Renewables Experiment in Oz - keep watching

Status
Not open for further replies.

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
46,497
Location
Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said climate change played a key role in last week’s storm and renewable energy would be an effective solution to tackling the global issue. “The storms that happened last week were influenced by climate change,” she said. “That means we need to look at all our infrastructure across the state to think about how it will be resilient to climate change and ensure that we know all the information and we are upgrading those systems. It also means we need to tackle the problem and renewable energy is one of the key solutions.”
So the CEO for a company that exists solely for the purpose of discussing Climate Change immediately states that the storm is the result of Climate Change. Imagine that smirk And this is featured on a website called "Renewable Energy World". With a name like that, I'd fully expect them to endorse the synergy of conventional generation and renewables rather than having an agenda...... Oh wait. I'm sorry, she can pimp renewable energy in Australia all she wants, and if it isn't subsidized, I have no issue with that. However, until something dramatic is done by the big polluters like China, it is like [censored] into a Tornado. There is over 900,000MW of installed coal burning capacity in China. In Comparison Australia has 29,000MW. I can provide some other relative comparison statistics but despite all this hoopla, the reality is that wind only provides 4.2% of Australia's generation capacity. For 4.2% of your generation to get disconnected and take down an area this large, even if that disconnection was "performing as planned" to protect the equipment, that's still a huge red flag as to the robustness of the grid that ties this stuff all together. It points to a rather significant issue with that infrastructure, and that statement can be made without buying into the agenda behind some of the agencies heavily promoting the reliance on this type of technology because that agenda drives their existence.
 
Messages
6,264
Location
Illinois
What you didn't read where they stated the cause was the transmission line knocked down?
Quote:
A preliminary report by the Australian Energy Market Operator found the blackout was triggered by storm damage to three major transmission lines, followed by wind farms disconnecting from the energy grid, which caused a massive load spike on the interconnector to neighbouring state Victoria. The report also found that six wind farms experienced generation reduction in the lead up to the blackout. He said under the circumstances, gas-fired generators would have fallen off the grid just as rapidly as the wind farms did. “The system you could argue did not perform ideally in terms of the rapidity of which it was recovered, so there are lessons in this,” Finkel said. “The problems in the electricity system didn’t commence with a generator disconnection, it commenced with steel pylons falling over because of the ferocity of the wind. They (wind farms) went down as they were designed to do, to protect themselves. That is the intention of safety circuits at the end of the day they protect the device.”
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
46,497
Location
Ontario, Canada
Of course I did. That's the example that outlines the robustness issue I spoke of, good lord. However, even if we accept that at face value and acknowledge that the result of the interconnectivity failure was the the system functioning as designed, it demonstrates that the intermittents are not tied in as well as they should be to the distribution system, nor is there adequate redundancy in place to deal with the load generated by the intermittents getting quickly disconnected from the grid (the noted load spike), which would be the case even if the lines had not gone down. Wind turbines cannot function in gale-force winds, so they all would have had the brakes on as the wind speed ramped up to levels that exceeded their designed operating range. There need to be other ties in place to baseload providers to deal with this type of scenario, more distributed redundancy. All wind in Ontario is backed up by distributed gas turbine infrastructure to deal with load spikes and periods of low to no wind generation. While our system is a shining example of what not to do financially, the infrastructure isn't awful. There is no heavy reliance on an interconnected neighbour for periods of low-to-no generation. I believe, and I may be wrong, but the Victoria Interconnect is the one Shannow has mentioned in the past that they have had issues with. So the weakness of such heavy reliance on this type of interconnect due to inadequate local baseload is aptly illustrated with this situation. it is not a failing of the wind farms. It is a failing of design, likely due to agenda and inadequate planning, which is probably the result of said agenda. That's how we ended up in our quagmire.
 

