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

    • Got it now!

      OPEC did cause the blackout.
      And the 2004 movie injected a subliminal command on how and when to blow the fuses.

      Feeling better now.
      A bit.

  • We need 2 things.
    1) dispatchable power that can handle the transients
    2) something that keeps the 50hz going and synced which currently comes from big turbines

    These functions also need to be distributed to handle holes, its all possible, it just needs to be planned and designed. Our grid is/was designed for big generators in 1 place coal/nuclear/gas we just need to transition. It's more than just the actual power. My biggest problems with both sides of politics is that we knew that the massive coal generators were getting old and we should have had a plan 10 years ago, but political crap just kept kicking the can down the path.

  • +1

    Username checks out.

  • I'm as pro nuclear as you can get but I don't trust any of our idiot politicians to ever get it right. I don't trust them to do anything right.

    I have a portable battery and inverter set up. I'd love some solar panels for charging. I might get a generator. I have to redo my camping/blackout set up. Everyone's going to have a blackout eventually, no matter how good things are normally, so why wouldn't you be prepared for that?

  • +1

    Maybe you should ask "does human civilisation have a future in the face of climate chance if fossil fuels and burned as base load power" first

  • -2

    Sounds like a great forum topic for you.
    Just load up your evidence and go for it!!

    • This thread has pretty much made the argument for the preposition to the NO side of the question, and the viable,sensible,quicker more flexible solution to the energy provision component.

  • There was a really good explainer article on the ABC website that I haven't seen linked here already. (it's from 26/april)
    Despite the title it doesn't just look at that one issue, it goes into costs and how usage demand changes during the day, and how all the renewables work together. Then how the SA power grid works in comparison to the east coast grid.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-26/renewables-versus-nuc…

    • -2

      You need a more diverse view.
      Try the Guardian!!!!!

  • +2

    The endless sensationalist hand-wringing over renewables by those that have no clue what they’re talking about is hilarious.

    Am assuming they are just big mad that Dutton’s nuclear plan will never see the light of day - but it’s gonna be ok, just put on your red cap and go and have a little sob in the corner.

    • +1

      Or they could be adverse to blinkered ideology; that pushes policy guided by feels rather than the laws of physics.

      Renewables or some other future tech will supply all the worlds energy at some point in the future, I'm pretty sure. Renewables to supplement energy production are great. But starving our tried and tested generation methods of capital for decades and then pointing and declaring how terrible and unreliable they are is ridiculous.

      I'm still waiting for the coveted declining electricty costs that grid scale renewables are going to bring, have you seen them yet? It is only going to get harder for renewables as penetration increases, the low hanging fruit gets picked, project financials get worse, and more dependednt on the government teet, but lets keep charging towards it….

      • +1

        Or you could be adverse to blinkered ideology; that pushes policy guided by feels rather than the laws of reality, politics and economics.

      • -1

        You are stirring a hornets nest there.
        Are you claiming that your electricity bills are more than last year.
        Aren't you listening to the governma\ent?
        Of course it's cheaper. Just pay up tens of thousands for solar .
        Then just pay more tens of thousands for batteries
        That is based on a newly evolving theory that domestic users should be accountable for their electricity use, and provide free baseload

        • That's a good point about providing free baseload. It's interesting that coal stations etc get paid to provide it but solar owners are expected to offer it for free or even in some cases get charged for it, essentially subsidising those who don't have it.

          There are battery setups where you can prioritise your battery and only sell into the grid when you want / when they're paying a lot, but you also run the risk of getting into a situation where if you're out of battery, then you have to pay the premium power charges.

          The times are a'changing as they say.

          That said, I have no doubt Ozbargainers will find a way to utterly game it for a while.

      • Or they could be adverse to blinkered ideology; that pushes policy guided by feels rather than the laws of physics.

        It has nothing to do with ideology. It's pure economics, with a side salad of climate science.

        starving our tried and tested generation methods of capital for decades and then pointing and declaring how terrible and unreliable they are is ridiculous

        There is no evidence to support this assertion.

        Coal power stations are not being "starved of capital" by legislators - they're simply not the highly profitable enterprises they used to be. Renewables have disrupted their business model, undercut their pricing structures, and most of them are now losing money hand over fist. Their private owners want to shut them down to stop bleeding money, but they're obliged to remain operating under their agreements.

        Australia's coal fleet is unreliable because most of our generators are nearing the end of their design life. The major refurbishments that would be required to continue operation for another decade or so are extremely expensive and would be financially unviable even if they still turned a profit (which they generally don't).

