Do Renewables Have a Future without Baseload?

On April 16th, in Spain and Portugal, both wind and PV combined to generate 100.63% of total electricity demand – a first in Spain’s energy history. Seven dts later 50,000,000+ spanish. Portuguese and some French people were left with NO power for at least 11 hours, and some for more rthan a week.
Red Energie first claimed it was a cyber attack, then moved on to some undefined cosmic atmospheric event.
Then they claimed the four nuclear plants failed, when they were offline because the Government pricing methods prevented them from opening. Spanish Politicins had already been warned of the danger of closing down nuclear plants (read coal in Australia) during high renewable input
Don't forget the failure of the French Interconnector ( that means a powerline fell dowm). France provides a max 4% of Spaiins electricity.
Eleven hours later, hydro kicked in. and so did gas. Does that mean if we extract the black colour from coal and oil, it would be as safe as gas? Apparently Turnbull's uphill solar also helped, but I wonder where it got the electricity in the first place given the early AM failure of the grid.
Anyway, as expected thr real solution is to kick the can down the road.
Get more batteries. Adelaide did that =problem solved.
Melbourne and Sydney have already had brushes with failure.
Broken Hill had a failed interconnectorand and after a week of failure, repaired an old disused coal generator.
In Australia they are not only shutting down baseload generators, they are demolishing them as soon as they are deemed useless.
We will be Spain. Batteries is nothing more than the wet dream of believers

As CLarice said in Silence of the lambs "I opened the gate to their pen, but they wouldn’t run. They just stood there, confused. They wouldn’t run."

We are the lambs.

Comments

  • +24

    Username overstates the quality of content

  • +9

    On demand gas turbine power stations in the medium term, (as we work to towards greener tech base-load) with OUR fkn gas reserves. Cover the cost by increasing the cost to the pricks parasiting off our sovereign supplies.Sequester the carbon with PROPER reafforestation in appropriate locations and appropriately managed in perpetuity. Tax yank tank utes to extinction. Admit Snowy 2 was a bigger disaster than the shit NBN we have, and walk away.Send the bill to Malcolm Turnbull. Charge the USA a 60 billion dollar parking fee per 5 year term, for nuclear subs in our harbours.Sell AUKUS on ebay or swap it for NZ.

    • -6

      Any day now, someone might notice that coal, oil and gas are closely related.
      Otherwise calling on the government to do anything rational is not rational even if it isn't.
      Did you know another pumped hydro project has started up in Qld. So far I can't see Turnbull's connection

      • +8

        You can't see a connect between Snowy 2 and Turnbull?

        The QLD 'may' stack up in areas where monsoonal activity is still reliable. Further south rainfall is anything but as predictable and reliable as it used to be. And the sheer onitial cost of Snowy 2 never stacked up. let alone the massive (predictable) blowouts and tunnelling FU's.

        Well. let's see? Acting on climate change is rational and the LNP never lifted a finger in 30+ years, so you have a valid point. For at least one half of govt.So I think the voters are slowly waking up to the scam. Nothing they have done on energy has ever lowered bills. They will always be the better economic propaganda managers

        • its pumped monsoon is irrelevant

    • +2

      with OUR fkn gas reserves. Cover the cost by increasing the cost to the pricks parasiting off our sovereign supplies

      Now you're sounding like Dutton's failed electioneering.

  • +16

    were left with NO power for at least 11 hours, and some for more rthan a week

    So, because you don't know why there was a grid failure, it must be because of renewables?
    Not perhaps due to a mass failure on synchronisation across the grid?

      • +3

        In SA, they seem to think we can stabilise ourselves, without traditional synchronous generators.

        • Synchronous generation is not required for grid reference.

        • The SA power system configuration (as of March 2022), including synchronous condensers (syncons), grid-connected inverter-based resources (IBR) such as wind farms, solar farms and battery energy storage systems (BESS), is capable of sustaining a grid reference in SA, even during conditions when no synchronous generation is online in SA.

        https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/electricity/nem/security_a…

      • +1

        The Practical Engineering channel on YouTube has a number of good videos on electricity systems that I would recommend. There's a few on blackouts, black starts, and large outages that would be highly relevant, and also very interesting (in my opinion at least…).

