Posted: December 17, 2016 Filed under: Australia, BIG Government, Climatism, Energy Poverty, Fact Check, Failed Green Schemes, Fossil Fuels, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Green Energy, Renewables, Unreliables, Wind Farms | Tags: Green Energy Failure, Hazlewood, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, SA Blackout, South Australia, unreliables, Wind Energy, Wind Farms, wind power
A new report by the national electricity regulator has found that September’s statewide blackout in South Australia, was a direct result of
renewable unreliable power sources unable to cope with rapid or large changes in frequency, leading ultimately to a “black system”.
Hardly surprising news considering the intermittent nature of weather-dependent wind energy, leading to well-established ‘grid instability’.
Which leads to the ultimate question that “unreliable” energy critics have been asking since the rushed inception of “green” energy as part of the hysterical quest to “Save The Planet” – Why wasn’t the critical factor of grid instability discussed, factored in and ironed out before spending billions upon billions of taxpayers money on the now-failed wind experiment? Who will claim responsibility for the misguided allocation of now proven inferior, useless and failed wind technology?
This is the direct problem faced when big government and statist green central planning gets involved in the commercial sector. Market mechanisms are eliminated, the very mechanisms which promote proper checks and balances to make sure stuff works.
The schizophrenic race for “green” energy has been nothing more than a race by rent-seeking corporatist vampires to suck up unlimited government funds, grants and subsidies.
But hey, who cares about other people’s (taxpayers) hard-earned money when you’re trying to “Save The Planet” right?
When will we learn from our mistakes?
Einstein’s definition of insanity is becoming more and more relevant as we continue to go down the insane path of defunct wind and solar tech:
definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Einstein
Image via Paul Homewood – NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Report via The Australian :
Michael Owen 11:44AM December 15, 2016
A new report by a national electricity regulator has found that, as occurred during September’s statewide blackout in South Australia, renewable power sources cannot cope with rapid or large changes in frequency, leading ultimately to a “black system”.
Spinning generators, motors and other devices synchronised to the frequency of the electricity system have naturally provided the inertia necessary to allow the system to cope with uncontrolled changes in frequency.
But new technologies such as a wind or solar have no or low inertia. Currently they have limited ability to dampen rapid changes in frequency.
“Finding new ways to provide inertia and respond to frequency changes is where work is required,” AEMC chairman John Pierce said.
AEMC is currently working on five rule change requests to address both immediate concerns in relation to emergency protection, particularly relating to South Australia’s current frequency issues, as well as new mechanisms to allow security to be maintained across the entire system.
Despite numerous warnings to the South Australian Labor government about the risk of frequency problems and increased load shedding, brownouts and blackouts, the state has pursued a renewable energy policy that has seen around 45 per cent of its generation come from wind and solar.
The state’s last coal-fired baseload power station was forced to shut in May because of the rise of renewables, with Premier Jay Weatherill and his Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis both declaring “coal is dead”. The state is now reliant upon an interconnector with Victoria to import coal-fired baseload power.
It has today emerged that a plan by the owners of the Northern power station and transmission company ElectraNet to reopen the power plant as a converter to stabilise the state’s wind-vulnerable grid was abandoned because of the red tape involved.
The power station would be demolished within one to two months but it would have taken at least a year for a full study and assessment on the reopening proposal under government regulation, before a decision could be made on funding.
While there has been no cost estimate released, such a move would likely be very expensive.
ElectraNet is urgently looking at options to stabilise the state’s grid in the absence of the Northern power station.
Mr Pierce said there were challenges ahead in managing system security, which was essential to allow reliable electricity supplies to be provided to customers.
“The changes that need to be made centre on the physics of energy supply, transmission and meeting demand,” Mr Pierce said.
“Many different technical options are emerging in today’s electricity sector and we want to encourage further innovation — rewarding the best options that may mature over time.
“We also need market mechanisms that reward the best outcomes while keeping consumer prices as low as possible over the long term.”
