The current landscape of grid-scale energy storage presents a fascinating study in technological capabilities and limitations, particularly when examining the interplay between storage solutions and renewable energy sources. Examining operational battery projects in China and Australia reveals a consistent pattern of approximately two-hour storage capacity, though projections suggest this will expand to four to six hours by 2030, marking a significant evolution in storage capabilities.
This development holds particular promise for solar energy integration into power grids. Solar power's relatively predictable intermittency pattern allows for strategic deployment of storage assets, potentially transforming it into a more reliable baseload power source. The mathematical precision of solar cycles enables sophisticated planning and optimization of storage systems.
Wind energy, however, presents a more complex challenge. Its erratic nature is exemplified by the disproportionate relationship between wind speed and power output – a mere 2 mph increase from 10 to 12 mph can result in a dramatic 30 percent shift in energy production. This volatility demands more sophisticated storage solutions than current short-duration batteries can provide.
The solution to wind's intermittency likely lies in emerging long-duration storage technologies. Iron air batteries and thermal storage systems represent particularly promising avenues. The latter holds special significance given that approximately half of all energy demand manifests as heat. Thermal batteries could serve these markets directly, bypassing the inherent inefficiencies of heat-to-electricity conversion processes.
Nevertheless, it's crucial to acknowledge that thermal battery technology remains in its pilot phase. While the theoretical advantages are compelling, practical implementation at scale awaits further technological maturation and real-world validation.
At time of writing this email the UK wind is 10% of demand and we are importing the same percentage from France. It seems in the media that you can only say how much cheaper renewables are, (the dubious statement) that it will make us energy secure or if we have more wind turbines or solar cells then everything will be fine. (And of course that means lots of green jobs.) The information you provide on various posts and in particular the cost of batteries which shows the numbers we would need is never challenged or acknowledged anywhere. On a cold winter's evening, with an anticyclone over most of Europe where does our electrical energy come from?
The discourse surrounding climate policy often obscures a fundamental tension at the heart of our approach to environmental challenges. Let me be unequivocal: my perspective on environmentalism diverges sharply from conventional wisdom. The attribution of intrinsic moral worth to nature beyond its utility to human civilization strikes me as not merely misguided but potentially hazardous. This extends to questioning the merit of regulations concerning biodiversity preservation, endangered species protection, and natural habitat conservation.
The paradox in current climate policy stems from an electorate that simultaneously demands action on climate change while refusing to acknowledge or accept the associated costs. This position is fundamentally untenable given fossil fuels' foundational role in industrial civilization. Their integration into every aspect of modern life means any meaningful transition will inevitably incur substantial costs.
This dynamic explains the curious phenomenon where carbon taxation, despite near-unanimous support from economists as the most efficient emission reduction mechanism, remains politically toxic. The resulting policy landscape becomes even more intriguing when examining right-wing politicians' approach. These traditional champions of market solutions paradoxically eschew carbon pricing in favor of regulatory frameworks and subsidy programs.
While such interventionist policies likely achieve fewer emission reductions per dollar compared to carbon pricing, they offer political palatability. They create the illusion of action while obscuring the true costs behind complex regulatory structures and indirect subsidies. This arrangement satisfies the public's contradictory demands: visible action on climate change without transparent costs.
The temptation to cast blame on politicians or activist groups misses the mark. These policy contortions merely reflect and respond to the electorate's fundamentally incompatible desires. The resulting inefficiencies in climate policy stem not from political failure but from democratic responsiveness to contradictory public demands.
There is a lot of hype around 'renewables': I try to cut through using granular data to show the reality.
As to the relative popularity of 'the energy transition', the economic theory of stated versus revealed preferences may be at play.
- Very few people will *state* they don't want a 'greener' world, especially as the definition of 'green' is a very flexible one, and especially in the early days when the costs of being 'green' are undefined.
- But in the privacy of a voting station they might *reveal* their preference for lower spending on 'green' efforts if the costs to them personally are getting too high.