        Long story short, long, large, outages aren't caused by "not having baseload".

      • +1

        Nit picking, but just to note: baseload isn't supply, it's load. It's the minimal amount of load required for the generators to operate - you can only run the generators so low before they become unstable, unsafe, uneconomical, etc.

  • Perhaps

  • +12

    Solar and modern wind turbines don't provide grid inertia. This is a challenge for proper stabilisation. It's a shared problem that I think needs a shared solution, rather than finger pointing. Part of the renewable investment should be to provide some level of stabilisation. Say you want to install a massive windfarm, there should be rules that say you also need to provide some kind of stabilisation (batteries , capacitors or whatever) before you can connect your windfarm.

    The problems seem to be exported upstream to the network operators which in turn effectively makes it a government problem and we (taxpayers) end up paying for it.

    • -1

      That all sounds sensible. I guess we can hope ( lol) after the LNP autopsy,that they adjust their thinking to match . But I sense the RWNJ will dominate and continue to prefer to rip renewables apart rather than move fwd with solutions.It's easier to break than build, and the survivors of the election massacre are rusted on wrecking balls like Joyce,Canavan etc, and they are the same ppl who control the downstream lapdogs like Littleproud. He's just a willing fluffer for energy stupidity. He took the non negotiable nuclear option to the Libs and convinced them it was a winner.(wrong) .It would have been forced on him by those same bully boy climate change denying simians.The RWNJ will have $$$ in nuclear mining shares, and like minded donors in the wing, so they'll just keep pushing the barrow. Flat tyre and all

    • +6

      In Australia they seem to want to incentivise inertia separately, with payments to step up inertia when it is predicted to be low, like when a coal generator is off line for repair.
      After the big storm that broke the SA transmission network, and caused voltage irregularities that tripped some renewables to decouple from the grid, the government supported battery storage to provide synthetic inertia, and regulated the conditions under which suppliers could disengage.
      This apparently didn't happen in Spain, so it is a bit of a regulatory failing there.

      Undoubtedly, it will continue to keep giving comfort to the "we need coal for baseload" crowd, but the inertia can come from hydro, coal, gas, battery or even nuclear - so if there are more cost effective options it doesn't have to be batteries.

      • +8

        Synchronous condensor + flywheel = winning

        https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/stories/flywhe…

        • +5

          Shh you. Only fossil fuels can make large heavy things spin

      • I've seen a flywheel based UPS for a critical piece of infrastructure before made to keep it running for a few minutes while the diesel generators kick in - doing so while keeping the 50Hz power perfectly in sync. Like a two or three meter tall steel disk weighing a few hundred kilos spinning at a few thousand RPM, able to output tens (hundreds?) of kW for a few minutes, humming away in a big steel case.

        Scary standing next to it tbh, thinking about how much kinetic energy was in there.

  • -8

    I wonder how much backup and cost would windfarms have t provide for one day + windless

    • +13

      How much tax is used to prop up coal,period. From mining to energy generation.
      Including the massive diesel gift bag.
      Then add to the equation the nett GHG generated through the complete process.

        • +1

          No excuse for massive free kicks. Many of which are clearly exploited by foreign miners.(same with gas) Water is really our greatest export, but we get SFA for it.It washes every mineral mined and exported ,and gets sprayed on the roads, washed the fleet etc.Billions of litres a a year of finite water gets smashed.
          If somebody did a costing on that lost and wasted water, they'd find we could have fed the world with it. And probably made just as much$$.

        • +4

          Just because it has been a lucrative export doesn't mean it will continue to be.
          You can buy solar/wind firmed, with a battery backup so it generates power exceeding the network reliability targets. Or you can buy it subject to variation for a lower price and scale back your use in periods of dark/stillness.

