more electrical power. The extra power is intended to be supplied by some rapid-spin-up dispatchable source, such as the coal-fired power plants in NSW , which were shut down, because … the climate crisis.
““shut down because…”
They were missing because they are unreliable. 6GW was missing at a critical time.
So a few of the older, now poorly maintained coal fired generation plants went out of service for various reasons.
While coal still has to supply what – around 80% of the country’s power?
The rational solution would be to build some new coal plants that will reliably provide another 80 years of affordable 24x7x52 electricity for the masses.
“80%”
58.2% in 2022, and dropping fast.
Still crushing the competition 🙂
GAS and COAL and some hydro, are the ONLY sources that can provide WHEN NEEDED.
I think you ought to take a vow to not use any electricity when Victorian wind and solar are less than say 10% of supply.
But you are too cowardly and hypocritical to do that.
You KNOW that those dispatchable suppliers are TOTALLY NECESSARY for reliability of supply.
You rely TOTALLY on them being available.
Poor little South Australia,
Back using 43% gas again + a whole heap of brown COAL supply from Victoria.
What happens if the wind drops, Nick !!
I hope they have enough diesel fuel in tanks for their back-up generators. 😉
Tell us Nick,
What percentage of electricity is from wind and solar on a still night ?
How much wind and solar was missing at that critical time, Nick !!
Solar is reliable.
Everyone knows that it is going to go missing before that afternoon peak. Now that is something you can bet your house on.
Very, very reliable AND next to useless for that evening peak. If only we could have reliability like this for wind too.
Solar is very dependent on the amount of cloud cover.. Is NOT reliable.
Nick,
that is only half the story.
Coal plant owners are not going to spend a lot of money keeping them fully maintained knowing the government is intent on shutting them down. Well maintained plants are very reliable.
Only a minority of coal plants went offline on that occasion. The majority of the failed coal plants were blown up by government some time earlier and nobody tried to restart them. We desperately need to get them restarted before the situation gets any worse, and for that we have to be able to build a new coal fired station in a few days. Now wouldn’t that be a nice Christmas present.
The three functional turbines at Hazelwood in Victoria were operating at over 100% of rated capacity for some 7 weeks straight before Hazelwood was shut.
Coal fired power is good at baseload generation but not “rapid-spin-up dispatchable source”.
Tim,
Coal can spin up fast, what you have to remember is that it may be generating 2000MW from a peak capacity of 2500MW. Most coal can rapidly jump 10%.
That’s a rapid jump of 250MW. That’s the equivalent of the entire output of 2 typical/large solar ‘farms’.
I sometimes wonder what the ramp up time is for solar to jump up an extra 250MW at 4PM. Actually, I don’t wonder, I know the answer.
Gas turbines are faster, IF they are already in spinning reserve but even a gas turbine takes significant time to spin up and synchronise from cold/stopped.
Not well, or efficiently they cant. Its just a fact of life that they cant continuously generate +10% energy for a rapid jump and changing their energy output is slow by comparison to grid load changes.
Yes, there are other fossil fuelled energy sources that are better but Kip was explicitly claiming coal was “rapid-spin-up dispatchable source” for NSW. Its just not in that context.
Tim,
the boilers that feed the turbines have a specific capacity of steam, sufficient for full load (+) and generators automatically increase or decrease steam feed with frequency (automatically) The coal supply to a boiler is easily modulated to keep the boilers at the desired pressure. Pulverised fuel is a dust and is blown into the boiler much like a gas or oil boiler. Solid coal went out decades ago, even then that could be modulated by varying grate speed.
Of course you don’t have to believe me, you could have done some research. 5% per minute is not unheard of. That’s pretty darn quick in my books. Especially when I quoted this for a 2500MW plant, that’s a lot of extra grunt per minute.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/typical-ramp-rates-of-supercritical-coal-power-plants-without-carbon-capture_tbl1_272380850
But grid changes happen in a moment. A minute is an eternity.
Mr. toolMan: Before renewables, when grids were run with coal, did grid changes happen in a moment back then? How did coal handle that??!!
Inefficiently if coal alone, but typically other faster reacting generators are involved in the grid too.
I believe modern A-USC (Advanced Ultra Super Critical) and Steam H coal plants can start up from cold in less than 30 minutes.