The revealed option is only possible if there is a difference in 'green' policies between the candidates. Until very recently in the UK there has been no real difference in 'green' policy between Labour and Tories: this has probably contributed to the rise of Reform.
In the USA I think this factor (amongst others) did contribute to the election of Trump.
Germany Federal elections might give an indication, although with their coalitions the horse-trading for power might give mixed signals regarding the Energiewende.
It's possible it may be a factor in the upcoming Aussie Federal elections - which with their mandatory voting, tend to give solid signals.
The visceral disgust I feel toward environmentalism stems from recognizing it for what it truly is - conservatism masquerading in different clothes. It's not at all surprising to see environmentalists readily joining forces with conservatives on issues like GMOs - they're cut from the same cloth, both fundamentally opposed to human progress.
As for the Liberal Party of Australia, the transition feels like a downgrade. The previous leader might have been a bit of a goof, but at least he was straightforward about supporting coal and gas. Now we've got this pro-nuclear guy, which just means I'll have to watch more white elephant projects get greenlighted. The best-case scenario I can hope for is that he'll come in, axe all these ridiculous hydrogen projects, legalize nuclear, maybe get a few micro reactors going - and then chicken out just like Labor always does with their high-speed rail promises.
Thanks Chris, I have given this article a brief eye, will come back and do a more in-depth look... you are so right about our TEXAS battery storage - expensive smoothing solely for renewables otherwise a useless endeavor. Our legislators through ERCOT have been sold on this as the answer to all our woes... not so and an expensive learning tool.
I have to say ERCOT does a good job of bad energy policy, they are keeping the lights on for now, but as more and more solar is coming on the grid soon it will become more difficult.
Then there is the push for transmission, and then the push for out of state interconnects. We see how well that is working in EU or Canada. .... ahhh.. for a little sensibility in the world!
Congratulations Chris, you are catching up with the energy realists of Australia who have been going on about the problem of wind droughts and lack of storage for almost a decade.
The pioneer wind watchers, Anton Lang and the Paul MIskelly team, identified drought caused by high pressure systems that can linger for up to 3 days over South East Australia. Given the need for continuous input to the grid to meet demand and the lack of grid-scale storage, that is the end of the transition to unreliable energy.
Subsidising and mandating unreliable energy on the grid is probably the greatest peacetime policy blunder ever and the result has been trillions of dollars of expenditure worldwide to get more expensive and less reliable electricity with massive collateral damage to the planet.
Around the Western world, subsidised and mandated wind and solar power have been displacing conventional power in the electricity supply. Consequently, most of the grids in the west are moving towards a point where the lights will flicker at nights when the wind is low. This is a “frog in the saucepan” effect and it only starts to worry people when it is too late. It may be too late for Britain and Germany.
Consider the ABC of intermittent energy generation.
A. Input to the grid must continuously match the demand.
B. The continuity of RE is broken on nights with little or no wind.
C. There is no feasible or affordable large-scale storage to bridge the gaps.
Therefore, the green transition is impossible with current storage technology.
The rate of progress towards the tipping point will accelerate as demand is swelled by AI and electrification at large.
In Australia, the transition to unreliable wind and solar power has just hit the wall, while Britain and Germany have passed the tipping point and entered a “red zone,” keeping the lights on precariously with imports and deindustrialization to reduce demand.
The meteorologists never issued wind drought warnings and the irresponsible authorities never checked the wind supply! They even missed the Dunkelflautes that must have been known to mariners and millers for centuries!
There is an urgent need to find out why the meteorologists failed to warn us about wind droughts and why energy planners didn’t check.
Just think about it, would you go farming without checking the rainfall in the district where you plan to grow crops and pastures, so why did we go wind farming without checking the reliability of the wind supply?
Again you and our mate below Rafe miss the point. Batteries in Texas supply the last 2-5 GW which means the difference between sky high spot prices and/or load shedding and safe operation of the system.
They have two effects on emissions, they reduce curtailment of wind and solar thereby reducing overall gas use and more particularly they can absorb excess energy from nuclear and CC gas plants as well as renewables at periods of low demand, so further reducing the need for high emission peaker plants.
