One of the most significant achievements of the 26th United Nations climate conference in Glasgow (COP26) three years ago was the launch of the Global Methane Pledge. The goal is to reduce global methane emissions at least 30% by 2030.

Methane (CH₄) is the second most significant climate pollutant after carbon dioxide (CO₂). In the words of one of the architects of the pledge, then US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, “tackling methane is the fastest, most effective way to reduce near-term warming and keep 1.5°C within reach”.

Australia signed up to the methane pledge in October 2022. It was a good start, but a promise is not a plan. To date, Australia has no official methane reduction targets, nor an agreed strategy to deal with this dangerous pollutant.

The Climate Council’s report, released today, sets out actions Australia can take right now to cut methane emissions. We need to get on with it.

Related article: Climate-friendly cows bred to belch less methane

Why should we care about methane?

Methane in the atmosphere is rising at a record rate: up about 260% since preindustrial times to a high not seen for at least 800,000 years.

Research just released shows if we don’t act, the problem will only worsen. It suggests increases in atmospheric methane are outpacing projected growth rates – threatening the global goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

The gas is likely responsible for at least 25 to 30% of warming Earth has experienced since the Industrial Revolution.

Methane is a “live fast, die young” gas, persisting in the atmosphere for a relatively short amount of time. But while it’s there, it punches above its weight in warming. Over 20 years, methane is about 85 times more effective at trapping heat than the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.

After 100 years, it’s still about 28 times more effective at trapping heat.

This means methane has an outsized impact on warming in the short term, turbocharging unnatural disasters such as floods, bushfires and heatwaves.

Where does methane come from?

Roughly half of global methane pollution comes from human activities. The rest comes from natural sources such as wetlands and soils.

Australia produces more than its fair share of methane because we have such large fossil fuel and agriculture industries. We are the world’s 12th largest methane polluter, producing four to five times as much methane as would be expected based on population alone.

In the year to December 2023, Australia produced nearly four million tonnes of methane. The main sources from human activity were agriculture (52%), fossil fuel mining (25%) and waste (11%). The good news is there are plenty of ways to reduce emissions in each sector that we can and should implement right now.

What can we do about it?

The largest source of methane emissions in agriculture is the burps of ruminant animals – mainly cows and sheep.

Promising research suggests each animal’s methane production can be cut by as much as 90% using daily feed supplements. These include supplements from the red seaweed Asparagopsis, and the chemical marketed as 3-NOP.

Other approaches to reducing methane emissions from animals also show promise. They include vaccines that target methane-producing microbes in their guts, methane-reducing pasture species, and selective breeding.

These solutions should be scaled up and farmers encouraged to use them—for instance, by being eligible for carbon credits under the Emissions Reduction Fund.

Providing consumers with point-of-sale information about the climate impacts of their food choices could also serve to reduce the nation’s methane emissions. And the market can be encouraged to develop clear regulatory pathways for securing approval of animal-free protein and other lower-impact foods.

More than 90% of our food waste ends up in landfill where it produces methane when it rots. Composting is much better for the environment. Investing in organic collection services for food and garden waste, and tightening regulations to capture gas at landfill sites, can address much methane pollution from the waste sector.

We can’t control what we don’t measure. Currently, methane emissions are largely reported to the Clean Energy Regulator using indirect and outdated methods. The International Energy Agency estimates Australia could be under-reporting methane emissions from the coal and gas sector by up to 60%.

Fortunately, new global satellite capacity and, in Australia, the Open Methane visualisation tool, mean we can measure methane at its source far more accurately than before.

The federal government should make all coal and gas corporations directly measure and report their methane emissions from existing mines, in line with international best practice.

Every coal mine and gas plant produces methane during mining and processing. While we work towards phasing out fossil fuel mining, a few practical actions can reduce methane pollution:

• require underground coal mines to capture and destroy the methane vented into the atmosphere
• ban all non-emergency flaring and venting of gas
• require all gas mining companies to address leaky infrastructure
• ensure mining companies seal inactive mines.

Related article: UNSW team creates synthetic methane using only sunlight

Time for action

Without concerted action, global methane pollution from human activities is expected to rise 15% this decade. On the other hand, meeting the commitments of the Global Methane Pledge can reduce warming in the next few decades.

If the goals of the pledge are met, we could shave about 0.25°C off the global average temperature by mid-century, and more than 0.5°C by 2100.

The federal government should establish a national methane reduction target and a dedicated action plan. This should be part of our updated national emissions reduction target, due to be set in 2025.

We can’t take our foot off the pedal in cutting carbon dioxide. But at the same time, in the words of United Nations head Antonio Guterres, we have to do “everything, everywhere, all at once”.

Disclosure statement: Lesley Hughes is a Director and Councillor with the Climate Council of Australia. She has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, a Director of the Environmental Defenders Office and a member of the Climate Change Authority.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Why methane is turbocharging unnatural disasters appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

The continual political manoeuvring and propaganda associated with renewable energy sources and associated energy costs render little light, generate a lot of heat and take the national gaze off the truly urgent matter of securing the stability and proper functioning of the national electricity grid.

These notes regarding the transition to renewable energy sources in the NEM are not tinged with propaganda; rather they express a well-founded concern for the viability of the national electricity system, which is heightened by political agendas. The recent Australian Energy Week Convention in Melbourne in June provided sufficient grounds to question the development of the transition.

Related article: Barking up the wrong tree—an engineer’s perspective

The worrying elements in addition to climate considerations are twofold; economic and technical. The concentration here is on technical aspects, and this focus is based on the belief that technical viability of the grid underpins the proper functioning of the entire Australian economy. The economies associated with various forms of electricity generation, be it wind, solar, gas, hydrogen, hydro or nuclear, are not addressed here.

It is not because discussion on the relative energy costs is not important to owners and consumers. Rather, it is that a national grid subject to instability, islanding and blackout has a far more negative effect on the entire Australian economy then the individual profit motives of market participants.

The continual political manoeuvring and propaganda associated with renewable energy sources and associated energy costs render little light, generate a lot of heat and take the national gaze off the truly urgent matter of securing the stability and proper functioning of the national electricity grid.

A speaker at the AEW Convention cut to the chase by stating that the National Electricity Law is no longer fit for purpose, and that the independently formulated renewable energy zones and transmission links by various jurisdictions are counterproductive to the integration process.

In the following discussion, the elements of constituting the technical viability of a large renewable grid are unpicked.

1. The NEM is, other than for two DC links, an alternating current (AC) system of interconnected generators and energy consumption (load) centres.
2. The various states are interconnected and an important question that must be answered is if nationally it is considered important that each state be energy-wise, self-sufficient. Note: the question is basically a design condition, i.e., is this a must or not.
3. The basis of an AC system is stability of voltage, frequency and synchronicity. These must be maintained in a contiguous grid. Inter alia: a design condition can be that instability, resulting in the grid becoming a number of island grids, can be tolerated because each island can safely continue operating.
4. Voltage stability is a result of having strong networks. Note: the concept of grid strength is explained further down. Frequency stability results from two important factors; (a) stable or slowly varying electrical loads, (b) having sufficient inertia, (c) having sufficient generator capacity available at all times (note: capacity is expressed in MVA or GVA).

Let’s turn our attention to renewable sources, specifically wind and solar. Where these make up the bulk of all energy we encounter weak grid strength, unless we remediate this, for example by utilising synchronous condensers. Note: our attention here is on high-voltage, transmission grid-connected solar and wind generators.

A weak grid is one in which voltage varies significantly with electrical power being generated. Weak grids not only suffer voltage variability, but the connected solar and wind generators face difficulty in remaining synchronised.

Note: the bulk of these generators are of the grid-following type. Voltage variability tends to ‘confuse’ their voltage tracking ability (achieved through circuitry—the phase locked loop) that can only be ‘tuned’ to a small extent. As explained below, the criterion for connection is that there be sufficient grid strength at the point of connection (PoC) of the generator in question by measurement of the short circuit ratio (SCR) at the PoC.

We will examine two examples to clarify the grid strength issue. (i) a coal or gas-fired synchronous generator providing some, but not all of the energy needs of a zone substation, i.e. an energy consumption centre, a large distance from the synchronous generator. A solar farm near the zone substation is connected to the end of the transmission line and would meet the energy shortfall of the zone substation.
(ii) The case of the synchronous generator being replaced by a battery energy supply system (BESS) and grid forming inverter.

To determine grid strength, in order to gain approval from AEMO to connect the solar farm to the grid at the PoC near the zone substation, the SCR at the PoC must be established. This requires a calculation: first, the transmission line is assumed short-circuited at the PoC (the solar farm is assumed not be connected) and the output of the generator at the other end of the transmission line—i.e., (i) the synchronous generator and the (ii), the BESS-grid forming inverter) short circuit power capacity, usually measured in MVA, is determined.

In the case of (i), the synchronous generator, the short circuit MVA is four times higher than its rated power output. For the sake of a numerical example, assume the rated power to be 150MVA. Its short circuit power is therefore 4 x 150MVA, i.e., 600MVA if the short circuit takes place at the generator. However, at the far end, i.e., at the PoC, a short circuit there reduces the synchronous generator short circuit power because it faces a long transmission. Let us assume the reduction is 50%. Therefore, at the PoC, the short circuit amount 600MVA divided by 2, equals 300MVA.

In the case of (ii), the BESS-grid forming inverter, it is also rated at 150MVA. However, its short circuit capacity is 1.3 times its rated power, i.e., 195MVA. At the PoC, this is reduced by 50% as well, i.e., approx., 85MVA.