But most take hours or even days. That’s not the point though. What matters for grid stability is that as the load on the grid changes, the generators need to change their outputs to follow it. And coal is just bad at it if it’s run efficiently.
If a large load is added, say a major industrial comes online, then the mass of the spinning generator holds it for a few seconds and as the energy in that spinning mass decreases then the driving force say steam, had better increase or else the frequency goes out of spec and the generator will trip out.
In the case of coal that means adding coal which burns and heats the boiler to produce steam and that all takes time.
It’ll be super annoying to folks here but a battery is the best. It follows load instantaneously. Having batteries on the grid stabilises it.
Tim
You do not understand the grid. Go back and read what PE or I previously wrote at CE. There are two separate functions which you have conflated. Load following is often carried by hydros or partially loaded thermal units. Reserves are not carried in just one unit, often using hydros on tailrace depression. The general rule is no unit contribution is bigger than 10% if not 5%. If we take the Eastern Oz grid, they typically have 15-30 coal units on. If one falls off, the units all can pick up generation a bit as the inertia gives time for them to pick up. They also have the options of tripping some loads. The trips they have had, the batteries have added basically nothing. That is why the AEMO have fined them.
I do understand the grid. You dont understand this post. These posts are about Kip’s claim that coal is “rapid-spin-up dispatchable source” and its just not.
Ramp up speeds of the order of minutes are considered to be slow. Here is AEMO’s definitions from
https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/electricity/nem/security_and_reliability/ancillary_services/guide-to-ancillary-services-in-the-national-electricity-market.pdf
Regarding your statement
I completely agree. And FCAS is an expensive factor in maintaining grid stability.
Go back and read the AEMO Callide report when they dropped a number of big units off the Queensland grid and tripped the interstate interconnectors so they islanded. The inertia of the remaining generators and some load shedding saved it and they resynchronised a few minutes later. When South Australia did a smaller trip (as a %), they went black. The difference between the unreliables and synchronous generators.
And had the generators genuinely been rapid response (like Hydro) with sufficient capacity then they probably wouldn’t have had to load shed.
No tim
The reserves are generally the biggest single unit on a grid. In Queensland they had 6 drop off. Way over what anyone would carry reserves for.
Well that would mean the remaining generators had insufficient capacity, wouldn’t it.
But it wasn’t summer.
Nick ==> Good point, it was
late Spring
— almost a whole week before the beginning of Australia’s summer.
To be fair , Kip…
Nick’s petty nit-pick does bring up a point.
It wasn’t even Summer yet, and they were already having grid issues.
We haven’t had a properly “HOT” summer for a few years…
… if we do get one this year, the grid may be lucky to survive.
Wow, talk about a pathetic nit-pick..
It was couple of hot days a few days short of summer.
It is summer now, and there will be hot, windless days, and no solar in the evening.
I hope Nick gets what he wants , and central Victoria cops a major blackout !
I’m in NE Vic. I also hope that Nick experiences a black start. Just to see how long it takes to get the regions back on line. He might find out that the metro areas get priority and then the regional cities and the backbones of the grid and lastly the remote towns with their manual isolation, pole fuses and pole switches.
And for info, I’m 100% off grid, if Nick would like to charge his phone during a blackout I’m sure I could offer a price, whether he accepts, well that’s up for another discussion.
The problem with your “hope” is that it affects many more than just Nick.
I do not wish such things on people.
It may need to happen a couple of times so people wake up to reality of green crap electricity.
Perhaps the Australian government should just mandate that workers only schedule their hours for times when the sun shines and the winds blow!? If only political windbags could be harnessed to wind generators, as they are eternally blowing: but their outgassing is far more deadly than CO2!
That would be the public serpents.
And we have enough of them without the labor government having more ‘good’ employment news, (as they hire another 100,000 of them just before an election).
Put them on bicycle generators when the wind is not blowing. With blades, perhaps, to create wind?
“Now even the MSM, at least in Australia”
You have quoted from Sky News, the local equivalent of Fox News. There haven’t actually been any blackouts, But they can always gin up a fear or two.
Maybe they are running on the principle “Better safe than sorry” on this one.
scvblwxq ==> The grid operator was aware of how close to blackouts they were likely to come….
Where I am we get the occasional connection related blackout.
Lightning and/or high winds, trees etc seems to be usual cause.
Usually a few minutes to a couple of hours, depending what has happened.