Further they can provide grid services which would otherwise require low efficiency "spinning reserves" at far lower cost than gas turbines.
No-one will build a grid with just enough wind and solar to supply annual energy needs just as no-one ever built a conventional grid like that.
In 2005 the US Grid had 770 GW of thermal capacity, 95 GW of nuclear and about 100 GW of hydro to supply a peak of 620 GW and an average of 450 GW. At manufacturers expected capacity factors. the system should have been able to supply an average of 610-650 GW without undue strain
Thus if the US wanted to build a wind/solar/hydro grid to supply 95% of its electricity it would build about 2.2 TW of wind and solar. China is already more than halfway there. Hydro and batteries would need to supply a peak of about 450 GW, probably 35-40% of which would come from hydro/pumped hydro and the balance from batteries/thermal/flexible demand etc so batteries tops will need to about 150-180 GW/800-1000 GWh.
There was aterrible wind drought in Australia last winter when wind was 35% below average for 18 weeks, probably the worst wind drought for forty years. However wind droughts mean clear skies so more solar. Thus the total renewable share fell from 36% to 33% despite hydro also falling from 7% to 6%. Part of the reason was an increase in solar and wind capacity so on a like for like basis it was probably 36% down to 31-32%. If we had enough wind and solar to supply 130% of demand rather than 33% now, over the 18 weeks there still would have been a surplus
I've shown with granular data that, without utterly immense cheap electricity storage, adding ever more Wind & Solar generation *capacity* is doomed to fail to keep the lights on.
Because of diminishing returns.
So you have instead a situation where, at huge expense, a shiny new EV (the 'renewable' generation system) has been bought, but you still need the full capacity of the old system (your old gas-guzzling ute for the longer journeys) when the wind drops at night or over several nights.
There's no saving there. You're running two systems.
On the other hand, your support for the idea of a fully 'renewable' power grid is based on false logic after you looked at some averages.
How do I know? I've read your post "How Much Backup is needed for a 95% renewable NEM? The Answer – Very Little"
Which begins:
"Examining the data from openNEM https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=1y&interval=1w in one day, three day, one week and three week periods to find the lowest renewable shares, it was possible to calculate how much renewable energy was delivered at those times."
"one day, three day, one week and three week periods"??
No wonder you completely missed the lights going out most nights.
You go on:
"If a renewable system is designed to produce 280 TWh per year with 10-15 TWh from gas, then based on 14% CF for rooftop solar, 29% for tracking solar and 43% for additional wind it is possible to calculate the amount of generation required."
There are some more of your averages.
Where is your recognition that Supply must = Demand every minute of every hour of every day?
"Diminishing returns". Every technology known to man has diminishing returns so what? if the cost falls as the technology develops then diminishing utility is often more than offset by falling costs, see cars, electricity , mobile phones, televisions etc etc.
If wind and solar never existed do you think doubling the Texas gas fleet from its current level would double the revenue, even though they would still only be supplying 80% of Texas electricity demand?
So Texas not using enough gas per year to power Australia is not a saving because that is how much energy wind and solar will generate in Texas this year?
Batteries supplying 6 out of 80 odd GW of peak demand in Texas is not preventing the lights going out
Not building an extra 10 GW of gas plants which would have 2-3% capacity factor is not a saving.
As for my work. The Australian NEM still has 44 GW of dispatchable capacity. Peak output from that capacity is 30.5 GW. If wind and solar are quadrupled, peak output from dispatchable sources on the same day would have been <26 GW. Over six hours it would have varied from 20 to 26 GWh so 6 GW/18 GWh of storage would have limited dispatchable output to <21 GW.
By 2032 there will be 11 GW of gas, 15 GW of hydro/ pumped hydro and at least 15 GW/60-80 GWh of batteries, so when sufficient wind and solar is built to replace the annual output of the coal plants, then all the coal can be closed without any risk of supply shortages.
No wonder you produce such flawed analysis. you continually swap between power and energy without realising the difference.
Cost of covering an overnight wind drought in SE Australia with battery storage.
