Showing posts with label Simon Holmes à Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Simon Holmes à Court. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

How far on a dollar?

 How far can you go on one dollar in Australia in a petrol car or an EV?  From Elitre.com.au.




How it works

The average petrol/diesel car (sales-weighted) uses 7.3 L/100km. Fuel currently costs 273.5¢/L, so $1 buys 0.37 L — enough to drive 5.0 km.

The average EV (sales-weighted) uses 15.6 kWh/100km. Smart charging with Amber Electric currently costs 15.5¢/kWh, so $1 buys 6.45 kWh — enough to drive 41.2 km.

This means that an EV could travel 8.3× further on just $1 of energy.

Have we underestimated the EV distance?

Amber has contacted the author to report that their SmartShift customers with battery and solar averaged 4.0¢/kWh during the six months to the end of March 2026. At that rate, $1 of electricity would take the average EV 159.8 km — 3.9× further than our estimate, or 32.0× as far as the average conventional vehicle.

I mostly drive around the regional city I live in.  Every once in a while, I drive into the big smoke, which is a 350 km round trip, which would be about the range of the BYD ATTO 1 which I would buy if I had the money.  For 95% of the time, I drive less than 10 k's a day, except occasionally.  My rooftop panels would be enough to charge my ATTO 1 (if I had one)  for all usage except the occasional return trip to the city.  The fast charger in the city I would use would cost 60 cents/kWh.  Assume I charge to 50% (15 kWh).  That would cost me $9.  This would be the total quarterly cost of "filling my car".   In addition, I pay $800 a year for servicing my Suzuki Swift.  EVs hardly need servicing--no radiator, no fan-belt, no oil pump, no distributor, no air filter .....  So I would expect servicing costs to be negligible--rotate the tyres, and refill the windscreen washer. 

Reminder:  in Australia, the BYD ATTO 1 costs the same (sticker price) as a petrol Suzuki Swift, and is the same-sized car with comparable performance.  My "fuel" costs would be $9.  My current costs are $120 per quarter.  My maintenance costs would be tiny, compared with $200/quarter.  

This is the tipping point.  Yes, there still aren't enough fast chargers, but if you want to see how many there now are, look on Plugshare.

Tuesday, November 1, 2022

Renewables briefly make up 70% of Oz's grid


Variable-tilt solar panels. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP




From The Guardian


Renewable energy generation hit a new record on Friday, briefly contributing more than two-thirds of the power in Australia’s main grid.

According to the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo), the milestone was set at 12.30pm, with a contribution of 68.7%, or 18,882MW, from renewable sources.

The figure is 4.6 percentage points higher than the previous record, which was set on 18 September.

Of total power in the grid on Friday, 34% came from distributed solar, which outstripped black coal’s contribution of 22%.

Renewable penetration rates are measured in 30-minute intervals, and illustrate contributions to the grid within a short period of time.

“It’s very different to 100% renewables 24/7,” said Alison Reeve, climate change and energy deputy program director at the Grattan Institute. “Nevertheless, it does show how much the grid is changing.”

“Five years ago the maximum that we’d managed to get to was 30%, and five years before that, I don’t know that anyone was even measuring [renewables], it was so small.”

One challenge of the energy transition was managing fluctuating contributions from renewable sources, Reeve said. “Once the solar has dropped out [at night], the percentage that you need to ramp up your non-renewables up to is a lot higher,” she said.

“One of the things that is gradually driving particularly coal-fired power plants out of the market at the moment is that they can’t ramp up and down that quickly … they’re not good at switching on and off over a couple of hour periods.”

Gas and hydro generators are more responsive at short timescales. Because of high gas prices currently, “when those gas generators come on they set quite a high price in the electricity market,” Reeve said.

Hydro generators have recently been limited in their operation because of the wet weather on the east coast of Australia, she added. “They can’t send too much water down the river because they don’t want to make any flooding worse,” she said.

Another challenge was replacing the “system’s stability” that coal and gas provide to the electricity grid – the ability to drop and raise generation slightly in order to “keep the voltage in the grid balanced”, Reeve said, which will require more long-duration storage infrastructure such as batteries.

“Until we figure out a way to get that balancing role done by other things like pumped hydro and batteries, and we have enough of those in the system, there will be a natural upper limit on how much renewables penetration we have, particularly once you move beyond the instantaneous … and start to talk about what we can sustain over four or eight hours.”

Reeve described these as “solvable problems”, but which required ironing out of details including costs, storage location and how the services would be valued.

A July report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) found Australia was now among the world leaders in cheap solar energy.

Behind China and India, in 2021 Australia had the third-lowest utility-scale solar cost in the world, of $0.042 USD/kWh [or USD42/MWh] (AU$0.065). This represented a 21% year-on-year drop in price.

According to IRENA data, the average cost of electricity from utility-scale solar has dropped by 90% in Australia since 2010.



