Matt Wright - 100% Renewables by 2020
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
0 gostou•698 visualizações
Beyond Zero Emissions 100% Renewable Energy by 2020 plan.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Destaque
Semelhante a Matt Wright - 100% Renewables by 2020
Semelhante a Matt Wright - 100% Renewables by 2020 (20)
Último
Último (20)
Matt Wright - 100% Renewables by 2020
- 1. Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Stationary Energy: A plan for repowering Australia with 100% renewable energy in ten years
- 5. Oil and Gas Coal exporters Generators The CAN'T DO campaign The CAN'T DO MANTRA “ Renewable energy cant supply baseload power” “ Renewable energy is too expensive” “ Renewable energy will wreck the economy” “ Renewable energy will cost jobs”
- 6. The CAN DO campaign
- 7. The CAN DO campaign
- 10. Al Gore calls for 100% clean electricity and independence from foreign oil within ten years “ a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.”
- 11. Mark Jacobson: Shifting the world to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2030 The cost of generating and transmitting power would be less than the projected cost per kilowatt-hour for fossil-fuel and nuclear power. 3.8 million large wind turbines, 90,000 solar plants, and numerous geothermal, tidal and rooftop photovoltaic installations worldwide.
- 12. Zero Carbon Australia Baseload Solar Thermal – 24 hour power
- 13. (52 Kilowatts)
- 14. SEGS Plants 354MW in Mohave Desert, California, since 1984
- 16. Solar Two – 1996 - 1999 Run by the U.S. DoE, Sandia National Laboratories, Lockheed Martin 10MW turbine, 3 hrs storage
- 17. Baseload Solar Thermal Power Andasol 1,2 and Extresol 3 Spain, operating now, 7.5 hours energy storage Torresol Gemasolar Spain, on line 2010, 15 hours energy storage 24 hour Dispatchable Power
- 18. Baseload Solar Central Receiver Tower Technology
- 21. What’s happening in Spain? Access to the grid request of STE projects by Oct 2009 15.561 MW
- 22. Electricity and Energy Demand ZCA2020 energy demand = 1,708PJ ZCA2020 electricity demand = 1,165PJ 2007 energy demand = 3,915PJ 2007 electricity demand = 822PJ
- 23. Modal shift: 80% (urban) and 50% (rural) shift to public transport. Electric trains and trams Electrifying vehicle fleet: biofuels reserved for heavy machinery, range extension on electric vehicles and other vehicles that can’t be electrified. Electrifying transport
- 24. Nissan Patrol Capacity 5 17 litres per 100km How Easy is Energy Efficiency in Transport?? Siemens Combino tram Capacity 190 16 litres per 100km (Oil Energy Equiv) The Nissan Patrol uses more energy to move 5 people around the city than a Siemens tram uses to move 190 people
- 25. Australia's renewable energy grid: 2020 Australia’s Renewable Energy Grid 2020
- 28. China : 150,000 MW wind by 2020 ‘ Three Gorges of Wind ’ Project , under construction now, equivalent electricity output of Three Gorges Dam
- 30. “ The review finds that the transmission scenario proposed is technically feasible in terms of capacity and reliability. In addition, the proposed transmission uses mature technology with proven capability around the world.” SKM Review of ZCA2020 transmission The National Grid
- 31. Resource Requirements Labour Requirements Manufacturing Ramp-up Implementation
- 32. Enercon Viana Do Costelo Wind Turbine blade and tower factories Portugal 250 towers per year 600 Blades 400 Jobs
- 33. Achievability: Jobs In Context
- 34. Solar Thermal Cost Reduction Trajectory
- 36. National Security Food Security Water Security Energy Security Regional Security
- 37. Safe Climate a Bargain at 3.5% of GDP
- 38. 1 mirror OR 20 tons of coal OUR CHOICE
Notas do Editor
- Thank whoever organised the talk, Introduce yourself and who you are, Introduce who beyond zero emissions are. “ I'm going to talk to you about climate science and how we can solve climate change by repowering Australia with 100 renewable energy in 10 years… When we are confronted by an overwhelming problem without a solution that we think can’t actually solve the problem, the effect is disempowering and demoralising- people don’t want to put energy into something they have no control over, into a fight that cant be won. With regards to energy, at the moment, the overwhelming perception in the community, and among our elected decision makers, is that it is impossible, or at least way too hard, too expensive or too disruptive to decisively transition our energy system to clean energy. The Zero Carbon Australia 2020 project is a campaign aimed squarely at shifting this dominant paralysing and inaccurate CANT DO perception, and