In August 2022 drought conditions persisted over three days from the 7th to the 9th including two nights. This episode is the model for the calculations below.
The bottom line is in the order of 125 Billion for a single night and 250 Billion for two nights at some $500,000 per MWh, or $500,000,000 per GWh for battery storage.
First we calculate the storage requirement with zero coal power in the system, then the
situation with two thirds of the coal capacity removed. That is the official target of 82% RE by 2030.
The period from sunset to sunrise in August was 13 hours, add two hours because there is practically no solar power for an hour before sunset and an hour after sunrise.
The base load (lowest level in the night) is 18 to 20GW, and we use 20 for the calculation although it under-estimates the overnight demand.
Demand: 15 hours x 20GW = 300GWh. Supply.
Legacy hydro, allow 2.5 GW.
Wind 1GW that would be CP approx. 6% given the current installed capacity of 11.4GW.
Coal zero
Gas? Zero, too expensive to burn all night.
Total supply 3.5GW. Shortfall to come from storage is 16.5GW. 15 hours x 16.5GW =247.5GWh.
With the same wind situation the following night, the total requirement for the two days is in the order of 500GWh.
At some $500,000 per MWh, or $500,000,000 per GWh for battery storage, that is a prohibitive amount of money, in the order of 125 Billion for a single night and 250 Billion for two nights in a row.
Repeating the calculation with 7GW of coal supply, the supply becomes 10.5 GW and the
demand for storage falls to 9.5. 15hours x 9.5 = 142.5GWh
Double that to cover the following night, and the demand for storage is 280GWh. Still a lot of money.
For comparison, the amount of battery storage in the pipeline at present is less than 60GWh, including many projects that are just concepts, and the amount on the ground and functioning is approximately 4GWh!
Pumped hydro is the other option for storage, apart from esoteric things like compressed air and giant weights rising and falling.
Snowy 2.0 is not a good look for pumped hydro and the challenge is to find a large scheme anywhere in the world where the pumping is done by wind and solar power.
FOR COMPARISON
Australia spent an estimated $241.3 billion on health goods and services in 2021–22 – an average of approximately $9,365 per person.
In 2021–22, government spending on welfare services and payments was $212.4 billion. The Australian Government funded most of this amount (88% or $186.2 billion), with the remaining 12% funded by state and territory governments.
1. There is already 11 GW of hydro on the system + 2.25 GW of pumped hydro under construction and another 4 GW+ under active development so why would you limit it to 2.5 GW.
Pumping for pumped hydro in Australia occurs during the day when wind and solar are already supplying 50-70% of generation so that it is a fair bet that pumped hydro is using wind and solar. In fact wind and solar is often curtailed so more pumped hydro will mean less curtailment
2. We burn gas every day so why would we not do it in an extreme low wind situation? When Kuri Kuri come on line there will be 11 GW of gas.
3. Over the period nighttime wind generation was about 800 MW vs the monthly average of 3,700 MW. A reliable system will need 4-5 times as much wind as it had in August 2022. So that is 3GW of wind
4. From 8:30 to 4 on those days wind and solar was supplying more than a quarter of demand with 4 X wind and solar not only would hydro and gas be turned off for almost eight hours all the coal would be used to recharge pumped hydro and batteries. From 10-3 almost 9 GW of wind and solar + the residual coal would have been available to replenish the storage.
5. Agreed Snowy II is a monstrous white elephant,
So a high renewable system will be able to average about 7-8 GW of hydro/pumped hydro and 7-12 GW of gas and coal and 3 GW of wind leaving the system in surplus. In practice coal gas and hydro would have been reduced and batteries would have supplied about 4 GW/10-12 GWh. According to AEMO there is 19 GW of storage projects in their queue.
The current landscape of grid-scale energy storage presents a fascinating study in technological capabilities and limitations, particularly when examining the interplay between storage solutions and renewable energy sources. Examining operational battery projects in China and Australia reveals a consistent pattern of approximately two-hour storage capacity, though projections suggest this will expand to four to six hours by 2030, marking a significant evolution in storage capabilities.