From a tweet by Simon Holmes à Court

Renewable energy continues its march in Australia's national electricity market.
For 12 months to end October 2022: • coal: 59% • RE: 34% • gas: 7% 
5 years ago (2017): • coal: 74% • RE: 16% • gas: 10% 
20 years ago (2002): • coal: 92% • RE: 4% • gas: 4%


Monday, August 23, 2021

Solar more than coal for the first time

 If only for a short time.

From RenewEconomy


The combined output of rooftop solar and large scale solar farms exceeded that of brown and black coal generation for the first time in Australia’s main grid on Sunday.

According to energy analyst Simon Holmes a Court, quoting the OpenNEM data feed he helped establish, solar exceeded the output of coal at 12.35pm on Sunday, delivering a combined 9,427MW, or 41.2 per cent of demand, compared to coal’s combined 9,315MW, a combined 41.1 per cent.

It’s a significant landmark, reinforcing the scale and pace of the energy transition that has forced Australia’s two biggest utilities – AGL and Origin – to all but abandon the concept of coal generation as necessary “baseload” as they seek to adapt their legacy business models to wind, solar and storage technologies.


It wasn’t the only record to fall on Sunday, with fellow analyst Dylan McConnell, from the Climate and Energy College in Melbourne, noting that the output of coal had fallen to a record low, just as “instantaneous” renewable energy hit a new high of 56.2 per cent.

This was above the 56.1 per cent high set in April this year, but it was quickly eclipsed as the share of renewables hit a peak of 57.1 per cent of demand at 12.35pm. Wind was providing 13.2 per cent of demand at that time, and hydro 2.2 per cent.

Needless to say, prices fell across the board and all states had negative pricing events, particularly in South Australia, which is still constrained by the limits of transmission links to Victoria.

Wind and solar were providing around 100 per cent of all local demand in South Australia for much of the daylight hours, even though all its large scale solar farms – about 330MW of capacity at Bungala and Tailem Bend – and several wind farms turned themselves off to dodge the negative pricing events.

Another data logger, NEMLog, noted that the share of variable renewables, wind and solar, reached a record 54 per cent, which would have been 70 per cent were it not for curtailment (mostly due to dodging negative prices).

Negative prices also ruled for most of the day in Victoria where wind and solar provided for more than 60 per cent during the daylight hours, including a peak of more than 73 per cent in the early afternoon, also a record.

Indeed, NEMlog noted that without curtailment in Victoria, the share of wind and solar would have met 102 per cent of state demand, up from the record 99.1 per cent reached last week.


The obvious solution to the coal power stations' solar troubles is for them to put in battery storage, which would prevent them having to endure negative wholesale prices.  When prices are negative, they would shunt their output into the batteries, and sell the stored electricity when prices are high. 

Sunday, July 25, 2021

Can China build coal plants as well as climate treaties?

 From The Age

“Trust, but verify,” said Ronald Reagan to sceptics when he negotiated with Russia to help abate an existential threat to the world in the form of nuclear weapons.

Today the existential threat is climate change, and Western sceptics are wondering if China can be trusted to work with America to avert it.

In climate circles, there is universal agreement that unless the two superpowers co-operate not only to drastically reduce their own emissions but to drive the rest of the world towards an effective global agreement, we have no chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

China produces a staggering 28 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and the US 15 per cent. But there the agreement wavers.

In September last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping shocked the world by announcing at the United Nations that his country would pursue a net zero by 2060 target, putting China almost in line with the most climate-ambitious nations in the world, which have set 2050 net zero targets.

“I think it is potentially enormous — stressing both words,” Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), told The New York Times after the announcement.

But even as China was setting ambitious goals, it was also throwing up new coal-fired power plants as fast as it could, prompting sceptics to doubt China’s climate commitment and coal champions to celebrate the old fuel’s future.

Between 2015 and 2019, 360 coal plant units were added to China’s fleet, CREA reported. So far this year, the Chinese power industry has proposed 40.8 gigawatts of new coal plants – an amount comparable to the entire coal fleet of South Africa. By comparison, Australia’s largest coal-fired power station, Eraring, has a capacity of 2.8 gigawatts.

So is China serious about action on climate change? Well, maybe, say close observers.

Despite the spate of coal construction, says Myllyvirta, China has yet to violate any of its climate commitments.

“There is nothing in its international agreements that say you cannot make stupid investments,” he told the Herald and The Age, noting that under current commitments, China’s emissions are not expected to peak until the late 2020s.

Myllyvirta is one of many international observers who note that coal plant construction is used in China as much for the generation of economic stimulus as it is for generating power, with, as his recent report on the China coal boom noted, “state-owned banks that lend to state-owned utilities with little due diligence” in order to prop up GDP.

His report suggests China now has 400 GW of excess coal-fired capacity, and it charts a decline in the utilisation rates of the country’s coal fleet. “In 2019, the average thermal power plant was generating electricity at 49 per cent of capacity, down from 50 per cent in 2015 and 60 per cent in 2011,” it says.