          Some people need the assurance of 24/7 operation so they pay for it, others don't care when the power comes, so they can buy it cheaper.
          Coal can't do the cheap, itinerant power, so it is less flexible and ends up costing more these days. This isn't likely to change.

          The sooner this is more widely understood the better, so we can get cheaper power and build out the network and storage to make it suitably reliable.

        • +3

          no, Iron Ore is are largest export, Coal is second though.

      • -2

        How much tax is used to prop up renewables? From carbon credits and certificates, to tax offsets, to government handouts to consumers for buying renewables products.

      • Go on then, how much tax is used to prop up coal?

        • +3

          There's 2 answers
          1. At least hundreds of $K per annum
          2. Commercial in confidence, which wouldn't be very different

          you choose

          • -7

            @Protractor:

            1. A fraction of what the renewable advocacies would have you believe.
            • +1

              @Mrgreenz: OK.
              I drive better when I'm shit faced.

            • +4

              @Mrgreenz: proof?

              Here's one for you since I know you don't have any actual proof, just renewable denial vibes.

              Australia’s subsidies to fossil fuel producers and major users from all governments totalled $14.9 billion in the 2024–25 financial year, an increase of 3% on the $14.5 billion recorded in 2023–24. This figure equates to $28,381 for every minute of every day of the year, or $548 for every person in Australia [1]

              [1] Fossil fuel subsidies in Australia 2025

              • -1

                @A Banana4scale: That is an absoloutely dishonest report

                It touts the headline figure as if the fossil fuel industry needs the 14.5 billion figure to survive, it doesn't.

                Yet the vast majority of the headline figure is the diesel tax exemption, by users.

                Non application of a tax =/= subsidy

                " The largest component of this assistance was tax concessions for major fossil fuel users through the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme. This subsidy was valued at $10.2 billion"

                Pg 16.

                Highly misleading to tout a figure where 68% of that is not at all related to the production of fossil fuels, rather the non-application of a tax for unrelated industries birning diesel.

                For example fuel exise not paid on trucking a container or bananas from Carnarvon to Perth is conflated with keeping the fossil fuel industry afloat.

                • +2

                  @Mrgreenz: So it's actually ten times more than my random guess. Even if we accept your 'not fair' umpire version of events. Bottom line is the bottom line, is in the billions. From mining to energy coal uses a shit ton if (tax payer subsidised) diesel.Extrapolate that across every component of the journey.They are heavy leaners.Not lifters

                  • -1

                    @Protractor: The narrative that the FF industry is being propped up by tax payer $ is just false.

                    That's the bottom line. The renewables industry however…..

                    • +1

                      @Mrgreenz: Wrong. Add the rebate farmers also get,fishers,forestry,transport and all big diesel consumers.I guess ABARE is a lefty org is it?

                      • @Protractor: What? what does farmers rebates have to do with anything?

                        Show me an economic alternative means of harvesting a field of crop, without diesel, and I'll concede.

                        • +1

                          @Mrgreenz: You completely missed and then denied the point. This is why the RW was binned on Saturday. Australians are now looking (enthusiastically) forward to another ALP govt after this term to finally eradicate the dinosaurs of the right. Next round will be Chalmers and he won't be taking prisoners by then.
                          The good thing about the Libs is they love shooting themselves in the foot, so they'll deliver a blithering right wing gimp like Taylor as their leader. The laughs ahead are tantalising.

                          For the readers>
                          https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/fossil-fuel-subsidi…

    • +2

      How much to back up and cover one day of a coal plant out of commission?
      Or are you saying there are days of complete stillness globally when the sun doesn't shine, and all the hydro is dry?

      • Globally. Shmobally. We don't have cables from any other country bringing electricity here.

        • +1

          https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/26/mike-…

          Undersea power cables are well understood and common around the world. The analysis says there is enough wind in the eastern states to avoid idle periods, and there is transmission expansion to provide capacity for this.
          International would be nice to bring in export income.