presenting a detailed, rigorous and empowering vision of a path Australia can take to transform our energy sector. We believe it is not only necessary, but entirely possible, and indeed broadly beneficial in a whole lot of collateral ways, to act decisively to transform our energy system to clean energy. The project has at its core a series of 5 reports outlining this vision in different sectors of the economy. The stationary energy sector report is the one that is closest to completion, and I’ll be giving a brief overview of that today. Its no accident that the disempowering CANT DO perception dominates in this country. It’s the result of a very deliberate, well funded and effective campaign by a small group of industries with a very strong vested interest in a continuation of the status quo. Reference http:// www.beyondzeroemissions.org /about/history
- Arctic ice is in decline, has been for several decades Recent years loss of summer sea ice has accelerated This is indication of the earth's energy imbalance Wieslaw Maslowski the US Navy’s lead oceanographer said that by 2015 it is possible that there will be complete loss of arctic sea ice cover. So the why, why zero emissions in 10 years. I'm not here to talk in detail about climate science and the greenhouse effect. Just going to show you what's been happening and the recommendations from recent studies. The Arctic Summer Sea Ice cover has been in decline since 1979. Observations by satellites and recorded by the Navy’s of many countries has not seen a substantial loss of summer sea ice like we are seeing at the moment. Normally in winter the Sea Ice extend covers 13 million sq kilometres. The sea ice normally shrinks to 7 million square kilometres in Summer an area the size of Australia. When the arctic ocean is covered in ice like this about 90% of sun light radiation that strikes the ice is reflected back out of the earths atmosphere and into space allowing the region to stay within its current cool temperature bounds. Unfortunately between 2005 and 2007 an area the size of NT was lost in sea ice cover. That’s an area the size of NT absorbing all the sunlight striking it at the suns full intensity, and heating up the region. In 2009 the sea ice extent recovered a small amount (an area the size of Victoria) versus 2007 summer ice extent. However the ice thickness across most of the Floating ice pack has reduced from 4 metre + perennial ice down to 1 year ice which is around 1 metre or less thickness. This 1 metre ice tends to not remain from season to season. Wieslaw Maslowski the US Navy’s lead oceanographer said that by 2013 it is possible that there will be complete loss of arctic sea ice cover, other experts on the ice such as scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre say that it will happen by 2020. BZE radio Maslowski: http://beyondzeroemissions.org/media/radio/dr-wieslaw-maslowski-predicted-2013-ice-free-summer-arctic-five-years-ago-now-he-says-ma
- Worse that IPCC forecasts Research indicates that deglaciation is related to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. This is in stark contrast to the IPCC that forecast worst case loss of sea ice cover 2070 and an average of 2300 before we’d see an ice free arctic with the effects of global warming. The IPCC is conservative and dumbed down the science. And remember, this is already occurring with the average 0.8 degrees Celsius global warming that we've observed so far. Yet most leaders are targeting a rise of 2 degrees warming. Evidence that this of drastic change happening right now and that we already have too much greenhouse in the atmosphere. Recent studies from NASA's James Hansen have found that over the long history of the planet, greenhouse gas concentrations above 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere have lead to deglaciation of most of the planet. We are currently at about 390ppm and rising. It's not too late, as long term deglaciation can take decades to centuries, but our ultimate target is get to zero emissions and below, so we can get back below 350ppm, some scientists say even lower (Schellnhuber says below 300ppm) Hansen's 350ppm reference: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf Discussion on ClimateProgress: http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/17/hansen-et-al-must-read-back-to-350-ppm-or-risk-an-ice-free-planet/ Schellnhuber's full report available here: http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2009_en.html Beyond Zero Radio on climate science: http://beyondzeroemissions.org/media/radio/james-hansen-no-more-conventional-coal-and-carbon-stabilisation-below-350ppm-080228 http://beyondzeroemissions.org/media/radio/professor-schellnhuber-potsdam-institute-talks-pre-industrial-carbon-levels-safe-climate http://beyondzeroemissions.org/media/radio/ken-caldeira-carnegie-institute-stabilizing-carbon-emissions-only-option-080229
