Wind like Spain? It's a no-brainer
Wind power has the support of the majority of Australians, so it's painful to hear a small minority, most of them backed by fossil fuel interests, undermining one of the great universally available energy sources to power the world out to 2100. It is telling that the technology has very few detractors in those countries that aren't big net fossil fuel exporters.
As of this year, Spain has 20,000 wind turbines. If these were transplanted to Australia they would easily power our biggest state. That’s because wind turbines in Australia produce twice as much electricity as those installed in Spain, due to our superior resource.
With over 21,000MW capacity installed, Spain is 18 per cent wind powered and, with annual electricity demand the same as Australia's, is doubling their wind capacity by 2020. It's still full steam ahead on Spain's renewables program, despite a housing boom/bust that has sent their economy into a tailspin and caused over a million construction workers to lose their jobs.
Spain enjoys lower wholesale energy prices thanks to wind power, due to the merit order effect. Wind power significantly drives down electricity prices – and Australians, in 2011, are still missing out on the benefits of the price-lowering effect that large-scale wind deployments can deliver.
Using a fleet of modern Enercon E-125 or Siemens 6MW wind turbines, for the same installed capacity we would generate twice the amount of annual electricity generated, and we'd get twice the annual contribution of wind to our electricity mix. In other words we'd be on 35 per cent renewable electricity today.
It's a no brainer; to achieve the same amount of electricity as Spain from wind would come at a 75 per cent discount to what the Spanish have invested. That's because of the combination of "buy one get one free" – our wind resource generates twice as much as theirs and we're starting in 2011, 15-20 years after the Danes, Spanish and Germans who have done the heavy lifting and got the technology down the cost curve. Add to that the bonus that comes from the much cheaper turbines coming out of China exerting downward pressure on European turbine prices and you have a very cheap, well tested renewable resource. Time to get on with the job.
I’d hate to call it bludging, but we are also benefiting from the heavy lifting of countries like Denmark, Germany and Spain through their deployment programs to date. These European leaders have really got wind turbines (along with other renewable technologies) down the cost curve through the optimum combination of deployment – learning through doing and public and private research and development.
Many of Spain's turbines are older models. The new ones are more efficient, taking up as much as a third less space on the ground than much of the fleet in Spain, leaving more area for existing uses such as cropping. Australia, with 15 times the land area, and a huge choice on wind resource, could achieve 50 per cent wind with as few as 7,000 modern turbines. Or, with the same installed capacity as Spain, we would be getting 40 per cent of our electricity from wind and at a 75 per cent discount.
The potential for Australian wind doesn't stop there. Spain is on target to double their wind capacity to 35 per cent by 2020. With a practical near-term target like that we know that Australia could easily be getting 50 per cent of our energy from wind in a similar timeframe, with our combination of favourable conditions, less turbines, better sites, twice the output, half the cost, much bigger land area, better opportunities geographical distribution leading to better meteorological diversity, as well as much lower density of population and easier to access sites.
But Spain will actually have enough wind turbines to produce 70 per cent of our electricity by 2020. So what would happen if we installed that much capacity of wind here? Studies have already been done that give us an idea: they show that in the UK and Denmark, with 40 per cent penetration, 4 per cent of wind is actively curtailed and at 50 per cent, 7 per cent is to be curtailed.
That is, if we install wind turbines across the grid with an annual capacity factor so they are able, theoretically, to deliver 54 per cent of our electricity, due to a number of hours of oversupply and some transmission constraints, 7 per cent active curtailment would mean that 50 per cent of our energy would actually come from wind.
This is a wonderful thing to do and is economically and technically achievable today. Although the economics would probably stop us, we could even go to 60 per cent wind, but we would likely see a lot more active curtailment, increasing the average cost per unit delivered to the grid.
A feed-in tariff would get the job done, or at least a doubling of the Large-Scale Renewable Energy Certificate program, with much higher penalties for elecricity generators, who may be tempted under the current scheme to simply not commission wind projects and pay the penalty instead. Let’s make the 21st century renewable leap to 50 per cent wind power by 2020, at 8,000 turbines – that’s less than 1,000 turbines per year. By comparison the CSG industry wants to drill as much as 100,000 wells in Queensland - that’s over 10,000 wells per year.