Even that length of time is a bit of a nuisance, don’t think I would be at all happy if we had a couple of days or more without power.
Here in NE Wales storm Darragh blew in Friday night. Electricity went off sometime during the night and on Saturday was only on from 10am to 11am and 8pm to 10pm. From then we were without electricity until after 7pm on Sunday. It was very cold and others elsewhere had it worse.
Yeah, talking about something imminent and immediately obvious to any half-competent engineer is ‘ginning up fear’.
Yammering constantly about something that demonstrably isn’t occurring, every sensible physicist, meteorologist and geologist thinks is utter bunkum, and can’t be supported by simple, basic logic, that’s ‘saving the planet’.
Got ya!
Nick ==> They didn’t say there were blackouts, but the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO mentioned in the news article) was worried enough to issue a plea to citizens to limit electrical use to prevent a blackout.
The power grid,in every locale, is intended to provide sufficient, affordable, 24/7 electricity for use by the customers. If demand is UP, then the grid should/must be able to meet demand — without begging the customers to use less power.
NSW had a real situation.
Kip,
The AEMO did not issue such a plea. It issued a notice to generators that there were insufficient bids for a time slot. This is not unusual, and they got the extra bids.
It was the Premier who asked the citizens:
“He asked individual households to “consider not using energy intensive appliances” – which include air conditioning and television – during the hottest period of the day.
So if you can not run your pool filter and not run your dishwasher and not run your washing machine this afternoon between 3pm and 8pm, you’ll help the grid,” Mr Minns said on Wednesday.”
You can tell the bias of your “MSM” source which described this as a “bizarre dictate”.
Nick ==> Ah, it was “just” the Premier of New South Wales. Heck, what could he know anyway….the AEMO notifies the Premier ,the Premier speaks to the people. Thanks for clearing that up —
It was not a “bizarre dictate”. And not a big ask.
What is bizarre is that there should NEVER be a need for AEMO to issue a plea for help in a developed country with as much COAL and GAS as Australia has.
But we are now “blessed” with an infection of unreliable supplies..
Great !.. and many thanks to the scum that did this to us.! NOT !
Stokes: “Nothing to see here, folks, move along…”
AEMO calls for ‘emergency backstop’ on Australia’s NEM – PV Tech
Still seem to be ignoring the fact that if there is no wind in the evening peak, and you have destroyed your dispatchable electricity…
YOU HAVE NOTHING !!
But he is happy!
““consider not using energy intensive appliances””
Which is a totally ridiculous thing for them to have to do.
Not running aircon on a hot day in the evening after getting home from work… really !!
… basically I would tell them to get stuffed !!
Unfortunately, NSW has quite a large deficit of reliable, dispatchable power supply due to the stupidity of successive governments not strengthen the coal fired power supply over time.
How soon before really regret this political idiocy… who knows. !
WOW, Nick wants there to be a major blackout, rather than a razor’s edge situation.
Obviously thinks that sitting astride a barbed wire fence isn’t a problem !.
This guy has to be getting pay envelopes to crank this propaganda and FUD out.
Nick ==> You mean the Fox News in the United States — the news network with the “the highest viewership and ratings.”
Sky News Australia has nowhere near that market penetration. They are one of the little guys.
I love how the left has conniptions when referencing Fox News. If MSM had performed it’s main function over the years, that being inform rather than indoctrinate, Fox News, in all likelihood would not even exist, and this CAGW hysteria would have died off decades ago. Fox tells the other side of the story, the story that exposes leftist and environmental activist lies, hypocrisy, and duplicity.
David ==> Yes, the American left looks down their noses at the majority of people who do not share their views. Likewise they look down at Fox news because Fox does not support all the far left liberal progressive social and political agendas.
That kind of disdain may have cost the Democrats the last election.
Kip,
I don’t think folk here would describe Fox as MSM.
True, there is very little of the old MSM left. 🙂
Fox on the other hand, is gaining viewers rapidly
Loves Elon’s comment about possibly buying MSNBC for pennies !! 😉
You are right Nick, Fox News is the closest thing to real news, sort of like climate realism, I suspect you listen to the MSM which in part is Fake News! …a pretty good descriptive term!
Nick ==> You can’t beat the simple fact that “It is the most-watched cable news network in the U.S., and as of 2023 generates approximately 70% of its parent company’s pre-tax profit.”
“Most watched cable news network” = MSM.