        For the same reason, nobody is stupid enough to invest in new coal generators. There's absolutely nothing stopping this from going ahead, but nobody is stupid enough to invest more money into coal generation - there's no money in it, and state governments are already subsidizing old coal plants to buy a little extra time.

        I'm still waiting for the coveted declining electricty costs that grid scale renewables are going to bring

        We're already seeing extremely low wholesale prices on a regular basis - these prove that renewables can achieve the desired result. But the investment in energy infrastructure that has been so badly lacking in the past 15 years needs to happen before we can realise lower retail prices as well.

        If you actually have a better idea - one that's actually practically and financially viable as well as being possible to deliver in the limited time available, we're all ears.

        • -1

          It has nothing to do with ideology. It's pure economics, with a side salad of climate science.

          I guess, when you add the government subsidies it does make economic sense.

          There is no evidence to support this assertion.

          Coal power stations are not being "starved of capital" - they're simply not highly profitable enterprises they used to be. Renewables have disrupted their business model, undercut their pricing structures, and most of them are now losing money hand over fist.

          Australia's coal fleet is unreliable because most of our generators are nearing the end of their design life. The major refurbishments that would be required to continue operation for another decade or so are extremely expensive and would be financially unviable even if they still turned a profit (which they generally don't).

          its so true, they even make laws bills about it:
          https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Sen…

          We're already seeing extremely low wholesale prices on a regular basis - these prove that renewables can achieve the desired result. But the investment in energy infrastructure that has been so badly lacking in the past 15 years needs to happen before we can realise lower retail prices as well.

          If you actually have a better idea - one that's actually practically and financially viable as well as being possible to deliver in the limited time available, we're all ears.

          Exactly extremely low wholesale prices when renewables are outputting in exess of demand. How much of that is making its way to average joe's bill?,

          Better idea. Maintain FF assets in working order, don't distort markets beyond recognition and phase in renewables where they can wash their face economically. - see China

          • @Mrgreenz:

            its so true, they even make laws bills about it

            That's a report from a Senate committee from 2016 during the Turnbull government. It is not a "law bill" (whatever a law bill is supposed to be).

            You will also note that the very first phrase in that "law bill" section is this: "Evidence to the inquiry highlighted that Australia's coal fired power stations will need to be retired in the medium term in order to make way for lower-emissions sources of power generation."

            And the very first option in the list of ways to achieve this is "leave retirement decisions solely to industry and market forces (without any further changes to government policy settings)." If you read further, you will see this was the option recommended by COAG at the time and has more or less been followed ever since.

            extremely low wholesale prices when renewables are outputting in excess of demand. How much of that is making its way to average joe's bill?

            The retail price of electricity is strongly influenced by the average wholesale price. So you'd have to say that it's making a significant impact - retail energy prices would be much higher if it wasn't for renewables keeping the average price low.

            Adding more storage into the grid would allow excess energy to be released into the market as solar winds down each day, suppressing the typical evening spike in the wholesale price. This would reduce retail prices even further.

            Maintain FF assets in working order, don't distort markets beyond recognition and phase in renewables where they can wash their face economically

            That's exactly what we're trying to do.

            Eraring is already 41 years old, and the state is already paying to keep it running for at least another 2 years.
            Gladstone is 40 years old, but will be kept running for another 10 years.
            Yallourn is 50 years old and will keep running for another 2 years at this rate.
            Loy Yang (A) is 41 years old and will be kept running for another 10 years yet.

            You can see that an attempt is being made to keep them running while we still need them. However, it's an inescapable fact that old stuff tends to break down more frequently, and we're seeing an awful lot of that these days. And each time they break down, gas kicks in to fill the gap and the wholesale price skyrockets. That kind of unpredictable volatility is driving retail prices up for consumers.

            There is no practical, feasible way to "maintain FF assets in working order" far beyond their design lives, which is what you're effectively advocating for. They simply can't keep running beyond 40-50 years without massive risks to safety. Replacing a coal plant's boilers and other major plant typically requires substantial demolition work to achieve - you basically have to pull half the place down to get the new one into place. It's not practical or financially viable to attempt this.

            The subsidies for renewables are intended, at least in part, to accelerate bringing new generation capacity online at a faster rate to fill the gap left by retiring coal plants.