Assume that AEMO specifies that the SCR, that is the ratio of the short circuit capacity at the PoC divided by the proposed solar farm rated power, must be three or higher. In the case of (i), the synchronous generator case, the solar farm can have a maximum power of 300MVA divided by 3, equals 100MVA, whereas for (ii), the BESS-grid forming inverter, it is 85 divided by 3, equals 28MVA.

What would happen if a second solar farm also wants to connect? According to the above, it would be limited to 28MVA, adding to the already existing generation capacity, and thus making the SCR for the BESS-grid forming inverter case equal 85 (its short circuit capacity at the PoC) divided by 56, i.e., 1.5, and therefore too low. Both plant owners may now be called on to install a synchronous condenser, to boost short circuit capacity at the PoC.

It is now clear as solar and wind generators replace synchronous generation that grid strength declines, therefore requiring augmentation by synchronous condensers or measures such as var compensators, static synchronous compensators, or thyristor-controlled series capacitors. Decline in grid strength will require major augmentation capital expenditure.

Finally, we look at inertia. More inertia means more energy stored in rotating masses, i.e., the rotor-turbines of synchronous generators and synchronous condensers plus flywheels, and all direct-on line AC motors. The rotating (kinetic) energy can provide sufficient time for generator controls to restore frequency when imbalances between demanded and generated power occur. Changes in climatic conditions can make the changes sharper when we have a lot of wind and solar generation, as well as loads such as air conditioners.

Statically stored energy, for example in batteries, is subtly different: it can, through the employment of inverters perform the same task of rotating, kinetic energy. However, whereas spinning rotors directly provide frequency, this is not case for inverters. The latter rely on control functions, generally commercial-in confidence, to respond frequency-wise.

This lack of uniformity, in contrast to that provided by the immutable laws of physics governing synchronous generators and other electro-dynamic loads, provides a great challenge in the protection engineering regime of renewable grids. We are thus facing a large knowledge gap, to wit:

1. Finding economical solutions to increase grid strength
2. Creation of sufficient uniformity in grid following and grid forming inverters, in order to have predictability of delta power-delta frequency and delta-time response
3. Reparameterisation of protection relays including power oscillation blocking and out-of-step relays, also in regard to planned retention levels of synchronous generator MVA capacity.
4. Configuring dynamic restraint of under-frequency, load-shedding relays to take account of increased rates of change of frequency and frequency nadirs.

Related article: Fibs about the renewables transition—and the cost of energy

In conclusion, we are not an impossible transition-to-renewables journey; rather we are on one with no effective overall system engineering direction and supervision. We are thus given a choice between slowing the transition or facing increasing grid failures, or retaining synchronous capacity in one form or another.

It would be best if this were recognised by state and federal governments, as well as their loyal oppositions, and in doing so abdicating their authority to a national, central Australian grid engineering company with the appropriate planning and coordination charter.

The post Politics and engineering—a dangerous mix appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Australia’s clean energy transition is already underway, driven by solar, wind, batteries and new transmission lines.

But what about nuclear? Opposition leader Peter Dutton last month committed to building nuclear reactors on the site of retired coal plants—triggering intense debate over whether this older low-carbon power source is viable in Australia due to cost and long timeframes. Dutton proposed building a mix of traditional large nuclear plants alongside small modular reactors (SMRs).

Over the last decade, there’s been growing interest in SMRs. These reactor designs are meant to tackle known problems with traditional large reactor designs, namely cost, perceived safety and lengthy build times.

Are SMRs ready? Experts from the the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering have done a deep dive on the state of the technology and market considerations in a new report, summing up the state of the technology.

What’s the answer? SMRs are not ready for deployment yet. The earliest they could be built in Australia would be in the 2040s. That’s too late to help with the push to net zero by 2050.

As our report notes, the “least risky option” would be to buy them after the technology has been commercialised and successfully operated overseas. But once the technology is proven, they could be used for specific circumstances, such as powering energy-intensive manufacturing and refining.

Related article: Examining the significant issues with LNP’s nuclear plan

What is a small modular reactor?

Small modular reactors are a range of new nuclear reactors currently being designed.

SMRs involve standardised components produced in factories and assembled onsite. As the name suggests, they are smaller than traditional large nuclear reactors, which have to be custom built. They are also, in theory, cheaper and safer.

Traditional nuclear reactors often generate 1GW of power. By contrast, each SMR would generate 50-300MW.

Between three to 20 SMRs would be needed to provide the amount of power produced by a traditional nuclear power station. Many designs incorporate in-built passive cooling in case of power failure to avoid the risk of meltdown. They could be daisy-chained—or connected up—with multiple reactors cores inside a single power plant.

They are currently at the design stage in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and South Korea, with no models yet operating in OECD countries. Publicly available information about SMRs being developed elsewhere is limited.

What’s behind this interest? Key factors include:

• very low carbon emissions
• ability to support intermittent power sources such as renewables
• potential for easier and faster construction than conventional nuclear
• ability to provide heat as a key input to industrial processes.

At present, we know of 14 different designs at a comparatively advanced stage of development globally. That means the designs are undergoing detailed simulations, evaluation of components and creation of small-scale replicas for testing and evaluation. None have yet been licensed for construction in any OECD countries.

How would SMRs stack up against other power sources?

Given the fact SMRs are still a while away from prime time, we estimate the earliest Australia could have one built would be during the 2040s.

At this time, Australia’s grid is projected to have 6GW of renewables added every year, along with a large amount of dispatchable energy in the form of battery storage, and a small amount of new gas generation.

Given renewables and battery technologies get cheaper every year, expensive new sources of power may well struggle to break in.

Because SMRs are still at the design stage, we have no operating data to assess the cost of their electricity.

Even so, CSIRO’s latest GenCost study illustrates the scale of the challenge. In 2030, the agency forecasts the cost of power from solar and wind, firmed by storage to firm capacity, to be A$89-125/MWh. By contrast, GenCost estimates large-scale nuclear would cost $141-233/MWh—and $230-382 for SMRs.

SMRs could conceivably contribute to the energy grid in the future, providing some steady power to energy-intensive industries. As the technology matures and proves itself in testing, these reactors may represent a lower-cost, shorter build-time,
smaller terrestrial footprint alternative to traditional, large-scale nuclear power plants.

But they won’t replace our need for a major expansion of renewable energy, and not in the next 20 years.

A market for SMRs?

This new report on SMRs in Australia makes clear that a mature SMR market will not emerge in time for Australia to meet its international commitment of reaching net zero emissions by 2050.

The barriers to adoption in Australia are substantial. Significantly, there are bans on nuclear power federally and in many states. These would need to be overturned before any work could commence.

A regulator would need to be created to oversee all aspects of the delivery, safety, workforce needs and environmental impact of any SMR installation. We’d need to train an appropriately skilled workforce.

Most importantly, nuclear energy (large or small) is a divisive issue. Australia would need to secure the social licence to operate nuclear.

It would also be financially and technically risky for Australia to pursue SMRs before a mature global market for the technology emerges.

Proponents expect SMRs will gradually drop in price as the technology matures, expertise develops and economies of scale take root.

Related article: Solar set to leave nuclear and everything else in the shade

This will take time—there’s no shortcut.

First, developers would have to progress designs and acquire licenses, funding and sites for construction. In Australia, this would require building a nuclear energy regulator and selecting locations with community support.

Second, developers would build a full-scale working prototype. SMR developers worldwide have indicated this is around ten years away.

Third, developers would have to convert the knowledge gained from full-scale prototypes into an accepted commercial package. This could take three to five years after prototyping.

Finally, developers would become vendors and compete for contracts to build SMRs, creating a global market. We expect the first commercial releases of SMRs between the late 2030s and mid 2040s.

There are many questions still to be answered for SMRs to be seriously considered as part of the power mix of the future: cost, construction time, waste disposal, water use, integration with the grid, First Nations sovereignty, skills and workforce and more. But companies around the world are making progress.

The next 10 years will bring a much stronger evidence base on whether SMRs could be useful in powering Australia in the future.

Disclosure statement: Ian Lowe received funding from the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council in 1983 for a project on Australia’s energy needs to 2030. He was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.
As CEO of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Kylie Walker receives funding from the federal Department of Industry, Science and Resources, and the Department of Education.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Small modular reactors have promise, but they’re unlikely to help Australia hit net zero by 2050 appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Australia’s reliance on offshore suppliers has left us at a great disadvantage when it comes to meeting green energy goals. With international suppliers prioritising projects in their own regions, wait times on crucial equipment for projects outside of those areas sits at two to five years and is expected to grow. As a result, project costs are escalating and delivery schedules are being extended.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s recent Future Made in Australia Act and $1 billion pledge to support domestic advanced manufacturing and clean energy projects goes some way in alleviating the problem, but there is significant catch up to do.

Related article: Future Made in Australia Act to drive competitive renewables

The difference between Australian supply and access to materials in other countries

In contrast to Australia, developers of renewable projects in other countries receive significant sponsorship from their governments, giving them the funds to lock in their suppliers for many years ahead. In some countries, cable suppliers, for example, have been told by their own countries that they need to prioritise local supply. Those countries with manufacturing are at an advantage.

In contrast, Australian developers have not had the same government assistance or local manufacturing. This means a lot of private developers do not have the funds to lock in supply until they start construction and by then, wait times and costs have escalated. Typically, deposits are non-refundable and non-transferable. Developers might put down a 10% deposit to secure materials, then they wait and if the project changes or does not go ahead, they have lost that money.

Offshore wind farms and underground electricity transmission projects could be affected

In Europe, sanctions stemming from the conflict in Ukraine have accelerated the need for European countries to wean off gas. Respective European governments are funding the transition, locking away up to 10 years’ supply of high-voltage cables produced by local manufacturers—the same manufacturers supplying other countries, including Australia. The rest of the world will pay a huge premium to get in the queue and will still wait years for high-voltage cables, which are used for offshore wind farms and underground electricity transmission.