          • +2

            @mskeggs: Good luck with that

            Also good luck with efficiency of the cables. The electricity provided isn't the electricity you get at the other end; there are losses which accumulate with greater distance. The longest undersea power cable is only 764km (Viking Link) but to connect Darwin with Singapore requires a 4500km cable. Connecting further down to the eastern states (for international electricity transmission) is simply preposterous. You would lose too much electricity. It would probably be more efficient and economical to recharge a ship filled to the brim with batteries and send that over.

            • +1

              @tenpercent: The Sun Cable is a nice idea for exports, but not necessary for renewables to power most if Australia.
              David Osmond has run the numbers every week for almost 4 years, looking at how often the grid is unable to meet demand based on scaling up existing renewables plus 5 hours of storage.
              You can see the results yourself here :
              https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewable-gr…

              But the short answer is we can get very close to 100% renewables with modest amounts of storage, needing any gas or other fossil fuels only very occasionally.
              Obviously, a bit more storage reduces the gap further.

            • @tenpercent:

              It would probably be more efficient and economical to recharge a ship filled to the brim with batteries and send that over.

              LMHO at that

          • @mskeggs: We would need to either remove Putin or nuke Russia to make any under-sea infrastructure reliable

            • @Protractor: And ban Chinese vessels from having anchors

              • @2027: …yes, also that…
                Although by now they,Russia and the uSA will have underwater drones sussing out all submerged marine infrastructure for possible sabotage opportunity with drones.

                • @Protractor: Lol, Russia can't build anything, their industry is gonski. Their "advanced" radars and AA cant stop a single engine prop plane.

                  And America is too busy with internal squabbling and made up issues like baby fetus cells in vaccines to actually critically think any more.

                  • @AnotherRedLight: Not about 'building, it's about wrecking.
                    Russia does sabotage well.Ask Ukraine.They respect no boundaries. Add a few other examples, MH 17.Nordstream pipeline.Baltic subsea and plenty of other similar ocean sabotage events

                    • -1

                      @Protractor: It was said they are going to build undersea drones to sabotage cables without being able to be seen doing so.

                      0% chance they now have this capability. They are importing North Korean Labour hire.

                      Previous undersea cable sabotage was done with Chinese vessels. Visible to Satellite, radar. Wont be surprised if the next one caught just gets blown up.

                      • -1

                        @AnotherRedLight:

                        Their "advanced" radars and AA cant stop a single engine prop plane

                        Makes me wonder why Ukraine aren’t dominating the air and operating their aircraft over Moscow. Is it bad jet fuel that’s stopping them?

                        • -1

                          @2027: Disingenuous question. But ill take the troll question bait.

                          Risking a lucky shot to send in an F16 when a single prop agriculture plane, retrofitted with pilot less remote control does the job is stupidity.

                          Ukraine actually cares about the lives of their personnel.

                          • -1

                            @AnotherRedLight: Well, believe what you will, but Russia is reliably lifting people into space, and with Boeing’s recent efforts, I’d rather fly Soyuz to the ISS than anyone else. The most recent, Soyuz MS-27 was a month ago.

                            Both the rocket and the spacecraft that got them there was made in Russia.

                            • -1

                              @2027: Slow Clap for you.

                              You bring in Soviet 1960's tech platform to a conversation about Russia developing new technology in 2025.

                              US private sector created a modern, reusable spaceship just recently. Guess you overlooked that too.

                              • -1

                                @AnotherRedLight: Remote control cars, or drones, are far from new.

                                I “overlooked” it because it’s private enterprise

                                Lol, Russia can't build anything, their industry is gonski.

                                Except rockets. And stuff. Hypersonic delivery systems. Ya know, those things that the US are struggling with?

                                The rocket type first flew in 2004, and the space craft in 2016. Although based on previous designs, claiming they’re 1960s tech is the only truly disingenuous comment in this thread, wouldn’t you say?

                                • -1

                                  @2027: You can go off topic and deflect off topic all you like.

                                  Russia can not design new tech, which was the premise of this thread. New remotely operated undersea drones.