Nonetheless, Myllyvirta is concerned that China’s coal-building binge is neither rational nor consistent with plans to rapidly decarbonise its economy.

Former prime minister and China scholar Kevin Rudd [speaks Mandarin fluently] agrees that stimulus has played some role in China’s return to coal, identifying the downturn it was seeking to buffer as preceding the COVID-19 pandemic and being related to its trade war with the US.

Nonetheless, he still sees China as a serious actor on climate change. Rudd says there has been a revolution in the way China views climate change since the failed Copenhagen climate summit 2009.

“The reason is, frankly, that they get science. I’ve been talking to Chinese political leaders and climate change officials about this for more than a decade,” Rudd says.

“To begin with, you’d get blank stares. Now, all the assumptions about both science and policy are taken as granted. And the debate [today] is about the policy practices of [decarbonising].”

According to Rudd, in recent months directives have been made from the central government to provincial leadership to halt building new coal and to plan for the decommissioning and mothballing of older power stations.

Today in China, says Rudd, the debate has moved on to whether it should end the construction of offshore coal plants via the Belt and Road Initiative.

“I don’t know which way that debate is going to resolve, because it’s foreign policy establishment, national security policy establishment versus the economic policy establishment, the climate policy establishment, and so it’s in flux,” says Rudd.

When you challenge Chinese officials on the rash of coal construction, they respond that it was necessary during the downturn but will now end, he says.

In Rudd’s estimation, China’s decision to act on climate is informed by a “brutally realist” world view.

“It’s because they’ve worked out that unless they act on climate change themselves as the world’s largest emitter by a country mile, and get the Americans to act in concert, then China’s aspirations to become a pre-eminent global great power by mid-century [will be] undermined environmentally.”

China understands, says Rudd, that unless climate change is arrested, its river systems will be completely undermined by a melted Himalayas, the north China plain will be rendered barren by water scarcity and storm intensity across south-east China will begin to wreak unprecedented havoc.

You don’t have to trust China, he says, you just have to trust China to be China.

On Friday, China released an overview of its 14th five-year plan, or economic blueprint. The document disappointed those who hoped China would commit to raising its ambitions. China recommitted to having its emissions peak by 2030 and said it would reduce its “emissions intensity”, the measure of carbon dioxide produced per unit of GDP, by 18 per cent over the period 2021 to 2025.

“In terms of the climate, initial indications from China’s 14th Five Year Plan are underwhelming and shows little sign of a concerted switch away from a future coal lock-in,” said Swithin Lui, the Climate Action Tracker’s China lead, of NewClimate Institute.

But this is not the only signal that China has made on climate recently. Last month China appointed Xie Zhenhua to be its new special climate envoy, opposite John Kerry in the US.

The men share a significant history.

Scarred by the collapse of the Copenhagen climate talks early in his presidency, Barack Obama was determined that the Paris talks in 2015 would not share the same fate.

With John Kerry as secretary of state, the Obama administration began secret talks with China a year before the summit and after painstaking negotiations announced a joint climate agreement in late 2014.

The impact of the deal announced by surprise in the lead-up to the Paris talks is hard to exaggerate. “In one move, Obama and Xi broke the logjam of climate politics,” Jairam Ramesh, an Indian economist and politician told Rolling Stone magazine at the time. “Until now, China has insisted that the US and the EU are largely responsible for climate change. But this raises the bar for other nations.”

The deal deprived climate obstructionists of the argument that there is no point in Western nations acting without China and all but assured the success of the Paris talks.

Sitting at the intersection of China’s foreign policy and domestic political establishment, known and trusted in the West, Xie is in a perfect position to negotiate a climate deal with the US that could become the foundation of a global agreement, says Rudd.

Such a deal is in China’s interests, too.

“This is not animated by some Kumbaya moment, some desire to appeal to the collective West and the wider world. It’s driven by hard science and mathematics.”


Yes, but.  If we are to have any kind of chance to prevent global temperatures rising by more than 1.5 degrees C since pre-industrial times, we need to halve emissions in the 2030s and halve them again in the 2040s.  If China's emissions won't peak until 2030, the world won't halve emissions by 2030.  China is clearly moving in the right direction: it has introduced a price on carbon, it promotes electric cars, and it is the largest investor in renewables in the world.  But at the very least, it must build no new coal power stations.


From the BBC:

China emits more greenhouse gas than the entire developed world combined, a new report has claimed.

The research by Rhodium Group says China emitted 27% of the world's greenhouse gases in 2019.

The US was the second-largest emitter at 11% while India was third with 6.6% of emissions, the think tank said.

Scientists warn that without an agreement between the US and China it will be hard to avert dangerous climate change.

China's emissions more than tripled over the previous three decades, the report from the US-based Rhodium Group added.