The Marinus Link, a proposed electricity and telecommunications interconnector between Tasmania and Victoria, is one such project that will require significant materials like high-voltage cables and interconnectors. It is a critical part of Australia’s new energy future, enabling low-cost, clean electricity to flow in both directions between the two states, storing excess energy in Tasmania’s hydro storage for use when demand is high. It is due to start in early 2025. The proposed SunCable AAPowerLink has the potential to support Australia’s ambition to become a renewable energy export superpower but it too is dependent on the supply of major power transmission equipment such as high-voltage cables.

Transformers are another area where there are supply issues—particularly high-capacity, high-voltage transformers that are made by few manufacturers. Whether it’s renewable energy zones or interconnectors between Victoria and NSW, these projects depend on transformers for their substations. The delay for transformers is about two years and getting longer. Only a year ago, the wait time was 18 months. A project could go through design and approvals and be ready to go, then you will wait years for critical equipment.
Countries that have manufacturing are at a huge advantage and we need to get Australia in that position too.

Regional and ‘smart’ manufacturing are an enormous opportunity

Some challenges can be eliminated by bringing the supply chain closer to home, giving Australian developers more control and security over essential equipment. For Australia, there are unique challenges in doing that, but they can be overcome.

Our industry is not big enough to justify the investment in manufacturing everything we need here. However, there is a huge opportunity in a collaboration between Australia and South-East Asian countries. If you can manufacture at a scale that supports projects in, for example, Indonesia, PNG, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, you have a much bigger demand that justifies that investment.

Ramping up manufacturing of critical equipment and components in the South-East Asian region—through a partnership between Australia and countries in the region—will also circumvent the high cost of manufacturing in Australia due, in part, to our higher labour costs.

Australia itself could look to ‘smart’ manufacturing for some equipment and components—with a focus to maximise our natural advantages of raw materials supply chains, access to advanced technologies and a highly educated and qualified population. We must also be selective in what we produce—we can’t manufacture everything.

Related article: A glimpse at Australia’s hydrogen future

Understand the problem first, then diversify and localise

At the moment, Australia is dependent on international suppliers for our energy transition. If we understand the risks associated with that, we can develop strategies to mitigate them. Every time, those strategies come back to diversifying and localising supply.

Hatch is actively engaging in critical energy projects such as wind, solar and hydro power generation, high-voltage transmission systems, energy storage including BESS and pumped hydro, and sustainable fuels. All of these projects play a vital role in driving forward the green energy transition.

As experts in planning and executing energy projects, Hatch understands the critical importance of the supply chains that underpin the successful delivery of these projects. De-risking supply chains is a key focus area and we strongly support localisation initiatives to improve the security of supply to our Australian and regional projects.

The post Foreign supply chains a threat to our green energy goals appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

This year’s Australian Clean Energy Summit, held from 16-17 July at the Sydney International Convention Centre, was a thought-provoking exercise highlighting Australia’s progress thus far in the transition to renewables.

There is energy everywhere in the universe. The challenge for humanity is to extract it at a sufficiently fast rate to raise and cool temperatures, to produce artificial light, to raise concrete blocks at building sites, to run production machinery, etc. The fewer transformations energy has to undergo the more we have available to power modern societies. Power is the time-based rate of energy extraction and therefore it’s also the rate of its depletion—something to bear in mind when it comes to the not inexhaustible sources of coal, oil and gas. The second law of thermodynamics basically tells us that ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’. Energy extraction depletes the opportunity for future extractions (the so-called increase in entropy). Solar energy is also not inexhaustible, but our take-off is miniscule with the almost frictionless rotation of the earth providing hot and cold sinks for its conversion to mechanical power, i.e., wind, and for solar photons to convert to electrons.

Related article: Takeaways from Australian Energy Week 2024

The fewer transformations energy has to undergo, the better off we are. This wasn’t the major theme at the Australian Clean Energy Summit but elements shone through in a number of presentations, for example in the subject of energy storage. Conservation of energy requires giving thought to using it with as few transformations as possible because every transformation, unless it is carried out infinitely slowly, causes energy wastage. The media is filled from time to time with announcements of battery projects and also pumped hydro. Compressed air, on the other hand, is a rarity but such a project was presented at the energy storage stream.

The facility is planned for Broken Hill and will have a 200MW, 8-hour capacity utilising disused mines. The electricity will be ‘stored’ and generated by compressor pump/air driven turbine-generators to power a mini-grid. A point made by the presenters, Hydrostor, was that a synchronous generation capacity is being provided. Pumped hydro, similarly topologically restricted, was also a feature with ex-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull being a notable presence. Converting hydraulic head to electricity or for that matter to heat is a limited-efficiency process, and that also applies to compressed air as the heat generated by the compression process is not necessarily captured but it is in the case of the Hydrostor project. In that regard, one of the interesting presentations by MCA of Tomago described direct use of heat from industrial processes without intermediate conversions to electricity. Imaginative solutions will be required including the use of biogas which can be carbon neutral inasmuch as its formation extracts CO2, later released in the generation cycle.

Christiaan Zuur of the Clean Energy Council stressed the gravity of storage capacity associated with renewable energy generation because of ‘dunkelflaute’, the absence of wind and sun, and wind droughts experienced in the Australian continent. A presentation by Julia Souder of the Long Duration Energy Council and the commentary by Clare Savage of the Australian Energy Regulator once again raised the wasted opportunities of storage and the need for more energy independence in distribution networks. Savage stressed the need for more investment in this sector and that it might well be at a level equalling the need of transmission networks. She said that a change of philosophy regarding distribution networks is needed.

Matthew Warren, previously CEO of the CEC made an interesting comment; ‘rooftop solar lacks parenting’. He opined that rooftop solar was crowding out VRE generation, and his view sheds light on an increasingly acute situation in which distribution’s ‘duck curve’ drops transmitted power to lows, requiring voltage control amelioration measures. Put this in the context of Savage’s rejoinder that ‘rooftop solar needs harnessing’ and a worrying picture emerges in that as Shane Rattenbury, representing the ACT, indicated; consumers are missing out on low energy prices, notwithstanding solar rooftop growth. He saw the solution in smarter smart meters. Furthermore, Rattenbury says that he feels pessimistic because energy policy has become a culture war.

This was echoed by Penny Sharpe, NSW’s energy minister who said that the planning system was not coping with the transition target and that a nuclear generation option with 20-year time window was unrealistic as a solution. Balance this comment with that of Sharpe’s reference to NSW’s statutory review of the state’s 2016 Biodiversity Act, chaired by Ken Henry. In short, biodiversity considerations make demands on the selection of solar and wind farms. Combining biodiversity limitations with social license and you have a recipe for delays in project approvals.

Tasmania’s energy minister Nick Duigan made an interesting observation; ‘building large transmission systems for a relatively small number of customers must have a big cost effect’. The same comment can be made for distribution networks, as Dr Gabrielle Kuiper, DER specialist of IEEFA, pointed out that 53% of distribution wiring caters for 3% of electricity consumers.

Highlights of the summit were an address by Climate Change and Energy minister, Chris Bowen (unfortunately not attended by the writer) and one by Opposition Shadow, Ted O’Brien. He made the case for nuclear generation based on his assessments that emissions have flatlined, prices for electrical energy are up by 39% relative to 2022, and security is impaired through the loss of coal-fired generation. O’Brien’s comments, stripped of any political policy implications, require inspection in that, irrespective of baseload disappearing with the increase in battery storage, technology-wise synchronous capacity is likely to be required in the foreseeable future.

A long-term role for gas is implied, and given the uncertainty in commercialisation of hydrogen, imaginative solutions will be required including the use of biogas which can be carbon neutral inasmuch as its formation extracts CO2, later released in the generated energy cycle. There appeared to be a consensus that gas cannot be eliminated from the renewable transition journey and that a capacity scheme in addition to energy pricing policies will continue to be needed.

A comment on the sidelines of the summit by Matthew Warren, points to the experimental nature of the renewable transition journey. This is privately endorsed by AEMO technologists as a grid without synchronous capacity invites speculation as to its stability and security. A presentation by James Lindley of AEMO highlighted stability aspects including decreasing system strength and the concomitant tripping of distributed solar systems following power system disturbances brought on by decreases in inertia and increasing, sharper power variations.

The role of markets for renewable energy evoked some interesting comments, particularly in regard to services such as VPP and FFCAS. Lachlan Blackhall (ANU) answered his own question ‘what do consumers want’? ‘They want to be left alone, and they want low cost!’ He verbalised what many in the renewable sector feel and/or suspect—“stop the ‘to do lists’ and start some doing”. Surveys taken of conference participants views brought some insights.

A summary of the question ‘what are the most pressing risks to Australia becoming a clean energy superpower?’ and participants comments appears below.

1. Market reform too slow to ‘find’ the missing money (37%)
2. Climate wars/lack of policy stability and certainty (23%)
3. Can’t expand build needed for transmission fast enough (20%)
4. Global capital pulls back from Australia (7%)
5. Insufficient workforce (7%)
6. Contracts market lose too much liquidity (3%)
7. Keeping the system strong and stable.

Related article: Barking up the wrong tree—an engineer’s perspective

The missing money is a refence to the inadequacy of pure energy markets, the point being made by one presenter that the close to zero marginal cost of wind and solar, presents the opportunity for artificial pricing there being no effective energy cost floor, and therefore also, how to price battery-stored energy. A capacity-based pricing mechanism would assist in overcoming this. Minister Sharpe made reference to the Capacity Investment Scheme as a success mentioning that there are currently 19 projects in place with 84 in the pipeline but it is uncertain how many are subject to the Bowen-introduced CIS bidding regime.