To get half our electricity from wind it would be necessary to account for the cost of upgrading the grid and extending the grid to access new, additional, windy locations. This is something that is being done in the US, Canada, South America, China and all over Europe.
Let's modernise Australia's grid as well, Siemens and ABB are both active here and ready to deliver a modern national electricity supply system based on a HVDC backbone, and Texas-style dual redundant transmission rings bringing in wind power from dozens of new wind parks.
Matthew Wright is executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions
The Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan was released in 2010 and will be significantly updated in 2012. In the meantime we'll be releasing the ZCA Buildings and Transport plans.
Comments on this article
Wind turbines are NOT quiet
Dear Matthew,
I see that you have high esteem for Professor Wittert, and don't seem that interested in contacting me to hear what I hear 35km for the closest turbines - never mind what the animals and insects feel!
I have been working in the area of health, and have been doing so for 15 years and know much better than you or Professor Wittert what goes on in the real world and how the PBS statistics correlate with reality.
Your contempt of my professional standing and knowledge and expertise is insulting. Yes, pharmacists dish out many non-prescription sedatives. Customers and doctors prefer them because they safer and non-addictive. But you aren't aware of the limited clinical roles that pharmacists assume do you? We are not just box labellers!
I look forward to the day that Professor Wittert publishes his findings: it might be the most embarassing day of his career - and one more proven attempt of the wind industry to mask an emerging rural health crisis and the environmental disaster these turbines are causing.
RE: Wind Turbines are quiet REPLY George Papadopoulos
George,
Pharmacists do not prescribe serious sleeping tablets they are schedule 4 drugs. Professor Wittert has the credentials to run research teams that discover cures. With all due respect (which you did not give Professor Wittert) pharmacists are shop attendants who do a final check to make sure overworked doctors haven't made a mistake.
Also I know of lots of people who take sleeping drugs because of noise on airplanes, living next to train lines, main roads and with screaming babies. People take sleeping drugs for many reasons that are a good use and not so good use of the drug.
On the study of wind noise, I will go with the conclusions of medical professors who find cures to diseases like cancer, not a pharmacist,
Professor Wittert is an emminent professor of medicine with an outstanding research and academic career.
Please cite your sources that contradict what he is saying (if any). Apart from your own anti wind coloured views.
Wind Turbine Noise
Dear Trent,
I don’t know your background so it is difficult to determine your understanding of this matter.
I am a little at loss about your claims that “the truth is that real scientists and medical professionals have already done much of the research needed”. Do you mean those funded by and employed by wind industry sources? Or do you mean imaginary scientists and medical professionals that don’t exist?
Did you read the NHMRC 2010 statements carefully? Professor Anderson of the NHMRC pointed out to the recent Senate Enquiry that the NHMRC didn’t have any concrete information to assess. The NHMRC position reflects one where there is a lack of good evidence either proving the argument for and against. Thus the NHMRC has recommended that governments follow the “precautionary principle” which means that governments shouldn’t experiment with people health!
In regards to seeing something, yes, it helps identify the source of noise. The problem in my case it took me five months to work it out, because I couldn’t see what was going on down the horizon, the trees being in the way.
Lastly I can bluntly state the fact that Wittert’s study is not worth the paper it is written on. I have not once in my professional life encountered a person requesting sleeping tablets because they have a noisy neighbour. If a person can’t sleep because the issue is noise nuisance, they get try to resolve the nuisance, not their own body’s response to it.
Wind turbine noise
George there are many scientific papers that show wind turbine sound has reduced over time as technology has developed.
Pederson et al, 2009 showed a clear correlation between perception of sound and opinion on wind turbine's visibility as well as other things. This shows that annoyance is subjectively driven, a fact which has been stated repeatedly by a number of research overviews.
The National Health and Medical Research Council found on the basis of existing peer reviewed studies that "sound from wind turbines does not pose a risk of hearing loss or any other adverse health effects in humans. Sub‐audible, low frequency sounds and infrasound from wind turbines do not present a risk to human health.”
See here: www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/evidence_review...
You argue that people wouldn't "think laterally about health problems", so take the people's subjectivity out of the equation.
Research has been done in South Australia around wind farms using PBS data to determine if people living near wind farms were taking more prescription medication than those living away from them. The study found there was no difference. Professor Gary Wittert led the research, who is the head of Medicine at University of Adelaide.