- The problem with the loss of Arctic Sea ice cover is that it that the Arctic Ice sits right next to Greenland and Greenland holds about 2km of Ice average, and at it’s peak has 4.3km thick ice cover. This translates into 7 metres of sea level rise if it all melted. This is a serious threat to international Trade and international shipping With just 1-2metres of sea level rise International shipping which relies on port facilities around the globe is seriously compromised. The earth’s crust that Greenland sits on is depressed around 300metres. And as melting of the Greenland ice sheet occurs this causes earth quakes which trigger Ice quakes which trigger earth quakes. The melting is occurring in a non linear way and much of the Ice is just slipping off the ice shelf and into the sea where it doesn’t float for long before getting to more mild climate and melting adding to sea level. Segway : “ considering the gravity of this issue. It is not surprising that there is a highly motivated and connected group that is in and out of political offices, talking about this issue, unfortunately this isn't us…” See mark ogge's t10 talk - http://beyondzeroemissions.org/node/255
- So it's not surprising given that climate change is such an urgent and dangerous threat, that there is a large, well funded and well organised campaign to affect government greenhouse policy. Unfortunately, it's not us. It's what we call the CAN'T DO Campaign Every year the carbon lobby spends tens of millions of dollars on lobbying and PR professionals who relentlessly lobby key decision makers in government and the bureaucracy, and run a media and PR campaign that effectively sets the parameters of the debate in this country. And they spend all this money because it works. They effectively write climate and energy policy in this country. But the key thing is to understand is their messaging. When you strip all back, the underlying message is what we call the CAN'T DO MANTRA, and it goes something like this: Renewable energy cant supply baseload power Renewable energy is too expensive Renewable energy will wreck the economy Renewable energy will cost jobs The CAN'T DO MANTRA. CAN'T DO, because its designed to disempower, and MANTRA, because its repeated endlessly, and if you repeat something often enough, it becomes accepted as reality- and it has become accepted reality by almost all our elected representatives and decision makers, most of the media, the overwhelming majority of the general public, and even many in the environment movement. PH delivery style note: it is important to point out the power of the fossil fuel lobby and the Can't Do campaign. However don't spend too much time banging on about this slide, as we don't want to do their work for them, repeating “Can't Do and Overwhelmingly Hard” too much probably doesn't grab audiences References: “High & Dry”, Guy Pearse, 2007 for an Australian perspective, or his Quarterly Essay “Quarry Vision
- So to counter this head on, we've formed what we call the Can Do campaign. We've got together a team of engineers, scientists and ordinary Australians to map out a vision of what it would actually take to solve climate change. The whole plan is to map out how each sector of the economy can be completely decarbonised in line with the climate science. We don't see the point of figuring out how to solve half the problem decades too late, which is why we go for target of zero emissions in ten years. These are members of the Stationary Energy team, whose report on how to achieve 100 renewable energy is to be released shortly Beyond Zero Emissions has motivated and put together a team to write the transition of each sector of the economy. Pictured here are meetings and members of the Stationary Energy 100% renewable energy team. We consist of Mechanical, Aerospace, Chemical, Renewable, Computer and Automotive Engineers. We’ve got mathematicians, PhD researchers, Physicists, Nuclear Physicists, Specialists and experts from within industry from the fossil fuel sector and from universities. This is an exciting inspiring and interesting project and we are still trying to work through the level of interest we’ve got. We’ve then got a support team to get the message out doing talks and editing and publishing our original content and making this all something that the Australian people can get behind.