                                  My time to deflect;
                                  Russia, despite being in full wartime economy, just had a 0.6% economic recession, has a decreasing & aging population & budget deficit of 3.8 Trillion rubles & inflation over 10%

                                  • -1

                                    @AnotherRedLight: Off topic, deflect? Sorry if you fail to see that hypersonic missiles are new tech, I guess there isn’t much more I can do about that struggle of yours. Perhaps a bit of self education, the names Zircon and Kinzhal will get you started.

                                    But putting some servos in a sub isn’t new.

                                    How do you think Ballard found the Titanic in ‘85?

                                    budget deficit of 3.8 Trillion rubles

                                    Sounds scary, until one coverts it to USD and then compares it to the US deficit last year.

                                    TBH my replies to your ill thought out arguments and uniformed opinions are making me appear like a Russian propaganda bot, which is far from my intent, but to suggest that cutting an undersea cable, undetected, is beyond Russia’s capabilities is just ridiculous.

                                    • -1

                                      @2027:

                                      is beyond Russia’s capabilities is just ridiculous.

                                      Then why didn't they do it comrade, they had to hop skip and jump onto a Chinese boat.

                                      Ukraine has managed to create a wartime drone boat that shoots missiles.

                                      Actually I've changed my mind, i believe now that Russia can make a capable autonomous sub, they have practiced enough with their whole black sea fleet turning into submarines.

  • +4

    It's where the gas turbines come in, gas spins up and can provide power in 25mins, so if you are on battery, you can bring up gas. In Victoria we have had back-up gas for a long time, problem is not much gas left in Bass Straight, and we export gas as suppliers have OS contracts, and multinationals look after their shareholders rather than Australians, and gov is too weak to have a domestic reservation policy (though WA does).

    • +4

      If Trump can sign an executive order, Albo can do a similar thing here with gas, or tariff away until we get our gas at cost price. Or both. There is nothing smart about gifting energy sovereignty to multinationals to suck us dry.Literally. Aldo may have out "electioned" some stellar previous Labor PMs but he is yet to flex his leadership muscles. If Paul Keating or Bob Hawke were governing in this circumstance, AUKUS would be shredded paper and every coal fired coal power station hybridised, they converted to gas.That gas would be a reserved component with a minimum petajoule allowance in our favour. That should be clause one on every existing export deal, and we should repeal contracts if we have to. The gas exporters would cave. They want our gas.

      • +5

        The way Trump uses executive orders is an abuse of emergency powers, don't assume similar loopholes exist here. That's why he has to make the connection between tarrifs and the fentanyl crisis, which are of course very closely related issues.

        • It was semi facetious. All it would take is gonads and a few govt lawyers, and a friendly HoR and senate. He has it all (in spades)

          • +1

            @Protractor: Just declare a State of Emergency (Trump is good at doing that). Then it's on like Donkey Kong. Anything goes. Over a millenia of law and jurisprudence gets put on pause. Do what you want (if you're the govt).

            • +4

              @tenpercent: Did the foreign gas vampires leave WA and drill baby drill elsewhere??

              Yeah nah.All it takes is balls.

    • Sorry, but some government banned gas exploration years ago,
      And, being repetitive, how is gas any different to coal and oil except for it's colour, if we are objecting to carbon dioxide

      • +4

        Emissions are far cleaner, fewer/no particulates, etc. It's not great, but better than dirty brown coal.

        • -5

          But it's not about particulates or even dirty brown coal.
          The entire narrative is about Carbon Dioxide, the gas we exhale with every breath.
          Exterminate 6 billion people. Problem solved.

          • +3

            @Clickbait: And here you are landing 30 years in the past. Arguing that climate change is BS and co2 is great. Youre half right though. If we bred less humans, and grew and saved more trees and forests we'd be heading in the right direction.
            Once gas is tapped we aint running dump trucks,crushers,conveyors and other mechanical machinery around the clock.

          • +2

            @Clickbait: Climate change bad, pollution bad too many ideas to keep track off?

            https://www.climatechange.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/…

            the gas we exhale with every breath
            yeah there's a reason why it's going out not in.

