News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[rev]

Before you can get to 24/7 Renewables, you first need to get to Net 100% Renewable.

This is simply a step in the journey to Renewables being the source of power 24/7.

So there'll be enough electricity stored, to power every home in Australia, every business, every manufacturer, every mine, every ship/sub builder, etc, on a cloudy sun-free day? Of which we have plenty of those lately, as does that rather large population centre known as Melbourne to our south east...

The argument hasn't been that renewables don't work, the argument is what happens when the suns not out and the winds not blowing to generate electricity or enough electricity.
The battery farms are going to be big enough and have enough continually stored electricity to keep everyone's lights on as normal?
This is all about the environment and climate right?
How much of our natural landscape is going to be bulldozed and turned into wind/solar farms and battery farms?
Just how big are these battery farms in particular to store the necessary energy to power the entire country, going to have to be?


Seems to be very hypocritical.
- We have to save the planet, but we can only do it our way because we said so and we're the loudest.
- We have to save the environment and climate, but lets ignore the destruction being caused to reduce carbon emissions.
- While we want you to ignore the destruction caused and waste by our way, we'll tell you all about how unsafe and bad the other guys methods are.

Seriously??

In the foreseeable future when every house is a energy producer and battery, every business with roof space will be a energy generator and battery, when every car is a battery, when we can store vast amounts of energy in the form of hydrogen to be dispatched when required all you can focus on is batteries covering the entire landscape.

Battery storage is in it's infancy and yet how much of SA is really covered in renewable tech. I doubt you have ever driven past say Pt Augusta and thought of the natural landscape that has apparently been devastated.

Another overblown argument

How many households can afford solar & battery setups though. I've asked this before and been met with abuse (not by you) and told it's peoples own fault for not being able to afford it and the high power bills they get is their own fault.

A proper solar and battery setup is not cheap.
The unfortunate reality is that the majority of Australian's are living week to week, most don't have any significant savings for an emergency let alone for solar & battery setups. On the worst end of the scale I believe it is 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 people don't even have $500 in savings in their accounts.
Call me a pessimist but I just don't see in any realistic foreseeable future scenario where every household has a battery and solar setup.
Really can't see any government paying for it all either.

Actually I have driven past Port Augusta on many occasions.
I've also seen the multitude of wind farms that dot the landscape like a cancer in various regions of the state.
I'm not anti-renewables, but let's also not pretend like renewables are this totally green and non-destructive alternative to what we have now.
I also don't think renewables alone is going to cut it for an entire country. It might work for a small village or town, but an entire country is something entirely different.
The royal commission says it's going to be expensive, but it doesn't say it wouldn't work.
High costs are what we have to pay because of government inaction and policies.
We're trying to fix South Road, the remainder is going to cost $15 billion. That's an insanely huge cost for a stretch of road that short. Perhaps we shouldn't build the tunnels and trenches, we should revert to something else like a horse drawn cart. It's cheaper and quicker then waiting until the 2030's for that stretch to be completed.

One of the anti-nuclear arguments is it hasn't been done before, or SMR hasn't been done on a large scale (even though there's plenty of examples of SMR's being built and nearing completion). Has any country gone 100% renewables before? Like I said, the arguments are all very hypocritical and people picking points of convenience and ignoring what's inconvenient.

So we need a system of large scale solar & wind, but also need to convert our houses and businesses in mini power stations and storage sites, and that's going to cover the loss of large scale coal etc?
This plan wouldn't seem as crazy as it does, if it wasn't for those who are leading the charge and their politics. Because we know it's driven purely by their politics.
And if people need that explained as to why that's a bad idea and receipt for disaster, then no wonder we're in this situation.

[rev]

I have to admit, its been a while since I've seen the old 'wind don't blow, sun don't shine ' line.

There really isn't anything hypocritical about moving away from fossil fuels.

You might need to update that post to be inline with what we know in 2024.