Keeping the system strong and stable, interestingly enough, had a near zero rating. Is this because we assume that whatever the technical challenges, they will not slow the transition speed?

The post Highlights from the Australian Clean Energy Summit  appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Why hydrogen, and why here?

Hydrogen can be a carrier of energy where you cannot directly electrify or use batteries, whether a matter of time or weight or distance, says Australian Hydrogen Council CEO Dr Fiona Simon.

“Australia has incredible renewable energy potential and existing infrastructure to support new export markets. We also have manufacturing opportunities, such as components and assembly for electrolysers.

“The major opportunities are currently in the production of green and clean hydrogen and derivatives such as green ammonia, green metals and sustainable aviation fuel. This will open up opportunities to decarbonise domestically and create new export markets with our strategic trade partners such as Japan and Korea.”

Related article: Aussie breakthrough to slash green hydrogen costs by 40%

Misconceptions and applications

Dr Nikolai Kinaev, leader of CSIRO’s Hydrogen Energy Systems Future Science Platform, says hydrogen is often misunderstood.

“Hydrogen is not a fuel. Fuel is something you burn or use to get more energy from than you use to produce. When you produce hydrogen from electrolysis, you split the water molecule and spend some energy. Unfortunately, due to thermodynamics, you use more energy to produce hydrogen than you get from it. However, with so-called ‘natural’ hydrogen that is formed sub-surface, the energy is kindly donated by geological processes, which means we can see it as ‘free energy’,” he says.

“The other misconception is that hydrogen is a silver bullet. It is simply an important part of an overall, balanced solution.”

Dr Kinaev outlines some of the main applications for hydrogen in Australia’s decarbonisation journey:

Energy storage

Hydrogen can be used as an energy storage medium to balance renewables’ intermittency in the electricity grid. Excess electricity, particularly from wind or solar, can be used to produce hydrogen through electrolysis. The hydrogen can then be stored and converted back to electricity when needed. Hydrogen can also be used as longer-term seasonal energy storage, storing excess energy generated during peak times for use during periods of high demand.

Industrial use

Hydrogen is an excellent feedstock for industrial processes such as the production of ammonia for fertilisers, petroleum refining, and the production of methanol. It can also be used in industries like steel production as a reducing agent to remove oxygen from iron ore, lowering carbon emissions. Hydrogen can also be used to convert biomass or waste into synthetic fuels.

Transportation

Hydrogen is used as a fuel in fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), where it reacts with oxygen in a fuel cell to produce electricity, powering the vehicle’s electric motor. FCVs emit only water vapor as a byproduct, making them a zero-emission option. Hydrogen can also be used directly or blended with traditional fuels in internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

Power generation

Hydrogen can be used in combined heat and power (CHP) systems to generate both electricity and heat for industrial and residential applications. It can also be burned in gas turbines for power generation during peak demand periods.

Commercialisation challenges

Launched in 2021, CSIRO’s Hydrogen Industry Mission focuses on leveraging the national science agency’s hydrogen research capabilities in partnership with government, industry and the research community.

“When it comes to commercial viability, the challenge is to have a project that is good science and relevant to the industry,” Dr Kinaev explains, noting that most of the hydrogen technologies we need are already available.

“If we wanted to switch our hydrogen industry on tomorrow, we could. It wouldn’t be efficient or cost-effective, but it could be done,” he says.

“A key factor is supply and demand. Users won’t invest heavily in hydrogen use applications unless they are sure there is a demand for it.

“Secondly, you need the infrastructure for production, storage, transport, etc. Green hydrogen depends on renewables. We need to look at a storage and distribution network suitable for hybrid large-scale production. Then, we need to identify where is the technology gap for use of hydrogen at smaller scales.”

“Thirdly, little will progress unless we have good social acceptance. We need social surveys carried out by social scientists who provide expertise through advance maths to gauge social acceptance.”

Innovation and opportunity

Hydrogen provides an opportunity for moving manufacturing back to Australia on a new technology level that is environmentally friendly,” Dr Kinaev explains.

“It provides an opportunity to bring sovereign industry back to Australia through which we can generate wealth, not just from the resources but also from the products. Australia has a good chance to become a supplier of technologies and critical parts for hydrogen-related technologies as well.”

Dr Kinaev also points to Australia’s development of hydrogen hubs as “world-class models” for industry.

“Because we have various types of hydrogen producers, handlers and users, it is important to have a compact area where all these stakeholders can learn what type of infrastructure they need, how to interact with each other and work on the synergy required. Hubs are not just centrepieces but ecosystems; a small model for a much larger industry.

Australian companies are also responsible for a number of breakthroughs in electrolysis, with Hysata and CSIRO spin-offs Hadean Energy and Endua demonstrating world standards in terms of the efficiency. Sparc Hydrogen and its university partners have developed breakthroughs in photocatalytic water splitting, which provides an alternate method of producing renewable green hydrogen.

Universities and CSIRO are both working in this area, with CSIRO looking at the manufacture of scalable options.

Accelerating Aussie hydrogen

Asked about the policies and initiatives required to keep Australia at the forefront of the global hydrogen market, Australian Hydrogen Council CEO Dr Fiona Simon says the Federal Budget measures announced by the Australian Government in May were “an important step in the right direction”.

“However, steps need to be taken quickly to ensure there is clear policy to get major hydrogen projects for the 2030s and 2040s to a final investment decision. Incentives are absolutely vital. The public interest is in decarbonisation, and without very strong economy-wide price signals to value carbon—and even with them—we need to look at incentives from government to help bridge the gap,” she says.

“We expect more to be addressed in the refreshed National Hydrogen Strategy, which is to be released this year.”

Hysata CEO Dr Paul Barrett says Australia must ensure cohesion with trading partners to facilitate global trade of hydrogen and its derivatives.

“Trade agreements with our allies, with the goal of securing offtake of Australian-produced hydrogen or derivatives, notably green iron, can help projects reach final investment decision,” he explains.

“Australia will also see a large demand for electrolysers, and other equipment and materials that are needed across the green hydrogen supply chain. Hysata would like to see strong domestic content requirements across Hydrogen Headstart and the Hydrogen Production Tax Incentive program in line with what we are witnessing in the EU and US. It is important for Australia to build self-reliance in the green hydrogen industry to accelerate its scaling.

“Hysata would also like to see the federal and state governments establish green iron as a priority industry for the country and support its development and export. Iron is of critical national importance to the Australian economy and global industry, estimated at approximately AU$135 billion in domestic export earnings for the most recent financial year. Converting it to green iron has the potential to increase our export earnings from iron ore five times. South Australia is moving ahead with its green iron strategy, and we would like to see other governments follow.”

Related article: Findings shared from Australia’s first hydrogen microgrid

Did you know?

It is estimated the clean hydrogen industry will support 16,000 jobs by 2050, plus an additional 13,000 from the construction of related renewable energy infrastructure. Australian hydrogen production for export and domestic use could generate more than $50 billion in additional GDP by 2050, and result in avoided greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to a third of Australia’s current fossil fuel emissions by 2050.

The post A glimpse at Australia’s hydrogen future appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Some nuclear fans claim the agency has a position on Australia’s energy mix. That is both wrong and a fundamental misinterpretation of the GenCost report.

Two of the most profound challenges we confront are climate change and the interrelated transition of our energy system to reach our legislated net-zero emissions target by 2050.

Tackling these challenges requires both science and trust in it.

CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, brings impartial research and carefully considered evidence, models, and data to inform the community and their elected representatives about the challenges ahead. We avoid opinion and rhetoric—we do not advocate for a policy position, nor do we skew analyses to suit any political party, whether in government, opposition or on the crossbench.

The GenCost report is a live example of how CSIRO brings science to the community and informs public debate without bias.

Related article: Solar set to leave nuclear and everything else in the shade

First commissioned in 2018 and produced annually by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator, GenCost has informed multiple governments and stakeholders across the energy sector. It is technology-neutral, policy-agnostic, and provides a single, fact-based view on the cost of future electricity technologies.

GenCost is one of several techno-economic analysis documents that contribute to the planning of Australia’s energy transition. GenCost’s capital cost projections are, in turn, an input into AEMO’s Integrated System Plan, the road map for the transition of the National Electricity Market.

GenCost is updated annually in a highly consultative process and takes new, verifiable data into account each year, which over the course of the report’s history has led to new and additional analyses.

In fact, industry consultation and public feedback has refined the report and led to the inclusion of an updated methodology for calculating the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE, a metric to compare the cost of electricity generation from different technologies) and, in the latest report, costings for large-scale nuclear for the first time.

Our most recent report found large-scale nuclear is technically feasible but the levelised cost is 1.5 to 2.5 times more than firmed renewables. And it will take around 15 years to build, reflecting the absence of a development pipeline and additional legal, safety, security and community engagement steps required.

Looking at 2030, GenCost found solar photovoltaic and wind with firming had the lowest levelised cost range of any new-build technology at $89 to $128 per megawatt hour. Large-scale nuclear came to $141 to $233 per megawatt hour, while nuclear small modular reactors had the highest cost range of $230 to $382 per megawatt hour.

Some nuclear proponents in the media have taken this to mean that CSIRO has a view on what Australia’s future energy mix ought to be. That is both wrong and a fundamental misinterpretation of our role. Our role is not to have a view, but to use a rigorous, verifiable, transparent scientific process to show what electricity generation costs could potentially be, to help ensure investment or policy decisions are made on a bedrock of data. Nothing more.

GenCost was created because the sector sought a single set of independently derived cost inputs to enable modelling of Australia’s future electricity system. GenCost is based on the best engineering, economics and science, and verified through an industry and energy sector stakeholder consultation process.