The AEMC interim report suggests changes that include new measures to enable provision of additional inertia for the system most likely through synchronous machines and development of fast acting frequency response services, which might be provided via invertor-based generators such as wind turbines, by energy storage devices and by demand-response schemes.
“This review puts an umbrella over many issues being raised by stakeholders in relation to the power system’s ability to keep the lights on while maintaining its frequency at a constant level,” Mr Pierce said.
“The review will consider both policy mechanisms that are in place now; and analyse how any of the feasible emissions reduction policies may impact the future power system.”
He also said that a more efficient gas market would improve the power system’s ability to integrate renewables like wind and solar by providing fast-start backup for intermittent generation.
“Making it easier to buy and sell gas helps lower supply costs for gas-fired power stations which are now replacing coal generators,” he said.
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the Turnbull government welcomed the draft AEMC report.
“The increasing amount of solar and wind is creating a real challenge to the security of our nation’s electricity market, as they are non-synchronous generation technologies,” Mr Frydenberg said.
“As Bill Shorten and his mates in the Labor states chase unrealistic high renewable energy targets they have failed to take into account the fact that the increasing amount of solar and wind power they are encouraging into the system is reducing energy secruity across the National Electricity Market.
“In contrast, the benefits that hydro, gas and coal have provided, essentially for free, to keep the electricity system secure have been taken for granted.”
“As more intermittent generation comes into the grid, new markets are going to have be created for things like inertia which are essential to energy security.”
He said these issues will be considered by the Finkel Review and the AEMC.
The AEMC is calling submissions by February 9.
Countries Seeing The Light (literally)
Ideologically aggressive “green” GERMANY has spent €1 Trillion Euros, of other people’s money, on Wind and Solar power through the Energiewende program, only to undergo her biggest coal-fired power expansion in history.
Source : Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND)
CHINA is falsely portrayed by green-energy advocates as “leaders in the push for renewable technology”.
In reality, China setup their own small-scale wind and solar power generation purely to appease the West in a symbolic show of “Green” faith.
The result of China’s symbolic wind experiment? –> China Counts the Staggering Cost of its Wind Power Experiment | Climatism
Where they are winning, big-time, is in the mass-manufacture of wind and solar applications, sold back to the climate change obsessed West.
And the power used to manufacture the 16th Century industrial windmills, ironically, coming from the very coal that the West has condemned, demonised and shipped-off to China so she can open a coal-fired power station every week!
Insanity on a bizarre level.
China’s energy reality
China are opening a new-generation coal-fired power plant every week. –> China 5-Year Plan Confirms Massive Expansion Of Coal Fired Capacity | Climatism
Meanwhile, back in climate change obsessed Australia, they are “Blowing Up” and decommissioning their coal-fired power plants!
Playford coal-fired power station in Port Augusta — put out of business by Labor’s green policies — had its towers brought down by explosives.
The world sure got that message: South Australia is closed for investment in heavy industry, and so, soon, will be the rest of Australia if we don’t learn from its madness.
Blowing up the Playford station was Labor, Greens and now Liberals saying yes to wind farms and the country’s highest power prices, and saying yes to the country’s highest unemployment, too.
It gets even worse. South Australia relies on a giant extension cord connected to neighbouring Victoria’s coal-fired power station Hazlewood, in order to supply baseload energy when the “wind don’t blow”.
About 600MW or a third of SA’s energy is drawn from Victoria. And as we know, when the windmills failed in September’s statewide blackout, the system flicked to the Victorian coal-fired interconnector and it overloaded leading to Statewide lights out.
So, you would think that increasing coal-fired power capacity or another baseload alternative like nuclear would be necessary to save industry, jobs, reduce massive power-price hikes and to simply keep the lights on, right?
Well in the utopian land of Oz, that answer is a big eco-NO! And hold onto your chair for why…
The Victorian Labor Government is decommissioning Hazlewood as of 2017 in order to ramp up its own defunct
renewable unreliable energy program!
