Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

I find myself growing a little tired of the repetitive chorus, particularly from a certain media outlet although not exclusively, that Australia will be defacing the countryside with solar panels and wind turbines. Typically, these installations are on grazing country (as opposed to "farming" country) and usually that land continues to function much as it did before. The land beneath wind turbines can be grazed by a range of domestic animals, while solar farms welcome sheep only as larger animals can potentially damage the arrays.

In fact sheep can form a type of symbiotic relationship with solar farms as they keep the grass down, which would otherwise have to be mechanically managed, and in return the panels provide shade for the animals. Increasingly the same media outlet continues to invite only opponents of renewable energy to discuss the electricity crisis and it is clear those guests are closely associated with the fossil fuel industry or have other agendas.

The latest in this line was from Dr. Adi Paterson, who was proposing nuclear power for Oz.

He stated:

"the queue is forming to build the next generation of nuclear."

I am not sure where. Not in Australia. He went on to say:

“It’s safe, it’s reliable, it can live with renewables.”

What he didn't say was whether it can compete with renewables in Oz on an economic basis, whether they can sustain negative prices throughout the day, who would build them and who would finance them.

Never having heard of him before and wondering about his credentials, I looked him up:

Adrian Paterson - Wikipedia

I did take this extract:

"In 2006, he became General Manager of Business Development Operations at the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Company in South Africa, and held the position until December 2008. The Company downsized significantly following his departure. In 2010, Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan described the project in Parliament saying that "between 2005 and 2009, it became increasingly clear that, based on the direct-cycle electricity design, PBMR's potential investor and customer market was severely restricted, and it was unable to acquire either [investors or customers]."^[5]"

Now everything is clear.

Regards
Paul

Ignoring, for the moment, the problematic flaws in the nuclear power plant question, one aspect is whether they could replace directly a fossil fired station. Typically, they appear to either be made as base load facilities or in more recent times as load following utilities. France may be the only country that has significant load following nukes, primarily because it has up to 70% nuclear power. However, I have also read (if this information is correct) that because of breakdowns, maintenance and other issues their actual nuclear composition in their grid could be as low as 35%.

I saw one comment that nukes could ramp at up to 63MW/min. That is very fast. I am a little doubtful. I looked a little further and came across this site. It describes both base load and load following machines. I have linked to the load following information:

Load Following Power Plant | Definition | nuclear-power.com

I am something of a charlatan with regards to the nukes, so if anybody can update us with information, please go for it. One distinction I would caution over is whether something actually exists or whether it is proposed as a potential development. The SMRs are an example of where they are frequently mentioned as if they exist without any having yet been built.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I find myself growing a little tired of the repetitive chorus, particularly from a certain media outlet although not exclusively, that Australia will be defacing the countryside with solar panels and wind turbines. Typically, these installations are on grazing country (as opposed to "farming" country) and usually that land continues to function much as it did before. The land beneath wind turbines can be grazed by a range of domestic animals, while solar farms welcome sheep only as larger animals can potentially damage the arrays.

In fact sheep can form a type of symbiotic relationship with solar farms as they keep the grass down, which would otherwise have to be mechanically managed, and in return the panels provide shade for the animals. Increasingly the same media outlet continues to invite only opponents of renewable energy to discuss the electricity crisis and it is clear those guests are closely associated with the fossil fuel industry or have other agendas.

1/ Both sides seem to always conclusively "prove" that they are correct, yet both seem to cherry pick and ignore reality. For example, the CSIRO report mentioned above - does anybody really think that any of the numbers quoted have any bearing on reality? Snowy 2's costs have gone from $2bn to $12bn (last time I read about it), not including Humelink, so is the CSIRO claim that the cost of renewable power will fall by nearly 30% over the next 7 or so years credible, or based on desire and belief? Equally, nuclear is clearly not going to happen as there is too much public opinion stacked against it (never mind any cost issues!).

2/ The grazing under solar concept is very persuasive, and sounds great, but I'm not 100% convinced of the reality. Weed control is still required in grazing land, and it's potentially very hard to use a boomspray in a solar farm. That would presumably push the management in the direction of longer term (residual) chemicals, which often have long withholding periods and, in some cases, may not be grazed at all. Mustering sheep might also prove a challenge, as both visibility and vehicular access would be compromised. I certainly believe that grazing under solar is possible, but I'm not convinced that it's the simple task that is often presented!

Exactly. Nuclear doesn't stack up financially even today, and stands even less chance of doing so many years into the future when any plants that started construction even right now would come online.

As we've discussed many times here, the most pressing requirement is going to be storage, in various forms, not generation.

Originally Posted by Warb

2/ The grazing under solar concept is very persuasive, and sounds great, but I'm not 100% convinced of the reality. Weed control is still required in grazing land, and it's potentially very hard to use a boomspray in a solar farm. That would presumably push the management in the direction of longer term (residual) chemicals, which often have long withholding periods and, in some cases, may not be grazed at all. Mustering sheep might also prove a challenge, as both visibility and vehicular access would be compromised. I certainly believe that grazing under solar is possible, but I'm not convinced that it's the simple task that is often presented!

Warb

You are quite right that nothing is ever as simplistic as it sounds and everything presents it's own particular challenges. I am not even sure of the spacing of the arrays so much is conjecture on my part. The sheep grazing aspect was actually mentioned to me by a company that is proceeding with a solar farm near our town. Sheep are not really good for country in the first place, but that is another story! The real issue is that if sheep are allowed, they will clear the land down to bare dirt, which then creates the climate for vigorous weed growth. I suspect that chemicals can be used that don't have withholding periods such as Grazon, but if the production is for wool only, that would not be a problem. Good dogs are the best for mustering sheep anyway (getting a good dog is an issue of course. I have never been that lucky), but here we are getting into the nitty gritty. I think those issues are relatively minor.

Regards
Paul

I'm late to the conversation so apologies if this has come up before, but seeing the phrase 'nuclear power' was mentioned on this page I thought I'd throw up a link to a physicist who I respect very much to hear what she has to say on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k

It's seems pretty balanced to me. The one point from the vid that sticks in my memory is that nuclear power is not renewable (I know this seem obvious) but the reserves of Uranium ore is much smaller than you would think, which means that a massive ramp-up in traditional reactors would exhaust the reserves much faster than you might imagine (caveat here, 50 years ago we were talking about the limit of reserves of coal, but there seems no end to the bloody stuff on a timescale that removes it from the apocalypse vs she'll be sweet equation)

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

You are quite right that nothing is ever as simplistic as it sounds and everything presents it's own particular challenges. I am not even sure of the spacing of the arrays so much is conjecture on my part. The sheep grazing aspect was actually mentioned to me by a company that is proceeding with a solar farm near our town. Sheep are not really good for country in the first place, but that is another story! The real issue is that if sheep are allowed, they will clear the land down to bare dirt, which then creates the climate for vigorous weed growth. I suspect that chemicals can be used that don't have withholding periods such as Grazon, but if the production is for wool only, that would not be a problem. Good dogs are the best for mustering sheep anyway (getting a good dog is an issue of course. I have never been that lucky), but here we are getting into the nitty gritty. I think those issues are relatively minor.

I suspect that making the co-existence easy would require the system to be designed that way in advance, rather than simply shoving sheep under existing panels. I also suspect that the optimal co-existence would require some compromise to the design of the solar installation, such as mounting the panels slightly higher than "minimal cost", and probably with bigger spacing between rows than "required for best PV output". An approach that included fencing (and water supply) to allow sheep movement without human intervention would be ideal, AKA cell grazing whereby each area is rested and the animals are moved (or in fact move themselves when a gate is left opened) to the next cell where the vegetation has regrown. Laneways would be required to allow the mobs of sheep to be moved to the yards for treatment or loading on to trucks. My doubt here is whether the energy producers are going to want to spend the extra money to set such a system up, as their main concern is greatest PV output per unit area - sheep are rarely a high return proposal which is why the solar farm is able to acquire the land at all!

Dogs are certainly the best way to muster sheep, but without the ability to see what the dog is doing and "steer" it, you need a really good group of dogs!

If such a project was approached wholistically, perhaps including a mob or two of goats in the rotation for weed control, I have no doubt it could be a great success, but not so much if the intention is simply "more watts", or if sheep are just thrown into a lowest common denominator solar farm.

Whilst this is indeed the finer details, it is the finer details rather than the pipe dreams that actually decide success or failure or a project (see "Snowy 2.0"!!).

Originally Posted by mic-d

I'm late to the conversation so apologies if this has come up before, but seeing the phrase 'nuclear power' was mentioned on this page I thought I'd throw up a link to a physicist who I respect very much to hear what she has to say on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k

It's seems pretty balanced to me. The one point from the vid that sticks in my memory is that nuclear power is not renewable (I know this seem obvious) but the reserves of Uranium ore is much smaller than you would think, which means that a massive ramp-up in traditional reactors would exhaust the reserves much faster than you might imagine (caveat here, 50 years ago we were talking about the limit of reserves of coal, but there seems no end to the bloody stuff on a timescale that removes it from the apocalypse vs she'll be sweet equation)

mic

That is quite a good appraisal. There are some things I might have a different take on, but generally OK. She seems to conclude that nuclear is just too expensive, although she qualifies this by saying it does depend on where you live in the world and the level of other resources available to your country.

I note you are new to the thread. You only have 118 pages on which to catch up.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I note you are new to the thread. You only have 118 pages on which to catch up.

Regards
Paul

yeah nah, can you sum up?

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

That is quite a good appraisal. There are some things I might have a different take on, but generally OK. She seems to conclude that nuclear is just too expensive, although she qualifies this by saying it does depend on where you live in the world and the level of other resources available to your country.

Yes, pretty even handed assessing., but she also seems to think that the only lives that matter from a nucular accident are human lives. No mention of the sealife with the Fukushima mess, for example. Nor did she mention the environmental contamination of an accident.

Another problem with nuke reactors is that they become a bigger target for either terrorists or invaders (looking at Ukraine recently). Not only can they wipe out your power source, they can contaminate a pretty big area at the same time.

Originally Posted by Warb

I suspect that making the co-existence easy would require the system to be designed that way in advance, rather than simply shoving sheep under existing panels.

I think that that is crucial.

Wind Farms. Lot of wind farms in Tassy and they are placed where the wind blows, often in areas too wet for sheep. It is routine to have cattle under them - both beef and dairy. The cows don't seem to mind.

Solar Farms. I have only seen a couple and both had the panels placed almost at grond level. I can see potential problems, including:

• Low edge is vulnerable to farm machinery and stray stones from mowers,
• Sheep may attempt tp climb them, especially lambs,
• Rams may back up to them to do their business.
• Difficulty in managing weeds close to the panels, etc.

If their height was raised by a foot or two, they would also provide shelter for the sheep.

Mustering sheep might also prove a challenge

You have gratulously insulted every border collie and kelpie in the country, and the NZ huntaways support them. Those lanes should actually help the dogs - where can the sheep bolt to?

The lanes should also facilitate cell grazing with minimal cost.

The better graziers will adapt quickly, the mob will eventually follow their lead.

It has always been so.

The other key factor will be the impact of solar system shading on grass growth rates. How significant will it be. What is the impact of panel height and density.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

The other key factor will be the impact of solar system shading on grass growth rates. How significant will it be. What is the impact of panel height and density.

Graeme

I think the shading will help grass growth as the evaporation rate will be less. However, the sun has to get in somewhere so there must be a balance. There may also be a trend towards farmers and solar farms having a co-operative agreement rather than purchasing land outright: A lease agreement if you like. That is probably more likely to have e beneficial outcome for both parties.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by mic-d

yeah nah, can you sum up?

Mic

Yep.. I can narrow it down to 115 pages....!

Actually, very briefly, the governments, both state and federal need to wake up, get off their ars.s and do something before they miss the boat. "Manyana" just doesn't cut it.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

You have gratulously insulted every border collie and kelpie in the country, and the NZ huntaways support them. Those lanes should actually help the dogs - where can the sheep bolt to?

I've worked sheep with both Kelpies and Collies, but never in an area where I 100% can't see what is going on. I've never been in a solar farm on foot or bike, but from the outside it looks like you'd not see anything beyond the first row of panels. If that is true, there'd be zero communication between man and dog. Not my idea of fun!

The "lanes" you mention, are you talking about the panels or is there internal fencing? The only solar farm I've been close to (though not inside) looks like one huge paddock. The whole thing becomes far easier if there's internal fencing!

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Graeme

I think the shading will help grass growth as the evaporation rate will be less. However, the sun has to get in somewhere so there must be a balance. There may also be a trend towards farmers and solar farms having a co-operative agreement rather than purchasing land outright: A lease agreement if you like. That is probably more likely to have e beneficial outcome for both parties.

Given the comments in an earlier post about power companies (and mines) reneging on land rehabilitation agreements, I'd expect the farmers to be the ones leasing the land back after selling it to the power companies!!