I'm starting to wonder if some of you guys on here have actually ever seen the wind farms in person, or actually set foot outside of your bedrooms.

What I know in 2024 is what we have known since the dawn of time. The sun isn't always shining it's at times concealed by cloud cover, and the wind doesn't always blow. Amazing right?

Lets apply that to your solar panels and wind turbines.

Solar panel requires sun light to generate electricity. No sunlight, is it generating electricity, or enough electricity to meet demand?
Wind turbine requires the wind to generate electricity. Can you explain how a wind turbine generates electricity without the wind blowing? I'm going to assume you're aware of the cut in speed.
Hence why in that post I also said will the batteries have enough stored electricity to cover demand. But hey lets ignore what people say and take things out of context. Good to see you're back to your usual trolling behaviour.

No one took your post out of context and thats a lovely projection on trolling there.

Wind and Solar are used in conjunction with each other, wind farms and solars farms aren't located in a single area where the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining at the same time. They are spread out geographically and require to submit studies to understand when they will be generating power

I can only assume AEMO plans on supply electricity at all times as well, with the use of batteries in times when power generation is lower than required to meet demand.

Fortunately the develoment of batteries is coming along as well.

And yes, ive seen wind farms, solar farms, hydro plants , coal fired power stations and gas turbines ! Ive even been Fortunate enough to meet with experts in the electrical generation and supply industry.

To keep on topic, SA is getting some attention

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austr ... e-a-folly/


Germany seems to be going the same way

https://reneweconomy.com.au/german-coal ... pct-share/

Edit - and just a bit of a (dated) story on batteries

https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-batteri ... main-grid/

Uhuh. Germany. Not sure why we should give a shit what Germany is doing (obviously you guys just trying to provoke a reaction from abc again)..
But here, since we want to talk about what others are doing..lets look at the other side of the coin instead of pretending everything is just the way you see it..

About 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 16 countries.

About 90 power reactors with a total gross capacity of about 90 GWe are planned, and over 300 more are proposed*. Most reactors currently planned are in countries in Asia, characterized by fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... -worldwide

About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes.
These range from sophisticated economies to developing nations.
Bangladesh, Egypt and Turkey are all constructing their first nuclear power plants.

About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes, and a further 20 or so countries have at some point expressed an interest. In the following list, links are provided for those countries that are covered by specific country pages:

In Europe: Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Norway, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland, Turkey.
In the Middle East and North Africa: Gulf states including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq; Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan.
In west, central and southern Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, Rwanda, Ethiopia.
In Central and South America: Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay.
In central and southern Asia: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan.
In Southeast Asia and Oceania: Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, Australia.
In east Asia: North Korea.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... -countries

[Waewick]

I'm starting to wonder if some of you guys on here have actually ever seen the wind farms in person, or actually set foot outside of your bedrooms.

What I know in 2024 is what we have known since the dawn of time. The sun isn't always shining it's at times concealed by cloud cover, and the wind doesn't always blow. Amazing right?

Lets apply that to your solar panels and wind turbines.

Solar panel requires sun light to generate electricity. No sunlight, is it generating electricity, or enough electricity to meet demand?
Wind turbine requires the wind to generate electricity. Can you explain how a wind turbine generates electricity without the wind blowing? I'm going to assume you're aware of the cut in speed.
Hence why in that post I also said will the batteries have enough stored electricity to cover demand. But hey lets ignore what people say and take things out of context. Good to see you're back to your usual trolling behaviour.

No one took your post out of context and thats a lovely projection on trolling there.

Wind and Solar are used in conjunction with each other, wind farms and solars farms aren't located in a single area where the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining at the same time. They are spread out geographically and require to submit studies to understand when they will be generating power

I can only assume AEMO plans on supply electricity at all times as well, with the use of batteries in times when power generation is lower than required to meet demand.

Fortunately the develoment of batteries is coming along as well.

And yes, ive seen wind farms, solar farms, hydro plants , coal fired power stations and gas turbines ! Ive even been Fortunate enough to meet with experts in the electrical generation and supply industry.