            Take water - "the liquid we drink with every mouthful" - you want to have gigalitres in your lakes and dams. But a few cm will have you hydroplaning on the road. Context matters. Increased atmospheric CO2's effects on human biology, negligible. Effects to a planet next to a giant fusion reactor, bad.

            Different contexts - different effects.

        • -5

          Dirty brown coal, actually lignite, is a Victorian and South Australian thing. The majority of Australia's coal is some of the cleanest burning in the world.

          • +4

            @tenpercent: Is that you Scomo?

          • +3

            @tenpercent: Cool story, still kills a fkton of people through air pollution. No coal in Australia is "clean"

            • +2

              @sponson: It's another industry myth. Much like saying our farmers are clean and green. They maybe cleaner than some other dodgy places, but still saturate the land and crops with chemicals, and drench,back-line,feed dose (aniti biotics etc) almost every bit of meat we eat.Across the species farmed.
              Remember when politicians didn't act like PR agents for vested interests? Both sides do it, but by christ the LNP have made it an Olympic sport, come art form.

  • +9

    You have not made an argument against renewables at all.All you've done is point out how screwed up the European energy system is. After that it's all extrapolation with apples and oranges.If anything Russia is their biggest threat. They use sabotage on an hourly bases of all sorts of infrastructure (not just energy).

  • We'll have cold fusion one day. We just need to do our best until then.

    • I believe the CCP now has an operational thorium reactor. There's a technology for the near future.

      We have lots of thorium.

      • -1

        Another 1 legged ideological bar stool, right there. Do you wear a really long peak on the MAGA hat so you don't accidentally gaze upon the plethora of solar panels around you?

        • I do.

          • +2

            @R4: Better extend that peak,then. The Vic state govt will be using this renewable energy space and rooftop solar to drag back back votes before the next state election, for sure. The feds will chip in too. This will be a (winning) political strategy. The denier dinosaurs are about to get whacked with another big red meteorite.

            PS, don't tell jv

  • -6

    Make your own posts. No-one needs someone hijacking salient topics

    • +2

      Salient?

      • +1

        salient
        /sā′lē-ənt, sāl′yənt/
        adjective
        Strikingly conspicuous; prominent. synonym: noticeable.

        • +3

          In this case

          salient
          /sā′lē-ənt, sāl′yənt/
          adjective
          Predictably monotonous,irrelevant,synonym: dross

    • +1

      Let me get this straight…. You posted a question, and are now whinging about the responses posted?

  • Let me answer your question with another question, how many Albanese's do you see modelling?

  • +3

    Do Renewables Have a Future without Baseload?

    Does OzBargain have a future without nonsense posts?

  • +5

    We could power the country from the power of your salty tears from the weekend.

    • Move over Molten Salt Reactors, we have Salty Tear Reactors on the way

  • +1

    Needs a poll

  • Wut?

    This is pretty easily solved.
    Ev's can be hooked up to your house/the grid.
    Charge the EV during the day to reduce the midday production peak.
    Discharge it at night to reduce the stress of on the grid in the peak evening and morning hours.

    • +1

      So if it's charging during the day. And discharging to run your lights and stuff at night. When do you drive it?

      • +2

        You need 2 EVs, work night shifts or follow the expert Albo who said you can charge from solar at night 🙄

        • +3

          EV
          EV
          EV let your hair hang down

      • To work and home?

        For the 1 hour a day you actually use it.
        My work and many others have free charging for their staff

        • +1

          charge at work to power the home at night. genius

      • +1

        with the 80% of the battery that is set aside (or what ever percentage you want). the other 20% can interact with the wholesale energy market. Or you can just power your house directly. Most car batteries are on the order of 50KWh. More than a lot of households will use in a day, probably two days! Plenty of capacity to do both

    • -2

      Wut?

      Have everyone to buy an EV to charge during the day and stay home. Catch the bus or ride a bicycle instead, then drive the EV at night after 8pm.
      Makes sense.

      Did you vote for Albo too?

Login or Join to leave a comment