Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
User avatar
jonescg   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3301
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Feb 05 2018 2:29am

How else do you expect electricity infrastructure to be paid for?

Whether it's the government using our taxes to pay for it, or a private company recovering costs through the sale of electricity, somebody has to pay for it.

SA has no coal left and while it's got a shitload of natural gas, it's tied to the international market which drives prices high. Solar and wind is literally the only option left right now, and even the Libs know that!

Or we could borrow $10 billion and build a nuclear power plant...

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 05 2018 5:02am

Ah, I didn't realise SA had burned through all its coal! I thought Hillhaters pro-coal/anti-RE arguments were based on there being an abundance of coal that the politicians had chosen to ignore in favour of a riskier, less proven source of energy.

Oh, and claiming 25,000 homes each with 5kW PV + 13kWh battery only removes the need for 25MW of conventional generation is laughable. That implies a peak load of only 1000W per home!

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9215
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 05 2018 6:30am

I expect public money to be spent rationally.
$800m for an effective 25MW does not seem like a smart choice.
I suspect Musk is a better salesman than Wetherill etc are buyers.
They are slow learners it seems, but eventually , they will have to realise that they cannot power the state using wind and solar without equal backup from thermal power.
They could keep pushing their luck with gas, bit a strong leader would stop playing games and go with HELE coal.
Technically and financially, Its a no brainer decision !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9215
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 05 2018 6:39am

Australia has more coal than almost any other country on the planet...and it mostly high quality coal.
It is no problem to supply coal for SA comsumption.
SA simply took the green road and litterally demolished their coal generator facilities without considering the consequences...like i said ..slow learners !
So , how much power do you think 25,000 sets of 5 kW rooftop solar systems would produce ?? :roll:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3301
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Feb 05 2018 6:51am

The closest coal mine to Port Augusta was Leigh Creek, and it closed because they were digging up more dirt than coal. http://flinderspower.com.au/leigh-creek-coalfield/
Next closest coal mine would be Hunter Valley coal - some 1400 km away, or Victorian lignite. It wouldn't be worth sending it by rail all that way - prices would be way higher than their current rates.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9215
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 05 2018 7:49am

There is more than 10 bn tonnes of undeveloped coal resources in the Arckaringa Basin SA, if they needed it and likely much more yet to be identified.
Somehow we manage to transport coal from inland mines in QLD to ports, and ship it to China , India, etc at a cost that makes power cheaper than SAs wind farms.
Effectively, SA is currently getting 600+MW of power from Vic brown coal fired power generators anyway,...but it just costs them more than generating it themselves so that they can claim to be a coal free state . ...
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3301
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Feb 05 2018 8:14am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 05 2018 7:49am
There is more than 10 bn tonnes of undeveloped coal resources in the Arckaringa Basin SA, if they needed it and likely much more yet to be identified.
And I'm guessing the reason it's never been developed, nor will it ever be developed, is because it's too expensive and hard to get at.
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 05 2018 7:49am
Somehow we manage to transport coal from inland mines in QLD to ports, and ship it to China , India, etc at a cost that makes power cheaper than SAs wind farms.
A fair chunk of Queensland's coal is metallurgical coking coal - too valuable to burn for power. As for Asia burning our coal for power, they only do it where the power station is right next to the port - not like they rail it 1000 km inland.

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 05 2018 12:03pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 05 2018 7:49am
Effectively, SA is currently getting 600+MW of power from Vic brown coal fired power generators anyway,...but it just costs them more than generating it themselves so that they can claim to be a coal free state . ...
It also moves the pollution (and resulting health problems) away from them, which is why it's a popular thing to do. The question is - when will Victoria figure that out, and shut down (or more likely convert) their coal plants?
SA simply took the green road and litterally demolished their coal generator facilities without considering the consequences...
Like - longer and healthier lives for their citizens?
So , how much power do you think 25,000 sets of 5 kW rooftop solar systems would produce ?
About 125 megawatts.