To keep on topic, SA is getting some attention

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austr ... e-a-folly/


Germany seems to be going the same way

https://reneweconomy.com.au/german-coal ... pct-share/

Edit - and just a bit of a (dated) story on batteries

https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-batteri ... main-grid/

Uhuh. Germany. Not sure why we should give a shit what Germany is doing (obviously you guys just trying to provoke a reaction from abc again)..
But here, since we want to talk about what others are doing..lets look at the other side of the coin instead of pretending everything is just the way you see it..

About 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 16 countries.

About 90 power reactors with a total gross capacity of about 90 GWe are planned, and over 300 more are proposed*. Most reactors currently planned are in countries in Asia, characterized by fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... -worldwide

About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes.
These range from sophisticated economies to developing nations.
Bangladesh, Egypt and Turkey are all constructing their first nuclear power plants.

About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes, and a further 20 or so countries have at some point expressed an interest. In the following list, links are provided for those countries that are covered by specific country pages:

In Europe: Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Norway, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland, Turkey.
In the Middle East and North Africa: Gulf states including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq; Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan.
In west, central and southern Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, Rwanda, Ethiopia.
In Central and South America: Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay.
In central and southern Asia: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan.
In Southeast Asia and Oceania: Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, Australia.
In east Asia: North Korea.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... -countries

The reference to Germany was showing other countries, including one of europes biggest economies, is investing in renewables.

I did get a laugh from that link, considering planning and expressing interest ! That would include Australia even though we are no chance of ever investing in it.

Investment into renewables is also dwarfing nuclear investment. Australia is absolutely going down the right path.

Its great being able to watch a transition like we are.

Anyway, can we please keep this thread on topic now.

[rev]

The point I was making, which obviously goes right over your head al...sorry waewick, is that one of the arguments is about transitioning to renewables.
Not only are most of those U/C nuclear plants, and many proposed in countries with existing nuclear power plants (replacing decommissioned plants with new ones), but there's 30 countries looking at entering into nuclear power generation.
Many of those will actually be built. As hard as it is for people like you to comprehend that, the reality beyond your ideological bubble here in Australia is that the rest of world doesn't operate like the Labor Greens party, or think like your ilk do.

Hmmm, cherry picking one of Europes biggest economies that fits the argument. Lets see here, France says hello with potentially 14 new nuclear power plants. Have a chuckle now. I am.

[Waewick]

The point I was making, which obviously goes right over your head al...sorry waewick, is that one of the arguments is about transitioning to renewables.
Not only are most of those U/C nuclear plants, and many proposed in countries with existing nuclear power plants (replacing decommissioned plants with new ones), but there's 30 countries looking at entering into nuclear power generation.
Many of those will actually be built. As hard as it is for people like you to comprehend that, the reality beyond your ideological bubble here in Australia is that the rest of world doesn't operate like the Labor Greens party, or think like your ilk do.

Hmmm, cherry picking one of Europes biggest economies that fits the argument. Lets see here, France says hello with potentially 14 new nuclear power plants. Have a chuckle now. I am.

'Potentially'

France, which already has Nuclear is also investing in renewables.

Even switching Nuclear off
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ckout=true

Or cancelling new builds
https://www.google.com/amp/s/renewecono ... -over/amp/

There is no ideological bubble, there is the market telling us the best way and there is people like you pushing LNP talking points.

I'm not going to respond any further unless you finally make a point that is on topic of the thread.

[rubberman]

No one took your post out of context and thats a lovely projection on trolling there.

Wind and Solar are used in conjunction with each other, wind farms and solars farms aren't located in a single area where the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining at the same time. They are spread out geographically and require to submit studies to understand when they will be generating power

I can only assume AEMO plans on supply electricity at all times as well, with the use of batteries in times when power generation is lower than required to meet demand.

Fortunately the develoment of batteries is coming along as well.