MSM was….
Add up the eyeballs that watch Fox. Now do so to all of the hated “leftist” networks that are identified here. Not even close…
I quite like Rita.
We also have this experience in Australia. WUWT reported on this also.
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/10/650m-in-renewable-energy-didnt-save-broken-hill-from-days-of-blackouts-after-a-storm-islanded-it/
The important point – a large excess of solar and wind power with a back up battery did not save Broken Hill ( an inland town of about 20000 people in New South Wales, Australia) from nearly a week of blackouts which was the required time needed to reconnect it to the national grid after a storm had blown down a number of pylons and wires.
They did not save BH because they were not connected except via Transgrid, which broke. You can ask why they were not directly connected (it costs), but the power sources were working just fine.
ALL that renewable energy out there.. WAS TOTALLY USELESS.
No Nick. You continue to spread misinformation. The battery is connected to the same 22kV bus in the switchyard as all 8 of the town’s distribution circuits and the GT. With the disconnectors to Buronga open, the unreliables inside the island could have fed through the stepdown transformers into the bus except they can’t because they are not dispatchable, have no governor function and cannot support the grid. And like the Princess Bride, that does not mean what you think it means.
Chris,
“cannot support the grid”
I said the power sources were working, but they were not connected. Nothing you have said disputes that. All you have done is to list the costly things that would have to be done to make them work in an island situation. They need a controlled frequency, which could have been provided by the diesel generators, if they had been working properly, or by coupling a synchronous condenser or some such to the battery.
But we are talking about a once in decades situation where BH is islanded. The design had 2 25MW generators as backup. To spend a lot of money on a second backup would be excessive. It was also nixed by Transgrid, who had their compressed air scheme.
So the wind and solar were designed to support the NSW grid, which, given a working connection, they do well. People didn’t spend the money to make them support the microgrid. That doesn’t take away from the utility of W&S.
No nick. You can’t run a GT at negative load when the uncontrolled domestic solar are exporting. Were they isolated?
And how many times do you have to be told – putting MW in is NOT supporting the grid. Learn what the terminology actually means.
You have to remember, Nick is basically CLUELESS about anything to do with electrical grid operation.
Almost as clueless as he is about climate.
For those that actually understand grids (No that does not include you Nick) here are the actual reasons that the grid forming battery at Broken Hill was not allowed to be used.
“However, there are two critical areas that may require further work to facilitate this implementation. Firstly, the settling times for reactive current response need to be optimized to ensure efficient and effective operation during faults. This involves minimizing the time it takes for the reactive current to reach a stable state after a disturbance.
Secondly, the stability of the inverter’s response to unbalanced faults is another important consideration. Unbalanced faults introduce phase jumps and asymmetries in the system, which can affect the stability of the reactive current control. Further work is needed to address these stability concerns and ensure reliable operation during unbalanced fault conditions. By addressing these critical areas of reactive current settling times and unbalanced fault stability, it becomes possible to enhance the grid-forming fault ride through functionality of the BHBESS, in line with the recent NER rule changes”
Doesn’t look like “commercial”.conditions to me, but hey I’m only a power station engineer, not a credentialed academic.
The first issue was one of efficiency, the second was a “concern”. Both under fault conditions.
I haven’t found and read your source but that looks a lot like a butt covering statement to me. Someone was responsible for not allowing the battery to be configured to work and that looks like a weak post hoc justification to me.
I think Nick is largely right in that it was a decision rather than something fundamental about the battery.
No Tim, both of those issues are critical operating issues, particularly if called on to black start or be the major point of supply. That is why they have grid compliance rules. If you had any operating power station experience, you would know that.
The quote came from the owner of Broken Hill Battery – their Lessons learnt report. I have it in hard copy but I believe it is on the interweb somewhere.
From bitter experience, it is known that stuff particularly power electronics does not perform like it says on the box. And they have to work ultra-reliably under fault conditions. Why we did a full load drop load on a new unit today to prove it met the requirements (fortunately it passed without issues). To know how things go wrong, go back and read the Odessa event reports where inverters failed under fault conditions.
Or what? The grid goes down like it did under peak loading from the diesel generator?
As I said, I haven’t seen the actual report. Were the concerns real and as a result of failed tests? Or was it from tests yet to be performed?