Now, there are about 3.6 million households in Australia. Let's say half of those work for solar installs. (Good exposure, grid capacity available etc.) How much power would 1.8 million 10 kW rooftop installs produce?
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9215
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 05 2018 4:56pm

jonescg wrote:
Feb 05 2018 8:14am
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 05 2018 7:49am
There is more than 10 bn tonnes of undeveloped coal resources in the Arckaringa Basin SA, if they needed it and likely much more yet to be identified.
And I'm guessing the reason it's never been developed, nor will it ever be developed, is because it's too expensive and hard to get at.
50 years ago , yes. Because the only market was the power stations around Port Augusta, and the Leigh Creek resource was much closer.
But now, with modern mining techniques, and a new
Power station built close to the mine, its a non issue.
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 05 2018 7:49am
Somehow we manage to transport coal from inland mines in QLD to ports, and ship it to China , India, etc at a cost that makes power cheaper than SAs wind farms.
....A fair chunk of Queensland's coal is metallurgical coking coal - too valuable to burn for power. As for Asia burning our coal for power, they only do it where the power station is right next to the port - not like they rail it 1000 km inland.
Again you are correct. However, the majority (~60%), of Australias coal export tonnage is Thermal coal for China, Japan, Korea , India, etc.
Any sensible country planning to use imported coal, would be wise to site the power plants close to the fuel source.
......but by the time China get its coal landed at the port , it has already travelled thousands of kms
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9215
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 05 2018 5:23pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 05 2018 12:03pm
...... The question is - when will Victoria figure that out, and shut down (or more likely convert) their coal plants?......
Oh, dont worry bill, they have already started forcing functional coal plants to shut down by putting penalty taxes on coal. That is part of the reason they have the Second highest power cost in Australia and why they also depend on other states like Tasmania hydro, NSW and Qld coal generated power, to prevent blackouts during peaks.
SA simply took the green road and litterally demolished their coal generator facilities without considering the consequences...
....Like - longer and healthier lives for their citizens?...
If you are on a hospital operating table, or a life support system, or a weak aged person swealtering in 40+C ,..when the power goes off.......it doesnt do much for your life expectancy.
Industry tends to get pissed with unreliable , expensive power supplies also, and relocates itself to states/countries without those issues...leaving even more people jobless and unable to earn enough to pay the ever increasing power bills. That is a genious social plan.
So , how much power do you think 25,000 sets of 5 kW rooftop solar systems would produce ?
...About 125 megawatts....
If you are as informed as you think you are, you will know that is impossible.
It a "nameplate" value, which even at peak optimum sunlight will never be achieved, and under real world conditions
Shade, cloud, haze, inverter efficiency, etc etc, will be lucky to even get over 100MW "PEAK"...
Once you roll in the CF of <20% your actual available power is not looking so impressive ...is it ?
And of course that is intermittent, so it will need to be stored by the powerwalls with their 80% round trip efficiency also

Now, there are about 3.6 million households in Australia. Let's say half of those work for solar installs. (Good exposure, grid capacity available etc.) How much power would 1.8 million 10 kW rooftop installs produce?
[/quote]
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 911
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 05 2018 5:30pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 05 2018 12:03pm
Like - longer and healthier lives for their citizens?
Or more likely shorter, impoverished lives due to lack of opportunity and poorer standard of living since the economy will suffer at the loss of energy availability at pulling the plug too soon on their reliable generation before a suitable replacement was in place.

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 05 2018 5:37pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 05 2018 5:23pm
Oh, dont worry bill, they have already started forcing functional coal plants to shut down by putting penalty taxes on coal.
A good start.
If you are on a hospital operating table, or a life support system, or a weak aged person swealtering in 40+C ,..when the power goes off.......it doesnt do much for your life expectancy.
Better to not sicken and kill people to begin with, than to get them on an operating table and try to fix the damage you have done. IMO of course.

But I wouldn't worry much about power outages. Here in the US, grid reliability has gone up as we've added more renewables. Here in San Diego we get 43% of our electrical energy from renewables, and we have one of the most reliable grids in the US.
Industry tends to get pissed with unreliable , expensive power supplies also, and relocates itself to states/countries without those issues...leaving even more people jobless and unable to earn enough to pay the ever increasing power bills. That is a genious social plan.
Agreed there. So buying more expensive coal fired power plants, and making ratepayers pay for them, is about as brain-dead as you can get. You get sickness, unemployment, and bankruptcy.