And yes, ive seen wind farms, solar farms, hydro plants , coal fired power stations and gas turbines ! Ive even been Fortunate enough to meet with experts in the electrical generation and supply industry.

To keep on topic, SA is getting some attention

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austr ... e-a-folly/


Germany seems to be going the same way

https://reneweconomy.com.au/german-coal ... pct-share/

Edit - and just a bit of a (dated) story on batteries

https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-batteri ... main-grid/

Uhuh. Germany. Not sure why we should give a shit what Germany is doing (obviously you guys just trying to provoke a reaction from abc again)..
But here, since we want to talk about what others are doing..lets look at the other side of the coin instead of pretending everything is just the way you see it..

About 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 16 countries.

About 90 power reactors with a total gross capacity of about 90 GWe are planned, and over 300 more are proposed*. Most reactors currently planned are in countries in Asia, characterized by fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... -worldwide

About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes.
These range from sophisticated economies to developing nations.
Bangladesh, Egypt and Turkey are all constructing their first nuclear power plants.

About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes, and a further 20 or so countries have at some point expressed an interest. In the following list, links are provided for those countries that are covered by specific country pages:

In Europe: Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Norway, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland, Turkey.
In the Middle East and North Africa: Gulf states including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq; Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan.
In west, central and southern Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, Rwanda, Ethiopia.
In Central and South America: Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay.
In central and southern Asia: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan.
In Southeast Asia and Oceania: Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar, Australia.
In east Asia: North Korea.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... -countries

The reference to Germany was showing other countries, including one of europes biggest economies, is investing in renewables.

I did get a laugh from that link, considering planning and expressing interest ! That would include Australia even though we are no chance of ever investing in it.

Investment into renewables is also dwarfing nuclear investment. Australia is absolutely going down the right path.

Its great being able to watch a transition like we are.

Anyway, can we please keep this thread on topic now.

There's no convincing some people. They'll say that the wind won't blow and the sun won't shine. Then when you point out that a battery/solar combination will obviate that 99% of the time, and cheaper too, they will go off on a rant. It's always the same: present facts, and there's a rant about politics and conspiracies...or what other countries with totally different problems, using government subsidies for nuclear do.

At some point you just have to accept that they aren't going to change their minds, no matter what the evidence. Part of that evidence is that we are now doing things they said were impossible ten years ago. In ten years, we will be doing things they say are impossible today.

We just have to not waste time on dead ends like nuclear.

[rev]

The point I was making, which obviously goes right over your head al...sorry waewick, is that one of the arguments is about transitioning to renewables.
Not only are most of those U/C nuclear plants, and many proposed in countries with existing nuclear power plants (replacing decommissioned plants with new ones), but there's 30 countries looking at entering into nuclear power generation.
Many of those will actually be built. As hard as it is for people like you to comprehend that, the reality beyond your ideological bubble here in Australia is that the rest of world doesn't operate like the Labor Greens party, or think like your ilk do.

Hmmm, cherry picking one of Europes biggest economies that fits the argument. Lets see here, France says hello with potentially 14 new nuclear power plants. Have a chuckle now. I am.

'Potentially'

France, which already has Nuclear is also investing in renewables.

Even switching Nuclear off
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ckout=true

Or cancelling new builds
https://www.google.com/amp/s/renewecono ... -over/amp/

There is no ideological bubble, there is the market telling us the best way and there is people like you pushing LNP talking points.

I'm not going to respond any further unless you finally make a point that is on topic of the thread.

So when someone says things you disagree with, they're off topic? Lovely.
It's ok for you to push radical leftist Green & Labor talking points though?

Nobody is arguing (from what I've seen anyway) that there shouldn't be an investment in renewables, or that renewables shouldn't be part of the energy equation.
As pointed out even by many of us here, even a country like China which is building more coal power then we have to decommission is investing in renewables, as well as more nuclear.
It would be great if you could actually stick to the topic, instead of only cherry picking the points or segments of peoples posts that suit your narrative.
Try debating with people in an honest manner for a change.

