To achieve its energy aims, Australia may need to look to sources such as renewables to provide reliable baseload power.
Australia’s renewable energy generation capacity is growing rapidly, doubling in the last five years. Much of this is from solar and wind energy. But when the wind stops and the sun goes down, can we maintain a constant power source?
According to Associate Professor Behrooz Bahrani, Department of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering at Monash University, these renewable energy sources alone are not always capable of providing baseload power.
“They are variable and it depends on weather conditions,” he said.
Australia, a sunny and windy place which also happens to be the driest continent on earth – is increasing investment in renewable energy sources such as utility-scale solar and onshore wind projects to reach a target of 82 per cent renewable energy in the Australian grid by 2030.
So we may need to look to other sources to provide reliable baseload power.
“Geothermal, hydropower or biomass can provide [baseload power] and are proven technologies in certain countries such as Iceland,” he said.
In fact, 100 per cent of the power in Iceland’s grid comes from these renewable sources, and they also have baseload power.
“In Australia, we can potentially use a combination of renewable technologies to provide baseload power.”
Find out what that approach, along with the grid of the future, could look like in the video below.
Reporting by Chloe Hava, video edited by Joseph Harding.
I always find these articles interesting as they never seem to cover off on built energy and embodied CO2 of the technologies presented. Similarly, the highest energy consumption in a domestic dwelling is usually associated with production of hot water. Why is it that we see such a push to send power to a grid to then bring it back to produce hot water? Technologies such as solar thermal are put forward as emerging technology but has been around for years. The roof solar water systems and basic thermal insulation in buildings would make significant contribution to reduction targets. Why is consumption not part of these important discussions. It appears that many options to utilise proven technologies are being ignored to move the planet forward.
Australia doesn’t currently have economically viable geothermal or biomass resources sufficient for baseload power. Our hydropower resources, even with Snowy 2.0 will have a small number of hours of total grid baseload capability. it would be useful for Engineers Australia to publish the number of GW.hrs of baseload that Australia will need in coming years so that number can be compared with the capacity of various baseload options. Engineers Australia should also publish the chosen baseload scenario, such as 72 hours or 96 hours of total network coverage.
You omitted the key word “reliable” from the article’s title: “Can renewables really be used for baseload power?”
The answer to your dishonest title question is: “Yes, it can.”
The answer to the real question is: “No way, and the rest of the world is slowly waking up from the dream-state, in which it imagines the impossible is possible.”
Patrick, you are spot on!
This article is not very technical. Where are the technical details? What percentage of power in Iceland comes from geothermal power? Can Australia reach 82%? What percentage needs to be geothermal? This article added nothing to my knowledge about the electricity industry.
The Government needs to invest in demonstration geothermal rather than just hoping that the private sector will do something.
I really don’t think we can compare Australia with Iceland which sits on the intersection of two continental plates and is exposed to extreme volcanic activity (I.e. lots of high temperature rock for steam production).
it makes me laugh when they say Iceland runs solely on geothermal when a country is smaller than Victoria Australia is 7400% bigger so the answer is no
On Google search for “The Renewable Hydro Baseload Power Station”
A concept design in an attempt to look at the “energy problem” from a different angle.
Comments welcome.
This puff piece by an Associate Professor is just another puff piece. If Create is to trot out the climate change story as justification for implementing a redesign of Australia’s energy system you are truly delusional. We have witnessed the large scale de-industrialization of Australia to the extent that the industrial base has been hollowed out and industry has moved to where coal fired power stations continue to be built. Reducing our 1% of global emissions will not change the climate in Victoria or anywhere else and committing many billions of dollars to renewables will at some time in the future be recognised as the greatest political mis-allocation of resources Australia has embarked upon.
As engineers we expect there to be a robust business case for such decisions – to date none has been presented. The Federal government ministers and senior bureaucrats responsible can’t or won’t tell us their best estimate of the costs of transition to renewables will be nor will they embark upon any discussion of opportunity cost and likely service life. I have a solar power system on my property and I can attest output declines markedly over a 15 year service life. Good luck investing in solar farms. I will be investing in a diesel fueled genset when the grid fails as it inevitably will.
I expect better from the editors of Create.