Australia could be 100% renewable – with no "baseload" – by 2035 | RenewEconomy

Australia could be 100% renewable – with no “baseload” – by 2035

WWF report says Australia could completely replace fossil fuel “baseload” power with existing “variable” renewable energy technologies.


As plans emerge for the development of a massive new “baseload” solar thermal and storage plant to “replace” coal in South Australia, a new report from WWF Australia has questioned the very concept of “baseload”, arguing that this model of power generation is made redundant by a 100% renewable energy grid.

The report, published on Wednesday, argues that Australia could completely and effectively replace the nation’s mostly coal-based “baseload” power generators by harnessing huge volumes of renewable energy – using existing technologies, including battery storage – distributed across the country.

“The reality is that electricity usage is variable, demand changes throughout the day and night, and Australia doesn’t need baseload power generation,” the report says.

Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 1.28.20 PM

“With key market reforms in place to manage the energy transition, Australians can comfortably let go of the mindset of ‘baseload’ and have confidence in a modern, reliable, renewable energy sector powering our future.”

This “mindset” that renewable energy technologies like solar PV and wind don’t “do baseload” due to the intermittent nature of the resource has long been a barrier to the wholesale shift to renewables.

Of course, the argument – most commonly touted by the fossil fuel industry and coal lobbyists, and sometimes even by proponents of solar thermal technology – is increasingly being undermined by the onset of cheaper and more efficient battery storage.

But regardless of the rise of energy storage, many energy market analysts and players argue that the entire model of baseload energy supply is being made redundant by the shift to cheap and easy distributed renewables and increasingly sophisticated energy management software.

Certainly this is the thinking in places like Denmark, which is a functioning example of modern energy supply without baseload. But it is also the thinking in China, which still has a huge reliance on coal-fired power.

As the report notes, and we have reported here before, that much is evident in the February comments of the chairman of the State Grid (China’s biggest network owner), who said there was “no technical challenge at all” preventing grids from running smoothly without baseload supply. “The only hurdle to overcome is mindset.”

In Germany, 50 Hertz, the company responsible for more than one-third of Germany’s electricity grid,
says there is no issue absorbing high levels of variable renewable energy such as wind and solar, and grids could absorb up to 70 per cent penetration without the need for storage.

And the message is the same: “It’s about the mindset,” said Boris Schucht, the company’s CEO. “Ten to 15 years ago when I was a young engineer, nobody believed that integrating more than 5 per renewable energy in an industrial state such as Germany was possible.”

In the region Schucht operates in, though, 46 per cent of the power supply comes from wind and solar. Next year it will be more than 50 per cent.

In Australia, meanwhile, the mindset remains stubbornly in place, and yet 100 per cent renewable energy has already become a reality over given periods in given states, including South Australia and Tasmania.

Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 1.58.43 PM

The report notes that the ACT will soon rely on 100% renewable energy, with its policy plans to achieve this by 2020 using a mix of wind and solar, and existing large hydro.

But the report also notes that to support this transition further, it is vital that Australia urgently review its energy market frameworks to integrate them with climate change policies.

This very idea – that National Electricity Market laws should include an environmental objective, to keep Australia’s grid more closely aligned with its Paris climate commitments and national efforts to cut power sector emissions – was, however, recently rejected by the federal government.

The recommendation, made by the Australian Greens as part of a federal government inquiry into the performance and management of electricity network, was aimed at addressing community concerns about rising electricity prices and the reasons behind them.

Labor has also promised a review into the National Electricity Market and its “objectives”, and wants environment to be included. Without it, Labor climate spokesman Mark Butler said earlier this week, the market is not fit for purpose and has no signal to decarbonise.

Which brings us back to mindset: “In Australia we are used to the idea of ‘baseload energy’ being the energy that ensures we can flick the lights on at any point in the night, but that’s old thinking,” said Adrian Enright, Climate Change Policy Manager at WWF-Australia.

“The problem is the bulk of our baseload energy comes from high polluting, ageing coal fired generators. Some of Australia’s existing baseload capacity was built before man first landed on the moon.

Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 12.37.45 PM
75% of Australia’s existing coal generator fleet is passed its design life, according to the WWF report.

