According to a new market update by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), electricity users in NSW and Victoria face a heightened risk of widespread blackouts next summer.
AEMO is putting out a call to the market for emergency power supplies.
The worsening outlook has been attributed to a series of delays in new infrastructure.
NSW faces a reliability gap of more than 3GW in 2032-2033.
Forget, for the moment, about the carbon-free generators to replace the existing fossil fuel ones – the real reason for the looming risk to supply is that the existing fossil fuel generators are being phased out too early.
Given the supreme importance of reliable and affordable energy to our comfort and the economy, it is simply moronic or even suicidal to allow this situation to occur.
Clearly, we should have alternative carbon-free generators constructed and ready to go before we shut down what now serves us well.
The net zero zealots will say the old generators are at the end of their useful lives.
Better maintenance would help but if not enough we should have constructed more coal-fired power stations to fill the gap.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration presently is increasing at just under three ppm per annum.
China, India and other countries are busy building coal-fired power stations which will emit far more CO2 than we do now.
Net zero in Australia, if ever achieved, will have an imperceptible effect on global CO2 concentration which is the only metric that really counts.
This means we are shooting ourselves not in the foot but in the head.
Risk of spoiled food in freezers, increased business stress and uncertainty in the economy and dangers to those requiring medical attention dependent on reliable electricity supply seems on the way.
Our attempts to transition from fossil fuels is not a folly but a complete disaster and we can blame no one else but ourselves.
Expensive virtue signalling does not contribute to our welfare.
Email, May 22
Charles Hemmings, Woy Woy
Fossil fuel generators are being phased out. This is due, not because of some whacky ideology, rather they were scheduled for closure due to reaching end of life mechanically thus becoming uneconomical and unsafe to operate. These are business decisions. The champions of Fossil fuel, the LNP, did nothing to argue for construction of replacement plants or raise the issue as a matter of priority. They did however act as a handbrake for construction of renewable projects. Now they are pursuing Nuclear as an option which they will take to the next election. Given the problems that occur with this technology, particularly safety, when vested interests are involved how will we be better off with potential radiation incidents, given the issues many communities have already suffered due to fossil fuel generators. Poor air quality leading to breathing problems, cancer clusters as well as environmental contamination from ash dams were never actively discussed. Construction of generators that can run on gas in the interim and then transitioned to run on green hydrogen, while not ideal in the short term is a better long term option. While this is happening continue to construct solar / wind and hydro projects which are quicker, cheaper and cleaner than coal or nuclear.
Another factor which is seldom discussed is both the public and industry reducing the amount of energy they use. As a society we are very wasteful of resources, electrical power and water being two prime examples. Both will become more valuable and precious as time passes.
Surely it is time to stop name calling and behave responsibly, accepting and taking a level of personal responsibility for these issues.
When fossil fuel generators are phased out we need something available, ready to go, to replace them. No only is there no enough ‘renewables’ available, we need some dispatchable power. Even C Bowen now concedes that. What are we going to use? The only two options at the moment are gas and nuclear. Gas is a compromise as it emits, but less than coal for the same amount of electricity. No country has managed to run an electricity grid solely on renewables. Germany relies on French nuclear power when the weather is unkind. Renewable enthusiasts either ignore or do not understand the difference between dispatchable and weather-dependent intermittent generators. We should take the politics out of this and leave it to the experts – the process technologists and economists. It is not a laboratory scientific experiment. Because of our lack of planning for the transition, we will be blessed with higher costs and reduced reliability over the next decade.
In the scenario you paint (I agree with your points regarding the urgency to provide a solution and lack of transition planning) gas turbines are probably the quickest method to address the shortfall. Various investigations into nuclear have indicated a long lead time to bring such technology on line. Given our record on other major projects (Snowy 2.0, airport and various road bypasses) I would suggest that the lead time would be towards the upper end of estimates, possibly 20 years and this is without what I am sure would be a significant cost blowout. I am wary of “leaving it to the experts” as while many have strong academic qualifications and provide robust and achievable advice, their message is always distorted by politicians and big business.
Another possible strategy would be to revegetate abused land to offset carbon released by fossil fueled technologies. I would also admit that this isn’t a quick solution as trees do take time to attain a size that maximise their contribution. Again as you have pointed out this shows a lack of planning over many decades.