I’m not going to bother doing your searches. They were real tests.. A 14MW GT can’t generate on a 17MW grid when there are up to 33MW of uncontrolled solar on it. If you knew about grids, you would understand that.
I dont know the details as I haven’t read into it. However from what I’ve seen, the grid was stable when the battery was configured.
Well, I quoted below, but here it is again:
when agreement between AGL and Transgrid was reached, the “compliance issues” vanished and the battery was connected:
“Transmission company Transgrid said on Saturday that it had finally reached agreement with the battery owner AGL for the asset to be switched, 10 days after thousands of homes and business in the local community had started to suffer extensive outages.
On Saturday and Sunday, the battery charged up from the local excess rooftop solar and was standing by to help during the evening demand peaks, and will continue to do so until all the replacement towers are completed on about November 6.
“AGL’s Broken Hill battery … is successfully being charged by power from the grid and will be used to increase stability of power supply for local communities while the storm-damaged transmission line is reconstructed,” Transgrid said in a statement.”
But most importantly because the battery which could have provided FCAS as well as peak load support wasn’t configured to do so.
Yes, due to commercial issues between AGL (battery) and Transgrid. It took about ten days to get them to agree, and then it seems to have been fixed almost immediately.
And all that time the installed “renewables” WERE TOTALLY USELESS. !!
Get it right Nick. It was not commercial issues. It was the battery could not meet the compliance issues. The grid rules that all connections have to meet.
So how come, when agreement between AGL and Transgrid was reached, the “compliance issues” vanished and the battery was connected:
“Transmission company Transgrid said on Saturday that it had finally reached agreement with the battery owner AGL for the asset to be switched, 10 days after thousands of homes and business in the local community had started to suffer extensive outages.
On Saturday and Sunday, the battery charged up from the local excess rooftop solar and was standing by to help during the evening demand peaks, and will continue to do so until all the replacement towers are completed on about November 6.
“AGL’s Broken Hill battery … is successfully being charged by power from the grid and will be used to increase stability of power supply for local communities while the storm-damaged transmission line is reconstructed,” Transgrid said in a statement.”
The statement “AGL has been in communication with Transgrid since the power supply was disrupted to resolve the significant technical challenges associated with connecting the BESS to the microgrid,” the statement said.
“AGL has completed work that will allow the safe operation of the battery in these circumstances to provide support to local communities.” certainly seems like compliance to me.
Have you ever thought that AGL changed their control software and Transgrid accepted the change as meeting compliance, even if it wasn’t proven, because they were copping political flack for not maintaining the GTs? There was form for this when the reactive power requirements were eased, allowing the battery to pass some tests in mid 2023 To quote AGL “Recent changes to the NER rules have provided some relaxation in the reactive current response to network disturbances. This opens the possibility of implementing the BHBESS with grid –
forming fault ride through functionality. The previous rules were prescriptive on the requirement for reactive current injection during a fault which is difficult for a voltage source inverter. The relaxation of the reactive current requirement now removes that impediment for grid forming/voltage source inverters.”
A software update addressing compliance changes is possible but I think unlikely. IMO more likely is that it was simply configured (in the software) differently.
But hey, you have the lessons learned document. You tell us.
Chris, You quote from AFR very selectively, and omit the previous sentences which make it absolutely clear the issue was commercial:
“AGL’s battery system in Broken Hill, which came online in August, was also unable initially to run when the transmission line went down because AGL had not yet inked a deal with Transgrid to run the plant in the situation that the city became “islanded” from the rest of the grid.That agreement was reached on Friday, allowing the battery to be brought into operation, charged by the Transgrid generator and rooftop solar and helping stabilise the power supply while the transmission network is rebuilt. AGL has been in communication with Transgrid since the power supply was disrupted…”
No Nick. I was quoting out of Reneweconomy and I didn’t edit.
Well, that had similar commercial context too, which you left out:
“On Saturday morning, a spokesperson for battery owner AGL said that agreement had been reached with Transgrid (the owner of the transmission network) to enable the Broken Hill battery to provide support to the transmission network.
“AGL has been in communication with Transgrid since the power supply was disrupted to resolve the significant technical challenges associated with connecting the BESS to the microgrid,” the statement said.
“AGL has completed work that will allow the safe operation of the battery in these circumstances to provide support to local communities.”