Shannow

Thread starter
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
What you didn't read where they stated the cause was the transmission line knocked down?
Do the tiniest pit of research into the ACTUAL lines that went down...they were all on the North of Adelaide, not on the interstate interconnector. And as I've stated over and over and over again, and you as an industry insider should appreciate, the wind turbines aren't capable of a ride through, or self initiating like a GT or thermal. As soon as they lost their frequency signal, they tripped...just like they are designed to...they AREN'T designed to support the grid. Simple...like I've been saying for a year, isn't it ? I was watching the power up of that state in real time...started with some diesels, then they brought a wind farm in early (once it had something to connect to)...then they had to kill all the wind farms so that they could get the system stability that they needed to connect to the main grid. Certain media alements are caiming that this proved that the wind was needed to restart the grid, failing to mention the fact that they had to kill it all to get the state reconnected. Why would the likes of the people that you linked to include the former (that they brought wind in early) in their arguments, but ignore that they had to kill it to reconnect ? Maybe the title of their websites/blogs gives a hint ?
 
Messages
6,264
Location
Illinois
So when a major transmission line goes down then it's not normal for the load to be shed? Whether wind solar or fossil fuel they all would need shut down. Again as stated in the article.... It all sounds to me like poor planing, poor implementation and poor management of the grid.
 
Messages
6,264
Location
Illinois
Need to have a subscription for the above link. Just to be clear though you are blaming the entire episode on the wind delivery?
 

