An Unhealthy Obsession With Solar

Australian politicians and the press seem to have an obsession with solar power. The way the popular press tells it, solar will single handedly move us off fossil fuels and in particular the dreaded coal to the brave new world. But taking my time to try to understand the exponential growth of solar has left me with a feeling that this belief may not seem to be all that it is. Like other renewables such as  wind, there are still significant obstacles to be overcome for more extensive and large scale deployment of solar and for that matter many other renewable sources. 

What makes me a bit skeptical is that these obstacles are not being brought to open debate but swept aside in the rush to promote solar. As I have said in my earlier posts, I am a firm believer in renewables but I just want to try to be open and objective and while having solar panels on my rooftop is my megre contribution to the climate movement, it behoves me to try to gain a proper understanding of the issues at hand.

Solar proponents are quite open in discussing the issue of intermittency. This issue stems from the fact that, simply put, the sun does rise at dawn and sets at dusk each day and therefore means that solar is unable to generate electricity at night. Add to this, cloud cover and inclement weather and this reduces even the hours available when the sun is technically in the sky. It therefore makes a great deal of sense that battery storage is being held out as the solution to this problem. Store electricity when it is being generated in excess of immediate use for later use when the sun is not shining. 

While much has been made of Tesla (and they are certainly not the only manufacturer, just the most well marketed) the fact still remains that we are still quite some years away from economical large scale battery storage which constrains their use in the immediate and short term future for large scale storage. Current innovation in this area is most likely to result in the uptake of battery storage for small scale use predominantly in the residential market. This will certainly contribute to lowering the amount of electricity puchased by residential users from retail energy companies, a fact that they are well aware of.

As far as I can determine, there are currently no major projects to store electricity any where in Australia. I do not know whether this is becuase of technical or economic constraints. It should be noted that electricity storage is actually neutral in the sense that it does not matter what source the electricity is generated from. Once generated it is indistinguishable from all other sources and this is actually a good thing. The number of high profile solar farm projects is well reported but almost nothing is being reported about large scale battery or any other form of electricity storage which is significant in its deathly silence. 

The next issue is one of capacity. This simply means that solar PV panels can only generate a proportion of the maximum rated output throughout the day. This is easy to see for yourself. Just check your solar converted panel and you will almost never find that the output is close to the maximu rated output of the system you installed. The IReNA (International Renewable Energy Agency) estimates that in Northern Europe solar has an average capacity of just 15%.   This problem gets worse the further away you get from the Equator. We are fortunate that in Australia that we are blessed as the sun baked country but nevertheless, we cannot get carried away with the reported outputs of electricity that are being quoted for new large scale solar farms. It does not take a genius to figure out that our average effective capacities far exceeds the 15% for Northern Europe. But for comparison sake, the IReNA reports that coal plants typically operate between 70-80% of capacity.

Another obvious issue is seasonality, which to be fair, all the suppliers of solar systems I evaluated before installing my system told me about, even producing charts showing the impact on electricity generation of the seasons in different parts of the Australia. 

So what does all of this mean to a non engineering person like me? I certainly have not changed my view on the benefits of solar but this view is a very limited view affecting only the electricity I do not have to purchase from the energy companies and the excess electricity I sell back to them. But in attempting to learn about the broader implications for energy generation and consumption in Australia from a amateur point of view, I have found that solar electricity only accounts for a very small, albeit growing proportion of the total electricity generated in the country. While it is growing very fast, it still accounts for only 2% of total electricity produced in Australia and has a long way to go for it to even reach half of the 85% of total electricity currently being generated from fossil fuels. 

This should not discourage people from installing solar systems for their homes especially as costs continue to fall. For me the logical question to ask is whether we have an unhealthy obsession with just this one source of renewable energy. We should demand that the government take steps to invest in all technologies that will move us away from high polluting fossil fuel sources but we need a balanced approach that considers all forms of renewables, including, whether we like it or not, nuclear. To do this we need to have a open and balanced public debate on all options and not just solar even though solar appears to be the leading candidate at the present time. So let us collectively move forward objectively by having greater transparency and less bias in the media so that we can make more informed decisions about our future.  