[Waewick]

The point I was making, which obviously goes right over your head al...sorry waewick, is that one of the arguments is about transitioning to renewables.
Not only are most of those U/C nuclear plants, and many proposed in countries with existing nuclear power plants (replacing decommissioned plants with new ones), but there's 30 countries looking at entering into nuclear power generation.
Many of those will actually be built. As hard as it is for people like you to comprehend that, the reality beyond your ideological bubble here in Australia is that the rest of world doesn't operate like the Labor Greens party, or think like your ilk do.

Hmmm, cherry picking one of Europes biggest economies that fits the argument. Lets see here, France says hello with potentially 14 new nuclear power plants. Have a chuckle now. I am.

'Potentially'

France, which already has Nuclear is also investing in renewables.

Even switching Nuclear off
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ckout=true

Or cancelling new builds
https://www.google.com/amp/s/renewecono ... -over/amp/

There is no ideological bubble, there is the market telling us the best way and there is people like you pushing LNP talking points.

I'm not going to respond any further unless you finally make a point that is on topic of the thread.

So when someone says things you disagree with, they're off topic? Lovely.
It's ok for you to push radical leftist Green & Labor talking points though?

Nobody is arguing (from what I've seen anyway) that there shouldn't be an investment in renewables, or that renewables shouldn't be part of the energy equation.
As pointed out even by many of us here, even a country like China which is building more coal power then we have to decommission is investing in renewables, as well as more nuclear.
It would be great if you could actually stick to the topic, instead of only cherry picking the points or segments of peoples posts that suit your narrative.
Try debating with people in an honest manner for a change.

Radical lefist green and labor talking points just lol. Renewable energy isnt a left or right issue.

This topic is for electricity infrastructure , you seem desperate for it to become something else.

Have fun, ive got you on ignore now

[Waewick]

Uhuh. Germany. Not sure why we should give a shit what Germany is doing (obviously you guys just trying to provoke a reaction from abc again)..
But here, since we want to talk about what others are doing..lets look at the other side of the coin instead of pretending everything is just the way you see it..
https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... -worldwide
https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... -countries

The reference to Germany was showing other countries, including one of europes biggest economies, is investing in renewables.

I did get a laugh from that link, considering planning and expressing interest ! That would include Australia even though we are no chance of ever investing in it.

Investment into renewables is also dwarfing nuclear investment. Australia is absolutely going down the right path.

Its great being able to watch a transition like we are.

Anyway, can we please keep this thread on topic now.

There's no convincing some people. They'll say that the wind won't blow and the sun won't shine. Then when you point out that a battery/solar combination will obviate that 99% of the time, and cheaper too, they will go off on a rant. It's always the same: present facts, and there's a rant about politics and conspiracies...or what other countries with totally different problems, using government subsidies for nuclear do.

At some point you just have to accept that they aren't going to change their minds, no matter what the evidence. Part of that evidence is that we are now doing things they said were impossible ten years ago. In ten years, we will be doing things they say are impossible today.

We just have to not waste time on dead ends like nuclear.

I don't get it.

We are living through a technological leap we haven't seen in a long time and we have people desperate to push us backwards.

Anyway, this thread will get more interesting over the next 12 months

[rev]

The reference to Germany was showing other countries, including one of europes biggest economies, is investing in renewables.

I did get a laugh from that link, considering planning and expressing interest ! That would include Australia even though we are no chance of ever investing in it.

Investment into renewables is also dwarfing nuclear investment. Australia is absolutely going down the right path.

Its great being able to watch a transition like we are.

Anyway, can we please keep this thread on topic now.

There's no convincing some people. They'll say that the wind won't blow and the sun won't shine. Then when you point out that a battery/solar combination will obviate that 99% of the time, and cheaper too, they will go off on a rant. It's always the same: present facts, and there's a rant about politics and conspiracies...or what other countries with totally different problems, using government subsidies for nuclear do.