Hazelwood coal power station to close with loss of up to 1,000 jobs | Australia news | The Guardian
That definition of insanity again please…
“doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Einstein
16th Century, weather-dependent Windmills have failed as a legitimate baseload energy source.
All they really do is relieve climate guilt for the gullible while diverting trillions of dollars of taxpayers money to rent-seeking corporate vampires.
See also :
Posted: November 27, 2016 Filed under: Climatism, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Empirical Evidence, Energy Poverty, Fact Check, Failed Green Schemes, Fossil Fuels, Government Grants/Funding, Green Agenda, Green Energy, Renewables, Solar, Unreliables, Wind Farms | Tags: CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Energy Poverty, Fossil Fuels, Fuel Poverty, Global Warming, Natural Gas, Wind Energy, wind energy scam, Wind Farms, wind power
A must read analysis via NTZ reaffirming the disturbing fact that industrial windmills and solar panels remain firmly positioned as mere symbolic icons to the folly of green climate madness…
From NoTricksZone :
As the reputed world leader in green energy policy, Germany plans to eliminate nuclear power as an energy source in the next 5 years.
A 2011 decision to phase out nuclear power by 2022 has meant that renewables like wind and solar power are expected to swiftly take the place of nuclear energy on the German power grid. The portion of Germany’s power generation from wind and solar (renewables) has indeed risen dramatically in the last 10 years:
Image source (cleanenergywire.org)
Germany’s “green” leadership and vociferous allegiance to renewables as a dominant power generation source has elicited controversy. Wind and solar are very labor and material-intensive (expensive) energy sources, and the dramatic rise in solar and wind power capacity has come with great financial expense to German citizens. Poorer households have long been the most adversely affected. Dating back to 2000, electricity prices have risen by 80% in Germany, leaving 7 million citizens “energy poor” (meaning that more than 10% of their income has to be spent on heating and electrifying their homes).
Analysis by the European Commission indicates that “nearly 11% of the EU’s population [encompassing 54 million people] are in a situation where they live in households in which they find themselves unable to heat their homes at an affordable cost,” which may effectively put their lives at risk. This latter point is not an exaggeration. In the UK, where heating costs rose 63% between 2009 and 2014, 25% of citizens over 60 are classified as “energy poor”, leaving the elderly population especially vulnerable. During the frigid winter of 2014, the number of “excess winter deaths” reached 49,260, of which about 14,780 were due to people living in cold homes that they couldn’t afford to heat.
And despite the steep, expensive rise in power generated by renewables since about 2000, Germany still obtained about 44% of its power from coal as of 2014, which is a higher share than in the United States (33% as of 2015). Hundreds of U.S. coal plants have been shuttered in recent years largely because of a monumental nation-wide shift to natural gas power generation, a cleaner fuel that emits much less CO2 upon combustion than does coal.
(In the U.S., in fact, there has been a 12% decline in overall CO2 emissions since 2005 despite the fact that the U.S population has risen by 30 million during those 10 years. As mentioned above, much of the decline in emissions is directly connected to the rapid displacement of coal with natural gas power generation. While the rise in U.S. solar power has also been substantial in the last decade, “for every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas cut 13 tons.”)
Germany’s heavy reliance on coal — the highest in the EU — is very likely to continue indefinitely despite the nation’s stated commitments to the Paris Agreement and CO2 emissions reductions. The much lower power-generating capabilities of renewables due to their intermittent output (the Sun has to shine and the wind must blow) has meant that reliable backup capacity — fossil fuels or nuclear — must remain on the grid. Since nuclear power is set to be phased out of Germany by 2022, coal necessarily has to stay, even expand. The natural consequence is that Germany’s CO2 emissions have not declined since 2009, and instead there has been a slight emissions uptick in recent years, as the dramatic increase in renewables has not come close to offsetting the greater CO2 emissions generated from the renewed German emphasis on coal.
