South Australia Hasn’t Lost One Hour Of Electricity In 5 Years Thanks To Renewables & Batteries
Here’s an interesting coincidence. This morning, I was reading the latest email from Bloomberg Green about how Europe is struggling with high energy prices right now and has to make a decision — build more unnatural gas capacity or install more renewable energy. It’s a question fraught with weighty political considerations.
Then I came across an article in Renew Economy about how South Australia has not lost a single hour of electricity due to load shedding since 2018. In the four years prior to that, its energy grid shed 7 million hours of electricity. The difference? South Australia has made a major commitment to renewable energy and grid scale battery storage since the catastrophic power outage that hit the state in 2016.
Energy analyst Simon Holmes à Court tells Renew Economy the blackout “was seen by many as the end to the state’s — and Australia’s — renewables ambitions.” Instead, it marked the beginning of the renewable energy and battery storage miracle in South Australia.
Dan van Holst Pellekaan, South Australia’s energy minister, said this week, “Five years ago South Australia was plunged into a statewide blackout that put lives at risk, inflicted immense damage on our economy, and made us the laughing stock of the nation. Today South Australia has the best performing electricity grid in the nation as the Marshall government’s energy policies have strengthened what was a fragile, unstable, and highly vulnerable electricity network.”
The blackout was triggered by strong storms that toppled several transmission towers and three transmission links. It quickly became a political football and an ideological battleground between those who were in favor of renewables and those who opposed them.
It amplified the “when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine” meme, but far from putting a stop to renewables in South Australia, those attacks ensured that more work was done to underpin the massive rollout of large-scale wind and solar that followed.
In the past 12 months, South Australia can boast of being a world leader in renewables. Today it gets 62% of its electricity from wind and solar. At the time of the blackout, that number stood at 48%. It leads the world in rooftop solar, which could supply 100% of the state’s electricity by the end of this year. That is unheard of in a gigawatt-scale grid, Renew Economy says.
South Australia boasts new resources, including three big grid-scale batteries — at Hornsdale, Lake Bonney, and Dalrymple North. It also has several large-scale virtual power plants and new synchronous condensers that, in conjunction with those batteries, provide critical grid services that were once delivered by coal and gas.
The state is adding even more wind and solar capacity, including the country’s biggest wind and solar hybrid project at Port Augusta, and has a huge pipeline of new wind, solar, battery and hydrogen projects that will be unlocked by the new transmission link to New South Wales.
The Liberal government has a stated target of reaching “net 100 per cent renewables” by 2030, but is likely to get there well before then. It is looking to produce five times the state’s grid demand from renewables in the future in order to make renewable hydrogen and become a renewable export superpower.
Image credit: Renew Economy.
Van Holst Pellekaan noted that South Australia is the only state in the country to avoid forced outages since 2018. By comparison, the two Australian states with the greatest dependence on coal-fired generating stations — Queensland and New South Wales — have suffered the most load shedding in recent years. And still the naysayers at the state and federal level continue their cynical attacks on renewables.
In actuality, says Simon Holmes à Cou, the 2016 blackout turned out to be merely a bump in the road and a warning to the country’s energy regulator and the other states to raise their renewable energy game and get on with decarbonizing the grid.
“South Australians were let down by the former Labor Government’s chaotic energy policies that resulted in us having some of the most unreliable and expensive electricity in the world,” says van Holst Pellekaan. “The Marshall government has made over two dozen substantive interventions to get energy security back under control since coming to government.
“What makes this achievement even more extraordinary is that the Marshall government has delivered a $303 reduction for the average household after bills went up $477 under the last two years of Labor. (Emphasis added.) “And we still have more benefits on the way for South Australian via Project EnergyConnect, the interconnector between South Australia and New South Wales.
The Problem In Europe
In today’s Bloomberg Green email, Akshat Rathi says, “Europe’s going through an energy crunch with electricity prices at record highs and fears that the continent may have to shut factories to ensure homes have gas for heat.” Drivers in the UK are panicking about finding petrol for their cars while EV drivers — who typically charge up at home overnight — are driving wherever they please. In a delicious irony, the range anxiety shoe is now on the other foot and interest in electric cars is skyrocketing.