At some point you just have to accept that they aren't going to change their minds, no matter what the evidence. Part of that evidence is that we are now doing things they said were impossible ten years ago. In ten years, we will be doing things they say are impossible today.

We just have to not waste time on dead ends like nuclear.

I don't get it.

We are living through a technological leap we haven't seen in a long time and we have people desperate to push us backwards.

Anyway, this thread will get more interesting over the next 12 months

If you bothered to actually read, and not cherry pick and take those cherry picked comments out of context, you'd get what I was saying.
But as I said, you're not here to debate honestly.
If you were, you'd know I'm not against renewable energy. I'm just not blinded by ideology like you and that psycho troll you quoted.

Good keep me on ignore, perhaps in one of your rants about me and conspiracies you can tel him to put me on ignore too since he keeps responding to my posts looking for attention.

[PeFe]

Great article from Renew Economy discussing the latest "state of play" regarding energy and politics.

Giles makes some salient points about "net 100" as opposed to "total 100%". I was going to re-explain but the article says it all.

Also the article discusses how the eastern sates media "ignore" South Australia. News Corp and Sky News refuse to cover what is happening in South Australia because they don't like the "successful" stories re renewables. If you were reading The Australian you would never know that South Australia often reaches 100% renewables matching power requirements to demand (Not 100% renewables because there is always a small amount of gas, usually around 3%, the excess renewables are exported)

And as for the local rag, The Advertiser, they don't want to shit in their own backyard (or dont't want to be seen to be shitting on their own backyard) so they pay scant regard to the whole renewables debate/process. Instead The Advertiser spends more journalistic resources on stories like "Best nail colourist in South Australia" or "Best dog groomer..."

South Australia’s renewable triumph is stunning proof that Dutton’s nuclear plans are a folly

When the federal and state governments were deciding on a location to announce a funding deal that will South Australia’s final leap to its remarkable goal of 100 per cent net renewables within the next three years, Port Augusta was the obvious choice.

The city at the top of the Spencer Gulf, like the neighbouring Whyalla, is everything that the climate deniers, the renewable naysers, the conservative media and the federal Coalition say is not possible.

It once played host to the state’s ageing and incredibly dirty coal generators. Whyalla was the subject of taunts from former prime minister Tony Abbott that it would be rendered a ghost town by a carbon price.

Now the two cities are host to thriving renewable energy hubs, new green industries and technologies that will help propel the state into a clean energy future.

And it is remarkable how little is actually known about the achievements of South Australia beyond its borders. Already it is at an annual average of 70 per cent renewables, and by 2027 it intends to be the first in the world to reach 100 per cent net renewables primarily through wind, solar and storage.

Just to be clear, that does not mean that it will consume only renewables. “Net” means that the amount of power it produces from wind and solar during the year will be equivalent to the amount it consumes. But it will still export and import as needs must.

It’s a stunning achievement, and still one that the naysayers insist is not possible. The state has become a world testing ground in technologies – it hosted the first Tesla big battery that helped change the thinking on future grids around the world – and it is addressing and solving complex engineering issues that many experts thought were too difficult.

More importantly, it is doing this as a result of bipartisan policy. Labor kicked it off more than a decade ago by making itself the most welcoming state for wind and solar.

The Liberal state government set the target of reaching 100 per cent renewables by 2030. Labor is now back in power and has accelerated that target to 2027. It is marvellous what can be achieved when the coal lobby is removed and not pulling the strings of the politicians and public mood.

espite all this, the achievements in South Australia remain largely ignored by the rest of the country.

The announcement by federal energy minister Chris Bowen and state energy minister Tom Koutsanstonis about the funding deal for a gigawatt of new wind and solar and 600 MW (2,400 MWh) of battery storage – to ensure the 100 per cent net renewable target is met – barely rated a mention in mainstream media outside the state.

Yet it is here, in Port Augusta, that federal Opposition leader Peter Dutton has decided should be one of seven sites – along with Collie, Liddell, Mt Piper, Loy Yang, Callide and Tarong – that should play host to their nuclear power plant proposals.