- - Completely accept current climate science evidence on what has to be done & by when - Renewable energy solutions exist now - Technology is not the limiting issue in moving to sustainable energy supply - We have all the tools! - 100% Renewable Energy by 2020 These are some of the main tenets of the CAN DO VISION, they may seem quite radical but they are based of world best science and are completely achievable from a technological viewpoint. The human will inputs are all that are needed As you transition to next slide (so how soon do we have to become a zero carbon australia?) Reference The ZCA plan!
- So we needed a target for reducing emissions, and a timeline for it to be achieved. Our starting point was not received wisdom about what is generally considered technically or politically achievable, But what is necessary This graph by Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam institute – one of the world's most authoritative climate research institutes – shows the rate of emissions reductions for selected countries if we are to have only a 67% chance of avoiding 2 degree warming- given an equitable rate of global reductions, taking into account current per-capita emissions levels of different countries. Slide shows if every country had same carbon budget per person since 1990. (Because Australia has consumed near the most we have to reduce more quickly. Who else out there is calling for 100% by 2020? Remember two degrees is in itself a huge level of risk, given the danger of crossing tipping points within the climate system. We accept that this is as being the based on the best available science We accept that global emissions reductions need to be equitable So we accepted that for Australia, ten years was the necessary timeframe to transition to renewable energy We believe the only question worth asking is what it would take to do the whole job properly in time- not doing half the job ten years too late –
- From a planning point of view, we agree with Al Gore When in the context of his inspiring call for America to move to 100% clean electricity and independence from foreign oil, he said: A political promise to do something in 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows it is meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum amount of time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.
- And we are not alone in calling for a transition on this scale The lead story of Novembers issues of Scientific American Last year, the enormously respected Stanford Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Mark Z Jacobson published his Wind Water Sun scenario for the world to move to 100% renewable energy by 2030,using almost entirely solar and wind power Given that equity considerations imply a far more rapid transition for developed countries, this is entirely consistent with a ten year timeframe for Australia. Segway: “ so how are we going to get to 100% by 2020, what technologies?” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=powering-a-green-planet
- So now to talk about the Zero Carbon Australia plan. A key technology that underpins this work is solar thermal power. It's an elegantly simple technology. You use mirrors to concentrate the sun's light to create heat, boil water to create steam and run a steam turbine. Steam turbines are exactly the same technology use in fossil and nuclear power stations, except they burn coal or try and control nuclear reactions to run what is essentially a glorified kettle. There are several different configurations of mirrors used for solar thermal, but I'll talk about just two – parabolic troughs and power towers
- This is not new technology. Parabolic troughs haves been proven technology since 1911. This plant was generating steam to drive pumps to irrigate cotton fields in Egypt. However it was bombed in World War 1, then they found oil, so they didn't rebuild it.
- This is a more modern parabolic trough system. In the 1980s , 354 MW of parabolic troughs were built in the Mohave Desert in California. They are still operating today http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=28
- But the really exciting technology is the molten salt power tower systems that were proven by the U.S. Department of Energy back in the 1990's. Remember the Can't Do claim that renewable energy can't supply baseload power? Solar thermal smashes that myth. For the working fluid it uses molten salt, a mixture of potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate which melts above 220degrees Celsius. In this system, you have a 'cold' tank of liquid salt at 290oC, which is pumped up a tower surrounded by a field of flat mirrors, called heliostats. These track the sun and concentrate the sun's light on the top of the tower, where the salt if heated to 565oC, the same temperature that a coal plant operates at. This is then stored in the 'hot' tank, like a big insulated thermos. Whenever you need power, the hot salt is used to generate steam and drive the turbine, then sent back to the cold tank. In this way, the heat storage allows you to generate power around the clock, 24 hours a day. Unlike Solar Photo-Voltaic which produces electricity directly, Solar Thermal concentrates the suns energy using mirrors to produce heat- which is used to create steam to drive a turbine and produce electricity. Heat is much easier and cheaper to store than electricity. The heat that is created using the these parabolic trough mirrors during sunlight hours is used to heat molten salt in these highly insulated tanks- and then dispatched at night as it is needed. This is around the clock, dispatchable solar power- and can replace inflexible baseload power from coal plants which produce the same amount of power 24/7- at 5pm when you need it- and 3 am when you don't- and the plants blow steam and waste power.