 

Does Everyone Mean The Same Thing When We Talk About Renewable Energy

The word "renewable energy" is used by politicians, the media and scientists in a way that implies that everyone is talking about the same thing. But is this really true and what are its implications for the way that we discuss and debate what to do about climate change.

Forget about the detailed and technical definitions used by energy industry specialists. To the man in the street and the ordinary voter, lets just use the standard definition from the Oxford Disctionery: "Energy from a source that is not depleted when used, such as wind or solar power"

The Department of Industry Innovation and Science publishes a yearly report called the Australian Energy Statistics Update. The latest one was published in August 2015 covering the year 2013-2014

Ask most people what they think renewables means and, like me they are most likely to mention wind and solar and some might even extend it to wave and others will also pick hydro. This is probably the most common understanding of what sources come under the umbrella renewables.

ENERGY PRODUCTION

The proportion of total energy produced from renewable sources currently stands at  a paltry 1.8% and growing at a rate of 4% from the previous period. 

Coal continues to account for the lion's share of energy production coming in at 66% followed by gas with 13%. 

It is important to remember this huge disparity when it comes to trying to put some context and understanding the ongoing debates about renewable energy from a lay person's perspective.

This percentage is in some ways misleading because renewables is not relevant in all industries in the same way. For example unless you are talking about sailing ships, wind is not relevant at all when it comes to powering ships and hence including renewables when talking about shipping is somewhat misleading

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

Renewables are probably best viewed in the light of electricity generation because that is where they are more extensively deployed and hence more relevant.

Renewables currently accounts for 14.9% of total electricity generated. It hardly comes as a surprise that fossil fuels account for a whopping 85.1% of electricity generated.

There are no real surprises when looking at the electricity generation by fuel type chart. All the sources a reasonable person could expect are all present and accounted for.

However, I must confess that I had expected to see Wind and Solar occupy a larger percentage that than their meagre 4% and 2% respectively.

It should be also noted that total 

electricity generated has not increased in 2013-2014 but has continued to follow the same same marginal declining trend in 2012-2013. The report attributes this mainly to a combination of more efficient appliances and adoption of solar.

CONSUMPTION

Total energy consumption actually fell in 2013-2014. All major sub-categories fell during the year with the exception of Gas and Renewables.

Renewables make up 5.9% of total energy consumed and grew by 4% from the previous year. This compares with 1.8% of total energy produced. 

So while the portion of renewables in the consumption mix is higher than in energy produced, it is still insignificant especially compared against coal, oil and gas which collectively account for 94% of total energy consumption. 

Looking into the details of renewable energy consumption I was surprised to learn that
the largest sources of renewable energy sources consisted of Biomass which contributes more than half (53%) of renewable energy consumption. I did not even know what Biomass was and a quick return to the Oxford Dictionary quickly provided the answer: Organic matter used as a fuel, especially in a power station for the generation of electricity.

Wind, Solar PV (photovoltaic) and Solar hot water collectively only accounts for 19.6% of total renewable energy consumed.  What this means is that wind and solar is only accounts for only just 1% of total energy consumed in Australia. 

The extremely low percentage that renewables play in the production of energy in Australia is in stark contrast to the attention it is receiving in the media and by politicians.I found this to be surprising given that solar and wind dominate any public discussion.

Hydro and Biomass are hardly even mentioned in the news and climate change commentary.

SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN

Numbers concerning renewables seem to be hurled with increasing regularity by politicians, the media and both sides of the climate change divide. And yes I grant you that this set of numbers are not the only data around regarding the scope and growth of renewable energy.