The Asian giant has the world's largest population, so its per person emissions are still far behind the US, but the research said those emissions have increased too, tripling over the course of two decades.










Sunday, July 18, 2021

China's carbon price

 From a Twitter feed by Simon Holmes à Court [lightly edited]

Yesterday, 16 July, China introduced a national carbon trading scheme, based on lessons learnt from pilot programs run in 7 regions between 2013–2020.

The average carbon price in the pilots since 2013 mostly moved between RMB 20-40 (A$4.17–8.34)[US$3.09-$6.17; Europe's carbon price is currently +-US$64].



To start with, the national scheme only covers ~2200 power companies, collectively responsible for ~40% of china's emissions.

Companies that pollute more than a given emissions intensity will be required to purchase carbon units, companies that pollute less can sell credits.  [This is interesting--it's not an absolute limit on emissions but a relative limit, in line with China's target to cut carbon intensity, i.e., carbon emitted per unit of GDP. Carbon intensity may fall even as total emissions rise, if economic growth is high]

The intention is to expand the scheme to include the sectors responsible for the vast majority of CO₂ emissions:


In the first day of trading, "a flurry of trades sent prices surging".   Carbon units opened at RMB 48 (A$10) per tonne, and 4.2mt traded as high as RMB 52.80, where it hit a price cap — prices are not permitted to rise by more than 10% per day.

No doubt china's scheme has plenty of shortcomings, and it won't slash their massive emissions overnight…

But it's ironic (& sad) that "communist" china has emissions trading, while Australia's "free market" gov't destroyed our scheme as their first order of business in 2013/4.

If @HonTonyAbbott, assisted by @Barnaby_Joyce, hadn't killed australia's emissions trading scheme, we'd have just begun our *tenth* year of carbon pricing.

…and Australian farmers would be "exporting" millions of tonnes of CO₂ credits to the EU for ~$80/tonne.

Instead, Australian manufacturers are facing the very real prospect of a carbon border adjustment mechanism #CBAM from both the EU and US. Australia will be subject to a carbon tax — it's just a matter of time — but it won't be on our terms, and the funds will flow offshore.


It's crystal clear. Either we will pay a carbon tax to ourselves (if we introduce one) or we will pay it to other countries (on our exports). And other countries will make the same calculation, which means that, step by step, other countries will also introduce their own carbon taxes, until every country in the world has a price on carbon. Except, possibly, Australia.

You might also like EU's Border Carbon Levy





Wednesday, March 10, 2021

EVs not suited to Australia????

From Simon Holmes a Court

Myth: "EVs are not suited to Australia because we drive so far!"
(perhaps you were thinking of Austria?)
Fact: Australia is a big country, sure, but we're highly urbanised. *Most* of us don't crisscross the country every day!








Monday, July 20, 2020

Emissions from air travel vs coal

A nice chart showing emissions from Victoria's 3 (brown) coal power stations vs national emissions from Australia's 3 main airlines, for fiscal year 2019 (from 1st July 2018 to 30th June 2019, in other words, pre-covid) from Simon Holmes à Court


In normal times, aviation is a significant source of greenhouse emissions. not wanting to downplay its carbon footprint, but let's use that sector as a yardstick.

Here's how emissions from Victoria's 3 coal power stations stack up against Australia's domestic aviation sector.




 This chart emphasises just how important it is to get coal out of our energy supply.

Thursday, February 27, 2020

26%--or nothing?

The right-wing coalition ruling Australia says Australia's emissions will fall 26% over the next decade.  Only, these are the government's own projections:

Source: Simon Holmes à Court

So how can they claim that emissions will fall?  Well, they include "overachievement" from the previous Kyoto agreement in the data.  In fact, of course, it's obvious that emissions are barely declining.  And, after all, the climate doesn't give a fig about accounting, just the reality of greenhouse gas emissions.

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Oz—too small to matter?

Our cockwomble of a PM, Scott Morrison, denies a link between climate change and our unprecedented bushfires (it's just arsonists), denies that climate change is even happening (it's all natural),  but if it is, we (Oz) only emit 1.3% of global CO2 (so we're helpless to stop climate change), and anyway, switching to renewables will devastate the economy (rubbish).  This farrago of half-truths, lies and obfuscations is accepted and magnified by the Murdoch press and media channels, and isn't properly questioned and refuted by other "centrist" media.  Only The Guardian and the ABC have been any different.

Here are some excerpts from a piece by Simon Holmes à Court in The Guardian, and it addresses the claim that Oz is too small to matter when it comes to climate change.

Australia’s unforgiving, unrelenting and unprecedented fires have demonstrated so clearly that the climate doesn’t recognise tricky “Kyoto carryover” accounting and doesn’t care for juvenile finger pointing at other countries.

With a warming climate, this brutal summer is a preview of what will become a regular occurrence in our lifetimes. More and more Australians realise that climate change is a clear and present threat.

