100% renewables “cheaper, less risky” than building new coal: ATA    By   Sophie Vorrath on 22 November 2017      
  Powering   Australia with 100 per cent renewable energy is not only possible by  as  early as 2030, but would be a “cheaper and less risky” way forward  for  the national electricity market than building new coal-fired power,  a  new report has claimed.
   The report, published on Wednesday  by the Alternative Technology  Association, says a 100 per cent  renewable grid could be achieved by  2030, and generate power at a cost  of around $93/MWh, by ramping up wind  and solar installations, and  balancing that with pumped hydro energy  storage and extra transmission  lines.
   The ATA bases its forecast on recent research by the  Australian  National University, while factoring in recent trends and  developments  such as the new lows for the cost of large-scale solar,  and new projects  like the federal government-backed Snow Hydro 2.0.
      
    “Fully-renewable operation of the National Electricity Market  requires  93,300 MW of renewable generation capacity, according to the  ANU,” the  report says.
    “If construction of wind and solar generation  continues at the 2017  rate, this level will be attained in 2040. To  reach this milestone by  2030 would require an acceleration of 80% from  the 2017 rate.”
   Put simply, it says, if Australia “commences a  proper effort” to roll  out renewables by early 2018, a fully-renewable  electricity grid is  achievable by 2030.
   “This 12-year timeframe  allows for the renewable industry to ramp up  its capacity prior to a  full-speed rollout in the final decade.”
   Notably, the speed of  the transition is almost entirely determined by  the wind and solar  component of the equation, with energy storage  requirements “largely  covered” by 2025, assuming the construction of the  Snowy Hydro scheme  and new hydro in Tasmania, using existing dams.
      
   This doesn’t bode well against latest modelling for the federal Coalition’s proposed National Energy Guarantee, which –   as Giles Parkinson writes here, today – confirms the new policy would effectively shut the door on new renewable investment at national level in the next decade.
    The modelling – included in a new 50 page document prepared by the   Energy Security Board for the COAG energy ministers meeting on Friday –   suggests adopting the NEG would add an extra 1 per cent of renewable   capacity compared to doing nothing over a whole decade.
   Of  course, this does not factor in the states, whose much more  ambitious  renewable energy targets and climate policies are, arguably,  already  demonstrating what can be done, with relatively little effort  and for a  lower cost than fossil fuels.
   But the fact remains that at the  federal level, the political  appetite for renewables appears to have  all but disappeared in the LNP  ranks, while a far-right led campaign to  build new coal plant in  northern Queensland remains firmly on the  table.
   On this front, however, the ATA report is unequivocal –  new coal just  doesn’t cut it on cost. And anyway, why would you build  it in this  climate constrained world, when you can run the grid safely  and reliably  on 100 per cent renewables?
   But for those who still don’t get it, here’s how the ATA breaks it down:
    “Costs for coal-fired power stations are not reducing,” the report   says. “Old coal-fired generators have been able to supply cheap   electricity primarily because their financing was paid off decades  ago, and cheap coal supplies had been available.
    “A new coal-fired power station would have neither of these   advantages. It would also have to contend with modern labour costs and   regulations. Future trends affect decisions being made today. Approving,   designing and building a coal-fired power station would take many   years. By the time it opened it would be competing against the next   generation of cheaper wind and solar.”
   All said and done, the  report estimates that electricity from  new-build coal-fired power  stations would likely cost between $81 and  $182 per megawatt hour – a  cost that quickly increases to a range of  $102 to $203 once hidden  health impacts and climate impacts are factored  in.
   Meanwhile,  in a fully renewable electricity grid, electricity would  cost about $93  per megawatt hour – including the cost of building energy  storage and  extra transmission to manage intermittency.
   But in a debate  where costs and climate science seem to get glossed  over, Andrew  Reddaway – ATA energy analyst and the report’s lead author –  stresses  the importance of policy catching up with the realities of  current  technology – not to mention current climate science.
   “Australia  should prepare a proper plan for 100% renewable energy,  and implement  it,” he said. “Decisions should not be left to separate  companies  driven by short-term profits because this might lead to a poor  overall  system.” 
   reneweconomy.com.au |