GenCost is not a total energy sector analysis (as it has sometimes been portrayed), nor was it ever intended to be. The data used in GenCost is based on the best global information and applied to local conditions, which allows a meaningful comparison of future electricity generation technologies—whether that’s nuclear, renewables, coal or gas—in the Australian context.

Related article: AEMO says renewables “the most efficient path” to net zero

GenCost will inevitably remain part of the debate around the right road for Australia to take to transition our energy system and rigorous conversation should be encouraged as a pillar of our democracy. But distortion, disparagement, and dog-whistling rejection of the scientific process or scientific organisations to justify a particular policy position, rather than discussing the merits of policies themselves, is a race to the bottom and will hurt, not help, this important debate.

As part of the public debate, GenCost will continue to face criticism, and as the chief executive of CSIRO I welcome this because when we attract scrutiny or questions, it often signals we are addressing issues of real significance to Australians.

It means we are striving to integrate science into the critical conversations that really matter for the community, the world, and the future. It means we are advocating for science and building trust in the facts.

And that is more important than ever because if we are going to overcome the profound challenges that confront us, Australians must continue to trust in science.

This op-ed was originally published in the Australian Financial Review on July 9, 2024.

The post CSIRO brings science, not politics, to electricity cost debate appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Small collections of electricity generators, or “microgrids”, have long been used in disaster recovery, when network supply falters during bushfires or cyclones.

But now the technology is being used to provide secure, 24/7 supplies of clean energy in Australian communities where connection to the main electricity grid is but a pipedream.

Sometimes owned by local communities, renewable energy microgrids are slowly replacing dirty diesel generators. Solar energy is by far the most common source of generation for these microgrids, which usually also entail energy storage such as batteries, pumped hydro or hydrogen.

New research by my colleagues and I investigated 20 microgrid feasibility projects across Australia. Our findings demonstrate the crucial role microgrids can play in the energy transition, when backed by all levels of government.

Related article: Alinga’s Ruby Heard on equity through energy

A national survey of microgrids

In Australia and around the world, many communities are attracted to renewable energy microgrids. The benefits include energy security, reliability, equity, autonomy and emissions reduction.

Above all, microgrids offer a viable alternative to the national electricity grid. They enable communities to take control of their own energy destiny through local generation and ownership.

The projects we investigated were funded by the federal government through the $50.4 million Regional and Remote Communities Reliability Fund.

Some were on the fringe of the grid, in places experiencing constant supply outages, while others were entirely off-grid. Most communities wanted to protect themselves from grid outages, access cheaper power and avoid being cut off for long periods after natural disasters.

Remote Indigenous communities sought to reduce dependence on dirty, antiquated and unreliable diesel generators. They were also concerned about the hazards of storing large amounts of fuel in the community.

Intermittent electricity supply severely limits not only cooking, cooling and refrigeration, but also the pumping and heating of water for sanitation purposes.

Through a series of semi-structured interviews, we explored each project’s drivers, barriers and opportunities.

The Marlinja microgrid is a shining example

About 60 people live in the remote Marlinja community, 700km south of Darwin in the Northern Territory. This is the traditional lands of the Mudburra and Jingili people.

In the past, especially during the wet season, the community suffered repeated power outages from the grid. These could take days to be repaired by the electricity network service provider.

Pre-paid meters exacerbated the situation, stifling access to power and water for residents due to the high kilowatt cost of electricity purchased using access cards.

Today, Marlinja is home to a grid-connected 100kW solar array and a 136kWh battery, sufficient to meet the daytime and nighttime energy needs of most residents.

The grid connection ensures continuity of supply, particularly at night if the battery reserves are exhausted.

Marlinja is the first Indigenous community-owned microgrid in Australia.

The community-focused Indigenous energy organisation Original Power developed an innovative community benefit sharing scheme, with support from NT government-owned retailer Jacana Energy.

Clean energy communities coordinator Lauren Mellor helped the community raise $750,000 from Original Power’s philanthropic networks, with some seed funding from government.

She says the microgrid will reduce energy costs in the community: “When the battery runs out, then residents will flip back onto the grid, so residents will be saving at least 70% on their power bills.”

Importantly, these savings flow directly back to residents. This ensures the benefits of the scheme are shared across the community. The NT government also saves money by burning less diesel.

However, despite strong demand for electricity from the neighbouring school and cattle stations, NT regulations currently prevent the Marlinja community from selling surplus electricity back to the grid. This is partly due to grid instability, a situation that should improve when additional battery capacity comes online.

Common obstacles to rapid rollout

The experience of the Marlinja community reflects feedback from other microgrid projects.

The main obstacles were:

• outdated regulations designed for centralised rather than distributed power generation
• the need for more government investment, to achieve critical mass and economies of scale
• the social change required, to allow communities to develop new business models and approaches to benefit sharing and ownership.

This last element ensures more of the value generated by the microgrid remains in the host communities, rather than going to distant shareholders in Australia or overseas.

This perhaps is the most exciting aspect of Marlinja. By generating a model of investment and ownership for Marlinja, Original Energy and other fellow collaborators have opened the door for other regional and remote communities.

Rather than continuing to rely on intermittent and expensive fossil fuels, they can embrace electricity generation that supports local economic development and investment, through community ownership and empowerment.

Regional communities with different motivations

Other regional communities have embraced microgrids to address different challenges.
The 2019 bushfires devastated coastal communities in southern New South Wales.

Consequently, Cobargo wants solar and storage to provide energy security and maintain essential services in the event of future unanticipated grid outages.

Yackandandah in northeast Victoria has been pursuing a similar path for more than a decade. The community wants to reduce energy costs and emissions while building greater network resilience.

The town has long been home to three community microgrids. These are collections of houses generating, storing and even sharing electricity between dwellings using solar, batteries and smart metering.

The longer term vision of this deeply engaged community is to construct a whole-of-town grid, supported by the two community-scale batteries already in place.

Related article: Here’s how to create jobs for First Nations Australians in the clean energy transition

Bring on the benefits

The rapid transition to renewable energy brings many opportunities and challenges. Much of the media coverage has focused on community concerns about the construction of energy infrastructure. Yet, the opportunity that renewables pose, to stimulate economic development and bring greater autonomy to regional and remote communities, barely rates a mention.

Microgrids provide one exciting example of where clean energy technology can deliver economic, environmental and social benefits to these communities.

Disclosure statement: Simon Wright does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons

The post Here’s how microgrids are empowering regional and remote Australian communities appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton might have been hoping for an endorsement from economists for his plan to take Australian nuclear.

He shouldn’t expect one from The Economist.

The Economist is a British weekly news magazine that has reported on economic thinking and served as a place for economists to exchange views since 1843.

By chance, just three days after Dutton announced plans for seven nuclear reactors he said would usher in a new era of economic prosperity for Australia, The Economist produced a special issue, titled Dawn of the Solar Age.

Whereas nuclear power is barely growing, and is shrinking as a proportion of global power output, The Economist reported solar power is growing so quickly it is set to become the biggest source of electricity on the planet by the mid-2030s.

By the 2040s—within this next generation—it could be the world’s largest source of energy of any kind, overtaking fossil fuels like coal and oil.

Related article: Examining the significant issues with LNP’s nuclear plan

Solar’s off-the-charts global growth

Installed solar capacity is doubling every three years, meaning it has grown tenfold in the past 10 years. The Economist says the next tenfold increase will be the equivalent of multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight, in less time than it usually takes to build one of them.

To give an idea of the standing start the industry has grown from, The Economist reports that in 2004 it took the world an entire year to install one gigawatt of solar capacity (about enough to power a small city). This year, that’s expected to happen every day.

Energy experts didn’t see it coming. The Economist includes a chart showing that every single forecast the International Energy Agency has made for the growth of the growth of solar since 2009 has been wrong. What the agency said would take 20 years happened in only six.

The forecasts closest to the mark were made by Greenpeace—“environmentalists poo-pooed for zealotry and economic illiteracy”—but even those forecasts turned out to be woefully short of what actually happened.

And the cost of solar cells has been plunging in the way that costs usually do when emerging technologies become mainstream.

The Economist describes the process this way:

As the cumulative production of a manufactured good increases, costs go down. As costs go down, demand goes up. As demand goes up, production increases—and costs go down further.

Normally, this can’t continue. In earlier energy transitions—from wood to coal, coal to oil, and oil to gas—it became increasingly expensive to find fuel.

But the main ingredient in solar cells (apart from energy) is sand, for the silicon and the glass. This is not only the case in China, which makes the bulk of the world’s solar cells, but also in India, which is short of power, blessed by sun and sand, and which is manufacturing and installing solar cells at a prodigious rate.

Solar easy, batteries more difficult

Batteries are more difficult. They are needed to make solar useful after dark and they require so-called critical minerals such as lithium, nickel and cobalt (which Australia has in abundance).

But the efficiency of batteries is soaring and the price is plummeting, meaning that on one estimate the cost of a kilowatt-hour of battery storage has fallen by 99% over the past 30 years.

In the United States, plans are being drawn up to use batteries to transport solar energy as well as store it. Why build high-voltage transmission cables when you can use train carriages full of batteries to move power from the remote sunny places that collect it to the cities that need it?

Solar’s step change

The International Energy Agency is suddenly optimistic. Its latest assessment released in January says last year saw a “step change” in renewable power, driven by China’s adoption of solar. In 2023, China installed as much solar capacity as the entire world did in 2022.

The world is on track to install more renewable capacity over the next five years than has ever been installed over the past 100 years, something the agency says still won’t be enough to get to net-zero emissions by 2050.

That would need renewables capacity to triple over the next five years, instead of more than doubling.

Oxford University energy specialist Rupert Way has modelled a “fast transition” scenario, in which the costs of solar and other new technologies keep falling as they have been rather than as the International Energy Agency expects.