So whilst you can claim that much of the discourse on wind farm noise is driven by anecdotal evidence, the truth is that real scientists and medical professionals have already done much of the research needed. As a consequence of these studies there is a consensus in the medical profession that wind turbines do not cause health problems.
RE: Environment &e Industrial Wind turbine Reply
Dear Matthew,
Pederson et al have done some interesting work over the years, and their recent papers highlight some of the alarming problems the newer larger wind turbines a creating in terms of noise and nuisane.
The issue that frustrates me most is the personal experience report. Yes I can go out and stand 300m away from a wind turbine at Cullerin range and confirm I hear no noise. Yet one kilometre walk down the ridge reveals a hilarious sound - much like war planes diving to bomb - but no so hilarious for those who must put up with it.
This is why the controversy of turbines is so unrelenting: people report their personal experience. They must however listen and investigate the nature of the complaint raised by the suffering individual. Recently I have personally gone to a house of someone who complained of headache, noise, tinnitus and the works. The noise wasn't aubidle to me, but my ears felt painful, like I was being bombarded with the worst industrial noise.
Terrain plains a major role as to whether wind turbines will create problems, so do wind speeds, so do social attitudes.
Many customers will present to a pharmacy with heart burn seeking a bandaid solution and don't think of causes and wholistic solutions.
The same goes with wind turbines. People in the first instance won't think laterally about health problems, particularly those who are hosting them, and refuse to believe that they have signed up into a bad deal.
RE: Spanish Power Prices? Reply David Pethick
David,
A retail electricity customer in Spain who gets over 20% of their electricity from new renewables wind and solar (18% from wind alone) pays just EUR 0.1839 kWh or AUD 24cents per kWh. Which is pretty good for a country with virtually no fossil fuels.
In most states of Australia we're in for similar prices.
Most of the comparisons that show Australia leading come out of Origin, AGL, Koch brothers affiliates such as the IPA or ACIL Tasman who get their money from the polluters.
You need to consier who paid the piper? Who commissioned the report.
Did they take into account that a household in Spain uses half the electricity of a household in Australia? Every building, bus, every piece of glass in Spain is fitted double glaze for instance. They are very efficient and pay less for their energy service than we do because they use a lot less for the same comfort or industrial output. (Not that we have much of that left as they've all become victims or soon to be victims of the mining boom)
Spanish Power Prices?
Interesting article. I'd be interested to see some facts to back up the statement...
"Spain enjoys lower wholesale energy prices thanks to wind power, due to the merit order effect. Wind power significantly drives down electricity prices..."
I've seen a few comparisons over the years of energy costs in Australia vs other countries. None have suggested that Spanish power, delivered to the consumer and inclusive of all direct and indirect costs, is cheaper than Australian power.
RE: Generation efficiency - not capacity REPLY Matt Robinson
Matt please read the actual article. I was not talking about capacity. I was talking about annual delivered or annual contribution to the electricity demand of Spain and Australia respectively.
Spain gets 18% of its electricity from Wind Power today on annual basis and will get 35% by 2020.
Australia if it had Spain's base of installed wind capacity would be getting over 35% of ANNUAL electricity from wind power today.
Please reread the article to understand better. If you are still denying this please produce a source. Because my sources are Red Electrica the Spainsh grid operator, Reuters, the Spanish government and the EU.
And in Australia according to Industry, the Grid operator and the government our wind sites are getting around 35% capacity factor. In Tasmania sites are getting over 40% annual capacity factor and in Geraldton a wind gar gets over 50% annual capacity factor.
All the Wind Farms in New Zealand get over 50% capacity factor. Where as in Europe they tend to average 20%.
Please get your facts straight, and if you want to argue please produce a relevant, credible source.
RE: Environment &e Industrial Wind turbine Reply: George Papadop
George,
Spain has 10 times Australia's installed wind capacity and twice the population packed into a geographical area that is one fifteenth the size of Australia.
They do not have a loud vocal anti-wind minority and the simple answer to why that is the case is because they do not have a huge powerful fossil fuel industry with reigns on government.
Wind Turbines are completely reversible (reuse, recycle) and enviornmentally friendly.
No respected peer reviewed journal is citing health effects from wind turbines. Someone not liking the site of a wind turbine or being jealous of a neighbour for being paid for them does not constitute a health affect.