The agreement was confirmed on Saturday afternoon by state energy minister Penny Sharpe, who flew out to Broken Hill on Friday evening. “AGL’s battery is now being integrated into the network and should start charging today for discharge during the evening peak,” she said in a statement posted on LinkedIn.”
The agreement was reached sometime on Saturday, and it was expected to be working the same day. Doesn’t sound like a technical holdup.
It looks like the rules changed back in 2023
Efficient reactive current access standards for inverter-based resources
That was plenty of time to implement them…but maybe there were more rules applicable.
It’s not clear that applies to batteries, as opposed to generators, which are frequently mentioned.. But whatever, the battery was commissioned in August 2024.
Its somewhat generic in that it mentions “generating systems” and has a section for asynchronous generating systems…but yes its not clear its the rule that applies in this case.
Replying to myself. I think it is the one that applies. Here is the lessons learned document Chris was looking at
And it mentions the rule change
Which aligns with the actual document
5. Network Connection Access, Planning and Expansion Schedule
5.2 Conditions for Connection of Generators
S5.2.5.5 Generating system response to disturbances following contingency events
tmatsci ==> Yes, Most people don’t have a clue about the complexity of “The Grid” or even what it really is. Most experience the grid in the simple act of flipping a light switch…the grid supplies the electricity…YEAH! Sometimes, people have a local outage — a fallen tree takes down a wire…the power company rushes out and reconnects.
But that is not really what The Grid is — that’s just the local wiring — sorta like an extension cord from the grid to your neighborhood and your house…
Very nice Kip. Government should have nothing to say about the source of energy we use. They do not know more than us, they are easily mislead and they rarely suffer the consequences of their poor decisions. If it weren’t so serious it would be laughable how stupid they are.
Bob ==> Worse yet, the government doesn’t even listen to their own experts when it comes to issues that deal with The Climate Agenda (which has been set by the UN IPCC and their devotees). See the Roger Caiazza piece recently on this situation in New York state.
Yes Bob, and academic earth studies students and their lecturers should stay in their lanes, and not pontificate about energy sourcing systems, generation and distribution, about which they actually have no more knowledge than the average man in the street, which is s.f.a.
We have experienced engineers to work out the best-fit energy systems for us, but because they inform us with facts, the climate cranks call them blasphemers.
misled… lol
My local church came in contact with a pastor of a church in Kenya. He ran an orphanage supporting about 50.
We were invited to send some to his church to preach the Gospel.
When they came back and reported, one of the things they mentioned was how frequently the power went out. Those outages had become “normal” to the locals.
They should never become “The New Normal” for us because of bonehead efforts to stop “Climate Change”.
Gunga ==> The same is true of many 3rd world countries….it was true in the Dominican Republic where my wife and I served. Lack of 24/7 electrical power inhibits commerce and holds the country back. Even just a dependable scheduled power is better than random neighborhood or regional blackouts.
So this is what it’s like to be a ‘renewable energy superpower’ 🤣.
Chris Bowen, a serial failure at every portfolio he’s ever been challenged with.
For folks who aren’t familiar with AU politics, Bowen would be the US equivalent of John Kerry.
Gormless twats the both of them.
Bowen’s a clown.
How rude !!…………….. to clowns !!
“send OUT the clowns’
Well here is a simple question for Nick.
Right now as I write UK demand is 38GW. Gas is supplying 25GW, or 66% of that. Wind is supplying 3GW, or 8% of it. Solar is supplying nothing.
This is from about 30GW of installed gas, about 28GW of wind and about 16GW of solar.
The current government proposes to get to 95% zero carbon in generation by 2030. It proposes to do this by having 90GW of wind and 40GW of solar.
Question for Nick is this. Do you think this is possible, and if so how?
By 2030 demand at about this time of day will probably have reached 45GW. Peak demand during the day will be hitting 50GW+.
Assume that nuclear has gone offline by then – the date of turn-off has just been extended by a couple of years, but it will be gone by 2030. Gas plant is obsolescent and will be declining.
Or if you like, put it another better way. How much gas, wind, solar do you think it will take to give the UK a reliable grid in 2030? Specify the amounts of each.
All the numbers you need are available from either of these sites:
www;gridwatch.co.uk
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk (which also gives links to free data downloads).
Nick usually engages in these debates by picking on some details of the piece or the situation. But that isn’t the point. The question is, can it as a total project be done, how, and at what cost?