Our only chance to maintain our standard of living, and our economy, is if all countries rapidly decarbonise. Many are committed to this, Australia is not. We cannot expect global progress if we ourselves aren’t prepared to at least pull our weight, let alone show any leadership.

Yet, we have a prime minister who looks into the camera and speaks to a people in survival mode and deep trauma and waves away our responsibility. He claims that we are responsible for just 1.3% of global carbon dioxide emissions, as if we are irrelevant.

Australia is the 14th largest emitter out of 208 countries. If all countries with emissions under a “measly” 2% were lumped together we’d together be responsible for almost as much annual emissions as China and India put together.







Australia has never been irrelevant and we certainly aren’t now.

Australia has the highest emissions per capita of all major nations. The average Australian has four times the carbon footprint of the average global citizen, significantly due to our unusually high reliance on coal for electricity, the poor energy efficiency of our vehicles and buildings and the high domestic emissions from coal and gas extraction and processing.

China and India haven’t yet peaked their emissions – unsurprising given their stage of development – but both are decoupling emissions from development such that their average citizen will never have the carbon footprint the average Australian has now.

The “too small to matter” argument is logically absurd, but it is also morally bankrupt and economically reckless.

We all know that throwing one piece of litter out the window wouldn’t ruin the environment, but if all did we’d soon be surrounded by rubbish.

How about voting? It is a foundation of our democracy that nobody’s voice is so small as to be meaningless.

Likewise, if any one taxpayer stopped paying tax we all know it wouldn’t make a measurable difference to the government’s bottom line, but if everyone stopped paying tax it would smash consolidated revenue.

So when did we become a nation of shirkers? We’ve always punched above our weight. A young Australia was immensely proud of the troops committed to the first world war, even though the Diggers comprised less than 1% of the Allied Powers. We are only 0.3% of the global population but are gutted whenever we’re not near the top of the Olympic medal tally.

The UN Environment Program recently announced that global emissions need to reduce by 7.6% every year for a decade to keep warming below 1.5C. With no emissions reductions projected, it’s no wonder that Australia’s climate policies were recently ranked dead last among 57 nations.

Meanwhile, other countries are embracing the challenge.

In November I visited a cement factory in Belgium that is trialling a low-cost technology – originally developed in Australia – for decarbonising cement manufacture. Globally, the cement sector is responsible for around 8% of emissions, as growing developing countries urbanise.

In Essen, in Germany’s Ruhr Valley, I saw a technology that allows power-hungry aluminium smelters to operate well (and increase profits) in renewable-dominated grids. The technology was first developed in Gladstone and partly Australian-owned before being sold offshore.
 In nearby Duisburg, I visited ThyssenKrupp, a major German industrial company with a commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The company has embarked on an ambitious plan to decarbonise steel production, also responsible for around 8% of global emissions, with the ultimate goal of replacing coal with hydrogen. ThyssenKrupp is also developing technology to combine “waste” gases with “green” hydrogen – hydrogen produced with renewable energy – to synthesise chemicals such as methanol and ammonia, providing a pathway to lowering emissions from aviation and agriculture.

As these economies wean themselves off coal the demand for hydrogen will skyrocket. With the potential to harness vast quantities of low-cost renewable energy, Australia is well placed to become an energy superpower in a decarbonised global economy.

None of the major industrial companies I visited in Europe sees decarbonisation through a sacrifice lens. There’s no talk of “economy wrecking targets”. Rather, having accepted that the economy must be decarbonised, they are rushing to seize a competitive advantage.

Meanwhile, Australia is a world away, in every sense. A rich, talented, capable nation is being held back by a lack of honesty and a lack of imagination – a nation held back by the vested interests of those who profit from the extraction and sale of gas and coal.

Our prime minister is paralysed, unable to acknowledge that fossil fuel emissions are changing the climate, and that the changing climate is hurting Australians.

To which I would add: if Australia, one of the richest countries on Earth, with one of the highest per capita emissions, refuses to do anything about its emissions, how will we be able to ask China, a much poorer country, with much lower per capita emissions to cut hers?  But it is essential that China cut her emissions if we are to avoid 3 degrees C rise by 2100.  1 degree has been bad enough, and as emissions continue to rise, things will only get worse.


Sunday, June 9, 2019

More storage? or more capacity?-II

I was inspired to write my previous article by two things.   The first was a tweet by Simon Holmes à Court a few months ago, showing a chart of the combined output of South Australian wind farms, which was flat, rather than fluctuating in line with the winds, because output had been curtailed by the AEMO (Australia's grid manager).    He said that it looked like the output of a baseload power plant.  It did, and it made me start to think, I wonder if having extra renewable capacity across the grid would deliver the same effect.

The second was this article in CleanTechnica.   And this chart from that article is illuminating:



The grey band shows the costs of electricity from the grid.  Obviously, without a carbon price, or factoring in the cost to the environment of carbon emissions, new generating capacity must be cheaper than the average cost of the grid now to be taken up.  The red line A shows how, without storage, renewables are much cheaper than grid parity.  As we increase capacity in renewables, the costs rise steadily, because of curtailment.  By 60% curtailment, they start to increase above grid parity. 