I have stayed by a wind turbine for 2 weeks running and there is no effect. Denmark has over 3000 turbines Spain has just under 20,000. The noise you cannot here is not real.
Denmark is the biggest dairying country in Europe, has 3000 turbines and dairy output has gone up since they were introduced. Denmark is also one fifth the size of Victoria.
George, please contact me so I can investigate your claims would be happy to come and visit.
Solar Thermal w/storage + Wind Power + Solar Photovoltaic are commercially available and are the answer to a 100% renewable energy supply system that we must get going on right away.
MWright offers poor risk reward option Part #2 RE alistair clark
$200 a barrel oil is not me but Goldman Sachs. The guy who predicted oil above $100 a barrel in 2007 / 08. search google for Murti.
We are not advocating $60 Billion per annum for Molten Salt Storage. We are advocating $37 Billion per annum for Molten Salt Power Towers with storage + Wind + Solar PV.
$37 Billion per year is what we spend on importing cars each year. Not a lot of Australian economic activity there.
MWright offers poor risk reward option Part #1 RE alistair clark
Alistair,
#1 "Cost of reduction is a key factor in sustainability" Great point, that's why we're proposing rapid deployments of reneawbles to get them down the cost curve. 5 Billion of the world's people are going to be looking to a power source like ours and we want them to take the shortcut to renewables not the diversion via fossil fuels. Every Megawatt installed makes the next Megawatt cheaper.
This is the opposite to fossil fuels, where more deployment equals more combustion results in even tighter supplies of diminishing resource.
#2 We're not playing around with future capital investments, we're saying we need a plan, we actually need to know what we're going to do. The problem with low targets (They do not meet the science of what is required which is the point of why you're doing this) and broad based economic mechanisms is that they look for the next cheapest tonne of reduction rather than looking at what the cheapest option is over 20,30 or 40 years of abatement. If you look to the longer term deploying 100 Billion worth of gas plants and paying for their fuel is much more expensive, that getting on with the job and going wind now.
And given that it will be 75% cheaper to do it from now in Australia than Spain it is time to get going.
RE: You are advocating bludging again PART #2 Reply J Cooper
I can run the house if I choose to on batteries only. This is a silly straw man argument. If it's cheaper to group together and build Solar Thermal w/storage and pumped hydro storage dam, and deploy diverse integrated renweables then I would op for that as would any rational person.
7. I have a 1976 Chrysler - very low embodied energy, does less than 7,000km per year. Will be replaced with a Leaf in a year or two when I can get my hands on one. My parents have the prius - which has brought down the cost and forward research and development of future electric cars.
I do not bludge, if your net contribution is equal to or greater than your net benefit when divided over the apt and able people of the world then you are even.
This is not about you or I personally this is about getting on with the job of deploying renewable energy which we could afford to do with a incentive level 3 or 4 times what is required. So lets do it J Cooper.
I would say my contribution would be reasonable given my age etc. And I do not think it's worthy to judge individually anyone on these things in anycase. What we do know is that all of us who are apt and able should be pushing for policy, for research and development to restructure us from a 19th century fossil fuel economy to a 21st century renewable powered clean tech economy.
RE: You are advocating bludging again PART #1
J Cooper,
BZE's position is to get the community to work together, which government on our behalf can lead to bring forward the date when we have all electrified transport, when we have 100% renewable energy mostly electricity. We can avoid the diversion of so called "gas transition" and go straight to renewables.
It is not about what I have done or anyone has done it is what we can all do.
In my case it is irrelevant what I haven't or have done, so with the danger of getting bogged down in the wrong debate but with the advantage of providing an example here is the go.
1. Motor car - consulting to top international auotmotive company in strategy.
2. Internet - promoted and developed Free Software which allowed developing countries free access to software solutions and much cheaper access to proprietry solutions. Early uptake on 3G 2100, 850 and 900 UTMS wireless, Cable - Motorola and newer DOCSIS, ADSL, ADSL NEC test bed prior to deployment. Work on Mid-Range and larger computer environments.
3. Space research - Have contributed nothing here
4. Medical research - not me but my brother has found a cure to one quarter of squamous cell lung cancers. With more cures to come. Also pioneered surgery saving $$ and lives. In the past I have assisted with IT etc.