This development holds particular promise for solar energy integration into power grids. Solar power's relatively predictable intermittency pattern allows for strategic deployment of storage assets, potentially transforming it into a more reliable baseload power source. The mathematical precision of solar cycles enables sophisticated planning and optimization of storage systems.
Wind energy, however, presents a more complex challenge. Its erratic nature is exemplified by the disproportionate relationship between wind speed and power output – a mere 2 mph increase from 10 to 12 mph can result in a dramatic 30 percent shift in energy production. This volatility demands more sophisticated storage solutions than current short-duration batteries can provide.
The solution to wind's intermittency likely lies in emerging long-duration storage technologies. Iron air batteries and thermal storage systems represent particularly promising avenues. The latter holds special significance given that approximately half of all energy demand manifests as heat. Thermal batteries could serve these markets directly, bypassing the inherent inefficiencies of heat-to-electricity conversion processes.
Nevertheless, it's crucial to acknowledge that thermal battery technology remains in its pilot phase. While the theoretical advantages are compelling, practical implementation at scale awaits further technological maturation and real-world validation.
At time of writing this email the UK wind is 10% of demand and we are importing the same percentage from France. It seems in the media that you can only say how much cheaper renewables are, (the dubious statement) that it will make us energy secure or if we have more wind turbines or solar cells then everything will be fine. (And of course that means lots of green jobs.) The information you provide on various posts and in particular the cost of batteries which shows the numbers we would need is never challenged or acknowledged anywhere. On a cold winter's evening, with an anticyclone over most of Europe where does our electrical energy come from?
The discourse surrounding climate policy often obscures a fundamental tension at the heart of our approach to environmental challenges. Let me be unequivocal: my perspective on environmentalism diverges sharply from conventional wisdom. The attribution of intrinsic moral worth to nature beyond its utility to human civilization strikes me as not merely misguided but potentially hazardous. This extends to questioning the merit of regulations concerning biodiversity preservation, endangered species protection, and natural habitat conservation.
The paradox in current climate policy stems from an electorate that simultaneously demands action on climate change while refusing to acknowledge or accept the associated costs. This position is fundamentally untenable given fossil fuels' foundational role in industrial civilization. Their integration into every aspect of modern life means any meaningful transition will inevitably incur substantial costs.
This dynamic explains the curious phenomenon where carbon taxation, despite near-unanimous support from economists as the most efficient emission reduction mechanism, remains politically toxic. The resulting policy landscape becomes even more intriguing when examining right-wing politicians' approach. These traditional champions of market solutions paradoxically eschew carbon pricing in favor of regulatory frameworks and subsidy programs.
While such interventionist policies likely achieve fewer emission reductions per dollar compared to carbon pricing, they offer political palatability. They create the illusion of action while obscuring the true costs behind complex regulatory structures and indirect subsidies. This arrangement satisfies the public's contradictory demands: visible action on climate change without transparent costs.
The temptation to cast blame on politicians or activist groups misses the mark. These policy contortions merely reflect and respond to the electorate's fundamentally incompatible desires. The resulting inefficiencies in climate policy stem not from political failure but from democratic responsiveness to contradictory public demands.
Thank you for your comments, Md.
There is a lot of hype around 'renewables': I try to cut through using granular data to show the reality.
As to the relative popularity of 'the energy transition', the economic theory of stated versus revealed preferences may be at play.
- Very few people will *state* they don't want a 'greener' world, especially as the definition of 'green' is a very flexible one, and especially in the early days when the costs of being 'green' are undefined.
- But in the privacy of a voting station they might *reveal* their preference for lower spending on 'green' efforts if the costs to them personally are getting too high.
The revealed option is only possible if there is a difference in 'green' policies between the candidates. Until very recently in the UK there has been no real difference in 'green' policy between Labour and Tories: this has probably contributed to the rise of Reform.
In the USA I think this factor (amongst others) did contribute to the election of Trump.
Germany Federal elections might give an indication, although with their coalitions the horse-trading for power might give mixed signals regarding the Energiewende.