The blue line shows the cost of battery storage.  With zero overcapacity in generation, we need a lot of storage, to cover those rare days when there is no wind and no sun and strong demand.  As we add more renewable overcapacity, it falls from 6 times grid parity at zero overcapacity/curtailment to below grid parity, because the extra capacity reduces the need for storage.

The black line shows the total cost, i.e., represents the sum of the blue and the red lines.  And the result is counter-intuitive: as we add surplus capacity up to point C, the average cost of capacity plus storage doesn't increase—it falls.   (Note that the authors call it dynamic curtailment because it changes as supply and demand positions change.)

Their costings are lower than mine.  But the conclusions are the same—we could run a grid on 100% wind and solar, by planning for overcapacity.  We don't need nuclear or other baseload power, which is not to say that legacy nuclear and hydro plants won't be useful.  The siren voices which insist we need nuclear to reach 100% renewables are wrong. 


Monday, January 21, 2019

New wind farm to provide 10% of Vic's electricity

There has been an explosion in new wind and solar farms in Australia.  The reason is simple: the all-in costs of new wind and solar have fallen below A$60/MWh ( US$42/MWh) whereas the cost of wholesale electricity, driven by the high cost of gas- and coal-powered generation in Oz is substantially above that (A$80/MWh or more).  I talked before about a proposed offshore wind farm (its costs will be higher than $60/MWh, but offshore wind is less variable than onshore wind) which if it goes ahead will provide 18% of Victoria's electricity.



Now there's another wind farm, which will be the largest in the Southern Hemisphere:

The managing director of a company that plans to construct Victoria’s largest windfarm says the project will supply enough power to replace up to a third of the generation of the decommissioned Hazelwood power station at less than $50/MWh.
The Victorian government has granted a planning permit for WestWind Energy’s $1.5bn Golden Plains windfarm, which will become one of the largest windfarms in the southern hemisphere. 
The windfarm would span 17,000 hectares [42,000 acres] on land 60km north-west of Geelong and generate more than 3000 gigawatt hours of electricity per year – enough to power more than 400,000 homes.

Tobias Geiger, the managing director of WestWind Energy, said the large scale project would be able to supply energy at low cost.

“With this very large project and very good wind resource, combined with the latest wind turbine technology that’s now available, we can achieve a levelised cost of energy for this project that is below $50 per MW/h,” he said.

“If you put that into the context of electricity market prices from Victoria which for the past two years have hovered around $80 to $120 per MW/h, you can see the significance of this project for driving down electricity prices for all Victorians.”

Simon Holmes à Court, a senior advisor at the Climate and Energy College at Melbourne University, said bigger turbines, better sites, economies of scale and more competitive financing “have literally halved the cost of of wind energy”.

“At $50/MWh — just 5 cents per kWh — the Golden Plains windfarm will produce power for less than the market cost of fuel alone for many coal and all gas power stations,” he said.

“And it’s big — expected to provide between 8–10% of Victoria’s energy.”

[Read more here]

Although the electricity produced by this wind farm will be half the cost of coal- or gas-generated electricity, it's still not a done deal that there will be complete replacement of fossil fuel electricity.  This is because as the percentage of renewables in the grid rises, we need more storage.  And although wind farms have started adding storage, it's only a couple of hours.  To go to twelve hours of storage which is what we'll need to get to 80 or 90% renewables, we'll have to see the cost of battery packs below $100/kWh, which won't happen until 2021.   

However I see no problems with the ne Victorian renewable energy target of 50% by 2030.  Actually, I suspect we'll get to 100% by then.  The key is Simon Holmes à Court's point: 

“At $50/MWh — just 5 cents per kWh — the Golden Plains windfarm will produce power for less than the market cost of fuel alone for many coal and all gas power stations,” he said.

When storage gets cheap enough, coal power stations will be retired early because they'll simply be too expensive to run, let alone build.

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Victoria's renewables push

There are several ways we could encourage renewables.  One way is legislative fiat.   You pass a law requiring utilities to progressively increase the percentage of electricity they produce from renewable sources.  Another is to give tax credits.  In the US, there is a 30% Federal tax credit for wind and solar (though it's being phased out).  There is a $7500 tax credit for buying an EV, though for Tesla at least, that will fall away over the next 9 months.  Or you can have some sort of cap-and-trade system.  How they work is that a limit for carbon emissions or a minimum for renewable generation is set.  If you are above (in the case of carbon emissions) or below (in the case of renewable generation) you have to buy certificates to cover the cost of your excess (shortfall) from firms which have produced less CO2 (or more renewables.)  Australia's renewable energy target (RET) is of this type.  Or you can set high feed-in-tariffs (FITs) for, say rooftop solar.

