Slashdot Mirror
South Australia Hits 33% Renewal Energy Target 6 Years Early
ferrisoxide.com writes: South Australia has hit its target of 33% renewable energy by 2020, 6 years earlier than expected, delivering clean power to the state through investment in wind, solar and geothermal energy — mothballing one coal-fired power station in the process. Not content to rest on their laurels, the SA government has now announced a new "stretch" target of 50% by 2025. South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill declared that despite initial upfront costs to renewable energy generators such as wind farms, the 50 per cent target will not add one extra dollar to energy prices.
The nice thing about wind plus solar in southern Australia is that peak electricity usage is on hot days in the summer. These are often windy as well as sunny.
That said, this 33% is for South Australia (pop ~ 1.3 mil) which has a much smaller demand than Victoria (pop ~ 6 mil) with well connected grids. So excess power from SA can be readily exported to Victoria.
As renewable engery use in Victoria increases it will likely be harder to shift excess production. The Victoria/SA market may well face the problem Germany has when wholesale electricty prices drop down to zero. We really need large scale grid storage to get a global SA/Vic production up about 30% from renewables.
Thanks to our privatized system we generally pay up to 30 cents per kwh. 50 per cent of that goes to network charges and a significant amount towards wholesale and retail profits.
Wind has been bringing down the wholesale price significantly - to the point that the coal industry has seriously kicked their political machines into gear to get renewables stomped on.
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
I live here, it's awesome =)
Seriously though, South Australia, while having a reputation for being a "backward" state, is actually one of (if not the) most liberal, progressive states in Australia. Adelaide has a cool startup culture too!
Wow, 6 years ahead of expectations? Sounds a lot like how publicly traded companies set lower goals so they can over-achieve them. Germany already has over 50% renewable electric power on sunny days, while having about the same insolation as Alaska. 50% by 2025 doesn't seem awfully ambitious to me, especially in Australia. They have the sunshine hours and they have the large, unused areas. What the hell is stopping them? I can only guess: lack of political will.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
I'm not sure, but the coal is probably for export. The mines will remain open regardless of domestic needs. And you really can't make money and manipulate markets with wind like you can with coal.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You mean "they predict they will hit the target in six years." They hit 31.5%, and might have hit the 33% - if you believe a government spokesman.
This is only "locally-generated" power, by the way: they don't count the power imported from other states, and fail to mention that overall power generation in South Australia is expected to decline due to cheaper power imported from places like Victoria.
They also won't add "one additional dollar to energy prices" by adding the many additional dollars to taxes levied by the federal government.
The sun is basically a fusion reactor with a great lifespan, so no, it doesn't ever start anew because it won't ever stop until it runs out of fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... (If you're curious)
Either you were drunk writing this or you're in dire need of a new keyboard...
Granted, coal is sorta technically "renewable" but only on a geological scale that renders the term pointles
Actually, most of the coal was formed during the Carboniferous period, where the state of the climate, as well as the biological evolution worked together to create the perfect environment for storing large amounts of coal. The trees at that era had evolved to produce lignin, but the bacteria were not yet evolved to break it down. Similar conditions may not happen again, so we can't even be sure that new coal will form in any useful quantities.
If they have excess unused capacity, they should use it to desalinate seawater, turn Austrailailaila into a garden of eden.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but total solar insolation on the lower 48 is 46,700 Quads/year, compared to that the total electricity usage of the USA at 38.2 quads/year is a rounding error, the albedo effect from heavy clouds created by El Nino or heavier than average snowfall in the winter probably has several times more effect on the strength of winds than if we were to tap 100% of our electricity needs through wind.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
> While solar and wind have their place, it would be much more effective to complement them with nuclear instead.
And as soon as you figure out a way to reduce CAPEX by four times, it will.
Every reactor under construction in a country where we can believe the accounting is currently running late, and thus overbudget, and the average CAPEX is around $9/W. A wind turbine goes in for just over $1. That's just the way it is, and until someone fixes that, its going to keep being that way.