They were chosen, the Coalition tells us, because they are locations that still have or once supported coal fired power generators, and – they claim – would have available transmission capacity. But as Koutsantonis pointed out during his visit this week, that is simply not the case. That capacity has already been taken up by other projects.

“This site here where the Port Augusta power station once sat is now at capacity in terms of our renewable transmission lines to Adelaide,” he told journalists. “So the idea you can just plug in a nuclear power station here is just folly.

“I haven’t seen Peter Dutton here. I haven’t seen the Commonwealth Opposition here at all talking to the state government about their pretend plans for nuclear power in South Australia.”

Indeed, it is not surprising that Dutton has not shown up: South Australia is not just shining a path to the future, it is a real life repudiation of the folly of the federal Coalition’s nuclear plans, and the sheer nonsense of its claims.

Let’s remember that the Coalition and the conservative media’s nuclear arguments are based almost entirely around the assumption that wind and solar cannot power a modern economy.

South Australia proves them wrong, emphatically so. The grid is reliable, wholesale power prices are falling, and will continue to do so as it free itself from the yolk of fossil gas. Legacy industries are being revived by the growth of wind and solar, new industries are being established, and big business with big loads are being attracted to the state.

The once broke Whyalla steelworks, for example, has based its revival around plans for “green steel” underpinned by wind and solar, and BHP will power its giant Olympic Dam mine with a unique “firmed renewables” contract sourced from the state’s biggest wind project and a big battery.

The state’s transmission operator ElectraNet reports inquiries amounting to several gigawatts of new load from industries attracted to cheaper and greener power, and apparently not the least bit concerned about the scare campaigns that the lights will surely go out.

South Australia is already at the stage where enough rooftop solar is generated in the middle of the day to meet all local demand. That will soon occur in other states too, including Western Australia, effectively eliminating grid demand and requiring storage or new load or exports to soak up the excess.

As every major utility in Australia makes clear, the era of always-on base-load power is well and truly passed in such grids. South Australia has not just shut down its last coal generators, and is closing down its remaining combined cycle gas plants, which perform a similar role. The gaps will be filled by facilities that are fast and flexible. There is simply no room in the grid for an always-on nuclear plant.

“This site is taken. So I’m not quite sure where he’s planning to build this or how he’s planning to build this,” Koutsantonis said.

“If Peter Dutton was serious about what he was talking about, he would have come to us earlier and spoken to us about it, consulted with us. For whatever reason, he hasn’t even stepped a foot on this site to actually have a look at it.”

Bowen has been taking that message across the country. “This whole precinct’s being transformed … into a renewable energy hub, a green cement hub and a critical minerals hub,” he said at Port Augusta.

The next day, Bowen popped up in Lithgow, at the site of another mooted nuclear site, the Mount Piper coal generator, where the asset owner Energy Australia also outlined plans to build pumped hydro, a giant battery and to convert its coal plant into a “flexible” asset rather than an “always on” baseload asset in the interim.

“Traditionally Mount Piper has been a full-load, continuous load power station, and today it’s becoming much more flexible,” EnergyAustralia’s head of operations and projects Sue Elliott said. “It now operates during the day and seasonally depending on renewable availability in the market.

“We are progressing planning for a Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Project … and we’re also planning a 500 megawatt, four hour Mount Piper Battery Energy Storage System right here on site to take advantage of transmission assets.”

As Bowen pointed out, this is real investment happening now, not some time in the distant future.

“I’m not sure if Mr Dutton and (Opposition energy spokesman Ted) O’Brien have been here yet, but they have a plan for nuclear power, which is at least 30 years away,” he said.

“They admit 2035 at its earliest; even that is wildly ambitious and optimistic and unrealistic. But that doesn’t fix the problems today.

