3 ms·

Where are you getting the idea that 90% of South Australia's electricity is coming from renewables? Fossil fuels still account for ~35% of the state's generatio

Where are you getting the idea that 90% of South Australia's electricity is coming from renewables? Fossil fuels still account for ~35% of the state's generation [1]. You mention "for a week", so it sounds like this was under ideal conditions in the middle of the Australian summer. I could also cherry-pick data from the middle of winter to show a particularly bad week. The only state that has more renewable generation is Tasmania, and they produce it mostly through hydropower. Again, the constraints of intermittent sources energy continue to surface themselves. Australia has not found a way to escape this. > Looks like about the same level of investment for similar targets to me. Could it be that was another example of blatant lies? As per your links, Australia merely has targets while Sweden has actually produced and delivered green steel. In fact, again as per the link, Sweden has made the world's first delivery of steel produced without fossil fuels. I'm struggling to see how you conclude this is a lie when your own sources explain how Australia has no plants or production, while Sweden has actually produced green steel. 1. https://www.energy.gov.au/data/australian-electricity-generation-fuel-mix-calendar-year-2021#:~:text=Coal%20continues%20to%20dominate%20in,34%25%20of%20South%20Australian%20generation https://www.energy.gov.au/data/australian-electricity-genera....

trashtester 4y ago
It should be said that until the entire European energy supply is carbon free, green steel is not only incredibly expensive, but also bad for the climate. It would be much better in both ways to feed that energy into the electric grid to replace fossil fueled power. Norway has a similar initiative to produce carbon free ammonium, but that, too, depends on dirt cheap electricity supply to be rational. https://www.horisontenergi.no/blue-ammonia/ https://www.horisontenergi.no/blue-ammonia/ In both cases, Hydrogen is used, and I suppose if large amounts of hydrogen becomes available and very cheap (for instance due to excess wind power supply), it _could_ be good to already have this tech available. But based on what I can see from electricity flows from Denmark and Germany to Norway, it is still very rare for the European grid to have excess power due to good wind conditions. https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/Market-data1/Power-system-data/Exchange1/NO/Hourly21/?view=table https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/Market-data1/Power-system-d... Norway can still absorb a lot more wind power on such days by temporary pausing hydro production. (Max hydroelectric electricity production in Norway is around 20GW, or about 4KW per capita).
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Sweden and Norway both have 100% decarbonized electricity. Makes sense that they're the ones that are starting to make progress on decarbonizing chemical and other industries besides electricity.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Sweden and Norway are both part of the European grid, so excess power can be exported to Germany, the UK, Denmark, Poland etc where it can replace coal/gas based power. (In fact Norway and Sweden are required to do so as part of the ACER agreement.) For now, that makes a lot more sense economically AND it replaces more carbon emissions per kWh.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Where are you getting the idea that 90% of South Australia's electricity is coming from renewables? Fossil fuels still account for ~35% of the state's generation [1]. You're still making the point for me here. After only 5 years or so of actually supporting renewables and meaningful growth, and around two years of solar being the cheapest option, they're meeting 65% of the total electricity. > As per your links, Australia merely has targets while Sweden has actually produced and delivered green steel. In fact, again as per the link, Sweden has made the world's first delivery of steel produced without fossil fuels. I'm struggling to see how you conclude this is a lie when your own sources explain how Australia has no plants or production, while Sweden has actually produced green steel. Ah, so you're back to claiming that things that aren't already finished are impossible and irrelevant. Really working hard to find somewhere you can put those goalposts. Also Lulea is in Sweden's north so your pathetic attempt at a gotchya of a single load from a demo plant was powered with hydro and wind, not Nuclear.

trashtester 4y ago

It should be said that until the entire European energy supply is carbon free, green steel is not only incredibly expensive, but also bad for the climate. It would be much better in both ways to feed that energy into the electric grid to replace fossil fueled power. Norway has a similar initiative to produce carbon free ammonium, but that, too, depends on dirt cheap electricity supply to be rational. https://www.horisontenergi.no/blue-ammonia/ https://www.horisontenergi.no/blue-ammonia/ In both cases, Hydrogen is used, and I suppose if large amounts of hydrogen becomes available and very cheap (for instance due to excess wind power supply), it _could_ be good to already have this tech available. But based on what I can see from electricity flows from Denmark and Germany to Norway, it is still very rare for the European grid to have excess power due to good wind conditions. https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/Market-data1/Power-system-data/Exchange1/NO/Hourly21/?view=table https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/Market-data1/Power-system-d... Norway can still absorb a lot more wind power on such days by temporary pausing hydro production. (Max hydroelectric electricity production in Norway is around 20GW, or about 4KW per capita).

Manuel_D 4y ago
Sweden and Norway both have 100% decarbonized electricity. Makes sense that they're the ones that are starting to make progress on decarbonizing chemical and other industries besides electricity.
- trashtester 4y ago
  Sweden and Norway are both part of the European grid, so excess power can be exported to Germany, the UK, Denmark, Poland etc where it can replace coal/gas based power. (In fact Norway and Sweden are required to do so as part of the ACER agreement.) For now, that makes a lot more sense economically AND it replaces more carbon emissions per kWh.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Where are you getting the idea that 90% of South Australia's electricity is coming from renewables? Fossil fuels still account for ~35% of the state's generation [1]. You're still making the point for me here. After only 5 years or so of actually supporting renewables and meaningful growth, and around two years of solar being the cheapest option, they're meeting 65% of the total electricity. > As per your links, Australia merely has targets while Sweden has actually produced and delivered green steel. In fact, again as per the link, Sweden has made the world's first delivery of steel produced without fossil fuels. I'm struggling to see how you conclude this is a lie when your own sources explain how Australia has no plants or production, while Sweden has actually produced green steel. Ah, so you're back to claiming that things that aren't already finished are impossible and irrelevant. Really working hard to find somewhere you can put those goalposts. Also Lulea is in Sweden's north so your pathetic attempt at a gotchya of a single load from a demo plant was powered with hydro and wind, not Nuclear.