- This was proven in the 1990s by the U.S. Department of Energy's “Solar Two” project, run by Lockheed Martin and a number of other national energy laboratories and energy companies. They successfully demonstrated the molten salt power tower technology for 3 years from 1996-1999. Other background The U.S. DoE was all set to scale up its solar thermal program in the early 2000s, but under the watch of the Bush Administration they had almost all of their funding cut off. Full Solar Two program was run by- Sandia National Laboratories – they do solar, nuclear and national security research, run by Lockheed Martin under contract from the U.S. DoE National Renewable Energy Laboratories
- Baseload solar thermal is now in operation and being built over in Spain. - They are undergoing a solar thermal renaissance The top set of images is of the Andasol plants, which combine the parabolic trough technology with molten salt storage. They have enough storage to run at full output for 7.5 hours without sunlight. Below is the Torresol Gemasolar plant, which uses the tower technology when it's operational at the beginning of next year, will have enough storage for 15 hours. That's baseload power even in the middle of winter. This technology has a capacity factor of 75% (ie the amount of the plants capacity utilised) which is higher than NSW black coal
- The central receiver tower technology that we have specified in our plan was designed by Sandia Laboratories, which are run by Lockheed Martin as part of the U.S. Department of Energy. We have based our system on the Solar 220 MW modules designed by Sandia laboratories, as mentioned before, although our plan involves a progressive ramping up from smaller systems for learning purposes. We have chosen this size because it is about the maximum size for a single tower system, as beyond that there are difficulties in focusing the mirrors on the central receiver. Thus you can maximize the economies of scale, by getting the most amount of power per tower receiver, turbine, These are some engineering drawings drawings of this particularly technology which is currently being commercialized by the US company Solar Reserve at the 50MW Alcazar plant in Spain, and two 150MW in Rice, California and Tonopah , Nevada. Some of the reasons we prefer this technology are that it produces much higher temperatures, which increases efficiency, allows more heat energy to be stored in the thermal storage tanks, and there are far lower line losses than parabolic trough plants which have kms of collector pipes running the length of the mirror field.
- This is one of the tanks at the Andasol plants. It is standard steel tank – a very cheap and simple battery. Thermal storage or electric storage is equivalent to comparing a thermos mug to a laptop battery in terms of cost and reliability Solar thermal storage uses same material as industrial fertiliser.
- 26 April 2010 Spain has 2,440MW of Solar Thermal plant operating or under construction to be completed over the next 3 years. Enough to power about 1/3 of Victoria’s (1/5 of NSW) energy needs. This is over $20 Billion AUD worth of plant to be built by 2013 40 plants either built or under construction, mixture of troughs and towers 2440MW with old feed in tariff. 16000MW in pipeline. Next round of plants will have less feed in tariff use, showing the reduction in cost that occurs as more is built. Two main companies - solar resource, torresol have same technologies They’ve got over 15,000MW of Solar Thermal plant in planning that has received permission to connect to the Spanish Electricity Grid. This would be the equivalent of powering NSW and South Australia with Solar Thermal. The Spanish system is successful not just because it has a feed in tariff but the government is serious about making this happen. Unlike our government which pays lip service and has hobby scale projects to generally humour the public, but is not about seriously repowering our economy with renewables. Spain currently has a feed in tariff policy that backs 800MW per year of Solar Thermal with Storage (24 hour baseload solar) 500MW of direct solar photovoltaic (rooftop like PV) and 2,000MW per year of Wind Power. Spain will achieve 22.7% of Total Energy from Renewable Sources (Heat Water and Space, Transport and Electricity) and will achieve 42.3% of electricity from Renewables by 2020 http://www.la-moncloa.es/IDIOMAS/9/ActualidadHome/2009-2/07012010_SpainToSurpass_2020RenewableEnergiesTarget.htm Spanish Solar Thermal Industry Association: http://www.protermosolar.com/boletines/boletin24.html#destacados03 Use Google Translate! http://translate.google.com