Fortunately there are plenty of places out there going with cheap renewables.
It a "nameplate" value
Correct. You asked for power, which is correctly answered with the nameplate capacity. Now, did you really want _energy_ instead?
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9215
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 05 2018 5:55pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 05 2018 12:03pm
.... there are about 3.6 million households in Australia. Let's say half of those work for solar installs. (Good exposure, grid capacity available etc.) How much power would 1.8 million 10 kW rooftop installs produce?
Need help with that bill ?
The average daily output for a 10kW solar system in Australia is about 40kWh. .
So those 1.8 m installations could generate 72 GWh/day ..(Note : Australia consumes approx 600GWh /day )
...if the sun shines..
...if you store the intermittent power so you can use it
...if you can find 1.8 m houses with enough north facing roof space for 40 panels! :shock:
...it the owners of those houses are willing &able to invest the $30,000 each to install such a system.
.what are the chances of all that coming together ?

...but your point is what ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9215
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 05 2018 6:06pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 05 2018 5:37pm
Industry tends to get pissed with unreliable , expensive power supplies also, and relocates itself to states/countries without those issues...leaving even more people jobless and unable to earn enough to pay the ever increasing power bills. That is a genious social plan.
Agreed there. So buying more expensive coal fired power plants, and making ratepayers pay for them, is about as brain-dead as you can get. You get sickness, unemployment, and bankruptcy....
Sadly bill, all the facts point to higher costs being directly associated with increasing % of RE power generation
.Fortunately there are plenty of places out there going with cheap renewables...
? Care to name a few ?
It a "nameplate" value
..Correct. You asked for power, which is correctly answered with the nameplate capacity. Now, did you really want _energy_ instead?.
..No bill, i expect an honest estimate of average power (MW ) to compare to the one i posted, not a simple regurgitation of a theoretical (unobtainable) number.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 05 2018 6:55pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 05 2018 6:06pm
Sadly bill, all the facts point to higher costs being directly associated with increasing % of RE power generation
For utility scale generation, as of Nov 2017:
Wind - $30 to $60 per megawatt-hour
Solar - $43 to $53 per megawatt-hour
Solar plus storage - $82 per megawatt-hour
Coal - $60 to $143
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/leve ... ergy-2017/
.Fortunately there are plenty of places out there going with cheap renewables...
? Care to name a few ?
Iowa. 37% of its electricity comes from wind, and it has energy costs that are 10% lower than the rest of the US.
Washington state. Cheapest industrial energy prices in the US, based on its legacy use of hydro and rapidly ramping use of solar, wind and geothermal.
i expect an honest estimate of average power (MW ) to compare to the one i posted
Ah, so you want the number with your spin on it. Fair enough; next time ask for the spin you want, rather than the actual number.
So those 1.8 m installations could generate 72 GWh/day ..(Note : Australia consumes approx 600GWh /day )
...if the sun shines..
...if you store the intermittent power so you can use it
...if you can find 1.8 m houses with enough north facing roof space for 40 panels! :shock:
...it the owners of those houses are willing &able to invest the $30,000 each to install such a system.
Yep. I did it; many others did as well. If you can't afford it, you can buy a power purchase contract, where the system is installed for free and you then pay your power bill (less than you did before) to the installer.

Let's compare that to San Onofre nuclear power plant. It cost $10.4 billion to build, and is currently producing zero power. Over the next ten years, my solar power system will generate far, far more power than San Onofre will. And my system won't kill anyone, which is a plus. And my system won't cost ratepayers $10.4 billion.
--bill von

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 05 2018 6:58pm

If you're going to muddy the waters of power ratings by insisting it be a figure averaged over 24hrs/a week/a year/whatever and so claiming 125MW of PV only equals 25MW of coal plant then let's look at it the other way:

5kW of PV + powerwall equals a peak output of 12kW. Times 25,000 systems = 300MW. You would need a 300MW coal plant to keep up. Of course, most of the time that plant would be operating well below peak capacity, but you need it there and idling for when everyone cranks up the AC at once.

You can claim that's an unlikely scenario, but so is claiming 25MW of coal will service 25,000 homes because their average power demand is 1kW over a 24hr period. It won't - the coal plant will overload early on the first day, whereas the PV + powerwalls won't.
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 05 2018 4:56pm
......but by the time China get its coal landed at the port , it has already travelled thousands of kms
Sea is much, much cheaper than any other form of transport.