And you can argue about how accurate the data is if you want to. But for me a number of things stand out merely from reviewing the data:

1. Renewables does not currently play a major role in the energy industry but it is growing in size and importance. Regardless of whether we look at the renewables category in total energy produced (1.8%), or in total energy consumed (4%) or in the generation of electricity (14.9%) it is small to insignificant.
2. The advantage of this is that there is surely a great deal of upside. It cannot get any more insignificant than it already currently is. And the even better news is that it is growing
3. The real bad news however is that it can only slowly. By this I do not mean percentage wise but in absolute output. The real growth in renewals is undoubtedly from wind and solar, both of which are growing in excess of 25% currently. 
4. As much as we believe and even desire to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, the cold hard facts is that there is a yawing gap between total coal consumption (1,845 PJ) and total renewables consumption (345 PJ). The current growth in renewables is 4%. Even if we assume a 10% growth in renewables this will add a meagre 34.5 PJ per year. It is going to take a long time to make a dent in replacing coal.
5. As if this were not depressing enough, the major renewable subcategories are not in fact growing but declining. Only Biodiesel, Wind and Solar PV are reported as having double digit growth. Despite their impressive growth rates, they all have a low current base. Even if it were possible to ratchet up the current growth rates of these subcategories to 40% growth per annum, this would only add a mere 24 PJ per year.

For me the data would indicate that getting off fossil fuels is not only going to take a great deal of investment but even if the investment were forthcoming that it will take a long time.

As a consequence, we need to be honest and realistic when we charge into the public arena calling for shutting down coal plants. The simple fact of the matter is that we are physically and economically unable to build new solar and wind capacity quickly enough in a short timeframe to allow us to start shutting down coal fired plants. This problem remains regardless of who is in office in Government.

It also makes sense that we stop exaggerating the viability of solar displacing coal in the near future. Solar, wind and other sources are obviously a step in the right direction but it will take time to build up capacities in these technologies.

If we accept this line of reasoning then it stands to reason that what we really need is a continually evolving monitoring and optimising of the mix of all available sources, nuclear included. It may also point to a need to make better use of coal while reducing its polluting effects because we are going to have to live with it for quite a while yet.

Given what the statistics show, are we setting ourselves up for failure when public figures and the media keep pushing agendas that distort or ignore the underlying numbers. You would be hard pressed to find anyone these days who is not concerned about climate change. This is no longer the issue. What I am uneasy about is the all or nothing approach that is being pushed by many leading public figures in presenting renewables as the only way forward at any cost. This is a very unbalanced approach that ignores the technical and economic realities. 

One has to seriously question wonder why there isn't a more sane and objective discussion and debate going on right now about an optimal mix and its evolution on the basis of practical switching over from fossil fuels over time. 

Energy Tables Source: Licensed from the Commonwealth of Australia under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence. The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the content of this publication.

 

Government Accountability Gone To The Dogs

I wonder whether I am a minority in Australia when it comes to the topic of Government accountability. It seems to me that increasingly both federal and state governments are behaving like marketing machines rather than elected representatives.

The most recent fiasco of the deal with the Malaysian government is just another in a long line of instances where the PM seems to think that she can "market" the deal rather than explain to the Australian public how their actions actually achieves something.

No where can I find any explanation of just how this deal is going to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. I am by no means saying that the problem is an easy one to solve. But not one explanation has been offered to the Australian voting public of what objectives the deal was supposed to have achieved. Is it any wonder that Australians are left wondering just how weak our leadership is. And there is little doubt that governments both federal and state are spending vast sums of money on marketing.

There has been a change in many state governments so these new premiers have an opportunity to get back to the business of governing. They are not selling stuff so it is about time they stopped acting as if they were. Sugar coating may fool some of the voters some of the time but as they proverbial saying goes it will not fool everyone all the time. How about getting back to the truth and re-establishing trust and integrity in government. To the new premiers of Victoria and New South Wales, I plead with you to take heed. In the case of Victoria, the controversy over the events with the police force in the past week are an excellent opportunity to come clean and to tell the public the truth. The Police Commissioner is for all intents and purposes acting as if he is not accountable to anyone. This must be stopped and it can only be done with strong leadership from the top to do the right thing


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Smart Meters Continuing Fiasco in Victoria

The continuing fiasco with the rollout of electricity smart meters in Victoria is would be comical if it wasn't for the fact that the consumer is footing the bill for something that should have been a good initiative for better energy consumption and more responsible energy consumption.

