How renewables trumped brown coal and gas over Australia’s summer

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Renewables are making an important contribution to meeting peak demand and therefore addressing reliability, as this data from summer shows.

share
Source: NEM Review
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In reading some of the panic-stricken media commentary about the impending blackouts we were supposed to have this summer, you might have been led to believe that renewable energy doesn’t contribute much at all to ensuring the lights stayed on.

If it ain’t baseload then it isn’t any good, some people want you to believe.

The implication is that we therefore can’t reduce Australia’s carbon emissions unless we’re prepared to accept regular blackouts, or nuclear power.

Unfortunately, it seems our political debate about how we ensure reliable supplies of electricity has been boiled down to some simplistic yes-no question about whether it is “base-load”.

We may even have a policy imposed upon our energy market that will separate powers sources into one of two categories – dispatchable or not dispatchable. If you’re dispatchable then you contribute to a “reliability guarantee”, otherwise you’re out.

But typically the world is a bit more complicated than something that can be boiled down to a simple yes-no question.

While this may come as a surprise to some politicians and media commentators, electricity demand is not constant across all times of the day.

Most of the time we’ve got more than enough electricity generating capacity to go around, particularly at night time. The times when demand can get so high as to stretch our available supplies tend to be when businesses are operating and we’re up and about and it’s particularly hot.

That co-incidently happens to be when the sun is out and at intense levels.

Also it is true that the amount of wind does vary quite a lot – does this mean this source of energy is next to useless?

Green Energy Markets in our recent February edition of the Renewable Energy Index thought it worthwhile to review how much power we received from renewable energy over summer to see whether it was as useless as some political and media commentators might suggest.

No surprises that black coal was by far the most dominant source of electricity over summer, just as it is across the rest of the year.

However, the second largest source of electricity across the main grids of the NEM and South-West Interconnected System was zero emission renewables with 9,880GWh. It was 8% greater than brown coal and 40% more than gas.

In case you were wondering, power from oil-based fuels such as diesel were negligible, contrary to suggestions from our energy minister Josh Frydenberg that we had to resort to some huge amounts of pollutant spewing diesel generators to keep the lights on.

Total generation from renewable energy, brown coal, gas and oil over Dec 2017-Feb-2018 across the NEM and SWIS

Sources: NEM Review, AEMO, and Green Energy Markets estimates of non-AEMO metered renewable energy generators

But this actually undersells the importance of renewable energy to reliability, because our study shows it delivered most of its electricity during the periods when demand for power was highest.

Over the last summer in the NEM, electricity demand was at its highest over the period of 10:30AM to 6:30PM. After 6:30PM power demand was almost always lower than the half hour of 10:30AM-11AM, and it certainly was lower on the days when we had the highest electricity demand.

The chart below details the average amount of power received during each of the hours in the 10:30AM-6:30PM period across the months of December, January and February by fuel type.

Please note that the way I’ve labelled the charts is such that 11am in the chart below and in subsequent charts denotes an average of the power supplied between 10:30am and 11:30am and likewise 6pm denotes the average of power across 5:30PM to 6:30PM.

Average generation in NEM from renewable energy compared to brown coal and gas by time of day and month

Source: NEM Review

The sceptics amongst you might justifiably say, “sure that might be the averages but they can smooth over the sins within the sample of renewable energy’s intermittency”.

So let’s instead look at the specific 40 individual half hour periods over summer that represent the highest system-wide demand, instead.

These actually show renewable energy producing more power than what we see in the averages, which is partly a function of the fact that system demand reaches its highest point when the sun is beating down.

NEM output from renewables, brown coal and gas in the top 40 highest half hour demand periods over summer

Source: NEM Review

It is important to acknowledge that hydro (a dispatchable technology) does play an important part in these figures.

To understand its role relative to wind and solar (unfortunately AEMO doesn’t meter most of the bioenergy plants) let’s delve down into the three highest demand days over summer, looking at the half hour periods of time when demand exceeded 32,000MW.

The chart below represents the period when NEM system demand reached its highest point over summer which was 19 December.

Demand went over 32,000MW in the period ending 11:30AM and subsided below that level after 5PM.  Wind output was quite solid at that time, with wind farms producing about 55% to 60% of their rated capacity across the entire period.

Solar PV produced above 3000MW until 2:30, and as it dropped around 3pm hydro generation lifted.

Renewable generation by fuel compared to gas and brown coal by 30 minute interval on the highest NEM demand period last summer (19 Dec)

Source: NEM Review

The next highest demand day was on 19 January when demand was above 32,000MW from 11AM until 5:30PM. Wind output wasn’t nearly as high on that day at between 802MW to 1,344MW or 16% to 28% of the installed capacity.

Is that useless? Well it was about 97% of the output produced by Liddell Power Station over the same time period.

