Home » Other Good Stuff » WA finally gives up on dirty, costly fossil plants

WA finally gives up on dirty, costly fossil plants

WA Energy Minister Mike Nahan has spent much of his career extolling the virtues of fossil fuel generation, but in the first few months of his new portfolio he’s spent much of the time being embarrassed by it.

The WA government has finally given up on the controversial refurbishment of units 1 and 2 of the ageing and highly polluting Muja coal-fired generator, and its attempts to extend the units 47-year old life. More than $266 million has been spent on what many perceive to be a half-baked attempt at upgrading old and dirty infrastructure.

The news comes as the WA Government also announces the closure of another ageing and dirty fossil fuel plant, the Kwinana C generator, from October 2015, saying it was too expensive to extend the life of the plant’s final unit.

But at the same time, a private developer, Tesla Holdings (no relation to the electric vehicle manufacturer) has unveiled plans for a diesel-fuelled peaking plant in the south of the state.

“Retirement is the right decision for these old, inefficient, largely coal-fired power stations. The attempt to extend the life of old Muja plant was madness — which is clear as the full cost of that decision has come to light so dramatically over recent weeks,” SEA  chief executive Kirsten Rose said.

‘It’s high time to make way for more efficient, low-carbon generation — specifically renewable energy.”

WA has some of the best solar resources in the world, and many developers are keen to develop solar PV and solar thermal plants with storage in the state – if they can sign power purchase agreements with the state-owned utility.

‘Western Australia has among the best sun, wind, and marine resources in the world — fuel sources that are infinite and free. We should be leading the world in low-carbon energy. This is an important step in that direction,’ Rose said.

She might have pointed to the recent decision by the Nevada electricity commission, which decided to close its two coal fired generators, and focus on renewables as replacements. The decision was based almost entirely around cost.

That question of costs seems to have finally forced the WA government’s hand, but while it continues to prevaricate over renewables, more bizarre proposals are being made by private developers.

Tesla Holdings’s plans for a diesel fuel generator near Albany seem extraordinary. It’s hard to imagine under any scenario how a diesel-fuelled generator could generate electricity cheaper than a solar thermal plant with storage – which would be a much more sensible solution.

According to the Albany Advertiser, Tesla Holdings has plans for the plant in Albany, and a separate 60MW facility near Bunbury.

It is probably taking advantage of WA’s system of capacity payments, which last year caused the construction of an 82MW diesel-fuelled peaking generator near Merredin. Diesel fuel peakers are cheap to build (the 60MW Albany project is priced at $45 million), but very expensive to run.

The capacity payments cover the cost of construction, even though though the plants will rarely, if ever be used – the cost of diesel means it is too expensive to actually switch on.

Maybe Nahan will start to see the light.

 

 

Comments

5 responses to “WA finally gives up on dirty, costly fossil plants”

  1. Name Avatar
    Name

    Giles the scenario you’re searching for – where diesel beats solar thermal – is the one you answer in the second last paragraph. It’s cheaper to run diesel for a few hours a year compared to solar thermal which would need to work all year around to pay off its still-expensive capital costs. Also worth noting that the shape of WA energy demand is changing (flattening) – and redundant diesel generators can be quickly unbolted and redeployed elsewhere for little cost. Solar thermal doesn’t decommission as cleanly. When WA actually needs significant amounts of daytime electricity generation, rather than just a few hours per year, solar thermal should be well placed to compete with generation using WA’s expensive LNG-priced gas.

    1. Bob_Wallace Avatar
      Bob_Wallace

      When calculating the feasibility (not practicability) of running a large grid on almost nothing but wind and solar Budischak, et al. found that it made most financial sense to use a very small amount of fossil fuel generation rather than adding enough renewable generation and storage to cover 100% of demand.

      They used four years of demand and weather data from the largest grid in the US and worked out the best mix of wind, solar and storage. The found using natural gas plants for approximately 7 hours a year made sense.

      Budischak, et al.

      https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NrBZJejkUTRYJv5YE__kBFuecdDL2pDTvKLyBjfCPr_8yR7eCTDhLGm8oEPo/edit

  2. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    “Redundant diesel generators can be quickly unbolted”. Really? And why are diesel generators being built in WA that are redundant right from the start? Could it be that “under WA’s capacity payments system, they’ll likely make enough money simply for being there[..]. In fact, they might prefer if the plant wasn’t used.” See https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/2012/dumb-and-dumber-energy-choices-in-the-wild-west-64327 .

    1. Name Avatar
      Name

      The generators are only redundant if they’re not wanted. This is quite different from them being there and not being used. Blame the stringent specifications of Western Power’s network planners, not the market designed to reliably deliver their requirements. If you’re happy to have less reliable power then take it up with Western Power, and we’ll have less diesel generators standing by idly.

      See this recent chart from the ERA – the planners overestimated peak needs by >20% in 2012/13.

  3. Miles Harding Avatar
    Miles Harding

    It will be interesting, watching the entrenched state monopoly being forced to let go their long held ideas. So far, they have proved very resistant to change!

    WA has already paid for the Muja mistake (well more than $100 per head) through an elevated state deficit. At the same time, the state government has been doing their best to stifle renewable energy projects, including household PV. So far, consumers have voted with their consciences and continue to install PV systems, even though the return is poor and rigged in favor of the state monopoly.

    Demand mitigation appears to be half baked, at best. While there is a smart grid working group within the Western Power, there has been no public evidence of any smart ideas emanating from that organisation. Western Australia seems to be stuck in a 1980s rut of time of use pricing, when the debate has moved to finalising protocols for self-management of deferred energy use appliances, such as pool pumps, electric car chargers, air conditioners etc.

    Distributed storage (as described here: https://reneweconomy.wpengine.com/2013/culture-shock-network-offers-solar-storage-leases-to-customers-91569 ) and peak demand mitigation should be able to guarantee that many, if not all, diesel peaking plants are *never* required and the benefits of energy efficiency and management can accrue daily.

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