- So the first step for the Zero Carbon Report was to look at how much energy and electricity we need to use. We've projected that our current uses for electricity will get more efficient, but we also include switching current uses of natural gas and oil to electricity. The results is that in 2020, we use less than half the overall energy, but our electricity consumption goes up by over 40% How we generate the electricity is one side of the equation, but the other side of the equation is the demand side, how much energy we use. This is essentially half of the report, but I can only touch on this today. Under the ZCA2020 scenario, we take an integrated approach to the energy system across transport and stationary energy. Essentially our approach is to provide the energy services we currently with natural gas, so heating, cooking and many industrial processes, and oil for transport, with electricity generated from renewable sources. The fortunate thing is that for most applications, electrical systems are far more efficient . For example, in transport where electrical engines use around 1/8 of the energy to move a vehicle per km, compared to internal combustion engines, but also in heating, where an efficient electrical heat pump systems will deliver the same amount of heat for a third the amount of energy as ordinary gas heaters. So the switch of fuels itself, from oil and natural gas represents huge energy savings We also have ambitious, but very achievable electricity E E targets, mainly involving retrofitting Australias commercial and residential building stock, which would reduce our per capita electricity consumption from current very high levels at the moment, to about the same levels of other industrialised countries like Germany The end result is that we would significantly increase the amount of electricity we need to supply, but half the total amount energy use overall.
- As with Mark Jacobson- Electrification of transport is central to system design Because electrical engines are so much more efficient than internal combustion engines – a factor of 5 can be made just from switching to electric motors When we include a decent shift to public transport, we can achieve massive energy savings- by a total factor of 10 or more! Obviously electrification requires a large investment in predominantly in rail and light rail infrastructure- but this small compared to the massive (and increasing) impost of of oil imports on our economy
- This slide illustrates how such energy savings are achieved This Nissan Patrol takes the same amount of energy to move it as this Seimans tram. You can move 5 people in a Nissan Patrol- and 190 in a Seimans tram Taking average loadings into account- the energy use for every passenger KM you can move to a Seimans tram- is about one fortieth of that of Nissan Patrol A ford corolla has a fuel efficiency of 11.5 litres per 100km First mass produced all electric car being released in US in december – the nissan leaf - http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/index The Leaf will go on sale in a limited way in December, and be widely available soon thereafter. Production of the first-ever mass produced all-electric, zero-emissions car sold in the US will be around 50,000 a year, reports Treehugger. Nissan surprised the emerging electric vehicle industry last month when it announced a remarkably low MSRP of $32,780 for the Leaf, which drops to $25,780 with a $7,500 federal tax credit. California and other states offer rebates that can bring the price down to $20,280. Nissan says the car will have a 100-mile range on one charge.
- So we designed a grid to meet Australia's projected 2020 electricity demand – this is the 100% renewable grid that we can have by 2020. It uses a combination of 23 wind sites and 12 solar thermal sites to take advantage of Australia's great natural resources. This is the renewable energy grid and generators that we CAN have in 2020 with the help of you and the success of the CAN Do campaign. By defeating the Can’t do campaign. Here you can see the ZCA 2020 23 Wind Power and 12 Solar Thermal regions. We can choose to have this, or we can choose to burn coal with all the associated local pollution (radon, thorium, mercury, birth defects, 7x national cancer rates) and global warming pollution. The Red lines are the HVDC backbone and the Green lines the additional HVAC links, while the white links behind are the existing Australian electricity grid.