Rashti points out that Europe and the UK are subject to precisely the same polarizing notions about renewable energy that have afflicted Australia for the past 5 years or more.”If Europe’s climate policies are your primary bugbear, for example, you might say something like: ‘Green warriors are on a mission to stamp out prosperity as we know it.’” In fact, The Telegraph ran a story with that exact title recently.
On the other hand, if you’re bound by a climate law as the UK government is, you could double down on the energy transition, Rathi says. “The U.K.’s exposure to volatile global gas prices underscores the importance of our plan to build a strong, home-grown renewable energy sector,” Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary who’s also responsible for energy issues, wrote on Twitter. “In moving away from fossil fuels, we can insulate ourselves.”
It all depends on the larger sentiment around tackling climate change. “If the political context is favorable to the transition, people are going to leverage the crisis to double down on renewables,” says Nikos Tsafos, an energy and geopolitics expert at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. “If the political context is against the transition, people are going to use it as a way to have it slow down.”
Public opinion is often influenced by simplified narratives that may not always reflect the facts, Rathi writes. And crises present a ripe opportunity for opinion makers who know that fear sells. [See Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine for more on this topic.] That’s why some UK newspapers have run front page articles about a “Winter of Woe” or how energy bills are headed for a “Catastrophic Price Rise.”
Whether those new arguments take hold, however, depends on the existing base of knowledge and prevailing narratives. “The oil industry’s propaganda around climate issues has been pervasive in the US for decades,” says Carroll Muffett, president of the nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law. “While we’ve seen industry efforts in the EU, they’ve never reached the levels of pervasiveness, funding and coordination we’ve seen in the US.”
The Takeaway
The experience of South Australia strongly supports the notion that renewable energy can and will meet all of society’s needs for electricity and do it without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and at lower cost than thermal generation. And yet, social media influencers seem to be able to take the perfectly obvious and make into a fog of fear and doubt with just a few keystrokes. People simply cannot bring themselves to question something they read online, like the Covid vaccine makes utensils stick to your skin or that Democrats are running a child pornography ring out of a pizza parlor in Georgetown. In the age of artificial stupidity, ignorance is rampant upon the land.
The internet was supposed to bring the collective brain power of all the world’s citizens together to solve the existential problems that beset humanity — war, poverty, hunger, and inequality , for example. Instead, it has fragmented us into smaller and smaller groups where opinions and beliefs overrule common sense. The potential to power all of humanity’s needs is within our grasp but is in danger of slipping through our fingers.
We have one chance to get this right. What is troubling is how many people are willing to throw renewable energy under the bus because of something they saw online posted by an agent of the fossil fuel companies who knows what levers to pull to fill our minds with fear. My old Irish grandmother talked about people with two perfectly good eyes who lacked the power to see what was right in front of them. Unless we rediscover the ability to engage in critical thinking, we are doomed.
Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.
Tesla’s head of Optimus humanoid robot, Milan Kovac, announced that he is leaving the automaker after 9 years.
It leaves just as CEO Elon Musk claimed that the humanoid robot is going to make Tesla a”$25 trillion company.”
Electrek first reported on Tesla hiring Kovac back in 2016 to work on the early Autopilot program. At the time, we noted that the young engineer had an interesting background in machine learning.
He quickly rose through the ranks and ended up leading Autopilot software engineering from 2019 to 2022.
In 2022, he started working on Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot program.
Late last year, he was promoted to Vice President in charge of the complete Optimus program, as CEO Elon Musk began to tout the program as critical to Tesla’s future.
Musk claimed that Optimus could generate $10 trillion in revenue per year and make Tesla a $25 trillion company. These claims are largely unsubstantiated as the humanoid robot market is still in its infancy.
Most market research firms currently estimate the size of the humanoid robot market to be in the low single-digit billions of dollars, with growth projections through 2032 ranging from $15 billion to $80 billion.