Then there are reverse auctions.  The government puts a tender out to the market for supply of renewable electricity at the lowest price, and it accepts the lowest bidders.  But instead of buying electricity from the utilities, the government gives them a "contract for difference".  It sets a maximum (wholesale) price for the electricity output from the wind/solar farm and each entrant to the auction then bids at that price or one below it.  The cheapest bidders win the contract.  If in future the wholesale price for electricity turns out to be higher than  the contract price, the solar/wind farms return that to the government.  If the wholesale price is below the set price, the government pays the wind/solar farm the difference.  Since the contract is with the government, the utilities can borrow at a lower interest rate, which means that the cost of the electricity generated is lower.  This process was first pioneered by the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) in its move towards 100% green energy, and the architect of the ACT's contract for difference auctions is now working for the Victorian government to deliver the same outcome here.

Victoria’s Labor government is to sign contracts for six new wind and solar farms after an overwhelming response to its first, and Australia’s largest, renewable energy auction.

The response was so positive, and the value from the bids so great and the prices so low, that the government has reportedly elected to allocate 928MW of capacity – way more than the 650MW contemplated when the auction was first announced just over a year ago.

Details of the winning bids were released on Tuesday when premier Daniel Andrews and energy minister Lily D’Ambrosio visited the Ararat wind farm.

“This is great value – the bids were lower than what we thought they were going to be,” D’Ambrosio told Reneweconomy. “It just shows you that the market is really ripe for investment ….. when given the policy certainty.”

Not only does the auction result lock in lower power prices for the state, this auction and the recent rooftop solar support scheme also achieves as much in emissions reductions as the federal Coalition government planned to achieve over a whole decade with the defunct National Energy Guarantee. Now, the Morrison government has abandoned any attempts to achieve any emissions cuts.

The projects will not supply electricity to the government, but under an agreement known as a “contract for difference”, the Victoria government will guarantee the projects receive a minimum price.

This was set last November at $56/MWh for wind, $53/MWh for solar PV and $56/MWh for solar PV with tracking. If the actual wholesale price is higher than those numbers (and it has been nearly twice as high as that [$90/MWh] in Victoria for much of this year), then the wind farm owner returns the difference to the government.

If the wholesale price is lower, then the government makes up the difference to the renewable project owners to guarantee them a minimum ongoing income.

But this exposure is capped – and this is where the competition in the auction came from, as it is assumed that bids for a “base payment” came in at zero, at least for the wind farms, and possibly had “negative” prices.

It’s a remarkable outcome for the government. If wholesale prices do fall below $56/MWh, that’s a great result for consumers, and the costs to the government will be capped.
[From RenewEconomy]

The Victorian government hasn't released the detailed pricing but estimates are that wind was effectively contracted at A$50/MWh, and solar below that, which implies that contracts in sunnier places like Queensland and South Australia likely in the the low A$40s/MWh.  These prices are about half the average wholesale price and about 30 to 40% of the cost of new coal power stations.  (Existing coal power stations are probably around A$30-A$50/MWh, because they are fully depreciated, unlike new power stations)

In addition to this auction, the Victorian government has also announced two new initiatives, one a scheme to subsidise rooftop solar for families, and the other to subsidise batteries.  The government will pay half the cost of a 4 kW rooftop system, and lend the balance to the home owner at zero interest, repayable over 4 years.  The battery subsidy is up to $5000, depending on the size of the battery installed.

Together these policies will deliver more than the national (and now defunct) NEG (national energy guarantee).

Source: Simon Holmes à Court 

Australian electricity prices have doubled over the last 10 years, mostly because of privatisation of previously state-owned electricity generators, and poor regulation after privatisation.  Oligopolistic "gentailers" have rorted the system to guarantee large profits for themselves.  This huge rise in electricity prices has become a political hot potato.  The Right blames renewables, which is rubbish.  The Left is doing something about it.  The Labor government in Victoria will at a stroke reduce electricity bills by:

  • expanding the role of renewables, which will produce electricity at nearly half the cost of the current grid
  • increasing competition--these wind and solar farms are not owned by the oligopolists.   
  • Households will be enabled to install rooftop solar and batteries which will substantially reduce household electricity bills.
And, just as good, this will lead to a 40% fall in emissions from electricity.

Way to go.

Monday, July 2, 2018

The collapsing coal pipeline.

From Simon Holmes à Court, about the global pipeline of new coal power stations, in response to a rabid-right group of coal supporters in our government:

in 12 mths to jan 2018:
• pipeline shrank 30% (549GW to 387GW)
• only 8% (46GW) entered construction
• 31% (172GW) was cancelled
• 75% of the 'planned' projects are not yet permitted!  
meanwhile:
• 57GW (12%) of capacity actually under construction was shelved/cancelled
• coal power stations totalling 55GW retired.




On Simon's figures, we may already have passed or are at least are very close to peak coal.  Awesome.