- So now to supply 60% of Australia's 2020 electricity demand from solar thermal with storage, we have designed 12 sites around Australia. Each of these would have 3500MW. They would be made up mainly of 220MW tower modules, with up to 17 hours storage fro round-the-clock power. They have air-cooling that reduces water consumption by a factor of 10. We link about 19 of these modules together to form a 3500MW plant or solar region, in much the same way as a coal plant like Hazelwood consists of 8 times 185 MW (net generators linked together to form a single plant. There would be 12 of these plants dispersed across Australia to supply 60% of Australia’s energy PH Maths note – each of the 12 'sites' consist of 13 x 217MWe generating units, and 6 smaller ones from scale-up in the early stages. This is why 19 units is not (19 x 217 = 4123MW) Hazelwood has 8 separate generating units. It is nominally 1600MW, but only 1480MW net due to its parasitic requirements. 1480/8=185MW The land area required per 3500MW site is the equivalent of a square 15km x 15km – the size of a decent cattle station
- The other 40% of Australias energy in 2020 would come from wind. Wind is the lowest cost, most technologically mature form of renewable energy This would require around 8000 turbines to be rolled out, so an average of of about 800 per year, dispersed across Australia. In our plan we've identified 23 of the best wind regions, for good geographical diversity Interestingly, over the last decade wind power has grown by around 30% a year. If we increased this to around 40% per year for the next ten years in Australia from where we are now, we would reach our target. When wind power is dispersed over a large area it is able to deliver firm and reliable baseload power - FROM http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html found that from 14%-27% of rated capacity across Eastern Seaboard is baseload. I'e so if wind turbine are operating at 30%, almost half the elctricity they produce is firm p202 for conclusions
- China is aiming for 15% of all energy from renewables by 2020, with a target of 100,000MW of wind by 2020. For the past four years, the installed capacity of wind power in China has doubled every year. In 2009 they installed almost 13,000MW of new wind capacity. If they continue at this rate of installation, they'll reach their 100,000MW target by 2015. This contrasts with Australia that has NO TARGET for all energy, and has a small pathetic 20% of electricity from renewables by 2020. The EU have got a target of 20% of all energy from renewables, and Spain for instance is going 42.3% by renewables by 2020, Denmark is going 50% wind by 2025 etc.
- Now it's one thing to size the system, but another to make sure it can reliably meet demand 365 days a year. We've had an actuary volunteer his time to do actual modelling on our system, using solar data from the 12 sites we've specified, and wind data from existing wind farms, scaled up to model the amount of capacity we have installed. Modelling over a 3 day period, haven't got WA in there yet, will make it more solid solar plug-in orange, wind in blue, new grid. Work done by SKM First image Here you can see actual wind output from South Australia over a 3 day period – steady for a few days but then it drops off Second image But at the same time, the wind was still blowing strong in Tassie & Victoria Third image In fact, if we switch them around you can see the really strong flat output from Tasmania's Windnorth farm. Up the top is the electricity demand. We need a power source that is flexible, and can always match the difference between demand and wind supply. This is where the solar thermal comes in. Fourth image When the wind is blowing strong, the CST plants don't have to release much electricity, and can hold more heat in their tanks for later. When the wind drops off, they can meet the difference. This modelling has been done over two years worth of data – 2008 and 2009. Our system can reliably meet 98% of demand with wind and solar. For the other 2%, a combination of existing hydro and a small amount of waste biomass is used for backup, to ensure 100% reliable supply.