          • @Mrgreenz: I'm OK with the removal of ALL subsidies. That means FF needs none as well. No Diesel fuel rebates. No extra deductions on exploration . All in all its about $14B

  • +2

    Ramblings of a lunatic 😂

    • -1

      I have this theory that one cohorts only defense is personal attack.

      • +4

        I have this theory in which only ppl with informed opinions should be respected.

        Ppl with uninformed opinions I liken to a child spinning around calling out 'I am an airplane!'.

      • +1

        Finnily enough, same here.

  • +4

    AEMO says YES!! Baseload is a 1950s concept dus to power stations needing to generate at a certain load all the time.

    • +4

      Shush shush. AEMO are clearly extreme lefty latte sipping greenies who want to push an agenda….

  • +2

    China doesn't have any baseload issues, aussie coal works great.

  • +2

    Answer: yes yes they do.
    Source: (former renewables skeptic) engineer within a grid company who knows a lot more about it than I do or as it seems, most of us here.

    • -1

      Most engineering problems can solved given sufficient budget. So what's the total kickback from the government that enables the answer to be "yes"? Include it all: Carbon certificates, tax offsets, indirect funding via grants and subsidies to the consumers, etc.

    • -2

      Lol how do you power a steel mill with renewables?

      Do we relocate it so it's next to a hydro electric dam?

      How about aluminium smelting? Can that only happen on a sunny/windy day?

      • In Australia? We don't. Send the ore off and import it all the products from overseas (China).

          • @eddyah: Very likely, due to spending 13+ years on various iron ore, coal, bauxite and nickel mining projects. Moved onto LNG and a smelter de-bottle necking program at one point too.

            Yeah, Australia currently does - at a much smaller throughput compared to Brazil, China, Russia, Norway. Similar picture with steel production.

            With the way the energy landscaping is looking - it will end up overseas.

            • -2

              @eek: Cool story bro.

              Doesn't change the fact that poor energy decisions NOW will negatively affect us in the future.

              How are we suppose to electrify all our vehicles (and offset the energy stored in fossil fuels) without MORE power in the grid?

              The same shit happened with the NBN where short sighted idiots believe that 25MBit connections were perfectly adequate.

              I'm a Greens voter and I hate the fact that the Libs are the only ones with enough guts to suggest nuclear power as a way forward.

              • @eddyah:

                I hate the fact that the Libs are the only ones with enough guts to suggest nuclear power as a way forward.

                It's not a matter of "guts." It's a matter of looking at the options and picking the sensible one.

                Nuclear power is not a solution to the current situation. It's simply not possible to build one (or more) in time to fill the gaps left by retiring coal. That's just a fact, however much you might not want it to be.

                • -1

                  @klaw81: It's one of MANY required solutions.

                  To rule it out entirely is as dumb as saying we only need forks and knives in a drawer - spoons are the devil and we should ban them entirely.

                  I can't convince you you're wrong, I can only say you're an idiot and move on with life.

                  • @eddyah:

                    It's one of MANY required solutions.

                    No, it's NOT an option at all. It's impossible to get nuclear built in time to avert the crisis that's coming. We need to build something that has a chance of being ready in time.

                    I'm not opposed to nuclear. I'm actually really hopeful that SMRs become something more than a great concept. If they ever become available, I think SMRs would be a great way to help firm our grid. But they're not an option for the near future, because they don't exist as a product yet, and have no hope of being available in time to be useful for our current situation.

                    • -1

                      @klaw81:

                      No, it's NOT an option at all. It's impossible to get nuclear built in time to avert the crisis that's coming. We need to build something that has a chance of being ready in time.

                      Yeah with cowards like yourself happy with a nuclear ban, it'll always be dead in the water.

                      Who knows if it'll be ready in time for this said crisis - but you've given up on a solution entirely because you're afraid and you don't know it.

                      Just unban it and see what happens. If it's not economical then let that be it. But no - we gotta keep going back and forth arguing…

                      • @eddyah:

                        Yeah with cowards like yourself happy with a nuclear ban, it'll always be dead in the water.
                        Just unban it and see what happens. If it's not economical then let that be it.

                        Firstly, that kind of language is inappropriate and I don't appreciate the personal attack.

                        Secondly, this argument simply doesn't hold up. The existing federal legislation allows for exemptions, so there is no barrier to development, nor has it prevented the last 20 years of discussions and debates about nuclear. There has been ample opportunity for potential investors to come forward and make representations for a specific proposal, but nobody has ever made any such approach - even with a nuclear-friendly Coalition government. We've already been in the "see what happens" phase for decades and nothing is happening. The big Australian energy companies have explicitly said they're not interested.