It's possible it may be a factor in the upcoming Aussie Federal elections - which with their mandatory voting, tend to give solid signals.
The visceral disgust I feel toward environmentalism stems from recognizing it for what it truly is - conservatism masquerading in different clothes. It's not at all surprising to see environmentalists readily joining forces with conservatives on issues like GMOs - they're cut from the same cloth, both fundamentally opposed to human progress.
As for the Liberal Party of Australia, the transition feels like a downgrade. The previous leader might have been a bit of a goof, but at least he was straightforward about supporting coal and gas. Now we've got this pro-nuclear guy, which just means I'll have to watch more white elephant projects get greenlighted. The best-case scenario I can hope for is that he'll come in, axe all these ridiculous hydrogen projects, legalize nuclear, maybe get a few micro reactors going - and then chicken out just like Labor always does with their high-speed rail promises.
Thanks Chris, I have given this article a brief eye, will come back and do a more in-depth look... you are so right about our TEXAS battery storage - expensive smoothing solely for renewables otherwise a useless endeavor. Our legislators through ERCOT have been sold on this as the answer to all our woes... not so and an expensive learning tool.
I have to say ERCOT does a good job of bad energy policy, they are keeping the lights on for now, but as more and more solar is coming on the grid soon it will become more difficult.
Then there is the push for transmission, and then the push for out of state interconnects. We see how well that is working in EU or Canada. .... ahhh.. for a little sensibility in the world!
Congratulations Chris, you are catching up with the energy realists of Australia who have been going on about the problem of wind droughts and lack of storage for almost a decade.
The pioneer wind watchers, Anton Lang and the Paul MIskelly team, identified drought caused by high pressure systems that can linger for up to 3 days over South East Australia. Given the need for continuous input to the grid to meet demand and the lack of grid-scale storage, that is the end of the transition to unreliable energy.
Subsidising and mandating unreliable energy on the grid is probably the greatest peacetime policy blunder ever and the result has been trillions of dollars of expenditure worldwide to get more expensive and less reliable electricity with massive collateral damage to the planet.
https://open.substack.com/pub/rafechampion/p/we-have-to-talk-about-wind-droughts
A warning from The Energy Realists of Australia
Around the Western world, subsidised and mandated wind and solar power have been displacing conventional power in the electricity supply. Consequently, most of the grids in the west are moving towards a point where the lights will flicker at nights when the wind is low. This is a “frog in the saucepan” effect and it only starts to worry people when it is too late. It may be too late for Britain and Germany.
https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/07/11/approaching-the-tipping-point/
Consider the ABC of intermittent energy generation.
A. Input to the grid must continuously match the demand.
B. The continuity of RE is broken on nights with little or no wind.
C. There is no feasible or affordable large-scale storage to bridge the gaps.
Therefore, the green transition is impossible with current storage technology.
The rate of progress towards the tipping point will accelerate as demand is swelled by AI and electrification at large.
In Australia, the transition to unreliable wind and solar power has just hit the wall, while Britain and Germany have passed the tipping point and entered a “red zone,” keeping the lights on precariously with imports and deindustrialization to reduce demand.
The meteorologists never issued wind drought warnings and the irresponsible authorities never checked the wind supply! They even missed the Dunkelflautes that must have been known to mariners and millers for centuries!
https://www.flickerpower.com/images/The_endless_wind_drought_crippling_renewables___The_Spectator_Australia.pdf
There is an urgent need to find out why the meteorologists failed to warn us about wind droughts and why energy planners didn’t check.
Just think about it, would you go farming without checking the rainfall in the district where you plan to grow crops and pastures, so why did we go wind farming without checking the reliability of the wind supply?
I'm "catching up", Rafe?
Too kind.
Again you and our mate below Rafe miss the point. Batteries in Texas supply the last 2-5 GW which means the difference between sky high spot prices and/or load shedding and safe operation of the system.
They have two effects on emissions, they reduce curtailment of wind and solar thereby reducing overall gas use and more particularly they can absorb excess energy from nuclear and CC gas plants as well as renewables at periods of low demand, so further reducing the need for high emission peaker plants.
