Abbott’s renewable energy blackout

If you have cable TV, you’re more than likely to have come across a dramatisation called American Blackout. The show depicts various individual circumstances set against the backdrop of a complete and prolonged shut down of Americas’s electricity grid.

While such a scenario is improbable at the scale portrayed, it arms the microgrid pundits with a scenario of equivalent credibility to the one that Australia’s Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has been armed with by the Liberals’ own “men in black”.

You can tell when Tony’s up to no good, especially on renewables, when he seeks an audience with Alan Jones. If you even try to deal with our government, which is purported to be the beacon of democracy, risk aversion is the theme throughout. As a result, no pollie will go public on an issue without a truckload of facts and figures. The problem is that these facts and figures have two flaws: One is that they take ages to produce and, especially when it comes to renewables, are hopelessly out of date; the second issue is that, given the sufficient amount of facts and figures, a conclusion commensurate with a given agenda can be credibly put forth, without the irritation of having to tell the whole story.

This is where we are headed with our present government – the government which let the genie out of the bottle in the first place. I would contend that the statement that wind is five time more expensive than burning dirt (brown coal) is a prime example of a half truth, and solar comparisons to the same dirt would hold even less truth. If we were to take the environment completely out of the equation – that is, no carbon tax and an atmosphere that is carbon “proof” – the argument might gain some legs, but still wouldn’t pass peer review.

Under the Liberal Party, Australia was once a world leader in solar; it was the highest per capita user of solar prior to the mid ’80’s. So why, all of a sudden, are they trying to stuff this genie back into the bottle?

On the face of it, it appears to be economics – it’s just too expensive and Australia can’t afford this warm and fuzzy indulgence. What seems to have been completely ignored in the whole argument is the fact that prices for renewable technologies are falling daily, if not at a constant rate, at an accelerated one.

It costs about $2500 per kilowatt to build a coal-fired power plant, then you need a lot of water, chemicals, refits and labour to make it operate. If it takes 124KG of black coal and 250KG of brown coal to make one megawatt hour of electricity. How can any truly honest person say that it is that much more expensive to use renewables unless they are using five year old data, or are just plain lying?

Coal still wins the race in baseload, but that is not a cost thing, it’s a very temporary advantage.

I say, Tony, if we don’t increase distributed renewable energy generation with storage as quickly as we can we will see the aftermath of what happens when a centralised grid fails. If you don’t believe me, watch the TV show. It’s probably got more facts than you have in your story.

Rob Campbell is a self-described champion of distributed energy storage and the head of a storage manufacturer.

Comments

5 responses to “Abbott’s renewable energy blackout”

  1. Beat Odermatt Avatar
    Beat Odermatt

    Yes, I hope that Tony Abbott understand that most Australians want to move faster towards a low carbon economy. Voters were not happy with anti-environmental policies pushed by the Greens and supported by Labor. Most supporters of the new Government want more and direct action, but not social “justice” experiment such as a carbon tax. The Government has to make laws to move our economy towards more renewable energy use.

  2. Chris Fraser Avatar
    Chris Fraser

    It would probably be great if 124 kg of black coal would make 1 tonne of CO2-e (= 1 MWh). But wouldn’t it be more kg of coal by the time 1MWh gets to us down long transmission lines ?

  3. sunoba Avatar
    sunoba

    A good article by Rob, but I’d query the 124 kg figure for black coal. Here are my estimates: black coal has roughly 30 GJ/t of energy, and the overall thermal-electrical efficiency of the system is 0.3 (probably an overestimate when you take account of transmission losses). So 124 kg of black coal gives 0.124 * 30 GJ * 0.3 of electricity = 1.1 GJ approx, which is 0.31 MWh. I think Rob’s estimate is too low by a factor of 3; you’d need around 400 kg of black coal.

    1. Rob Campbell Avatar
      Rob Campbell

      I got that value by doing some searching on Google, 400kg has more impact, so I can’t complain, I suppose coal calorie value is quite variable.

  4. Ger Groeneveld Avatar
    Ger Groeneveld

    Would be great. But no such thing as a 100% efficient power house.

    124 kg of pure carbon gives a 454 kg of CO2, which isn’t 1 MWh. HV transmission loss is 3% to 5%, MV transmission a 8%-10% and LV around a 12% (per km cable that is). Overall a 7% to 10% get’s lost in transmission. A ‘decent’ powerhouse produces electricity with a 45% efficiency (very decent, not the 1960 coal burning dirt bag power plant) using at least double the amount of coal to produce the 1 MWh: 248 kg –> 1000 kg of CO2, 900 kWh does, finally, arrives at your TV set,so in total 275 kg has been turned into CO2.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.