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 911
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 05 2018 7:04pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 05 2018 6:55pm
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 05 2018 6:06pm
Sadly bill, all the facts point to higher costs being directly associated with increasing % of RE power generation
For utility scale generation, as of Nov 2017:
Wind - $30 to $60 per megawatt-hour
Solar - $43 to $53 per megawatt-hour
Solar plus storage - $82 per megawatt-hour
Coal - $60 to $143
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/leve ... ergy-2017/
How do they determine these costs? What is the lifecyle of the hardware and operating costs based on?

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9215
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 05 2018 8:00pm

Punx0r wrote:
Feb 05 2018 6:58pm
If you're going to muddy the waters of power ratings by insisting it be a figure averaged over 24hrs/a week/a year/whatever and so claiming 125MW of PV only equals 25MW of coal plant then let's look at it the other way:

5kW of PV + powerwall equals a peak output of 12kW. Times 25,000 systems = 300MW. You would need a 300MW coal plant to keep up. Of course, most of the time that plant would be operating well below peak capacity, but you need it there and idling for when everyone cranks up the AC at once.

You can claim that's an unlikely scenario, but so is claiming 25MW of coal will service 25,000 homes because their average power demand is 1kW over a 24hr period. It won't - the coal plant will overload early on the first day, whereas the PV + powerwalls won't.
You ( and bill) seem uncomfortable with real world numbers....?
Sure you may be able to generate 12kW for an hour or two ..(after noon once the pack is charged) but then you are left with practically nothing for the next 18 hours...so yes, an unlikely and unwise situation !
But no one would build a utility power plant to supply only 25 MW, and likely not just 300MW either .
SA would be smart to build a 600-750 MW plant to ensure power security , rather than play political election year games pretending to solve problems with 25MW of "Virtual power"

And...I was not claiming a 25MW coal ( or any other hated fuel). power plant would would service 25,000 homes.....
....i was stating that was the actual equivalent power that a 125MW solar installation would supply
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9215
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 05 2018 9:27pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 05 2018 6:55pm
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 05 2018 6:06pm
Sadly bill, all the facts point to higher costs being directly associated with increasing % of RE power generation
For utility scale generation, as of Nov 2017:
Wind - $30 to $60 per megawatt-hour
Solar - $43 to $53 per megawatt-hour
Solar plus storage - $82 per megawatt-hour
Coal - $60 to $143...
Again , none of those allow for the intermittent nature of their output,..even the "solar plus storage" does not allow for the cost of sufficient storage to ensure a reliable continuous supply during periods of no sun or no wind.
In effect, as those countries leading with high % wind and solar installations, have found, there is no realistic amount of storage available, and only full 100% thermal backup can ensure continuity of supply.
That is part of the reason their power costs are so high ..they have to double up generation capacity and maintain thermal plants ready to support the wind/solar systems.
..Iowa. 37% of its electricity comes from wind, and it has energy costs that are 10% lower than the rest of the US.
Washington state. Cheapest industrial energy prices in the US, based on its legacy use of hydro and rapidly ramping use of solar, wind and geother
Check again bill..
Most of the NW states have cheaper power prices than Iowa .
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly ... pmt_5_06_b

Washington...yes, Hydro, Geothermal, ......that good for those fortunate to have those resources, but not available to most regeons...and you have drifted from wind /solar again
i expect an honest estimate of average power (MW ) to compare to the one i posted
Ah, so you want the number with your spin on it. Fair enough; next time ask for the spin you want, rather than the actual number.
No bill...like i said, an honest estimate !
...but i suspect you dont want to admit what that "honest" estimate actually is
So those 1.8 m installations could generate 72 GWh/day ..(Note : Australia consumes approx 600GWh /day )
...if the sun shines..
...if you store the intermittent power so you can use it
...if you can find 1.8 m houses with enough north facing roof space for 40 panels! :shock:
...it the owners of those houses are willing &able to invest the $30,000 each to install such a system.
...Yep. I did it; many others did as well. If you can't afford it, you can buy a power purchase contract, where the system is installed for free and you then pay your power bill (less than you did before) to the installer...
Yes bill, i know you have solar,..... but what was the point of your question ?