Further they can provide grid services which would otherwise require low efficiency "spinning reserves" at far lower cost than gas turbines.
No-one will build a grid with just enough wind and solar to supply annual energy needs just as no-one ever built a conventional grid like that.
In 2005 the US Grid had 770 GW of thermal capacity, 95 GW of nuclear and about 100 GW of hydro to supply a peak of 620 GW and an average of 450 GW. At manufacturers expected capacity factors. the system should have been able to supply an average of 610-650 GW without undue strain
Thus if the US wanted to build a wind/solar/hydro grid to supply 95% of its electricity it would build about 2.2 TW of wind and solar. China is already more than halfway there. Hydro and batteries would need to supply a peak of about 450 GW, probably 35-40% of which would come from hydro/pumped hydro and the balance from batteries/thermal/flexible demand etc so batteries tops will need to about 150-180 GW/800-1000 GWh.
There was aterrible wind drought in Australia last winter when wind was 35% below average for 18 weeks, probably the worst wind drought for forty years. However wind droughts mean clear skies so more solar. Thus the total renewable share fell from 36% to 33% despite hydro also falling from 7% to 6%. Part of the reason was an increase in solar and wind capacity so on a like for like basis it was probably 36% down to 31-32%. If we had enough wind and solar to supply 130% of demand rather than 33% now, over the 18 weeks there still would have been a surplus
@Peter Farley,
It is you who miss the point.
I've shown with granular data that, without utterly immense cheap electricity storage, adding ever more Wind & Solar generation *capacity* is doomed to fail to keep the lights on.
Because of diminishing returns.
So you have instead a situation where, at huge expense, a shiny new EV (the 'renewable' generation system) has been bought, but you still need the full capacity of the old system (your old gas-guzzling ute for the longer journeys) when the wind drops at night or over several nights.
There's no saving there. You're running two systems.
On the other hand, your support for the idea of a fully 'renewable' power grid is based on false logic after you looked at some averages.
How do I know? I've read your post "How Much Backup is needed for a 95% renewable NEM? The Answer – Very Little"
Which begins:
"Examining the data from openNEM https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=1y&interval=1w in one day, three day, one week and three week periods to find the lowest renewable shares, it was possible to calculate how much renewable energy was delivered at those times."
"one day, three day, one week and three week periods"??
No wonder you completely missed the lights going out most nights.
You go on:
"If a renewable system is designed to produce 280 TWh per year with 10-15 TWh from gas, then based on 14% CF for rooftop solar, 29% for tracking solar and 43% for additional wind it is possible to calculate the amount of generation required."
There are some more of your averages.
Where is your recognition that Supply must = Demand every minute of every hour of every day?
"Diminishing returns". Every technology known to man has diminishing returns so what? if the cost falls as the technology develops then diminishing utility is often more than offset by falling costs, see cars, electricity , mobile phones, televisions etc etc.
If wind and solar never existed do you think doubling the Texas gas fleet from its current level would double the revenue, even though they would still only be supplying 80% of Texas electricity demand?
So Texas not using enough gas per year to power Australia is not a saving because that is how much energy wind and solar will generate in Texas this year?
Batteries supplying 6 out of 80 odd GW of peak demand in Texas is not preventing the lights going out
Not building an extra 10 GW of gas plants which would have 2-3% capacity factor is not a saving.
As for my work. The Australian NEM still has 44 GW of dispatchable capacity. Peak output from that capacity is 30.5 GW. If wind and solar are quadrupled, peak output from dispatchable sources on the same day would have been <26 GW. Over six hours it would have varied from 20 to 26 GWh so 6 GW/18 GWh of storage would have limited dispatchable output to <21 GW.
By 2032 there will be 11 GW of gas, 15 GW of hydro/ pumped hydro and at least 15 GW/60-80 GWh of batteries, so when sufficient wind and solar is built to replace the annual output of the coal plants, then all the coal can be closed without any risk of supply shortages.