I would also point out that 10% of faceplate from wind is by no means worst case. It can fall below 5%, and for more than one day. And the current spot situation is by no means the full picture. The wind calms can and do go on for up to 10 days. There will be occasional rises in production, but an average below 10% of faceplate for wind for a week or more happens several times a year. Solar of course is useless in winter, as you can tell from either of the gridwatches.
Inquiring minds want to know the answer.
[And this is not even asking the other critical question, how much difference will it make to global temperatures if were done….]
Sorry,
http://www.gridwatch.co.uk
“Do you think this is possible, and if so how?”
I don’t know. Governments set targets; it is the way they get things done. I think what matters is that they move in the right direction. Less gas burnt reduces emissions, and, of course, saves fuel costs. If it turns out that they can’t manage with 95% by 2030 then of course they won’t. But they should try.
“They should try.”
I think most of us who visit this site don’t understand why they should try something that is demonstrably likely to fail frequently.
it is a little surprising to see your reply to Michel; you usually provide pretty specific responses. Michel posed a fair question about how renewables will power a grid in a Net Zero situation. You responded with a vague “Governments set targets” nonresponse hand waving. I’d genuinely like to know what the plan is.
I am not responsible for the specifics of the plan. He actually didn’t ask about Net Zero. I do see that it is going in the right direction. If they can manage 95% by 2030, good. If they can’t, they will still be using more gas than they planned, but a lot less than now. And the electricity will still flow, whatever happens.
There is absolutely ZERO reason to reduce gas electricity supply or emissions, especially if it is to give preference to unreliable and erratic non-supplies.
In fact, it is RANK STUPIDITY !
They are moving in exactly the WRONG direction.
What will they use for electricity on all those windless nights that can happen for days and days at a time in the UK.
Only thing they will “get done” is the totally collapse of the UK economy !
And yes, they are trying to.!
Not only is the problem dunkelflaute. Last year bill payers in the UK had a billion pounds added to their bills to curtail wind because it was producing electricity at times when the grid didn’t need it.
Yes, the problem is that the more wind you install, the higher the peaks are over demand. So you have to turn it off, which manifests financially as constraint payments. But the real effect is to lower the capacity factor, the amount of useful energy a given faceplate amount supplies.
Just answer the question. Back of envelope stuff will do. You have to meet the UK demand and weather parameters above and as available from the links. State how much of each you would expect to be needed for a reliable 24 x 7 electricity supply.
Wind
Solar
Gas
My own answer would be, you need, if these are the only sources of generation, about 60-70GW of gas, of which at least half must be open cycle, not CCGT.
As to how much solar you need? None. Its useless for three months of the year so don’t bother.
And wind? It depends what percentage of supply you want to deliver from wind. But at a guess, with UK weather being what it is, if you only have 90GW your average supply is going to be 30GW, and you then have to contend with the fact that supply is out of sync with demand. I doubt 90GW will supply more than 25% of demand.
I doubt its possible to get to 95%. Even to get to 80% I would be surprised if you can get away with less than 500GW of wind. maybe more.
Tell me why I am wrong.
Of course, dispense with the wind and it can all be CCGT, thus really saving some fuel….
Being that the UK has hundreds of years worth of coal (as previously reported), the real savings and reliability would probably best come from modern coal mining and coal generation.
— Without CSS.
This is all guesswork. Solar contributes a lot of energy, which displaces gas. If you think wind would be so low, then it doesn’t matter if it is out of sync with demand (if it is). That only matters if you have excess.
They will have to work on storage, as they are. Batteries are growing like weeds. But more work is needed on hydro and pumped hydro, and I’m sure that will happen. It is the ideal backup for W&S.
Then of course there is import/export, which gives access to Norwegian hydro.
The thing is that there are a lot of analyses here and elsewhere by people who basically don’t want it to work. But the people making it work will find ways.
Missing the point. The “people making it work” are NOT ‘making it work’, and they are doing so at great expense and pain.
Aren’t you forgetting the DEFRs dictated by the New York Government? They have to be ready by 2030. Perhaps NY will share.
South Australia cracks the code for dispatchable fickles-
South Australia has the most wind and solar and no baseload: So why is it the only state not fretting about a vulnerable grid? | RenewEconomy
Obviously ancient news-
South Australia wants to bring back mothballed diesel plants due to lack of demand side options | RenewEconomy
Hold your horses guys-
Project EnergyConnect