And you really need to get over that 50 year old shut down Nuclear plant.
For over 40 years it generated a lot of power, and would still be working if some incompetant team had not flunked a maintenance/repair project. I believe there may be a criminal investigation into that ?...was it sabotaged ?
Maybe thats what gets your panties knotted,?... the fact that if it were still operating you may well have lower power costs than those high costs that Californias RE program has given you . :wink: .
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 06 2018 4:41am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 05 2018 8:00pm
You ( and bill) seem uncomfortable with real world numbers....?
Sure you may be able to generate 12kW for an hour or two ..(after noon once the pack is charged) but then you are left with practically nothing for the next 18 hours...so yes, an unlikely and unwise situation !
But no one would build a utility power plant to supply only 25 MW, and likely not just 300MW either .
SA would be smart to build a 600-750 MW plant to ensure power security , rather than play political election year games pretending to solve problems with 25MW of "Virtual power"

And...I was not claiming a 25MW coal ( or any other hated fuel). power plant would would service 25,000 homes.....
....i was stating that was the actual equivalent power that a 125MW solar installation would supply
Your "real world numbers" seem to be an intriguing and unique system you have invented yourself, like "actual equivalent power". I guess in the hifi world this would be RMS-PMPO...

Yes, the system could peak at 12kW during the day, if required. But the idea, which you well know, is that the PV + battery supplies the ENERGY required by the home over 24hrs but also has the POWER to meet the peaks in demand.

Sure, so to supply an average (over 24hrs) 25MW you build not a 300MW plant (the peak demand) but a 750MW one and run it inefficiently?

Let's do some Hillhater maths: 750MW "nameplate" divided by 25MW average output = 3.3% "capacity factor".

If you google "cost to build coal power plant", the top result is:
In fact, the estimated costs of building new coal plants have reached $3,500 per kW, without financing costs, and are still expected to increase further. This would mean a cost of well over $2 billion for a new 600 MW coal plant when financing costs are included.
Note the $3.50 per Watt - more expensive than PV.

Excluding finance costs, that makes your 750MW plant $2.625bn USD.

25MW average = 219,000 MWh/yr and assume your plant runs for 30 years, that's 6,570,000 MWh or $399.5/MWh! And that's just zero-interest cost to pay for construction. You still have to feed it a constant supply of coal, staff it and maintain it!


You'll say these numbers are off, but they're as realistic as your crude analyses of RE costs, which use the same method. Perhaps we should go on the published LCOE and contracted bid prices for different energy sources and trust the people whose full-time job it is to come up with these numbers.

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 06 2018 4:46am

Also, I think it's about time you provided a reference or case study for you repeated claim of "RE always requires 100% fossil-fuel backup" because I can't find one.

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1745
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Feb 06 2018 6:15am

I am sick of hearing these lines that Australia is low on coal.
If you look at the location for the Adani Carmichael thermal black coal mine, its in the middle of nowhere, arid location.
This location wasn't some special rare special find at all, they just chose a spot that was out of the way of everything else where they know they can dig for countless decades without annoying anyone, the just need to build a rail-line to it.
https://goo.gl/maps/bHySbJjJ1162
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmichael_coal_mine
The best way to think of Australia is that its full of coal.

SA would just has lignite coal instead of dry black coal which tends to be in NSW/QLD.
That mine in SA opened up in 1943, its amazing it even had coal until recently.. your website states http://flinderspower.com.au/leigh-creek-coalfield/
Leigh Creek Mine Background
Open cut mining officially commenced in Lobe B, an area formerly known as the ‘Telford Open Cut’, in August 1943. The early years of Leigh Creek saw a dramatic increase in production from 9,000 tons per annum in 1943 to approximately 440,000 tons per annum in 1949/50.


If you want to see renewables of wind and solar in action just look at electrictymap and in South Australia/Vic there was even an article out today talking about the fact on most hot days when these states need a lot of power, the wind is typically never there.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... 65363e486f
DUCbsYyUMAARBXf.jpg
DUCbsYyUMAARBXf.jpg (40.51 KiB) Viewed 1017 times
There is a bit over 1000MW needed when the wind isn't blowing for Victoria which is typically on hot days.. So wind is "perfectly" missing on the days its actually needed. I been watching this a lot over this whole summer and the wind has never blown during the hot days it blows the next day when its cool, its almost like some kind of tease the wind does for SA/Vic.
Image
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=fa ... ode=AUS-SA

If you compare Germany (which still does have 24/7 cranking 10GW nuclear) compared to full nuclear France, Germany is ALWAYS pumping out 5-10 times more co2 then France.
I know the bias takes over so think of it this way if you had a job that paid 10 times more would that seem like a lot? Of course.
A country that has no nuclear (even though it imports from France) is Italy, it has 30GW of Wind/Solar and a fair amount of Hydro but still they are pretty dark yellow most of the time https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=fa ... tryCode=IT