5. World Peace - I have contributed a lot here promoting Renewable Energy which removes the need to secure supply routes for energy. ie the impetus for many wars.
6. Batteries - I have 16kWh batteries with 5KW Grid Tie battery backup inverter.
more comments from the peanut gallery
Thanks for that Matt. Wind turbine designers and investors obviously have not noticed that wind speed is variable. I will pass it on.
Generation efficiency - not capacity
Folks, stop talking about capacity! Capacity means NOTHING. Wind Turbines are on average only 14% efficient because the wind doesn't blow all the time and blows at variable speed (and so with variable energy levels) .
21,000MW x 14% = 2,940MW - a pittance,really.
Also ask yourself how many Coal burning power stations have been shut down by wind farms? NONE!
We want wind plus zero emissions on demand supply
Go BZE! Wind energy is a threat to the Coal Power Industry. Coal power station units cannot easily be shut down overnight, or restarted quickly. Such cycling time is greater than the daily demand cycles, and is costly and damaging to the plant.
Available wind power puts our large coal power station capacity into idle modes, still burning coal during lower demand periods.
Gas fired electricity is attractive, as gas power plants cycling times are well matched to demand, then they can act as supply gap fillers for fuel free wind energy.
Honest calculations must involve longer term sustainability and carbon emissions. Coal Seam Gas extraction is hardly sustainable. Its running emission costs are close to coal power. Over the lifetime of the plant, distance and cost of its fuel will increase. Gas electricity supply filler will become more expensive.
On demand generation is being done now from solar heat storage plants. The heat storage medium are large tanks of Sodium-Potassium Nitrate liquid at 550-600 C. These hold heat energy with less than 1% loss over 24 hours. The hot tank is filled from the "cold" resevoir during daylight by passing fluid through a central tower heat reciever, heated by a large field of solar tracking mirrors.
The carbon emissions running costs of a solar heat storage system are close to zero, whilst those of Coal Seam Gas is close to that of burning coal. Once capital costs have been paid, and those capital costs will drop, this on-demand electricity gets cheaper.
The Environment and the Industrial Wind turbine
There is much argument about wind turbines on this comment section but one fact seems to evade our attention: wind turbines are not necessarily environmentally friendly, and the complaints of ill health in humans, should get one thinking that something is not so right about them.
Renewables should be truly environmentally friendly, not just this obsession over carbon dioxide emissions.
Why do I think wind turbines are so bad environmentally: because they create rather bizarre, freaky sounding droning noises at times which audible at least 35km away.
I have lost my admiration for them since, even though I can barely see them, and I wonder what is going on with animals and how they perceive this same noise.
Perhaps it's time to move on and start thinking of solar thermal and other ENVIRONEMTALLY FRIENDLY technologies that aren't goes to make the cure infinetely worse than the perceived CO2 argument.
Matthew Wright offers poor risk reward option
Whilst agreeing with the need to reduce Oz CO2 (don't care that it is only 1.5% or whatever - as one of richest country on earth we SHOULD do more than average) I reject the evangelical fundamentalism of the anti fossil fuel Green cultists exemplified by M Wright. Cost of reduction is a key factor in sustainability otherwise we may as well just have the mother of all depressions and economic dislocations with all of the human misery that would entail.
Also you can't just play around with existing and future capital investments as if they are lego blocks. Changing an economy is a gradual process unless you want to save the village by destroying it.
Assuming oil at $200/ barrel just doesn't cut it either. Oz investing $60b per annum on molten salt thermal storage is just wankerish stuff. M Wright is on saner ground with wind, plus I would suggest a sane and measured national PV system. However the baseload + peak/ backup has to be gas. Its a no brainer, except for the idealogical purists.
A NSW Greens MP stated that he would rather have coal fired power for another 10 years than support gas, such stuppidity!
I'm all for signing up for 100% renewables, but the journey has to be acheivable and credible, not based on starry eyed idealism. If M Wright is sincere then why doesn't he round up the financial support to fund the first of Australia's commercial scale molten salt storage plants?
re You are advocating bludging again
Matt, you certainly stimulate people to think, but IMHO its way too narrow minded on only what you are passionate about.