He finds that by 2060, solar will be by far the world’s biggest source of energy, exceeding wind and green hydrogen and leaving nuclear with an infinitesimally tiny role.

Related article: Coal-free in 14 years as renewables rush in: new blueprint shows how to green the grid—without nuclear

In Australia, solar is pushing down prices

Australia’s energy market operator says record generation from grid-scale renewables and rooftop solar is pushing down wholesale electricity prices.

South Australia and Tasmania are the states that rely on renewables the most. They are the two states with the lowest wholesale electricity prices outside Victoria, whose prices are very low because of its reliance on brown coal.

It is price—rather than the environment—that most interests The Economist. It says when the price of something gets low people use much, much more of it.

As energy gets really copious and all but free, it will be used for things we can’t even imagine today. The Economist said to bet against that is to bet against capitalism.

Disclosure statement: Peter Martin is Economics Editor of The Conversation.

Republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons

The post Solar set to leave nuclear and everything else in the shade appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Coal will no longer be burned for power in Australia within 14 years. To replace it will require faster deployment of solar and wind, storage, new transmission lines and some firming gas capacity.

That’s a very brief summary of a large and influential document—the Integrated System Plan issued by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) every two years.

The latest version of this plan, issued on 26 June 2024, is a roadmap that shows what we need to build and where to be able to wean ourselves off burning fossil fuels for electricity.

It shows the lowest cost way to give us electricity in the future is renewable energy, connected with transmission and distribution, firmed with storage and using gas-powered generation as farmers might use a diesel generator—as a backup plan.

What about nuclear, given Peter Dutton’s pledge to build seven reactors? The plan doesn’t consider it, because nuclear power is currently not legal. But an accompanying AEMO fact sheet notes CSIRO’s GenCost report found nuclear generation to be a lot more expensive than other options:

In fact, it is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity according to GenCost [and] the time it would take to design and build nuclear generation would be too slow to replace retiring coal fired generation.

Related article: AEMO says renewables “the most efficient path” to net zero

What is this plan for?

Australia’s main grid connects eastern and southern states, where most of us live. Historically, it was built to connect cheap but polluting coal plants to large cities.

As coal plants retire, we need a different grid so we can draw renewable power from many different locations and use storage as backup.

That’s what this plan is intended to do. To create it, AEMO relies on detailed modelling and consultation across the energy sector. This brings it to what the operator calls an “optimal development path”—energy speak for the cheapest and most effective mix of electricity generation, storage and transmission, which meets our reliability and security needs while supporting emission cutting policies in the long-term interests of consumers.

One of the most important roles for the plan is to show where we need new electrical infrastructure—especially transmission lines.

The key findings of the final plan have not materially changed from the draft. But there are some changes worth noting.

Emissions reductions to the fore

In November last year, emissions reductions were formally embedded as an objective in our national electricity laws.

In March this year, the market commission issued guidelines on how to apply these changes to the objectives in various processes, including the Integrated System Plan.

There are important figures in this guidance, namely the value of emissions reduction, set at $70 per tonne today to $420 per tonne by 2050. This is not a direct carbon price. It lets us assess the value of different grid pathways in terms of cutting emissions.

AEMO calculated an extra $3.3 billion in benefits realised in the optimal development path when including this value. Including this benefit is expected to help get some transmission projects get approval.

More storage, delayed transmission

New transmission projects have also proved controversial and difficult to develop, while the New England renewable energy zone in NSW has hit substantial delays. AEMO’s draft plan envisaged this important solar and wind rich region would reach full capacity by 2028. This has blown out to 2033.

The good news? In the seven months since the draft came out, a huge amount of new storage has begun to arrive. Some 3.7GW of storage capacity (10.8GWh worth of energy) have progressed to the point it can be included in the plan.

There are signs the renewable roll-out has slowed down, due to grid congestion, approvals and the need for more transmission lines. Things are still ticking along—since the draft plan was put out for consultation in December last year, another 490MW of large-scale generation has entered the grid. This does need to speed up: the plan envisages 6GW of renewable capacity, including rooftop solar, arriving yearly.

What does it say about nuclear power?

Nothing at all. The Integrated System Plan only models technologies legal in Australia, such as black coal with carbon capture and storage. Nuclear power was banned by the Howard Coalition government in the late 1990s.

The AEMO fact sheet makes mention of nuclear to point out that it is a very expensive form of energy and would not arrive in time to replace retiring coal plants. We would need something else in the interim.

The Coalition has indicated it would support new gas-fired to ensure the electricity grid remained reliable until nuclear plants were online.

Related article: Examining the significant issues with LNP’s nuclear plan

What about ‘renewable droughts’?

To smooth out the peaks and troughs of renewable generation, we will need different firming technologies. These include storage such as batteries and pumped hydro, as well as traditional hydro, gas and other fuelled generation. Firming help manage changes in supply and demand and ensure a reliable system. Demand response—where users are rewarded to use less during peak periods—can also help ensure reliability.

AEMO’s report argues “flexible gas” generation will have to provide back-up supply during periods of what Germans call “dunkelflaute”—long periods of dark and still days during mid-winter, when solar and wind generation go missing. Flexible gas is expected to play a role for extreme peak demand, particularly in winter.

But this capacity is expected to be very rarely used. Think of “flexible gas” as you would a diesel generator—you’ve got it as a backup if needed. In the near future, a generator like this may generate just 5% of its annual potential. The emissions intensity of a grid with so little gas generation will be tiny.

Does this mean we’ll never be able to entirely banish fossil fuels? Not necessarily. Greener alternatives, such as green hydrogen or methanol, might mean we can take the last step away from burning fossil fuels for power.

Disclosure statement: Dylan McConnell’s current position is supported by the ‘Race for 2030’ Cooperative Research Centre.

Republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons

The post Coal-free in 14 years as renewables rush in: new blueprint shows how to green the grid—without nuclear appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Done well, the renewable energy transition should improve the lives of First Nations Australians. Many are looking for ways to stay on Country, use their knowledge of Country and contribute to industries that align with their values.

Large-scale renewable energy projects and mines for critical minerals are often sited on lands with First Nations legal rights. Access arrangements should provide direct benefits to communities.

The clean energy sector also promises new employment opportunities in regional and remote areas.

We examined the barriers to increasing First Nations employment in clean energy, as well as the opportunities and solutions. Our new report, released today, makes 12 recommendations based on data analysis, modelling, interviews and workshops.

Here’s how industry, government, educators and First Nations communities can create jobs and fulfilling careers in clean energy.

Related article: Alinga’s Ruby Heard on equity through energy

Closing the gap

There is a large, persistent gap between employment rates for First Nations Australians and non-Indigenous Australians.

About half of all First Nations Australians are employed. Compare that to almost two in three people in the wider population.

In September 2023, the Commonwealth government’s employment white paper noted the gap has “not closed notably” over the past 30 years. That’s despite waves of regional development including mining booms. Unfortunately, those First Nations people who do enter the workforce also often become stuck in short-term, low-paid casual roles.

Currently, relatively low numbers of First Nations Australians are working in clean energy.
Systemic disadvantage limits the opportunities available to First Nations Australians, particularly those living in regional and remote Australia.

Low literacy, numeracy and computer skills, poor access to relevant training, social and health issues, and a lack of transport to work and training are some of the main barriers.

Opportunities in renewable energy zones

Clusters of large-scale renewable energy projects are being developed in “renewable energy zones” across Australia.

On average, First Nation Australians make up a higher proportion of the population in renewable energy zones (6.2%) than Australia as a whole (3.8%).

This is especially true in major zones such as New England (9.4%) and Central-West Orana (12.7%) in New South Wales.

We investigated the scope for First Nations employment in renewable energy zones across South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, NSW and Queensland.

We found three main groups of First Nations people could potentially find work in the renewable energy zones:

1. Other workers in key occupations

First Nations Australians are working in other sectors in occupations also in demand for renewable energy projects. The number of these workers equates to around 5–10% of the projected workforce in most renewable energy zones.

However, our analysis of census data found existing workers are concentrated in a handful of lower-skill occupations, such as truck drivers and construction labourers. Currently, there are few First Nations workers with the right skills. For example, just 87 electricians identify as First Nations Australians across all the renewable energy zones we examined.

2. School students

Based on census data, more than half the First Nations people in renewable energy zones are aged under 19. Programs that create awareness and interest in the renewable energy sector and build training pathways for students into renewables should be a priority.

3. Unemployed people and those not in the workforce

A handful of solar farms have hired First Nations people who were unemployed—usually in entry-level positions such as assembling solar panels, cleaning or traffic control.

Avonlie solar farm in Narrandera, NSW, hired 30 First Nations workers after putting them through pre-employment training. About 90% have gone on to other jobs afterwards. The social impact was transformational for a community with multiple generations of families who have never worked.

These projects are rare now, but this approach could be adopted elsewhere.

Our analysis shows First Nations employment targets of 5-10% in the renewable energy zones are currently challenging, but possible over time—especially if industry and government programs are implemented to create training and employment opportunities.

Related article: First Nations people must be at the forefront of Australia’s renewable energy revolution

A 12-point plan for more First Nations jobs in clean energy

Training programs without concrete commitments from industry to providing a job at the end of it often become “training for training’s sake”. We found deep cynicism among First Nations people about whether the renewables sector would really deliver jobs for them.