No wonder you produce such flawed analysis. you continually swap between power and energy without realising the difference.
BACK OF ENVELOPE CALCULATION
Cost of covering an overnight wind drought in SE Australia with battery storage.
In August 2022 drought conditions persisted over three days from the 7th to the 9th including two nights. This episode is the model for the calculations below.
The bottom line is in the order of 125 Billion for a single night and 250 Billion for two nights at some $500,000 per MWh, or $500,000,000 per GWh for battery storage.
First we calculate the storage requirement with zero coal power in the system, then the
situation with two thirds of the coal capacity removed. That is the official target of 82% RE by 2030.
The period from sunset to sunrise in August was 13 hours, add two hours because there is practically no solar power for an hour before sunset and an hour after sunrise.
The base load (lowest level in the night) is 18 to 20GW, and we use 20 for the calculation although it under-estimates the overnight demand.
Demand: 15 hours x 20GW = 300GWh. Supply.
Legacy hydro, allow 2.5 GW.
Wind 1GW that would be CP approx. 6% given the current installed capacity of 11.4GW.
Coal zero
Gas? Zero, too expensive to burn all night.
Total supply 3.5GW. Shortfall to come from storage is 16.5GW. 15 hours x 16.5GW =247.5GWh.
With the same wind situation the following night, the total requirement for the two days is in the order of 500GWh.
At some $500,000 per MWh, or $500,000,000 per GWh for battery storage, that is a prohibitive amount of money, in the order of 125 Billion for a single night and 250 Billion for two nights in a row.
Repeating the calculation with 7GW of coal supply, the supply becomes 10.5 GW and the
demand for storage falls to 9.5. 15hours x 9.5 = 142.5GWh
Double that to cover the following night, and the demand for storage is 280GWh. Still a lot of money.
For comparison, the amount of battery storage in the pipeline at present is less than 60GWh, including many projects that are just concepts, and the amount on the ground and functioning is approximately 4GWh!
Pumped hydro is the other option for storage, apart from esoteric things like compressed air and giant weights rising and falling.
Snowy 2.0 is not a good look for pumped hydro and the challenge is to find a large scheme anywhere in the world where the pumping is done by wind and solar power.
FOR COMPARISON
Australia spent an estimated $241.3 billion on health goods and services in 2021–22 – an average of approximately $9,365 per person.
In 2021–22, government spending on welfare services and payments was $212.4 billion. The Australian Government funded most of this amount (88% or $186.2 billion), with the remaining 12% funded by state and territory governments.
Or detailed calculation using 6 months of granular NEM data:
https://chrisbond.substack.com/i/152962561/figure-xd-xw-xs-xh-mwh-ldes
1. There is already 11 GW of hydro on the system + 2.25 GW of pumped hydro under construction and another 4 GW+ under active development so why would you limit it to 2.5 GW.
Pumping for pumped hydro in Australia occurs during the day when wind and solar are already supplying 50-70% of generation so that it is a fair bet that pumped hydro is using wind and solar. In fact wind and solar is often curtailed so more pumped hydro will mean less curtailment
2. We burn gas every day so why would we not do it in an extreme low wind situation? When Kuri Kuri come on line there will be 11 GW of gas.
3. Over the period nighttime wind generation was about 800 MW vs the monthly average of 3,700 MW. A reliable system will need 4-5 times as much wind as it had in August 2022. So that is 3GW of wind
4. From 8:30 to 4 on those days wind and solar was supplying more than a quarter of demand with 4 X wind and solar not only would hydro and gas be turned off for almost eight hours all the coal would be used to recharge pumped hydro and batteries. From 10-3 almost 9 GW of wind and solar + the residual coal would have been available to replenish the storage.
5. Agreed Snowy II is a monstrous white elephant,
So a high renewable system will be able to average about 7-8 GW of hydro/pumped hydro and 7-12 GW of gas and coal and 3 GW of wind leaving the system in surplus. In practice coal gas and hydro would have been reduced and batteries would have supplied about 4 GW/10-12 GWh. According to AEMO there is 19 GW of storage projects in their queue.