Shannow

Thread starter
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Need to have a subscription for the above link. Just to be clear though you are blaming the entire episode on the wind delivery?
Quote me where I have stated that then... again, and I'm typing this as slow as I can for you...again...as renewables are in the disruptive phase, they are reducing the viability of traditional generation, check renew economy website, they agloating about it; and traditional power stations close. However, when in distruptive phase, renewables are merely moving traditional power out of the market, making the grid less robust...they do not provide frequency control, black start, ride through, or inertia. my point...again...is that WHEN these are the only source of power, you need 4 times the nameplate rating of thermals to harvest the same quantity of energy AND you need some way to store it. Per the start of this thread, S.A. has the most renewables intrusion (state sponsored), has lost the greatest amount of traditional generation, has the most expensive wholesale power in the country, and currently has the least reliability to boot...and are completely reliant on the interconnecter to the brown coalers in another state. To get reliable, 100%, is going to cost them a fortune. Now show me where I have blamed wind FOR the blackout, like you are suggesting. It's standard SHOZ tactics really...like So ShOZ, you are really saying that S.A. could suvive on 100% wind power, no thermal, no storage ? ... and be cheaper to boot ? BTW, I don't have a subscription to the linked article...
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
46,497
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Need to have a subscription for the above link. Just to be clear though you are blaming the entire episode on the wind delivery?
Works for me? Maybe try it again.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
46,497
Location
Ontario, Canada
Another thing worth mentioning but seldom discussed is the amount of backup generation that needs to be installed to make the renewables viable. As I touched on earlier, Ontario has a ton of distributed gas turbine power installed, roughly 10,000MW, to act as peakers and deal with the intermittents. The cost of this is never brought up when the cost of wind/solar are being discussed, but was a not so insignificant part of the almost 100 billion we've spent on renewables that make up 12% of our generation capacity mix (more than double that of Australia) yet produce less than 7% of our actual power. These corresponding GT's produce 10% in comparison. You can have a reliable and robust renewable infrastructure. You can have a relatively inexpensive renewable infrastructure. But you can't have both. A quick look at Denmark, which pays the highest rates in Europe, has an almost entirely wind driven energy sector and a massive interconnect system because ultimately they only generate ~34% of their power domestically is a shining example. It was obscenely expensive and this, coupled with the imports, despite wind's "free" generation, is what dictates their cost of energy. And of course a parallel can be drawn to Shannow's example, as Denmark buys power from neighbours that burn coal, run nuke plants.....etc.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
46,497
Location
Ontario, Canada
Shannow's article, as I had it time-out as well after a minute:
Quote:
South Australia's electricity network was hit by a series of transmission faults within two minutes following last Wednesday's super storm which resulted in the disconnection of wind generation which plunged the state into darkness, according to the first preliminary report into the disaster. The Australian Energy Market Operator - which runs the National Electricity Market - said it would have to investigate further to determine whether the state's network operated as normal before it disconnected from the rest of the grid last Wednesday. As state and federal energy ministers prepare for Friday's urgent Council of Australian Energy Council meeting to deal with the fall-out from the SA power crisis, the preliminary AEMO report will raise further questions about the state being too dependant on renewable energy like wind and solar. Storm the 'fundamental cause' South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill refused to apportion blame on the state's substantial reliance on wind power for the blackout, and also angrily criticised Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. "If you hate wind farms like some people do, you will blame wind farms," Mr Weatherill told reporters in Adelaide after the release of the interim report. Mr Weatherill said the report showed the cause of the blackout was the storm, not the mix of power supply in the state. "It is a storm event, not a mix event," he said. "The fundamental root cause is the storm," he said. But he did concede that wind farms were a part of the overall system which had failed. "The wind farms were part of the picture," Mr Weatherill said. "There were wind farms that were unable to operate because they were above a break in the system". Weatherill attacks Turnbull The South Australian Premier was highly critical of Mr Turnbull, federal Senator Nick Xenophon and South Australian Liberal leader Steven Marshall for politicising the blackout as emergency services were trying to stabilise the situation and keep people calm. Mr Weatherill accused Mr Turnbull of acting out of fear that the right wing of the Federal Liberal Party would turn on him if he backed renewable energy to the hilt, because of the influence of coal interests. "We know we have a Prime Minister who is beholden to the right wing of his party," Mr Weatherill said. But State Liberal energy spokesman Dav van Holst Pellekaan accused Mr Weatherill of falling back into his old habits of shifting blame for his own failures onto the Federal Government. The state-wide black out was the first time an entire state has been automatically disconnected from the NEM since it was created in 1998. The report found the destructive storms which swept across SA on the afternoon of September 28 created havoc on the state's long-distance power lines, including three major 275 KV transmission lines north of Adelaide. The loss of the three transmission lines at 4.16pm and the unknown status of a fourth line effectively cut the SA transmission grid in two, isolating the north of the state, according to the report. The state's generators initially were able to continue to operate through the faults, but by 4.18pm, a cascading series of further faults resulted in 315 megawatts of wind generation disconnecting from the grid in quick succession. 'Uncontrolled reduction in generation' SA's power network was shut down two minutes after the transmission lines first went down. "The uncontrolled reduction in generation resulted in increased flow on the main Victorian interconnector [Heywood] to make up the deficit," the report said. "This resulted in the Heywood interconnector overloading. To avoid damage to the interconnector, the automatic-protection mechanism activated, tripping the interconnector. "In this event, this resulted in the remaining customer load and electricity generation in SA being lost [referred to as a Black System]." The report found SA transmission network owner Electranet asked AEMO to start energising the Victorian interconnector through to Adelaide and start the Torrens Island power station to start restoring power. By midnight on Wednesday, power had been restored to 80-90 per cent of customers. Investigation ongoing AEMO said it was still too early to get a definitive answer on the SA power black out. "While the event was triggered by extreme weather, AEMO will conduct a thorough investigation into how each component of the electricity system responded under these circumstances," it said. But Australian Energy Council Chief Executive Matthew Warren said the report raised a number of operational issues that required more detailed analysis, particularly given the high levels of intermittent generation now operating in South Australia. "The preliminary report by AEMO suggests we need to think differently about how we run a decarbonising electricity system, reflecting the significant differences between using conventional thermal generation compared to a mix with higher levels of intermittent renewables," Mr Warren said. "Of key importance is how the mix of generation in a high renewables grid responds to events like the sudden loss of transmission in the mid-north of the state and the supply that it was carrying that triggered events last Wednesday afternoon. "We see from the AEMO report that the remaining generation in Adelaide and in the south-east could not respond quickly enough, putting too much load onto the interconnector with Victoria which in turn tripped and sent the entire system black."
 