Mandated employment targets can create demand for First Nations workers. But for industry to meet the targets requires having enough people with the right skills.
Our 12-point plan recommends a mix of “supply” measures (such as training) and “demand” measures (industry job commitments), such as:

• mandatory First Nations employment targets for solar farms combined with pre-employment programs to create a pipeline of candidates. Solar farm jobs are short-term (four to six months) but they can leave a positive legacy if they offer a way out of unemployment
• a coordinated program with wind farm operators for First Nations mechanical technicians to maintain turbines over their 20-year operating lifetime, to ease skills shortages and create long-term jobs on Country
• combining First Nations employment requirements in tenders for companies delivering Indigenous housing retrofits with training programs to create a pipeline of students for apprenticeships in key trades
• clean energy cadet programs that include commitments to a 10-year intake of First Nations students as cadets for university-qualified jobs, with government funding for specialist providers such as CareerTrackers to create, mentor and support a pipeline of students
• funding to help First Nations organisations engage with the clean energy sector, governments and other groups such as training bodies
• creating culturally safe workplaces in the renewable energy sector that provide career paths for First Nations Australians. This should include a focus on the development of cultural competency as well as internal policies that accommodate First Nations cultural obligations.

The long stagnation in First Nations employment rates across the past three decades highlights the challenges involved.

However, a First Nations clean energy jobs plan developed and implemented by industry, government and First Nations communities is essential if we are to ensure renewable energy delivers jobs for First Nations Australians—and breaks with the past.

Disclosure statement: The Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Study received funding from the First Nations Clean Energy Network to produce the report upon which this article is based. The report was produced by ISF, SGS Economics, Alinga Energy Consulting and Indigenous Energy Australia. Ruby Heard is a descendant of the Jaru people of the Kimberley, an electrical engineer and founding director of Alinga Energy Consulting. She receives funding from the Regional and Remote Communities Reliability Fund, and Energy Consumers Australia. She is a member of the First Nations Clean Energy Network Steering Committee.

Republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons

The post Here’s how to create jobs for First Nations Australians in the clean energy transition appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

An area 20km off the Illawarra coast south of Sydney has become Australia’s fourth offshore wind energy zone. It’s the most controversial zone to date, with consultation attracting a record 14,211 submissions—of which 65% were opposed.

The zone’s declaration has inflamed fierce debate over the pathway to decarbonisation, particularly in industrial regions. The Illawarra hosts heavy industries such as Australia’s largest steel manufacturer, BlueScope Steel.

In response to the announcement, National Party Leader David Littleproud declared Australia doesn’t need “large-scale industrial windfarms”. He argues the focus should instead be on household solar and battery storage.

So what is the role of offshore wind in our future energy mix? Here we argue offshore wind energy has three main advantages: scale, availability and proximity. It’s just what Australia needs.

Related article: Illawarra declared Australia’s fourth offshore wind zone

1. Scale

Offshore wind has substantial energy-production potential. A single 100-turbine project is capable of generating up to 1.5GW of energy and the Illawarra zone could contain two projects (2.9GW).

To put this in perspective, Eraring, Australia’s largest coal-fired power station near Lake Macquarie in New South Wales, also produces 2.9GW.

Because offshore wind is more consistent than either onshore wind or rooftop solar, it is the most practical way to provide time-sensitive renewable energy grid security for large energy users.

This high-capacity, consistent energy source is particularly crucial for Australia’s industrial decarbonisation efforts. BlueScope Steel, for example, estimates it will need approximately 15 times its current energy consumption to transition to green steel-making operations in the Illawarra region.

2. Availability

Offshore wind blows more consistently than onshore wind. We can quantify this by comparing so-called “capacity factors”.

The capacity factor is the actual output of a power station over a given period of time, divided by the theoretical power that could be generated if the plant operated at full output for the same period of time.

Onshore wind has a capacity factor of 30%, meaning 1GW of onshore wind farms can be relied upon to deliver 0.3GW of output at any time.

Offshore wind has a capacity factor of at least 50%.

For reference, coal plants in Australia, due to their age and condition, have a capacity factor of 60% and this falls further every year.

It is a common myth that coal is reliable. The reliability of Australian coal fired generators is currently at an all time low and falling.

The Coalition’s plan for nuclear power plants might look like an alternative answer to the energy availability challenge. But the plan relies on coal in the meantime and coal-fired power plants have a limited lifespan. It’s highly unlikely those nuclear power stations could be built in time to take over from coal.

The International Atomic Energy Agency publishes a step-by-step guide to going nuclear. This internationally recognised manual says it takes 10–15 years for a country to go from initial consideration of the nuclear power option to operation of its first nuclear power plant.

So, the first big problem with nuclear in Australia is, how do we ensure we have reliable power for the five to ten year gap between when most of the coal exits and the first nuclear power plant could possibly be commissioned?

3. Proximity

Most of Australia’s population and industry is near the east coast. Placing electricity generation near to where it is needed is more efficient. It also avoids having to construct many kilometres of new overhead electricity transmission lines to connect onshore wind farms far inland.

Australia is leading the world in the uptake of home solar panels and batteries. This is definitely worthwhile. But contrary to Littleproud’s suggestion, it’s not the whole solution to Australia’s decarbonisation effort. For example, it won’t solve the problem of the need to electrify heavy industry.

BlueScope has stated that to decarbonise its current steel-making operations, it will need 15 times more electricity. This is the equivalent of the solar exported by a staggering 3.6 million homes—more than one-third of the total number of homes connected to the National Electricity Market.

Putting this into perspective, the Illawarra region has 130,000 homes. By our calculations, the BlueScope steelworks currently uses the same amount of electricity each day as the total solar exported by 240,000 homes—assuming generous export of 10kWh per home and Bluescope’s daily use of 240,000kWh of energy.

Even if the Illawarra had enough homes exporting solar power to electrify BlueScope’s operations, getting this electricity to where it’s needed is technically impossible. Home solar systems are connected to the lowest capacity part of the energy grid—the wires in the street. We simply don’t have the capacity to move gigawatts of power from rooftop solar to large energy users such as steel and aluminium plants.

Australia needs large-scale energy, including wind

Australia needs large-scale electricity generation. The Coalition has recognised this, and is now promoting large nuclear power plants as well as small modular reactors.

The clean energy transition requires multiple renewable energy sources to meet different needs. There is no “one size fits all” solution—and there is clearly an important role for offshore wind in this mix.

We can expect to see Australia’s first offshore wind farms operating in Victoria’s Gippsland by the end of the decade.

The Coalition remains committed to the Gippsland project. But it has signalled its intention to scrap proposed offshore wind zones in the Illawarra and Hunter, if elected.

This decision would have flow-on effects. An industry is emerging around the pipeline of potential wind energy projects. The latest announcement will almost certainly heighten tensions surrounding the already bitter debates raging in our communities.

Related article: China installs world-first 18MW offshore wind turbine

Navigating the contested waters of offshore wind

It is common for the media and politicians to frame energy debates as a blunt binary of support versus opposition for different options, such as offshore wind. Yet genuine progress requires respectful dialogue and a commitment to finding common ground.

For the Illawarra, we argue much greater attention must be paid to the methods, models and outcomes of community engagement. We need to involve the community in constructive conversations about the nature, scale and scope of our future energy mix, which may include offshore wind.

Independent scientific research can provide the evidence base for such crucial decisions about the future of our communities and industries.

Disclosure statement: Ty Christopher is currently leading a project which has received funding from the Commonwealth government to establish an Energy Futures Skills Centre at the University of Wollongong in partnership with NSW TAFE. He also provides strategic advice to government departments and private sector companies on clean energy matters as a private consultant. Michelle Voyer has led a number of projects that have received funding from the Commonwealth government and the NSW state government, including the Australian Research Council and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, as well as the United Nations Environment Program and the Nippon Foundation. Michelle also receives philanthropic funding support through the Keira Endowed Chair in Energy Futures at the University of Wollongong. The Keira Endowed Chair funding is otherwise unencumbered with respect to the nature and/or direction of the research pursued and as such does not constitute an actual conflict of interest with any current or future projects.

Republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons

The post Australia needs large-scale energy production—here are three reasons why offshore wind is a good fit appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

When you graph electricity demand in power grids with lots of solar panels, it looks a bit like a duck, with high points in the morning and evening (when people are relying on the grid) and a big dip in the middle of the day (when many people use their own solar instead and need less from the grid). This is known as the “duck curve”. While it sounds cute, it’s become a significant challenge for energy utilities worldwide.

That’s because solar stops supplying power to the grid just before the evening surge in demand, when people get home from work. That puts more strain on the grid, and props up the case for the fossil fuel generators, creating economic challenges for utilities.

In the United States, California is showing there is a clear solution—use grid-scale batteries to store excess solar power for use later that evening.

This year, the Golden State has enough battery storage to begin pushing gas out of the grid in the evenings.

This should embolden Australian authorities, who have begun building large-scale battery storage to soak up cheap solar.

Related article: Germany’s RWE to build Australia’s first eight-hour battery

What does California’s experience show us?

Authorities in California have been wrestling with the duck curve for years. The state is an economic giant—the fifth largest economy in the world—and has one of the world’s largest state grids, with a large and mature solar market.

In 2019, large-scale batteries started appearing in California’s grid. The sector has seen tremendous growth, soaring 1,250% in five years, from 770 million watts to 10 billion watts). We can now see the results. The famous duck curve is being reshaped. Abundant solar is being shifted to the evening peak.

Solar and batteries are a natural fit. Pairing them offers a win-win model for future energy grids, turning cheap but time-limited electricity from solar into a much more versatile commodity: electricity on demand.

For two hours on one evening this April, batteries set a new record, becoming the largest source of power on the grid by discharging about 6.7 billion watts of power.

What can Australia learn?

California’s rapid scaling of utility-scale battery storage is due to ambitious procurement mandates and a market structure permitting batteries to help meet energy needs. Utility-scale battery storage in the US is concentrated in Texas and California, with some form of energy storage policies adopted in another 16 states.