                        It's abundantly clear that any major nuclear development would have to be funded and sponsored by the federal government, so the existing legislation is irrelevant to the discussion - the same people who would create the nuclear proposal would also give themselves permission to build it.

                        Who knows if it'll be ready in time for this said crisis

                        We all know this. It's a simple fact of how these projects go, as shown the history of every single modern nuclear project in a western nation. They ALWAYS take a long time to build, and they always go massively over-budget.

                        you've given up on a solution entirely because you're afraid

                        I'm not afraid of nuclear power. I'm not even opposed to nuclear power on safety or security grounds. I think those concerns have largely been addressed by modern designs and the risks are low. My opposition to nuclear in Australia is purely because of practical concerns about cost and timing, relative to other, IMO better options.

                        Renewables are simply a better fit for our current situation. They're cheaper and faster to build (and prices are still falling rapidly unlike nuclear), are very scalable and expandable, they already have momentum because the build is underway, we have local and international investors lining up projects and the technical challenges are well understood, and we already have the skills and expertise required.

                        • -1

                          @klaw81: You can always tell a coward by how defensive they are.

                          The existing federal legislation allows for exemptions

                          Yeah like ANSTO with nuclear medicine. There's literally no pathway right now for a sensible nuclear power solution because of red tape that people like you cheer on.

              • @eddyah: Yeah, that's what I'm saying - I agree with you. With Labor's (Greens) ideology driven 'renewables only' mantra going forward Australia is screwed. Australia needs natural gas, nuclear, coal, hydro etc as part of the renewables journey which voters didn't want.

                • -1

                  @eek:

                  which voters didn't want

                  How do you know that? We don't get to vote on policies.

                  34% first preferences for ALP
                  31% first preferences for LNP
                  35% first preferences for everyone else

      • Lol how do you power a steel mill with renewables?

        Why cant it be done? Got any references or engineering experience to tell us why it cant?

        All it needs is electricity. Doesnt matter where it comes from.

        • Me get the references? It's YOU who needs to say how it CAN be done.

          You need to prove how it's possible as I can look outside and go, "yeah it's not being done right now therefore it isn't economically viable for it".

          There's a reason why they build steel mills next to power stations you know…

          • +1

            @eddyah: You raised the point. Back it up.

            You need to prove how it's possible as I can look outside and go, "yeah it's not being done right now therefore it isn't economically viable for it".

            Thats a pretty ordinary argument. Why do i need to prove it? Youre argument is 'no its not'

            Wasn't that long ago that everyone was saying you can't electrify trucks because charging takes too long. Now there's a business in NSW converting diesel trucks to electric with swappable batteries. 3min to swap a battery. Not only that, but they've become an energy company becasue they've got a bunch of batteries waiting for swaps that can buy power for cheap and sell it back at peak prices and still have charged batteries for the trucks. Yes, the trucks aren't interstaters yet, but thats just pending swap stations in more places.

            If you think that steel can t be done off renewables, that's fine but give me something more and I'll be willing to listen to your point.

            • -1

              @Euphemistic: Good luck with this electric truck NONSENSE.

              Anyone with a double digit IQ knows how difficult it is to electrify the trucking network in any country. Go lookup how many Tesla semis have been delivered vs model 3/y vehicles.

              Thats a pretty ordinary argument. Why do i need to prove it? Youre argument is 'no its not'

              You're the one saying we can power steel mills with renewables - do the math and tell me how feasible it is. I'm saying the reason we don't is because solar / renewables can't SCALE to the DEMANDS of a steel mill. Don't be a nitwit and try argue a steel mill can have batteries as a backup as if you do the math you'll see how dumb that idea is.

  • +2

    I'm not sure it makes economic sense anymore to have particular electricity generators always turned on.

    I think much investment needs to be made in wires. To move the electricity around more efficiently. I think that is a job for the government.

    • People / industry still need electricity at night time.

      We don't need long / better transmission lines if we can modularise the network better. That's what batteries and renewables should be focusing on until we can have small scale nuclear reactors.

      That is the inevitable power source for us in the short to medium term to get away from burning carbon. If we can miniaturise it down to being deployed onto ships and even aircraft, we've won the battle against fossil fuels.

  • Hydro and wind is the renewables we should invest in as ocean levels rise we are destined for more of that wet stuff.