Messages
6,264
Location
Illinois
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Need to have a subscription for the above link. Just to be clear though you are blaming the entire episode on the wind delivery?
Quote me where I have stated that then... again, and I'm typing this as slow as I can for you...again...as renewables are in the disruptive phase, they are reducing the viability of traditional generation, check renew economy website, they agloating about it; and traditional power stations close. However, when in distruptive phase, renewables are merely moving traditional power out of the market, making the grid less robust...they do not provide frequency control, black start, ride through, or inertia. my point...again...is that WHEN these are the only source of power, you need 4 times the nameplate rating of thermals to harvest the same quantity of energy AND you need some way to store it. Per the start of this thread, S.A. has the most renewables intrusion (state sponsored), has lost the greatest amount of traditional generation, has the most expensive wholesale power in the country, and currently has the least reliability to boot...and are completely reliant on the interconnecter to the brown coalers in another state. To get reliable, 100%, is going to cost them a fortune. Now show me where I have blamed wind FOR the blackout, like you are suggesting. It's standard SHOZ tactics really...like So ShOZ, you are really saying that S.A. could suvive on 100% wind power, no thermal, no storage ? ... and be cheaper to boot ? BTW, I don't have a subscription to the linked article...
No where else in the world are they having power problems like in Australia. That's what I'm saying. The rest of your rant must be in your head.
 

Shannow

Thread starter
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
No where else in the world are they having power problems like in Australia.
OK, at this point I will draw your attention to the title of the thread "Renewables Experiment in Oz - keep watching" And the opening post. No-one has been as aggressive in it as South Australia, so they (were) going to be the canary in the coal mine...aka "the experiment". per my first post...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Why post all this ? a) to show that it's not as easy as plugging another wind turbine into the grid in Iowa. b) it's actually an interesting experiment happening in real time as to how to decarbon the grid and keep it running. Personally, I see South Australia heading for virtually a state wide blackout at some point in the not too distant future.... Happy if they don't, happy if I'm wrong, but that state already has the highest cost, least reliable electricity in the market.
 
Messages
727
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Ooops, blackouts again...
Not the fault of renewable energy sources. (slow wave) "this is not the cause you are looking for". These guys are living in la-la land. Last report I read even intimated if the heat cranks up in NSW tomorrow as forecast, they are predicting load-sheding there also. Surely they could just un-plug the energy sink that is SA and let them fend for themselves? Suddenly I'm not feeling so bad about the state of the economy in WA. 8 years ago, after 12 continuous years of a govt refusing to spend money on power infrastructure and/or maintenance, our supply was as ragged as [censored] (anywhere between 210 & 270V and 49.4-50.7HZ and plenty of failures). Finally, after 8 years of pouring money into it we've got reliable and stable power even in the face of huge fluctuating solar input. Very little wind though, and no blackouts.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
46,497
Location
Ontario, Canada
I think the key is here:
Quote:
The rapid growth of renewables — particularly solar and wind — resulted in their seizing an ever-growing share of the nation's total generating capacity. Five years ago, renewable sources cumulatively accounted for 14.26 percent of total available installed generating capacity; now they provide almost one-fifth (19.17 percent): hydropower, 8.50 percent; wind, 6.92 percent; solar, 2 percent; biomass, 1.42 percent; and geothermal, 0.33 percent.
This was already a source (hydro) and of the bunch, the only one installed in any significant capacity that can provide baseload. Also, it seems the real love affair is with Natural Gas:
Quote:
Each of the non-hydro renewables has grown during the past half-decade and their combined capacity (10.67 percent) is now greater than that of nuclear power (9.00 percent) and nearly three times that of oil (3.79 percent). By comparison, the shares of the nation's energy capacity provided by oil, nuclear power, and coal have all declined. Today, oil's share is only 3.79 percent, nuclear power is 9 percent, and coal is 24.65 percent — five years ago, they were 4.61 percent, 9.44 percent, and 29.91 percent, respectively. Only natural gas has experienced modest growth and that is from 41.6 percent in 2011 to 43.23 percent today.
Which makes up the largest single generator in the mix (seconded by coal). What would be really nice is if they provided a nice plot of generation mix coupled with actual output data like the IESO here in Ontario. For example, Nuclear makes up 36% of our generating mix, but produces 61% of our power. Wind makes up 11% of our generating mix but produces 6% of our power. Citing installed capacity without including output paints an overly rosy picture, but I've said that about this source when you've quoted them before. "Renewableenergyworld" is not going to provide unbiased information.
 
Messages
6,264
Location
Illinois
The facts are there. You can slice and dice them all you want. New hydro is being developed, lets hope no more droughts. And yes natural gas is replacing coal at a fast rate. Our many landfills produce quite a bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top