Solar meanwhile had a very good day – punching out an average of just over 4,000MW to 2:30PM. Again, as it dropped away in the afternoon, hydro output came up, and produced an average of 4,756MW from 2:30PM to 5PM.

Renewable generation by fuel compared to gas and brown coal by 30 minute interval on the second highest NEM demand period last summer (19 Jan).

Source: NEM Review

On the third highest demand day –22 January – wind output began at 1,057MW as demand clocked over 32,000MW in the 30 minute period preceding 1PM (13:00).

It then steadily rose to 1,446MW before demand subsided below 32,000MW after 5PM. Solar output was substantial but not as high as 19 January – providing 3,642MW in the period ending 1PM and remaining above 3000MW until 3PM.

Hydro again lifted in the afternoon, and provided an average of almost 3,300MW across the period that demand was above 32,000MW.

Renewable generation by fuel compared to gas and brown coal by 30 minute interval on the third highest NEM demand period last summer (22 Jan).

Source: NEM Review

So what are the implications of this analysis?

Clearly renewables are making an important contribution to meeting peak demand and therefore addressing reliability.

Yes, it is indisputable that the ability to control the dispatch of hydro plant independent of short-term weather events is vitally important – particularly to meeting demand peaks in the late afternoon and early evening.

But solar output’s high correlation with weather events that drive peaks in demand makes it also very valuable.

Wind output isn’t nearly as well aligned with peaks in demand, but it is hardly useless. The chart below details the proportion of wind installed capacity that was generating during the top 50 half hour demand intervals over last summer.

For 45 of these 50 intervals wind produced 18% or more of its rated capacity, for half of the intervals it was greater than 41%.  Suggestions wind power doesn’t make any useful contribution to meeting peak demand seem to ignore this.

Proportion of NEM wind power’s installed capacity generating electricity during the top 50 half hour demand intervals over last summer.

Source: NEM Review

In considering the design of the National Energy Guarantee it’s important to note that there is more to ensuring reliability than a simplistic evaluation of whether or not a power generator has dispatchable capacity.

The current energy-only market design for the NEM provides a vastly more sophisticated set of incentives for delivering capacity when its required than a central planner can manage.

Critically, the incentives are dynamic, responding every five minutes to changes in the supply-demand balance.

There are an incredible array of options available to us to reduce electricity emissions while also ensuring reliable electricity supplies.

This will require a sophisticated mixing and matching of different technologies and balancing of statistical probabilities. Controllable dispatchable capacity will clearly be important in balancing out the variability of wind and solar. But at the same time the geographical spacing of wind and solar will also help, as will greater transmission interconnection.

We may also see consumers shift their demand into the midday period to take advantage of high solar output at this time. Further gains in low wind speed turbine technology may also result in less variability in wind farms’ output.

Such a complex array of decisions are best left to market participants, not Barnaby Joyce or Craig Kelly, not Malcolm Turnbull or Bill Shorten, and not even AEMO head Audrey Zibelman.

Tristan Edis is Director – Analysis & Advisory with Green Energy Markets. Green Energy Markets assists clients make informed investment, trading and policy decisions in the areas of clean energy and carbon abatement. Follow on Twitter: @TristanEdis

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

16 Comments
  1. Joe 9 months ago

    The third last paragraph summaries perfectly how RE will do the business. The Baseload Fossil Fuel Fanboys just don’t understand that and they just don’t want to understand it either.

  2. George Darroch 9 months ago

    Solar and wind will both be significantly higher next summer, which will make for an interesting illustration of the current transition.

    • Joe 9 months ago

      …Transition….we want a TAKEOVER.

  3. Peter F 9 months ago

    Apart from wind and solar capacity being higher, the type of generation is different and the location different. For example the turbines at Silverton and Saphire being taller with longer blades means that even in light winds like 19 January they will be producing 3-4 times what old generation units provide. Similarly many of the new solar farms will tracking types pushing up shoulder generation so while installed capacity might increase 15% over the year minimum output at summer peak will increase by 20%+

    • trackdaze 9 months ago

      Add maybe a further 250Mwh of energy storage and wala peak pricing events will be further reduced.

  4. John Gardner 9 months ago

    Hi Tristan, graphs 5 and 6 are the same, both labeled 19 Jan.

  5. Ian 9 months ago

    ‘Such a complex array of decisions are best left to market participants, not Barnaby Joyce or Craig Kelly, not Malcolm Turnbull or Bill Shorten, and not even AEMO head Audrey Zibelman.’

    Tristan, you either sell yourself short ,or you have too inflated an opinion of yourself 😉

    The energy transition is not rocket science: stop using fossil fuels ( or nuclear) and just use renewables for all energy needs. Shut down coal and gas plants and build the renewables infrastructure. Shut down the use of oil in transportation and find alternatives powered by the same renewables.