- Transmission map This slide shows the design of our transmission upgrade- Australia's new National Grid -that would be needed to incorporate the our new renewable energy generation. This is the High Voltage DC (Direct Current) Backbone, which efficiently transmits the electricity over long distances with low losses. High voltage AC (Alternating current) us also used, to strengthen the existing grid and interconnect the three main grids It was designed in conjunction with the generous in-kind support of Sinclair Knight Merz, one of Australia's leading engineering companies, who have reviewed the work and found it to be technically feasible, using mature technology. It also shows the spread of the Solar and wind sites we have chosen
- So how would we build all this and achieve the transition in the ten year timeframe? We’ve looked at resourcing of the transition and the requirements of the build - all the major commodities and the ability to scale the labour force to meet the jobs requirements. Although it is not mandated that the materials and production would have to be met locally, we do think it is useful to be able to compare to what we do in our economy today. If you look at how much steel and concrete we'll need, it's a fraction of what we use already. We already pour 60 million tonnes of concrete a year in building, we'd need less than 7% of that production per year to be diverted towards the build-out, or grow concrete production. Similarly with steel – now if you looked at just what we produce domestically we'd need 20-30% of our steel production. But if you take into account that we one of the world's largest exporters of iron ore, we need less than 2% of all the steel that is produced from our iron ore. Now this is the really interesting stuff – the labour requirements. If you look at it, getting the job done in ten years is entirely achieveable Including manufacturing half the components domestically, we can create 80,000 on going jobs in manufacturing and operations and maintenance. That's about 4 times more jobs than currently exist in the domestic fossil fuel supply sector. And to build everything, we need a peak construction workforce of 75,000 – the construction industry during the boom times was growing at 50,000 per year and we currently have a construction workforce of 1 million in Australia.
- Portugal wind turbine factory, built in one year. Both towers and blades located near wind turbines Manufacturing is not an issue
- There are currently about 11 million total jobs in Australia. This graph just shows the industries that are most relevant to ZCA2020 – Construction; Manufacturing; Professional & Technical services (including engineering), and the existing electricity sector. To the left is actual jobs. It has flatlined and is projected to flatline since the GFC. The green is how many jobs we would create total
- We cost our entire plan We go into great detail and use very credible sources- for instance with solar thermal we use US Department Of Energy's Sandia Lab cost projections- checked off by Sargent and Lundy- one of the oldest and Largest power engineering consultancies in the world As with technologies in general, there are enormous reductions in costs to be made with CST as the industry grows and more capacity is installed The essential point is that, it is projected that with 2600 MW (less than 2 Hazelwoods) installed globally ( Power Towers with Molten salt storage- the technology that we use in our plan) the price of this electricity will come do around the equivalent to wind And with another 6100 MW (3 and a bit Hazelwoods) The price is equivalent to that from new coal plants – about 5cents per kWh Australian
- So this is another myth the Can't Do campaign perpetuates – that renewable energy will always be way too expensive to compete against fossil fuels. In reality, as we have already seen with wind power and solar PV, renewable energy consistently gets cheaper as the rate of installation grows. The single biggest factor in these cost reductions is not the ongoing R&D, but scaling up deployment of the technologies and industrial learning curves. In the short term, renewables need price support to compete. But eventually, they will be more competitive. In Spain, they have already reduced the next round of Feed-in-Tariff by 30% due to the industry reducing their costs.
- We have only focused on the Environmental arguments for this type of technology but there are many other reasons why it makes sense to switch to renewable energy.
- Safe climate a bargain at 3.5% GDP. $37 Bn /yr in a $1200Bn economy But to weigh against these costs, is how much we'd end up spending on keeping the existing fossil fuel juggernaut going. If you add in regular capital expenditure and buying coal & gas, the cost of ZCA2020 is only about $200Bn more than what we'd spend out to 2020 anyway – so that' s more like 2% of GDP opportunity cost. This compares to many things including gambling spend 17billion a year, Funding propping up the outer fringe housing development sector around $40 billion a year. $90 billion in two federal stimulus packages etc. And remember, this is a mixture of public and private money – we are not suggesting the taxpayer funds the whole project. As discussed with the cost reductions earlier, renewables in the short term need a price support policy to allow a level playing field. This makes it viable for private companies to invest capital.
- Remember that solar thermal plants and coal plants are similar in that they use heat, to boil steam, and drive a turbine. Difference is that solar uses mirrors, whereas a fossil plant burns coal. Each 1 m sq mirror we install in our Solar thermal plants- will save burning 20 tonnes of coal over its lifetime The rest of the generating infrastructure is roughly equivalent- same turbines- smokestacks similar to towers etc For every 1 msq mirror we choose not to install- we are choosing to burn 20 tonnes of coal, and put 72 tonnes of co2 into the atmoshere.