“To enjoy clean air and reduce carbon pollution Australia will need to shift to a modern, 21st Century model, powered by 100% renewable energy by 2035. This is possible, affordable and very popular.

In the lead up to the federal Election, WWF-Australia is calling on all parties to commit to a transition to 100% renewable electricity by 2035.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  1. Cooma Doug 4 years ago

    I had many arguments with grid controller colleagues 10 to 15 years ago about the 5% barrier. Now they are seeing the reality that coal is the problem and base load a b grade solution

    • Alastair Leith 4 years ago

      take them to visit SA, 40% must seem like a mirage 😉

  2. david_fta 4 years ago

    I’ve been pretty sceptical about any “need” for so-called baseload power, so I wax lyrical about solar thermal power so as to shut the baseload believers up.

      • Вячеслав Лактюшкин 4 years ago


      • Alastair Leith 4 years ago

        thanks, i don’t know why RE doesn’t provide these links 🙂

    • Alastair Leith 4 years ago

      AEMO actually say that wind and solar are ‘baseload’ providers, while obviously variable in output capacity. I’ve got some powerpoints from presentations where they’ve make this argument. It’s all semantics in the end, matching generation to demand or managing demand to fit generation and having enough dispatchable energy is now the name of the game. Call it baseload if we want, the peakers will still peak at high cost for some time to come until we have 100% RE!

  3. Chris Fraser 4 years ago

    The word ‘load’ in baseload seems to be the anachronism. It should have nothing to do with the load, because as we now believe demand for energy (the load) is entitled to be very flexible. Baseload was possibly conjured up by coal generators to avoid making excuses for being forced run coal furnaces all night. ‘Ha, I’m the only one that can’t switch off – therefore I’m baseload’… regardless of whether coal energy was completely consumed or not.

    • Cooma Doug 4 years ago

      I suggest you read up on “system black” . This is a disaster that we spent 50% of our money to avoid. Base load is a courner stone of both the cause and prevention of such a disaster. The evolution of renewable small local generation, managed on the load side of the meter will eliminate these threats and costs as a side bonus.
      There is a video on youtube that goes through the londonsystem black event in the 90s.

  4. Brian Tehan 4 years ago

    We’ve known for years that coal power stations generate too much power at night (thus off peak electricity prices). Apart from the waste of fuel, etc, there’s also large amounts of unnecessary co2 emissions.
    There’s no need for “baseload” power but there is a need for top up power, which can be provided by storage, including battery and hydro, including pumped hydro. In the short term, it is probably necessary to use gas to fill in some of the peak requirements.

  5. Zvyozdochka 4 years ago

    Our WA energy minister (ex-IPA) Mike Nahan admits we don’t need Muja, having just wasted ~$300m on it. They won’t turn it off because of ALNP and Unions.

    • Alastair Leith 4 years ago

      Nahan has directed Synergy turn off part of Muja, the part that hasn’t been running since refurbishment I believe so I’m not sure whose job you think Nahan is protecting. Apparently one issue is the States credit rating if they were to retire all the excess capacity in the grid, being a state owned enterprise. Muja A and B may be partly foreign owned though my source tells me, which makes it more attractive to Treasury to close down.

  6. Brunel 4 years ago

    I think baseload means the minimum power requirement at 3am.

    In the past, they built coal power stations to supply that demand.

    • Alastair Leith 4 years ago

      in the past they build coal to meet almost all the demand and gave away cheap power to industry because it was slow to ramp.

      • Brunel 4 years ago

        Peaking power stations are decades old.

        For making toast and tea in the morning.

        Along with electric trains running at a higher frequency in the morning.

        • Alastair Leith 4 years ago

          yeah, i understand see, my comment below for more nuanced comment about ‘baseload’. basically it’s all semantics from yesteryear. Everything that isn’t Dispatch generation is Baseload, and that includes wind and solar as variable baseload.

  7. Steve 4 years ago

    Seriously, you (and the Climate Council) have included Munmorah and Playford in a 2014 table, for discussion in 2016 about what you feel needs to be done ???

  8. Matthew Johnston 4 years ago

    Morales is sitting on all the lithium in Bolivia. As little Bill knows. Why the US bailout of GM the volt.

Comments are closed.

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