How much have YOU, Matt contributed to the development cost of -
1. The motor car, aircraft, building design, bridge design, dam design?
2. The computer, internet
3. Space research which resulted in every day living innovations,
4. Medical research
5. World Peace
Its a lot less than a lot of other people in other countries, does that make you a bludger too? So how are you planning on compensating those that were burdened with most of the load?
Why don't you run your 6 aircon from batteries, to save transmission losses from the windmills that run them? What, its not cost effective I hear you mutter. That is hardly an excuse for being at the bleeding edge of saving the planet. How is the Leaf, or did you buy the Volt? Or are you still paying off the Prius as that was "the best thing" at the time? Everyone must be comfortable with how much they "bludge". I certainly am and its a pity you are not.
RE:Wind power delivers cheaper energy on many grids in the world
J Cooper,
You are advocating bludging again. We bludged on Spain, Germany, Denmark, China and the US with wind and will get a cheaper energy source as a result. This is almost theft though. We haven't actually proportionally paid our share to get the energy source down the cost curve and we've left other people to shoulder more of the burden. It's like a lazy person not pulling their weight, I see it a lot when kids have to clean up after themselves.
But that is no reason to continue to behave badly and bludge on them for Solar Thermal with storage.
The jump to fuel prices is with regards to the fact that since the Spanish, Germans, Danes et al did their thing with wind and solar PV, the prospect of the cost of oil hiking and detrimentally affecting us has risen considerably. Just like we install sprinkler systems in our buildings before the fire comes, (for a less likely negative outcome) we need to install wind turbines and solar thermal so we don't get wacked by rapid increases in fossil fuel prices.
RE: We can expect US $200 a barrel oil or more in 2015
So are you advocating bludging off early adopters?
Electric Vehicles and renewable energy benefits us all. We can bring forward the shift by offering appropriate incentive to drive early addoption, to drive more widespread deployment which then allows for wind adoption.
We subsidise roads, so we can buy cars. we now need to incentivise renewables and possibly battery systems so we can power those cars with renewable energy.
There is no such thing as a wait and it will happen approach. People with that kind of attitude lack courage they lack strength and should get some self confidence and a spine.
Wind power delivers cheaper energy on many grids in the world
Yet in Australia this is not the case, otherwise wind could stand on its own without subsidy. Thats why its widespread in Spain and we just play with toys, I guess. The market makes sense.
Then you conveniently jump (how did we get onto fuel prices?) to solar thermal with storage as it can provide continuity for that baseload holy grail. Except that ST+salt has only just reached production phase and with TINY TINY 50-150 MW plants. This looks to be a fantastic power source in the future but we'd be foolhardy to build Giga-watts of ST+salt now until the technology is bedded in and prices come down as you know they will. Or will that magically buck your trend of a 75% reduction in price once volumes are up?
RE : We can expect US $200 a barrel oil or more in 2015
Sure and maybe one day $1000 a barrel IF there is still any demand for oil by 2099. So sooner or LATER it will make financial sense to drive around in EV's. That will be the time to switch, after all the early adopters have made their mistakes and the lemons have been weeded out.
Spain is not isolated
In response to debasis baksi:
Spain is not isolated from the EU grid. It trades power with France. When it has excess nuclear, coal, wind, or solar power it trades it with other EU countries, and when it is short, it buys power.
Spain has some Franco-era nuclear power stations that have reached their End-of-Life. They need to be shut down.
Spain still has extensive coal reserves, and has derived most of its power from coal.
But, the easy-to-get coal, the cheap coal, is running out, making coal an expensive power source.
Many of Spain's coal power plants are also near their End-of-Life, and new coal power stations, when built with real capital, ie money borrowed from banks, not diverted from government coffers, are not cheap to build, despite all the BS out there that suggests otherwise.
The Spanish government has therefore been forced to make some hard decisions.
So far, I respect their choices. Whilst some EU money has helped, it is my understanding that most of these solar, gas, and wind projects have been financed by private companies.
If I have any criticism of their choices, it maybe with the lack of new Hydro. They have some serious altitude and moderate levels of water in the North of Spain, and these could be used for both Hydro and pumped storage.
The tone of your remarks suggests that you haven't really tried to examine the unique position that Spain is in. That is unfortunate.
Re: Wind like Spain-? Reply debasis baksi
Debasis,
You are wrong. Wind power delivers cheaper energy on many grids in the world than conventional fossil fuel sources.