The state’s rapid ramp-up of battery storage is a good sign for Australia. With large solar farms and millions of rooftop solar arrays, Australian energy market operators have become familiar with the duck curve.

Last year, renewables supplied close to 40% of power to our main grid, the National Energy Market, covering eastern and southern states, and Western Australia’s largest grid, the South West Integrated System. Ten major coal-fired power stations have retired in the last decade.

At the end of 2023, Australia had 2,600 million watts of utility-scale battery storage. But there’s a lot more in the wings—11 billion watts are under construction.

Even so, more has to be done. Australia’s market operator forecasts 20% of renewable energy production will be spilled or curtailed—that is, not make it to the grid—by 2050.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Timing is going to be crucial. We need new generation, storage and backup capacity in place before more coal plants can be retired.

How much storage is enough?

Cleaning up the electric grid is a huge job. We will need a lot of energy storage, which can be provided by batteries, pumped hydro and even abandoned mineshafts. Grid batteries have the advantage of being here, now. You can install them in a matter of weeks. By contrast, building new pumped hydro will take years.

If we overestimate the role of energy storage, we risk destabilising the grid. But if we underestimate it, we could slow investment and delay the shift to clean energy.

As California is demonstrating, battery storage can play a significant role in grid reliability by balancing supply and demand fluctuations and providing backup power during outages, while also integrating intermittent renewable energy sources effectively. But it’s no silver bullet—it has inherent limitations.

Assessing storage capacity is complicated by its finite nature, with duration a key factor determining its capacity contribution. Home batteries provide up to two hours of dispatchable energy, meaning discharging at their maximum power capacity. For grid-scale installations, shallow storage offers up to 4 hours, medium storage four to 12 hours, and deep storage over 12 hours.

Adding big batteries isn’t as simple as plugging one in and charging it from the sun. They make it easier to bring more renewable power into the grid by soaking up solar or wind which might have otherwise not been used. But their value to the grid can change significantly depending on where you place it and the time of day.

To maximise their use, we could, for instance, build large batteries in regions rich in renewables and make the most of scarce capacity on transmission lines or build them near areas with high energy demand to help manage peak demand by boosting network capacity.

California requires energy storage systems to provide full power for at least four hours. But in Australia, most large batteries can only last 2 hours or less, as they are designed to meet short-term energy needs.

Related article: It’s system strength, stupid!

This is beginning to change, with growing interest in longer-lasting storage to boost long-term grid reliability. Deep storage projects planned or under way in Australia’s National Electricity Market include Snowy 2.0, which would have seven days of storage supply.

New South Wales and Western Australia are accelerating the rollout of longer duration grid batteries, such as NSW’s Richmond Valley Battery Energy Storage System (eight hours duration) and WA’s Tesla-Neoen battery (four hours).

Over the next few years, we can expect to see demand soar for longer-duration electricity storage. Once built, these batteries and other technologies will help Australia, too, banish the duck curve.

Authorities need to set clear timelines for fossil fuel plant closure and invest in new power sources to replace it, as well as boosting storage.

Disclosure statement: Asma Aziz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons

The post Big batteries are solving a longstanding problem with solar power in California. Can they do the same for Australia? appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.

Australian Energy Week congress featured an important plenary session, with some significant takeouts. In general, climate activism notwithstanding, there was clear message: commercial realism has to temper the community’s desire for progress in cheaper energy and the Government’s desire to stick to its COP commitments.

AEMO‘s Daniel Westerman announced a significant and welcome change to the integrated systems plan for 2026. The new ISP will introduce locations where generation sources can be developed, and will indicate expected energy losses on transmission lines. The ISP will also specify the use of gas-fired generation and the increasing importance of customer based energy resources (CER). The current energy statement of opportunities (ESOO) indicates a strong need for storage in addition to 6GW of new capacity added in the past 12 months. Westerman stressed the necessity of gas fired generation in the south eastern winter energy mix. When questioned by the ABC’s Dan Ziffer, Westerman was very clear that Australia’s green energy transition required certainty; “investors will not just hang around”. Serious challenges impeding a businesslike and therefore effective transition to renewable energy sources to meet the 2030 82% target, set much of the tone of the plenary sessions.

Related article: Australian Energy Week: the dichotomy exposed

Questions rather than solutions raised by a variety of presenters ranging from regulatory to network operating and construction, and legal and information technology, presented a faltering transition. Carbon emission reduction as a single issue is blinding us to the cost effectiveness of removing the “last 10% of emissions” from otherwise economical renewable energy source solutions according to Matthew Warren, Principal at Boardroom Energy. The panel discussion which was moderated by Mark Patterson of Energy Catalyst raised issues including renewable policies being subjected to public opinion, a lack of discipline in planning, letting consumers choose what they want (like 30kW solar) and having excessive intrusion of public opinion in policy formation.

Sobering views expressed by David Ryan of Herbert Smith Freehills raised uncertainty caused by differing agendas of Federal and State policies. According to him the National Electricity Rules are not fit for purpose. States are using their own powers to create regimes for transmission planning and approvals, cost recovery, access schemes and generator connection. Private capital is essential but is stymied by barriers that the government should remove, in particular in regard to social licence, land acquisition and finding solutions to key project gap risks. Major impediments mentioned by Ryan included a lack of clarity in biodiversity requirements. This has seen to a treacle like approval process for wind farms. It seems that much of this can be summed up as ‘renewables are good, but not in my backyard’. Highlighted areas included capacity constraints, slow connection approvals, and that consideration should be given to alternate transmission line construction, for example a PPP-style model as used by the NSW government for REZ infrastructure. Commercially, bankability of projects requires long-term offtake agreements and this is affecting offshore wind and pumped hydro schemes.

AEMO’s 2026 ISP currently in progress will include specified locations for new generation in order to provide realistic guidance for capital investment. This appears to gel well with above comments. However, referring to the above panel discussions, the role of consumer energy resources (CER), although to be given a new scope as mentioned by Westerman, lacks specifics as to how it would operate in the overall transmission space.

Victor Finkel, of McKinsey Consulting pointed out that domestic solar is one bright spot in Australia’s energy landscape, “whereas the gas needle has not moved” and utilities being reluctant investors. Stephanie Unwin of Horizon Power stressed the importance of CER in distribution grids. She was a panellist in a panel including Rik de Buyserie of ENGIE, Guy Chalkley of Endeavour, and Brett Redman of Transgrid. Redman worried aloud about the slow investment in transmission infrastructure, a clear lack in project coordination as well as technical security issues. Contrary to the view that one can’t lose in transmission investment, Redman indicated that performance is below that in super funds. De Buyserie took issue with the very slow project approval processes and summed this up as “everyone wants renewables but not in my backyard”.

Anna Collyer of the AEMC accented the role of CER and smart meters in the energy transition. She stated “consumers are the hero in the road to net zero, but no hero walks alone”. She made particular reference to flexible CER market participation, for example by way of VPP. Justin Oliver of the AER rumbled worry stones about the oligarchic nature of transmission infrastructure and the need to strictly control network costs. He made mention of the increasing capital needs of distribution networks as they are being increasingly challenged by EV and batteries. He sees the big challenge in the renewable transition as shifting consumer demand although he thinks that many retailers will still shield customers from demand driven price variations.

Damien Nicks of AGL, who made a solo presentation expressed a strong note of optimism, mentioning that his company has 12GW of projects in the pipeline with 5.8 GW committed. Nicks stressed the importance of the energy contribution of AGL’s 4.5 million customers who generate 30% of the energy requirement, and the importance of V2G in the future, referring to the contribution made by vehicle batteries in the UK, where some 200,000 customers are involved. Interestingly, Nicks made little of the generally held view that coal-fired base load is inflexible, noting that Bayswater flexes between 30 and 70% of capacity.

Mark Collett of Energy Australia seemed less upbeat. Energy Australia has 1.6 million customers. Collett points to slow project approval processes. VRE projects are not coming on line fast enough and transmission projects are lagging behind. Furthermore returns on VRE are too low at 5% and require the intervention of government in order to boost investment. Collett accented the essential role of gas in the energy mix.

Gas is often cast in the role of bête noir, and in a panel discussion led by Telstra’s Ben Burge, the role of gas in a hypothetical example of an environmentally responsible company wishing to reduce its CO2 imprint on the planet was made eloquently. The aim of a carbon footprint reduction must answer to commercial realism. The theoretical case presented sketched a limited land area available in addition to roof area for the generation of solar electricity. Various scenarios presented including availability of surplus electrical energy from a neighbouring property with the aim of balancing internal rates of return against CO2 reduction. Complementing electricity shortfall with gas energy presented the best trade-off. Although playful in style, the seriousness of commercial realism rather than purist notions was made very plain.

Related article: Fibs about the renewables transition—and the cost of energy

Victor Finkel from McKinsey also stressed the importance of gas although the heavy lifting in the energy transition would be done by electricity, the more so because of conversion of many industrial processes to electrical energy. His company foresees Australia’s future in steel making, replacing coking coal with electrical energy and hydrogen.

No plenary session would be complete without a reference to AI, and more broadly without information system technology. The increasing complexity of dynamic distribution networks lends itself as suitable testbed. Unsurprisingly Amazon has entered this arena. Damien Buie of Amazon’s AWS company described an information system and complementary AI such as UK-based Octopus Energy’s Kraken platform covering some 40 million accounts and integrating with distribution SCADA. Buie’s presentation was echoed by Arun Biswa of IBM.

To conclude: this plenary session can be regarded in the light of ‘sleepers, awake!’ Our resources of wind and solar, notwithstanding, the general takeout has to be that a far more integrated, holistic approach is required for our renewable transition, free from political or carbonless ideation.

The post Takeaways from Australian Energy Week 2024 appeared first on Energy Source & Distribution.