It is clear that the existing mechanical meters have outlived it's use by date and the benefits of the new smart meters is obvious. For reasons known only to the Victorian State Government, it has chosen to roll out smart meters putting the main bulk of costs on the consumer. The key benefit to the consumer of having being able to see their actual consumption patterns is that it should lead to a change in behavior to adjust consumption patterns to make realize cost benefits of cheaper electricity during off peak hours.

Without these, there is no benefit for adoption and only the cost of installing the new meters, which is mandatory anyway. So what you get is the electricity companies gaining the benefit of more efficient meter reading and therefore lower costs which are not passed onto the consumer.

This is just another example of how badly out of the touch the government is with the people. What is more bewildering to me is why the people of Victoria simply keep voting them back into power. With the coming election I simply say get rid of them and send a clear message to a new government that there has to be a better way.

Location:Mahoneys Rd,Forest Hill,Australia

There Must Be A Smarter Way To Promote Energy Efficiency

I have come to the conclusion that it is intrinsically illogical for to expect that energy and utility companies will actually want consumer be energy efficient. Why would they? Don't they sell us electricity for a price? The last time I checked, revenue = price x quantity. So to increase revenue the supplier must increase either price or quantity or better still both.

So let's see if I can explain this. Power companies cannot just increase prices unilaterally. They have pesky regulators who must agree the price that they are allowed to charge consumers. And you guessed it, they typically ask for a higher rate based on the the cost of production.

Now if there is only limited things you can do to get a price increase approved, that leaves you with quantity as the only other thing to do to increase revenue. (let's leave profit to another post for the moment). So let me try to explain it another way. If quantity consumed is one of the two things that increase your revenue, why would you want to reduce consumption? Sure I acknowledge that it is never only one single factor to be considered in this discussion. Governments and utility companies will remind us that in order to ensure reliable and stable supply, they have to build power plants to meet peak demand and boy have you seen the price tag for one of these babys.

But fact is that with all things considered, there really isn't too much real motivation around for utility companies to reduce demand for their power. Thomas Friedman in his book Hot, Fat and Crowded explains quite simply that the current model we have to day is an "eat as much as you want" model when it comes to energy consumption.

The problem is that we have left it to energy companies to promote energy efficiency ---duh! Let me restate the scenario here. Mr utility company, we would like you to undertake to promote energy efficiency so that demand for the only product (which by the way is a commodity) you sell will fall and so will your revenue.

If I were a cynical person (which I am not) I could be forgiven for thinking that the power companies really do not care about the consumer's energy consumption. They actually would love to sell you more power in the way that any business would like to get a bigger share of your wallet. The people with the biggest motivation for doing something about energy efficiency is the consumer - yeah that's you and me. I am questioning whether utility companies should be delegated the responsibility for both promoting energy usage efficiency as they do not really stand to get as much benefit.

Which leads me to the whole point of consumers putting solar panels on their roofs. By doing so you, the consumer suddenly become a producer. You are actually competing with the utility companies. Not only are you competing with them but by doing so you are actually reducing demand for the electricity they supply to you and in the process reduce their revenue.

So we are all left with this conundrum. Getting consumers into the renewable energy game is not only desirable but essential if we are to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. But our existing model really does not provide the necessary motivation for such as change. It is time for a new model that shifts the focus to the consumer who has the right motivation for being energy efficient when it hits our back pockets.

Are We Ready For Smart Meters in Victoria?

Reading about the problems with the rollout of Smartmeters in Victoria, one could easily understand why consumers are angry about what they see as being slugged with another unnecessary cost. Consumers are already reeling from increased utility bills and this is yet another blow to families.

There is such a fixation and focus on costs and this begs the question of just why the Victorian government and the Utility companies have done a such a terrible job of educating the consumer and articulating what the whole initiative was all about.

For starters, just what are the real benefits the consumers are getting for being asked to pick up the tab for changing over to the new smart meters.The real tragedy is that very little has been done to educate consumers to the extent that it would seem that the expectation was that it would somehow sell itself.