Solar Thermal with storage (molten salt power towers - search for Solar Reserve Tonopah 110MWe Rice 150MWe Alculzar de San Juan 50MWe) Search for Torresol Gemasolar 20MWe and you'll disover dispatchable plants that can be configured to deliver baseload energy if that is what is required, or they can be configured for intermediate or peaking operation.
A combination of Solar Thermal with storage and Wind Power can run a modern grid. We have written a technical plan, one scenario on how Australia could do it with this commercial off the shelf technology. I would encourage you to order yourself a copy and read it so you can learn something new.
Fossil Fuel generators are not required -just incase you missed it. ZERO Fossil fuel is required to run the Australian electricity supply system.
What the?
And the definition in your "dictionary" was word for word the same as the Google "dictionary". Again, your point being?
RE : You do not have to consume electricity from the grid. Ok, now everything I buy has used electricity in its production, transport, sale etc. Sure I could live in a totally self sufficient hippie commune but I thought you were against cutting back as a way of saving the planet?
And exactly how were the batteries, solar panels and generator manufactured, distributed and sold without using electricity. Thereby forcibly contributing to the FIT/RECs tax?
Good luck in avoiding using electricity, its used for more than lightbulbs and running your 6 aircon you are so proud of, I'm afraid. You can sugar coat a tax, but its still a tax, even if you pre-allocate it like the Medicare levy or call it a FIT or a REC.
RE It's not tax dollars contrary to your misunderstanding
I'll cite a real dictionary rather than a search engine /internet services company.
Oxford English Dictionary Tax: a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on the workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services and transactions.
With most Feed-in-Tariff incentive schemes including NSW a levy is placed on the consumption of units of electricity this then funds the incentives that drive solar PV, Wind or Baseload Solar Thermal w/storage into the market.
This is not a tax as the money never hits state revenue.
In addition, you do not have to consume units of electricity from the grid. You can live without lights or DIY with batteries and Solar PV, or a diesel/petrol generator. Your choice.
Unfair criticism of Spain
In response to J Cooper:
Spain is suffering from an out-of-control property boom.
Travel East of Madrid by train and you will see these vast housing estates that have all stalled - streets made and the odd house started, but otherwise, just roads, kerbs, and the odd street light.
The management of their banks allowed those responsible for credit management to approve credit when it shouldn't have been approved. That is poor governance by their banks.
To therefore state that all decisions made in Spain are suspect is both arrogant and ludicrous.
One might also state that any engineering/infrastructure decision made in the USA is also suspect, because their banks did the same thing. One might say that all Japanese engineering is also suspect because TepCo's management was negligent.
If we had true competition between our major banks, I suspect that they would also have been fighting for market share by giving away home loans in cornflake boxes during the lead up to the GFC.
The lack of such competition, the enormous rate at which we dig up and ship rocks overseas, and pump priming by the Rudd/Gillard/Swan government saved us from a similar fate.
RE: What was the price of Oil in 2005? 2008? -REPLY J Cooper
The trend for oil is up. That's because easy to get oil has peaked. This leads to fuel switching and pass through of higher energy prices to consumers.
We can expect US $200 a barrel oil or more in 2015. We can expect even higher oil prices after that.
To leave an economy exposed and open to external volatile oil costs is grossly negligent. If you're party to that by advocating that then you would also be grossly negligent.
We need to urgently fix our stationary energy costs. The easiest way to do that is through predominate electrification of the transport fleet Trains/Trams/Metros/Fast trains and a switch of the fleet over the next 10 years (it normally takes 17 years to flip over) to pure electric and range extending plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
This is the only way to fix our costs and save Australian's from the pain they have been experiencing at the petrol pump and to make sure that pain doesn't get worse and extend to the light switch.
Fossil gas fired CCGT and peaker plants = pain at the petrol pump experienced at the light switch.
RE : What was the price of Oil in 2005? 2008?
It changes all the time due to supply and demand + market manipulation (OPEC, government fuel excise etc). I could pick 2 arbitary dates too, the point being?
Cars today are far LESS fuel efficient than those of 30yrs ago. Now why exactly did we throw them all out? Yet people got so excited about the hybrid Prius or whatever is the latest fad.