    • +1

      While the grifters are investing in beach side properties, we don't really need toworry about sea levels

    • Hot off the press
      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JB03…

      Global Positioning System (GPS) height time series show that the land surface has been rising at a rate of up to 2 mm per year in many regions of South Africa.

      Next please.

      • land surface appear to rise because of all the pollutants falling back to the ground from the air, carried by the many megagillion more raindrops that form in the atmosphere, precipitation from melting ice caps.

        • -1

          That is unbelievable. Do you have a source for that?

  • -3

    Takeaways
    Climnate change is real and has been for billions of years. No argument.
    What is not real is a bunch of grifters piling in on natural and rare weather events to create an endless income stream for the rich.
    The rich is anyone who makes more than me.
    "Renewable" energy is cheaper for anyone rich enough to buy solar
    The rest of us are paying up to four times more than a decade ago.
    The rest of us are subsidisibg the rich.
    BOM's complicity in falsified or manipulated records.
    Simple things like:
    Not moving Stephenson screens as city spread enveloped previously country locations
    Changing thermometers from analogue to digital
    Australia no lomger has the hottest place in the world because BOM changed their method of classification because old temperatures were not reliable

    • +1

      If we follow the thread of your argument, you're saying that the plethora of data - from many different countries, different scientific groups, hundreds (thousands?) of climate scientists, expendiature on ridiculous amounts of supercompute to conduct weather modelling, the majority of world leaders from all different cultural backgrounds and different sides of the political spectrum - are all in on one massive conspiracy to make the rich richer?

      Seems rather…conspiracy minded to me.

      • +1

        All the time missing the real conspiracy of fosssil fuel interests spreading misinformation to line their pockets while they still can.

        It appears OP is getting all their 'facts' from their namesake.

        • Conspiracies aren't real. Where's your tinfoil hat?…

          .

          tHiS is dUh rEaL cONspiRAcY…

    • Changing thermometers from analogue to digital
      Australia no lomger has the hottest place in the world because BOM changed their method of classification because old temperatures were not reliable

      Got a link for that? It certainly sounds like BS.

  • https://reneweconomy.com.au/there-is-no-going-back-aemo-bids…

    The energy market operator says 'base load' is a thing of the past. Were moving to a dynamic grid made up of lots of different sources.

    Its just changing.

    • -4

      Thankyou, and that's why Spain collapsed.

      • +2

        They dont know why it collapsed. Yes, increasing the bunber of generators does increase complexity of the grid, buf it also adds stability. They will learn from what happened and improve trigger points to help prevent furute outages.

        Nulcear and coal are too slow to react in a grid. Renewables, battery and hydro storage are all far more flexible to meet demands. Plus, using smarter loads allows a more dynamic system to use power when its cheaply available such as when its windy or sunny.

        • -3

          Who told you they don't know why it collapsed? ABC, Guardian, Renew.
          How cana government fail 50,000,000 people and get away with it by shrugging their shoulders.
          Getoff the table Mabel.

          Do you understand that the whole continent ( Australia, to be clear) was three times blanketed by high pressure systems, which delivered maximum solar and virtually no wind for several days at a time.
          That would give us interconnectors to nowhere. But the remaining "useless" coal station might still be able to provide some power

          • +1

            @Clickbait: They havent worked out why it collapsed YET. You seem to be convinced otherwsie, how about providing a source or three.

  • +1

    Id like to see more money spent on making peoples homes more energy efficient, in theory using as little power as possible. Start banning products that are too power hungry and promoting efficient ones - LED's have reduced consumption, but hopefully more can be done with other critical appliances like fridges, washing machines, tvs/computers, ovens/stove tops and particularly hvac and water heaters. I get that new houses need to meet certain "star" criteria these days, but hopefully we can move to a low consumption society eventually.

    • There's more work to do, but I think you're understating how much more efficient the average home has become over the last ~30 years or so. Setting aside more energy efficient appliances (in particular split systems in place of electric / gas heating), homes have because enormously more thermally efficient thanks to improvements in the National Construction Code.

      To an extent, the uptake of home solar and battery storage is limiting the gains that can be achieved from increased efficiency. Doesn't matter if your fridge is 12% more efficient if you're already generating several kWh of excess solar energy every day with negligible FiT.

      • Very true - it's just the nighttime usage that needs to be reduced further…

  • ITT

    old man yells at clouds

    • Which bit?

    • Op username checks out.