Adding More Wind And Solar Power Ultimately Raises CO2 Emissions, As More Fossil Fuel Backup Capacity Must Be Built
What’s happening in Germany is, unfortunately, a bellwether for what is to come in other large wealthy countries attempting to make renewables the kingpin of their power grids. The unspoken truth about renewables was succinctly summarized in a 2012 Los Angeles Times analysis :
“As more solar and wind generators come online, … the demand will rise for more backup power from fossil fuel plants.”
The full article, entitled “Rise in renewable energy will require more use of fossil fuels” also points out that wind turbines often produce a tiny fraction (1 percent?) of their claimed potential, meaning the gap must be filled by fossil fuels:
Wind provided just 33 megawatts of power statewide in the midafternoon, less than 1% of the potential from wind farms capable of producing 4,000 megawatts of electricity.
As is true on many days in California when multibillion-dollar investments in wind and solar energy plants are thwarted by the weather, the void was filled by gas-fired plants like the Delta Energy Center.
One of the hidden costs of solar and wind power — and a problem the state is not yet prepared to meet — is that wind and solar energy must be backed up by other sources, typically gas-fired generators. As more solar and wind energy generators come online, fulfilling a legal mandate to produce one-third of California’s electricity by 2020, the demand will rise for more backup power from fossil fuel plants.
Another observational analysis suggests that much of the power generation thought to be attributed to wind actually came from backup sources, or fossil fuels:
“More than half the electric generation nominally credited to wind power is actually produced by fossil fuels, mostly natural gas.”
Analysis from a recently published resource management paper suggests that overall CO2 emissions will actually double in the next 16 years (by 2032) in Canada (Ontario) as more wind and solar capacity is added. Wind and solar require reliable backup when the Sun isn’t shining and/or the wind isn’t blowing…and fossil fuel energies (natural gas, coal) are the reliable backup(s) of choice.
Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants? [pg. 15]
Wind and Solar require flexible backup generation. Nuclear is too inflexible to backup renewables without expensive engineering changes to the reactors. Flexible electric storage is too expensive at the moment. Consequently natural gas provides the backup for wind and solar in North America. When you add wind and solar you are actually forced to reduce nuclear generation to make room for more natural gas generation to provide flexible backup.
Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Wind and solar with natural gas backup produces electricity at about 200 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Therefore adding wind and solar to Ontario’s grid drives CO2 emissions higher.
From 2016 to 2032 as Ontario phases out nuclear capacity to make room for wind and solar, CO2 emissions will double (2013 LTEP data). In Ontario, with limited economic hydro and expensive storage, it is mathematically impossible to achieve low CO2 emissions at reasonable electricity prices without nuclear generation.
Scientists Increasingly Conclude Global-Scale Renewables-Driven Power Supply Will Never Happen
Scientists have increasingly weighed in on the vacuousness of the current emphasis on renewable energy generation. For example…
Solar power is a “non-sustainable energy sink” and “will not help in any way to replace the fossil fuel” even though “many people believe renewable energy sources to be capable of substituting fossil or nuclear energy.”
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/24/analysis-adding-more-solar-wind-power-increases-dependence-on-fossil-fuels-doubles-co2-emissions/#sthash.9TGE05ql.dpuf
(Climatism embolden added)
Via Climatism :
As well as the extra fossil fuel based energy plants required to backup wind and solar installations, keep in mind the additional CO2 produced and mining required to manufacture, transport and maintain windmills and solar panels.
With an average lifespan of only fifteen years, running at max 30% output, an industrial windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.
How Green Is My Industrial Wind Turbine? | Climatism
Because wind power fails when the wind stops blowing, 100% of its capacity has to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuels which run constantly in the background to balance the grid and prevent blackouts when wind power output collapses:
The energy required for a helicopter to de-ice all the blades on a wind farm must outweigh any supposed saving in CO2 by a factor of 100 or more. Notwithstanding that no wind farm has saved a gram of CO2 due to construction and the necessary spinning reserve.
HUMAN STUPIDITY KNOWS NO LIMITS
At least all those promised “green jobs” are being realised
“Unreliable” Energy Related :
CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :