Interconnectors to Victoria as well as traditional fast start up generation (such as diesel or gas).
Tas and SA currently rely on coal, gas and renewable generation in other eastern states to support the the reliability of their networks. It is called the ‘main grid’ which is one of the longest interconnected grids in the world, extending from Port Douglas in Queensland to Port Lincoln in South Australia - a distance of around 5,000 kilometres.
There are plans for greater capacity interconnectors between SA - east coast states and Tas - Vic.
These interconnectors, including that between Qld-NSW (to which an upgrade is also underway) allow capacity support across the whole network.
But those states do not have coal generation, as I said. They do not need it. And the Bass strait link from Tas to Victoria was down for a long time before finally being fixed.
I think the main idea of that interconnector, and a plan for a second, is for Tas to export electricity to Victoria, not the other way around, as the coal fired plants in Vic shut down, or frequently break down. Or fires break out in the open cut coal mines.
How are we possibly going to reduce consumption with the current push to electrify everything possible currently powered by non-renewables, and the increase in population. In your dreams. I cannot reduce my consumption any more as I am driven by economics. Should I cook on a fire in the garden and go to bed when it gets dark, is that what you want.
We are not going to reduce consumption. It is going to increase. The AEMO and the 2022 ISP indicates by how much, and what is needed to ensure our needs are met.
Unfortunately most of us (consumers) are isolated from the decision making and technical complexities of our electricity supply systems. It’s also unfortunate that the future of our energy systems has been a plaything of political ambitions and vested interests of large corporations.
I take comfort in knowing that residential consumers only take around 25% of annual electric generation. Of those 3 out of 10 (30%) have solar PV and on average generate more than they consume over a year. The percentage is continuing to increase more than offsetting any increase in population or new residential demand.
There is substantial surplus total capacity (up to a 50% increase) within the existing supply and distribution system represented by peak and off peak demand. One of the benefits of increased BEV take up is the ability to increase utilisation of off peak capacity. Increased use of distributed resources and storage including BEV (V2H/V2G) also offer opportunities to reduce peak demand and effectively load shift at a local level without placing additional strain on the networks. Both are factored into the ISP.
The ISP has been developed by technical experts familiar with electrical supply. The ISP will no doubt be updated over time to best meet all needs. Whether it’s supported by governments territory, state and commonwealth, it is the considered position of their appointed bodies and expertise.
Locally we have many power failures, aka blackouts, both planned and unplanned. The former happens about once a year when our power is out for a day while ‘emergency maintenance’ is performed. The latter are usually attributed to possums, the wind or tree branches. A bit different to generation deficits but I would prefer they fixed the network once and for all to be suitable for the distributed nature of solar rather than the policy-free (or is it a policy overtly continuing to subsidise fossil fuel) and get on with it. If one never starts one never arrives.
It is about reducing the level of consumption that would otherwise have occurred. Energy use hasn’t been a major consideration in everything we do. As a result, we currently use significantly more than would otherwise have occurred if energy use minimisation had been a consideration. In the future, energy use minimisation will need to be one of the most important criterion to protect consumers from high energy costs.
Yes it was. And the hydro dams were drained at a higher rate and Tassie became more reliant on oil fired generation at the time…which has more recently been converted to gas.
Tassie imports and exports power to the mainland. This won’t change. While one of the major purposes of the second cable crossing is to use Tassie’s hydro as a mainland battery (1) and also allow excess renewable (wind) generation to flow across the strait, Tasmania still needs support from the mainland. This support is likely to increase as long term reliability of the hydro dams is reduced due to (1), Tasmania’s own energy consumption increases substantially from population growth and shift to electricity as main energy source and from climate change.
There has been political discussion in Tassie that it should go alone and ‘cut the extension lead to the mainland’. It possibly could based on today’s generation capacity and demand profiles. But what happens today will be very different in the future.
Part of the problem here is that different meanings are being given to " reduce consumption". There is:
Your meaning is what you are consuming right now, that you cannot reduce. You are projecting those levels to the future for a greater population and so conclude the aggregate will go up.
@mark_m uses a longer term frame that includes population growth and concludes the aggregate will go up. I think not as much as you because he factors in new renewable sources which will in be cheaper than FF.
@phb who is looking at broad scale changes to the way we live (not just replacing one lightbulb with another) that necessarily will take longer as it involves altering attitudes and behaviour. If I understand him rightly he means a reduction of per capita or per dwelling use and may well concede a growth in the aggregate at some future time due to population growth.
Without clarifying what is meant the conversation isn’t going anywhere.
Understanding your situation is difficult without knowing what you have been able to do but the hint seems to be that you cannot afford upgrades. There are many in that position.
Looking at the broader population we see that many people cannot do much about fixed equipment or insulation, for example, as they lack the capital or are renting. I think it is wrong to assume that situation will continue without change into the future right across the country. That doesn’t ease the pain now I know.
People under financial stress now due to rising energy prices are inclined to blame renewables for it. We have no choice but to move to renewables and once established they are cheaper than FF. The real reason for the stress is the failure to plan and act to have an orderly transition over the last 25 years by many governments. Now we are going to have a disorderly transition because time is up. Those leaders dug the hole so many families are in, not renewables.
I am merely pointing out that having done many improvements in recent years along with my neighbours like going from tungsten lights to fluoro and now to LED (very small gain) also stopped using my lovely gas heater that heated most of the house to installing 3 reverse cycle units like many others (increasing my usage considerably).
The point I am making is that following the NEM pie chart of supply sources over a long period coal is still required for 60-70% of our supply in spite of phantom savings due to the highly encouraged electrification of everything campaign with its ever-rising running costs.
When a huge chunk of the coal-generated part of the supply is withdrawn by the generators, long before we have replacement judging from current progress, looking at the pie chart progress, what then. I do not yet have an EV that will see my and others usage skyrocket further as chargers are appearing all over following demand.
Current progress does not reflect a federal government that was on board much more than subsidising fossil fuels. It remains to be learned if the present one will get us on a faster track.
Your gas heater didn’t cool you when it was hot did it? You are getting an extra amenity. A fair comparison would only involve heating and I bet that is cheaper with RC aircon and will be much cheaper in future as the price of gas rises further.
The past does not always predict the future. As Mark posted in detail there are plans in place for huge changes in the network and the private sector has been making considerable investment in solar and wind recently which are coming on line progressively.
Yes, rebuilding should have been done before the old coal fired stations were shut down. That didn’t happen for political reasons and now they are getting to (or have already got to) the end of their useful life and we must deal with that situation not the one we would wish for.
Keeping the old coal generators is not feasible as they are becoming unreliable as well as too expensive. Building new coal generators would be madness and nobody, public or private, will put up the money. What is your suggested alternative?
Whilst some countries have made commitments to phase out coal, efforts may be dwarfed by the hundreds of new coal fired power plants being built around the world…
And this infographic indicates where future challenges lie…
I think that report could be considered totally irrelevent.
It is about fossil fuels for export, not for building new Australian electricity generation capacity.
Also, the fossil fuel fan club have since been thrown out of Federal Government, replaced by a Government serious about curbing CO2 emisions.
Also, electricity generation is becoming very decentralized, with individual homes and businesses doing it themselves. Towns are putting local wind and solar farms, so are not as reliant on needing power from the grid. Add in sufficient storage capacity and the grid may not be needed at all for many users.
I have no objections to closing the old coal plants even though China etc. will not. I am more concerned with the continuity of baseload supply afterwards that I can afford with the govt. assisted move to electrify everything possible. I know we have big schemes in the pipeline like Snowy 2 running well behind and hopelessly over budget and the delay in grid improvements due to farmers objecting to having their farms bisected by HV lines, arguments that could go on for years. Short term I think we will be relying more and more on battery storage and running what generation we have left flat out day and night to keep it charged as it will be our only buffer as wind and solar do not store and can be installed without upsetting most people.
I remember last Melbourne winter. At the time of expected peak demand at least one of the remaining coal generators had part of their capacity down for scheduled maintenance.
That meant a spike on gas usage as the gas fueled generators fired up to compensate.
If I was a cynic, and I am, I would consider that maintenance scheduling was a deliberate strategy to force the spot price of electricity up, so the generators could get a premium price. And that flowed onto gas fueled generators too, who generally only run when needed to meet an increase above baseload demand and spot prices are higher.
Concern is understandable. It’s not evident exactly which data set is being referred to by the 60-70%. Often it’s easy to misread or interpret data out of context. The AEMO in its latest forecasts of demand and of supply capacity is clear. Coal generation will continue to decline while renewable and storage capacity will continue to increase. I’ve linked the most recent AEMO report that hopefully covers off on both aspects for the immediate and near term. It’s long and industry focused.
The current commitments to new generation are greater than the anticipated decreases in coal generation. New proposed generation is many times greater. Approx one quarter (26%) of the proposed capacity is from storage projects. The AEMO is also aware of the likely timings.
Note the record peak demand for the NEM in 2022 was just over 32GW. Hopefully puts into perspective the magnitude of the committed and proposed new capacity.
Footnote:
The future demand anticipated by the AEMO (what is being planned for) is captured in the following. It may not display as well here as in the doc. Apologies, refer to sect 2.2 of the linked doc. Residential consumption is represented by the two yellow gold portions.
I agree! It seems ironic that on the one hand we turn off the lights to celebrate Earth Hour while others happily plug in their EVs. I would like to see some forecast figures on the impact of EV on electricity consumption.
Hopefully the final graphic in the post immediately preceding your post @BobT can provide reassurance. The increased demand has been allowed for. The light green and darker shade of blue account for future needs out to 2050. I linked the web source if you need to take a more detailed look at the content.
The impact is divided between residential and business use. To note the increasing demand for business use is slightly greater than residential use. This reflects the significantly greater distance travelled and vehicle sizes in the business fleets, (from tradies to highway haulage), and offsets for those consumers who are able to maximise the savings charging at home.