      • -1

        You funny.
        i have been crook for a couple of weeks, and this is a good mind exercise.
        But where do you and your liked minded contributors find the time to do this.
        Are you also unwell, on someone else's dollar, unemployed, sacrificing study time ?

        • +1

          i surf ozbargain whilst i sit on the toilet shitting for 45min a day at work

        • Its a good mind exercise if you have actually done some investigation and looked at a variety of reputable resources. You arent doing your own 'research', thats a scientific term and doesnt mean reading a few daily mail articles and watching a youtube clip or 3.

          I find it interesting to see others opinions on subjects like this. Although i havent read all 4 pages, this time ive read a few. I try to read with an open mind, but struggle with the rhetoric at times. If you provide references ill listen and often respond. If you dismiss well regarded media and use name calling ill believe far less of what you say. As i said, its interesting. It rained today and was a bit slow.

          Anyway, the market is acting. Very little interest in building nuclear (globally), little reinvestment in coal generation. Lots of investment in renewables, storage and efficiency improvements. Why would you build stuff that uses a single use fuel with a finite source when you can build stuff that uses 'free- energy?.

          • @Euphemistic: Little investment in coal?

            https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-…

            China disagrees. In courntries where coal isn't viewed as the devil reincarnate, coal is still being consumed in record quantaties.

            • +1

              @Mrgreenz: Acording to that link china installed 95% of the worlds new coal power in 2023 at about 70GW. The same year, they installed 346GW of renewables.

              So, yes, china is still installing coal fired power. But the rest of the world isnt AND china is installing far more in renewables.

              95% does seem like a lot, but it needs to be put in context.

              • @Euphemistic: Subsidy fueled solar binge. Meanwhile fossil fuel plants are getting paid to close in the western world.

                346GW might seem like a big number, and it is. But when 280 of it is solar and 80 wind with 15% and 25% capacity factors relatively that yields 370TWh and 175TWh added pa.

                With subsidies, with low renewables penetration and with the best deployment sites.

                All those tail winds are dissapearing. And there is still 6000 TWh to displace growing at 500TWh pa.

                9 trillion has been spent on decarb over the last decade and renewable share of final energy is advancing at 0.3-0.6% per year. How many Trillions more?

                https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/apac/en/insights/latest-and…

                • @Mrgreenz:

                  Subsidy fueled solar binge.

                  Reference? Renewables are getting subsidised for what reason?

                  Meanwhile fossil fuel plants are getting paid to close in the western world

                  Reference? They arent building new ones per your reference. The existing ones are being shut down either because the are old and too expensive to maintain or because they dont suit a grid full of renewables. Coal is too slow to ramp up and down to meet demand unlike gas.

                  • @Euphemistic: To speed uptake

                    https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/governmen…

                    https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-chinas-renewable-p….

                    Tightening environmental restrictions. Government goals for clean energy. Without pervasion coal generators would be profitable. Look at china, cheap electricity. Look at western renewable leaders. Expensive electricity, price caps, government payment assistance. Download AEMO backseries of wholesale prices look at the price trent, look at the price volatility in recent years. Its all there to be seen.

                    https://www.google.com/amp/s/reneweconomy.com.au/sauce-for-t…

                    • +1

                      @Mrgreenz: They need to speed uptake. Coal isnt a viable investment, particularly in Australia where the plants were built decades ago and not enough planning was done to ensure that there was a decent transition period from coal to 'post coal'. The plants were left running far too long without a decent replacement plan.

                      Renewable investors know we need to keep our power on so the say its going to be too difficult to build. Then the government steps in and offers incentives. Its a game.

                      Of course anyone would say they were shutting down their coal plant if the government was offering incentives to 'keep them open'. who wouldnt take free money to increase profits.

  • -1

    "Little interest in Nuclear" Not correct. Little investment but a lot of interest
    https://sciencebusiness.net/green-technology/new-leadership-…
    And Daily Mail. I had to look it up.
    My take is tha all publishing is driven by revenue, but large scale publishing is driven by large scale advertising.
    Therefore income is driven by content driven by revenue.
    Do you really believe th epress gives a revenuse rats about a cat up a tree in Puddlestone. Not a chance.
    But the circulation allows them to present propaganda as news.
    Try reading the tealeaves instead.
    And wait til the nuclear industry startsspemding media dollars, and public opinion moves mysteriously overnight.
    Tell me I'm wrong

    • +1

      Youre wrong. Simple.(said tongue in cheek). Ultimately I dont agree with you, but thats OK. Doesnt make you wrong.

      Yes, theres plenty of interest in nuclear, but at this point its too expensive and to big in scale to be worth investing a lot in.

      I used to be 'morally' opposed to nuclear, but ive learned that it is a reasonable option to consider. Its worth keeping it on the table IF it comes down a lot in price and can be built safely and quickly without a massive blowout in budget then i see no reason not too. Until them, renewables and batteries, grid upgrades, efficiency gains and smart use of power are the way forward.

      • but at this point its too expensive and to big in scale to be worth investing a lot in

        There's small modular nuclear reactors too. It's meant to be built in a factory, craned into place (can be an old coal power plant site) and then tied straight into the grid. Old Billy Gates is heavily invested in it.

        • +1

          But they are not ready yet. Its not a thing we can implement now. Lots of companies trying to get it up and running for sure, but its not something that is close to production ready - yet. Its still experimental.

          • @Euphemistic: Renewables aren't ready to replace the entirety of our electricity generation either. Lots of companies getting funded (corporate welfare) from the government to give it a go for sure, but its not something that is close to providing an environmentally friendly solution.

            • +1

              @tenpercent: SA has 100% renewable capacity. Ok, its grid connected with Vic but they arent far off being self sufficient.

              Renewable sources are ready now. Installing is taking time, but it wont take as long as nuclear to be operational.

              • @Euphemistic:

                SA has 100% renewable capacity

                This is one of those misinformation statements. While technically correct it is being used to give the wrong impression. Sure given perfect ideal weather conditions and sufficiently low demand at a point in time, solar can theoretically provide 100% of SA's electricity needs. But solar panels and wind mills in particular rarely are operating at their capacity.

                • +1

                  @tenpercent: SA having the ability to be powered by 100% rebewable is fact. Sure, its not most of the time but it is possible. If solar panels 'rarely operate at capacity' its not a problem if you install sufficient capacity. Its not difficult tomdetermine their expected output compared to rated capacity.

                  It is no more misinformation than that nuclear power is ready to be installed in Aus.

                  • @Euphemistic:

                    Its not difficult tomdetermine their expected output compared to rated capacity.

                    Indeed. Try telling that to bureaucrats and politicians in Canberra.

                    Your statement was still misinformation as you did not make clear whether you were talking about expected or rated capacity.

                    It is no more misinformation than that nuclear power is ready to be installed in Aus.

                    I didn't say or imply it was ready. I only commented about small modular nuclear reactors being a thing in response to your comment about nuclear being too big and expensive for Australia.

                    • +1

                      @tenpercent:

                      Your statement was still misinformation as you did not make clear whether you were talking about expected or rated capacity.

                      SA has literally supplied 100% of the states power from renewables for short periods recently. Clearly that is 100% renewable capacity. As yet, they are running about 70% renewable on average. They are targetting 100% renewable by 2030.

                      • +1

                        @Euphemistic:

                        they are running about 70% renewable on average

                        And there's the rub. Hence crowing about 100% renewable capacity is pointless misinformation if on average it's actually only 70% (I'm assuming you're correct here for the sake of argument).

                        • +1

                          @tenpercent: Heres the other side of that coin: If they can AVERAGE 70% and peak 100% they are pretty close to not needing any form of nuclear whether small scale is coming or not. AND that level of renewables has been achieved in a relatively short period of time.

                          "We need nuclear for baseload" is just as much misinformation.

                          Perhaps more accurately in reference to the thread title, Renewables ARE the base load.

                          • @Euphemistic: Average and Peak are not the only measures you need to consider.
                            The main one is minimum output. That will define either how much surplus production capacity you need (which will be idle and go to waste most of the time) and/or how much surplus storage capacity you would need (which also would be idle and remain unused most of the time) to avoid black outs. So however you look it, without some form of stable 'baseload' supply you will always have to over-invest in storage and/or production capacity.

                            • +1

                              @tenpercent:

                              So however you look it, without some form of stable 'baseload' supply you will always have to over-invest in storage and/or production capacity.

                              Youre obviously looking at it differently. Renewables ARE the baseload. Its not over-investing to put in sufficient capacity in either storage or generation.

                              Besides, baseload is a term that isnt really relevant any more. It is made for coal and nuclear that require significant effort to increase or decrease production to meet demand. They artificially create demand (eg off peak hot water) to keep the power station running. With smaller scale generation that costs virtually zero to shut off or switch on you generate to suit the load, not the other way around.