“It doesn’t create jobs today. It doesn’t create investment today and, indeed, it will chill investment. It will stop people investing in the alternative plans because of the investor uncertainty created by having a nuclear plan, which is never going to happen – it’s a fantasy.”

South Australia, and its charge towards 100 per cent renewables, is very real. And worth talking about.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austr ... e-a-folly/

[mattblack]

Was going to post that but thought I would be painted as some sort of radical leftist pushing the agenda of the government. Glad I'm not the only one if that is the case .

I for one am very excited to see the transition. I honestly believe that this will set up SA the way that gold did for Victoria, coal has done for NSW and QLD, iron ore for WA. Actually being able to harness these resources, attracting energy intensive industry, creating hydrogen and utilising this to create a green iorn export industry will finally transform this state.

Transmission and storage of energy are the major issues that need to be overcome but if we are able to, I really don't think that people understand the potential outcomes.

[rubberman]

Was going to post that but thought I would be painted as some sort of radical leftist pushing the agenda of the government. Glad I'm not the only one if that is the case .

I for one am very excited to see the transition. I honestly believe that this will set up SA the way that gold did for Victoria, coal has done for NSW and QLD, iron ore for WA. Actually being able to harness these resources, attracting energy intensive industry, creating hydrogen and utilising this to create a green iorn export industry will finally transform this state.

Transmission and storage of energy are the major issues that need to be overcome but if we are able to, I really don't think that people understand the potential outcomes.

I think a lot of people in SA do understand. Especially those with a few years of cheap power from solar on the roof. Similarly, I remember guys I worked with in the NT, power engineers, being excited about the prospects of solar, and how it was revolutionary in small remote systems. They were all in. But that was 18 years ago. Now, those same guys, people in the industry, are just as excited about the prospects for bigger systems today. Sometimes, we only hear the loud objectors, and forget that maybe 60% of homes now have solar panels, and for whom renewables is a done deal. I don't think we need to get too fussed about people who would probably, on principle, object to whatever the majority decided.

[rev]

Was going to post that but thought I would be painted as some sort of radical leftist pushing the agenda of the government. Glad I'm not the only one if that is the case .

My comments like that aren't direct at you, in case you've taken them that way. I'm more talking about the people higher up that push agendas, not those of us down here talking shit about it.

I for one am very excited to see the transition. I honestly believe that this will set up SA the way that gold did for Victoria, coal has done for NSW and QLD, iron ore for WA. Actually being able to harness these resources, attracting energy intensive industry, creating hydrogen and utilising this to create a green iorn export industry will finally transform this state.

Transmission and storage of energy are the major issues that need to be overcome but if we are able to, I really don't think that people understand the potential outcomes.

Personally I'm over all the false promises and false starts of various things that will pave the roads with gold in this state.

Going back to your earlier post about every house having solar, I saw just now that Fairmont Homes is including a 3.32kW solar system on all new homes as standard as of this past June.
Good to see this happening, will probably become standard with most major builders in the near future.
Would be better if they included a battery as well perhaps at a discounted price given they have the capacity to buy them in a large quantity so they could perhaps get them at a discounted or slightly higher then wholesale price as opposed to full retail which the average consumer would have to pay on their own. Perhaps governments can subsidize them.

[Algernon]

There is no ideological bubble, there is the market telling us the best way and there is people like you pushing LNP talking points.

I'm not going to respond any further unless you finally make a point that is on topic of the thread.

Renewables isn't the first debate where someone sought higher ground by declaring the opposing view ideological.

The idea that renewables is "left" reflects a certain degree of sheltering and kind of disconnect with how the world has evolved and also a certain degree lack of understanding of the world as it was.

Renewables receive subsidies and government money, yes.

So did/does the coal/gas/petro/nuclear industries. They all to varying degrees rely on that. The latter 100% can't exist without it.

If the carbon economy does it, it's capitalism and if it's the renewables, hammer and sickle, right? That's what the world is like through the Rupert lense.

No. Renewables are the modern day bleeding edge of capitalism. The world has moved on.