    If you want a mission statement this is it. The plan of business to achieve this aim is the interesting bit. The so called failures of the mission need discussion. How could this mission to achieve 100% renewables energy use fail? 1. Climate change could inexorably destroy our liveable world, any effort to avert this would be too late. 2. The cost of achieving this aim would destroy our economy irreversibly 3. 100% renewables will leave us vulnerable to power shortages at critical times, such as when we are in a lift and needing to take a leak, or when we need a shower on prolonged windless cloudy days. Before we can get consensus on achieving 100% renewables, we need to address all these sorts of concerns. Until we get consensus, we just need to step out in faith and try increase the renewables %age – just like we are already doing. The amazing thing is that with each step towards 100RE, problems arising are easily solved and the economy and grid reliability seem to improve. It’s like a baby’s first steps: a few knocks, but the end result, walking, is much better than crawling.

    We have some first class tools and agencies to model a 100RE economy. 1. Renewables resources already built and operating, storage resources already on grid, electric transport types already tried and tested. 2. Many decades of demand management techniques ranging from off-peak tariffs to incentive payments to voluntary demand curtailment etc. 3. We know with great precision the weather patterns in just about every corner of this Country from coastal breezes to advancing cold fronts to days of sunshine or cloud in the year thanks to agencies like BOM. 4. We know exactly what types of load are on or off the grid, and exactly where they are all distributed. 5. We know what kind of financial instruments and incentives are needed to cost-effectively build out 100RE. 6. We have some of the best academic and commercial minds able, but not always willing, to deal with this problem. 7. We actually have plenty of financial clout to make 100RE happen very rapidly.

    • Ian 9 months ago

      A number of countries are already near 100RE, for electricity supply at least, NZ, Iceland, Norway to name a few. This country has over 20GW of renewables projects submissions. The question regarding rate of increase of renewables %age is rapidly moving away from technical feasibility to financial loss incurred by FF energy incumbents. How quickly , in all fairness , can we shut down coal and gas power stations? For SA a target of 75% renewables by 2025 is that fair? It sure is feasible , but is that enough time for FF rent-seekers to house their investment dollars elsewhere? By retiring Liddell and allowing renewables to take over its function, NSW can improve its %RE at peak time by 2000/13000 = 15%, they are already at 19%, one switch and the %RE becomes 34%. As Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter series says, in surprise “ bloody hell”.

      http://www.energyinnovation.net.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=173268

      • Ian 9 months ago

        Tristan, Giles, do look at this wind energy graph https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy

        This illustrates the idea of geographically diverse wind farms. As we know each individual farm can have its own peaks and troughs, but look at what happens when all these random fluctuations are put together : a constant output of at least 20% on some days.

  6. Simon Moore 9 months ago

    Can we see what the black coal generation was in all the graphs please?? Then we can review the discussion properly.

    • Catprog 9 months ago

      Are you saying that gas and brown coal is insignificant compared to black?

      • Simon Moore 9 months ago

        I just want all the information.. not just a selected portion of the discussion…

  7. Peter F 9 months ago

    Another conclusion that might be drawn is that less 1.5 hours storage for 15% of rated renewables output would raise the minimum output from wind and solar to 30%, probably more, accounting for new types and locations of generation.

    By 2022 there will be about 8 GW of wind and 12 GW of solar therefore we can easily guarantee 6 GW from wind and solar with 3 GW/4.5 GWh of storage. Peak demand is trending down so by 2022 we will need to supply 31GW. At that time we can have a minimum of 6 GW from wind and solar/storage, 7 GW from hydro, leaving the remaining 17 GW to be supplied from 31 GW of coal and gas plants. No real problem one would think with a relatively small investment in storage.

    Even if storage was only 1.5 GW i.e. existing and planned SA + Victorian plants + expected behind the meter installations with nothing new on the grid, there would still be 4-5 GW from wind/solar/storage, 1GW from biomass landfill etc, 6-7 GW from hydro leaving 18-20 GW to come from the remaining 31 GW of coal and gas surely these “reliable” thermal plants can achieve 65% availability

  8. Cooma Doug 9 months ago

    Who is doing the ball tampering in our climate chalenge?It is a serious test match.
    Our PM comes out and is severely critical of our cricket captain. At the same time he has several members of his own team causing reverse swing.

  9. Aluap 9 months ago

    Why does our energy minister Josh Frydenberg continue to speak with a forked tongue. Our Federal government is a Shakespearean disaster. There will be operas regaling its incompetence and the antipathy of the Australian people in the years to come. Like some 19th century Russian novel.

    • neroden 9 months ago

      Indeed, I anticipate operas similar to Boris Gudenov about your current self-destructive Lib government.

Comments are closed.