                              • @Euphemistic:

                                you generate to suit the load

                                Indeed, and if SA's current set up with solar and wind (which at the best times of the year can supply 100% of the state's required electricity, assuming you are correct for the sake of argument) can only supply say 30% (made up number for illustration of the point) of the state's requirements at the worst time of the year (when there is not much wind plus it's cloudy or night time) then you must either overinvest in storage capacity and/or overinvest in up to 3.4 times as much rated production capacity. Either way you look at it trying to achieve 100% electricity with solar/wind 100% of the time is an incredibly inefficient use of resources (financial resources, material resources, and labour resources).

                                Alternatively, you can use some kind of fossil fuel for load balancing to supply reliable electricity as and when it is needed (such as is happening right at this very moment with over half of SA's electricity being supplied by gas). Or you can use some kind of steady 'baseload' electricity supply (generally coal, e.g. NSW/VIC/QLD/WA, or nuclear, but also hydro, e.g. Tas, or geothermal) to meet the minimum demands and then supplement with renewables / gas / flywheels / etc to balance the peaks and troughs (although modern nuclear and coal plants, and older plants can be retrofitted, to easily provide the load balancing and peak capacity meeting capabilites too - so your comment about "significant effort to increase or decrease production to meet demand" is antiquated).

                  • @Euphemistic: you can just go to
                    https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-elec…
                    to see sources.
                    No need for debate

        • If it helps, I think Shepparton Vic did some investigation on small deployment Nuclear something like 20,000 population from a 20ft containier, but no further info

          • +1

            @Clickbait: 'Everyone' is 'doing investigation' for small nuclear. If it ever gets off the ground it will probably take off. Will still most likely be more expensive than renewables and atorage.

            • @Euphemistic: Have you heard much about gravity storage? My next logical step after hydro was just lifting rocks (something I think Australia would be good at doing). I did a search, and was surprised at the lack of real world development.

              • @megaclix: There's a bunch of different technologies being experimented with for storage or load shifting.

                Gravity is good because its simple mechanics. Motor to wind up the weights, weight to drive the motor to generate. Mine shafts are a good option for this.

                Recently heard for remote locations using old diesel engines spun by an electric motor to compress air, then run it in reverse to generate. Bush mechanics can easily deal with ICE motors and compressed air and there is little need for fancy electronics to control thousands of battery cells.

                Also using excess power to heat stuff then use that to heat buildings.

                If youve got bulk excess energy, its doesnt matter as much if the storage isnt ultra efficient, especially when its simple tech. Lots of options that are more energy efficient than making hydrogen.

  • Note that my link included more Eurpoean countries but little about Cost. Maybe they have new priorities.
    In Australia allabanese threw up $700 Million or something like that, and Dutton proved to be too much a coward to present an challenge to that, when , as in all politics, any lie would have done.
    He could also have assaulted him with the billions already wasted on Renewables.
    but no, he was too concerned he might lose some voters he never had.
    So he also lost support from people who expected a leader.

    • +1

      Huh? Do you mean estimates of $700 Billion for nuclear power? Dutton could not refute that because its a realistic number his numbers were fantasy relying on tech that doesn't exist yet and timelines that would require us to have a whole lot of experience we just don't have.

      And if you want to throw shade on political parties for their campaigns, why were the liberals going against their principles of free market aand wanting to build a bunch of public nuclear power stations? Because noone else wants to do it. If they could have found a private corporation to invest in nuclear in Aus, they would have been shouting from the treetops. But they couldnt because no corporations want to fund nuclear because the return isnt there. Renewables get a much bigger return on investment.

  • +1

    In response to your request for more links
    Is Reuters reliable because they say nuclear is back on the table, which is just so much more signifricant that just considering it. It means renewables are a failure.
    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germanys-nuclear-lobby-…

    Or, from the Guardian, so it must be true

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/oct/15/google-bu…

    Microsoft struck a deal to take energy from Three Mile Island, or
    Amazon bought a datacentre powered by nuclear energy in March, also in Pennsylvania, from Talen Energy. Only about $250 million.
    T can't find my link to the failure of renewables in USA that has forced this move, but suffice to say you will most likely not have seen anything about it published in approved sites

    • There is a big difference between 'on the table' meaning to restart reactors and building new ones. Very few investors looking at installing new large scale reactors.

      As for the small scale reactora for google, maybe that will happen. It is 5years away before the first is due to be commisioned and then another 5y before they are all up and running. It might go ahead.

Login or Join to leave a comment