The big missing piece is applications. What are consumers, not the utility companies, expected to do and get with smart meters. I cannot find anything published or communications to consumers about what they can use it for, which by the way there are. It is time the utility companies understand that unless they change the way they view customers, they are in for a very long and frustrating journey to introduce much of the needed change in attitudes required to introduce new energy infrastructure. Simply saying that one is green or greener is simply not enough.

To take an example from another industry. The real reason why Apple is so hugely successful with the IPhone is not because it is a great phone as there are loads of other better phones around the place. It is because Apple cultivated a huge army of developers to write programs which people could easily get and install and use on their IPhones. Things that they could do something with.

Why has this not happened with smart meters. Where are the "applications" for the smart meter. You'd be forgiven if you came to the conclusion that perhaps they are not that smart if there isn't too much one can do with it. How would the smart meters actually lead to reducing energy consumption. Until the utility companies start working with companies with devices and applications that can actually make a difference to a consumers energy consumption, the smart meters will be perceived as nothing more than a mere replacement for the mechanical meter that they have.

The message is really quite simple - if a consumer does not receive any real tangible benefit, all you are left with is a cost proposition and that will not get you very far

Smart Meters ~ The Untold Story

Doing a search on the Age website for "smart meters" returns a conflicting mix of articles. The article about how smart meters can lead to more effective energy use appears to be directed more at large companies who have the resources and a great deal to gain from managing the use of energy.

At the residential level however, the story is simply quite bleak. To put it simply, it reads "dear customer, we would like to install a smart meter which you will pay for .......". So where is the benefit to the residential consumer.

I am believe in the smart grid, which smart meters are a component off. The problem is that we have not taken the time to do it right. Smart meters are an essential component of the smart grid but unless consumers get a benefit out if it, they will be hard pressed to support it especially if they are forced to foot the bill.

• It is not something which a consumer could opt in for ~ as a consumer this would be a red flag. It suggests "they cannot convince me of the benefits so they impose it"
• What is the use of more information about usage patterns unless it gives the consumer some benefit ~ this one is the real sting in the tail. The primary benefit here is that utility companies would be able to apply different prices for electricity at different times of the day which is a very compelling benefit. This is called Time of Use (TOU) pricing. But the introduction of this pricing has been suspended. Without this pricing the rationale for introducing smart meter quickly falls apart and all a consumer is left with is a charge for a new metering system which does little for them
• The great promise of the smart grid is more efficient use of energy. Imagine a time when all appliances in your home uses energy intelligently. Washing machines and dishwashers switch on when electricity rates are lowest. Your big TVs turn off when it detects no one in the room and the list goes on. The smart grid together with smart meters provides the underlying platform and foundation to do this. The problem is that until our appliances can deal with this it is actually actually pointless. It is called applications ~ it is like having a computer without any programs to run on it. 

The smart grid is just too important for the major players to stuff it up with silly plays and isolated initiatives. Just what considerations were given to the views and needs of residential consumers is unclear. What alternative deployment plans were considered and what applications were investigated? What did any discussions with appliance manufacturers reveal?

A quick read of the websites of the major power utilities talk about making easier to read meters more efficiently leading to cost savings which is a good thing for the utility companies. Let's consider that for a moment. The energy companies get to reduce the cost of meter readings by reducing the number of meter readers and they want the consumers to pay for meters that allow them to do this. Lets do the sums. If the number of meter readers is reduced by just 10, the annual cost savings for the energy company would be in the region of at least $800,000 a year.  One could be forgiven if you came to the conclusion that the reason for compulsory replacement of meters (instead of a voluntary opt in) was due in large part to the fact that a hybrid situation was to allow utility companies to reduce costs of metering. Whatever you may think, consumers are still left with the question of why they are paying so much for something which does not deliver any benefits to them.

The saddest part of this whole episode is that the Victorian people now have a sour taste for smart grids and smart meters and it will take a lot of persuasion to convince them of its merits going forward. Let us hope that Victorians do see beyond the failings of our leaders and insist on accountability from them. Energy and its use is far too important an issue for us to just accept poor performance by the government on. We need smart grids and we need to find a better way of getting widespread support for it.