Sunday, November 5, 2017

Plunging renewables costs

(Chart from Simon Holmes à Court )

Note: the 2018, 2019 & 2020 numbers are not forecasts, they're the date at which the projects will be commissioned.  

Lazard calculates the cost of new coal in the USA at $60 to $143/MWh, and gas combined cycle at $48 to $78/MWh.  Tesla's Powerpack costs $107/MWh, which compares with Lazard's pricing for gas peaking plants of $165 to $217/MWh.  So 12 hours of storage plus the cost of wind or solar would be around $90/MWh, cheaper than peaking power gas and about the same as coal.  Only gas combined cycle running as baseload is cheaper, and only in the USA.  (These costs will differ for other countries.  PPAs and the LCOEs depend on interest rates.  Countries with high interest rates will see fossil fuel electricity as relatively cheaper than countries with low interest rates because the present value of future costs (fuel) is reduced in the calcs by higher interest rates.)

There is no reason why the declining trend in the costs of wind and solar projects will end.

The headwinds faced by coal are obvious. 



Sunday, October 22, 2017

Litter, or less than 2%

There are many who argue that since Australia produces less than 2% of global emissions, we shouldn't bother to try and reduce our own emissions.  Our output is too small to make a difference.  This is akin to saying that you can throw your rubbish out of the car window because you contribute only 0.0001% of total litter.  Countries each individually emitting less than 2% of the global total for CO2 together emit nearly 40% of the global total, which is more even than China. (Chart from Simon Holmes à Court )

Yes, China is very important.  But China is actually taking serious steps to reduce its emissions.  Yes, the USA is important and despite the orange clown, it too is cutting its CO2 emissions.  India is a big emitter, but it's started down the road towards a low carbon economy.  (We will avert our eyes from Russia.)  And if every country responsible for less than 2% of global CO2 emissions also did their duty, we would be able to limit global warming to 1.6 or 1.8 C by 2050.

Source: Simon Holmes à Court

Consider, however, that not throwing your litter out of the window costs you very little.  Compliance with that social norm is cheap.  Perhaps complying with the global need to reduce carbon emissions is expensive?  In which case, you might be justified "throwing your litter out of the window", if everybody else also did that.  Why bother to be moral when nobody else does?  An age-old question.

20 or 15 years ago, switching to renewables was very expensive.  Renewables were 10 or 20 times as costly as fossil fuels.  Only countries with strong social consciences started down the road towards green energy.  They dutifully disposed of their litter, or at least some of it, while the rest of us continued to toss it out of the window.  It was too costly, too hard, to switch to renewables.

Even 5 years ago, though their costs had declined, renewables were still more expensive than fossil fuels.  However, by then the cost gap had narrowed dramatically, and it went on narrowing.  Now, in most places in the world, wind is cheaper than coal, and large-scale solar either is or soon will be.  We now have a powerful economic incentive to stop CO2 pollution.  The moral imperative now coincides with the economic.  Within a few years (3? 4? 5?) new renewables globally, even with some storage, will undercut the cost of old, fully depreciated coal power stations--the total cost of renewables will be less than the fuel cost of coal power stations. The only factor restraining the shuttering of old coal power stations will be how quickly we can roll out renewables to replace them, not how much renewables cost.

The same rapid cost declines are taking place with electric cars (EVs)  In five years' time, electric cars will have sticker prices which match those of ICEVs (petrol/gasoline/diesel cars.)  EVs are already far cheaper to run than ICEVs.  Even in Australia with its high electricity prices a 100 kWh Tesla  can be "filled" for just A$26. This is about one quarter the cost of the petrol needed for a similar range in a luxury (=heavy) ICEV.  Maintenance is cheaper, too: basically rotate tyres and refill windscreen washer reservoirs.  EVs are quieter, smoother, funner to drive, less smelly.  And they will park themselves.  When sticker prices of EVs match those of ICEVs, EVs will be extremely attractive, and car sales will switch very rapidly.  Yet this will require that the source of the electricity which "fills" EVs is renewable, or the benefits of switching (for society) will be a lot smaller.

If renewables and electric cars are cheaper than fossil fuels, the last excuse of the soft denialists will be swept away.  No country will be allowed by the world community to avoid doing their moral duty to cut emissions.  They will have no excuse not to go green.  In fact, small countries will be the least likely to be allowed to get away with subsidising coal or petrol and resisting the switch to a carbon-free economy.  Those small countries together producing 40% of world emissions will be under intense, irresistible, political pressure from the rest of the world to do their bit.  And that includes Australia.

Once, littering was socially acceptable.  It isn't any more.  In some quarters, emitting CO2 is still preferable to going green. It's somehow a mark of your right-wing credentials to support coal (WTF?)   But the social, moral and political pressure against carbon will just keep on intensifying as the costs of renewables plummet and global temperatures rise.  The Right's crusade against renewables will inevitably fail. And it will leave them looking like the really bad guys.