Tomorrow will be warm for SA/Vic and it will be the first solid warm day out of the holiday season when everyones at work so will be interesting to watch electrictymap tomorrow and see how it goes. Who knows maybe there will be some strong wind this time and will sail through ok, but the forecast for SA/Vic is $13,999 a MWh at 5pm when the sunsets and typically there is no wind.
http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Nati ... ice-demand
Attachments
2018-02-06a.png
2018-02-06a.png (169.76 KiB) Viewed 1011 times
Last edited by TheBeastie on Feb 06 2018 6:46am, edited 9 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range https://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear https://goo.gl/ZhFFot
https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9215
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 06 2018 6:25am

Punx0r wrote:
Feb 06 2018 4:46am
Also, I think it's about time you provided a reference or case study for you repeated claim of "RE always requires 100% fossil-fuel backup" because I can't find one.
Germany.
S Australia
Spain
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9215
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 06 2018 8:12am

Punx0r wrote:
Feb 06 2018 4:41am
Yes, the system could peak at 12kW during the day, if required. But the idea, which you well know, is that the PV + battery supplies the ENERGY required by the home over 24hrs but also has the POWER to meet the peaks in demand.
Demand peaks,( meal times, A/c on hot days, cold morning heating etc). Tend to last for an hour ot two.
A 5kW solar system produces on average 20kWh of ENERGY per day.
If you use that peak power potential for 1.5 hrs or so, you wont have enough ENERGY available for the rest of the day/night....because you used it all for the peak
....Sure, so to supply an average (over 24hrs) 25MW you build not a 300MW plant (the peak demand) but a 750MW one and run it inefficiently? ...
You really have missed the point !
SA is short of generation capacity, it frequently has to import the 600MW max that the interstate connector can supply. The state govmt are planning this 125MW (25MW continuous equivalent) solar "virtual " power plant as part of a solution.
I am simply saying its a dumb ineffective idea, and a 600-750MW thermal plant would be the practical, and sensible solution to their power shortage.
...Let's do some Hillhater maths: 750MW "nameplate" divided by 25MW average output = 3.3% "capacity factor".
If you google "cost to build coal power plant", the top result is:
In fact, the estimated costs of building new coal plants have reached $3,500 per kW, without financing costs, and are still expected to increase further. This would mean a cost of well over $2 billion for a new 600 MW coal plant when financing costs are included.
Note the $3.50 per Watt - more expensive than PV.

Excluding finance costs, that makes your 750MW plant $2.625bn USD.
25MW average = 219,000 MWh/yr and assume your plant runs for 30 years, that's 6,570,000 MWh or $399.5/MWh! And that's just zero-interest cost to pay for construction. You still have to feed it a constant supply of coal, staff it and maintain it!

You'll say these numbers are off, but they're as realistic as your crude analyses of RE costs, which use the same method. Perhaps we should go on the published LCOE and contracted bid prices for different energy sources and trust the people whose full-time job it is to come up with these numbers.
The $800m cost of the "Virtual" solar plant , is a figure presented by the govmt.
LCOE costs were posted above by bill v, and i pointed out there the shortcoming of comparing those figures ...IE no costing for dealing with the intermittent nature of wind and solar.
Using your figures..(but ignoring the ludicrous and impossible concept of running a 750MW plant at 25MW)..
Lets see how much power SA would get if it invested the $800m cost of the "Virtual" solar plant,, into a coal plant instead ?
$800m @ $3.5 /kW ,..would get them a 228MW coal fired plant.....thats nearly 10 times the ENERGY of the Virtual solar plan.and would last a lot longer.
.....or they could even get over 1000MW of CC Gas generators !
Even the $2+ bn for the big coal plant would be a better investment than the billions od dollars they will spend on subsidies and rebates for the RE schemes currently operational.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 06 2018 8:26am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 06 2018 6:25am
Punx0r wrote:
Feb 06 2018 4:46am
Also, I think it's about time you provided a reference or case study for you repeated claim of "RE always requires 100% fossil-fuel backup" because I can't find one.
Germany.
S Australia
Spain
That's not a reference or case study, that's "name some random countries that have some RE"

Post Reply