That would represent impressive growth, but nowhere near what Musk is touting to investors.
Today, Kovac announced that he is leaving Tesla for personal reasons:
This week, I’ve had to make the most difficult decision of my life and will be moving out of my position. I’ve been far away from home for too long, and will need to spend more time with family abroad. I want to make it clear that this is the only reason, and has absolutely nothing to do with anything else. My support for Elon Musk and the team is ironclad – Tesla team forever.
Kovac has been regarded as one of the top new technical executives at Tesla, which has seen a significant talent exodus of top engineers.
The company has made progress with the Optimus program over the last year. Still, many have been skeptical, as Tesla has been less than forthcoming about using teleoperation in previous demonstrations.
Kovac is not the only Optimus engineer to leave Tesla recently.
Figure, another company developing humanoid robots, has recently poached Zackary Bernholtz, a 7-year veteran at Tesla and most recently a Staff Technical Program Manager.
Electrek’s Take
This is a significant loss for Tesla. Kovac was one of Musk’s top technical guys and literally the head of the program he claimed would bring Tesla to the next level – although I think most people have been understandably skeptical about these claims.
I’ve been bullish on humanoid robots, and I could see Tesla being a player in the field, but it’s nowhere near the opportunity that Musk is claiming, and there’s also plenty of competition with no clear evidence that Tesla has any significant lead, if any.
In China, Unitree has been making impressive progress, and it is already selling a humanoid robot.
In the US, Figure has also been making a lot of progress lately:
I think it’s a smart space to invest in for manufacturing companies like Tesla, but there’s going to be a lot of competition.
It’s too early to say who will come out on top.
As for Kovac leaving, I’m sure his personal reason is correct. However, we often see people claim that and then they quickly turn up at another company.
If he believed that his product would soon become a multi-trillion-dollar opportunity, I doubt he would be leaving, but you never know. 9 years at Tesla is some hard work and it’s impressive for anyone. Congrats.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
.jpg){kind=link}
America voted for inflation, and it got it today, as republicans running the Department of Transportation bowed to their oil donors and finalized a rule to make your cars less efficient, thus costing America an extra $23 billion in fuel costs.
Sean Duffy, who was appointed as Secretary of Transportation on the back of the transportation “expertise” he showed as a contestant on Road Rules: All Stars, a reality TV travel game show, announced the rule on his first day in office.
His original memo promised a review of all existing fuel economy standards, which require manufacturers to make more efficient vehicles which save you money on fuel.
Specifically, the rule finalized today targets the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard (CAFE), which was just improved last year by President Biden’s DOT, saving American drivers $23 billion in fuel costs by meaning they need to buy less fuel overall. The savings from the Biden rule could have been higher, but were softened from the original proposal due to automaker lobbying.
Sierra Club’s Transportation for All director, Katherine Garcia, responded to the new Duffy rule’s finalization with a statement:
“The Trump administration’s deregulatory, pro-polluter transportation agenda will only increase costs for Americans. Making our vehicles less fuel efficient hurts families by forcing them to pay more at the pump. This action puts the well-being of our communities at risk in every way imaginable. It will lead to fewer clean vehicle options for consumers, squeeze our wallets, endanger our health, and increase climate pollution. The Sierra Club will continue to push back against this administration’s dangerous clean transportation rollbacks.”
The rule had been filed on Mar 16, and review was completed yesterday. Oddly enough, the rule was filed as “not economically significant,” a categorization for government rules that won’t affect the US economy by more than $100 million – which is less than the $23 billion that the DOT’s own analysis says the new rule will cost Americans.
Both we at Electrek and the Sierra Club had a meeting with the government to point out this inconsistency, but both of our meetings were scheduled for today and were cancelled late last night. There seems to have been no public comment period regarding this change in regulations.
DOT isn’t done raising your fuel costs, it wants to do more
Duffy’s original DOT memo says he wants to target all similar standards, rather than just the improvements made last year – so in fact, our headline likely underestimates how much higher Duffy wants to make your fuel costs.
A recent analysis by Consumer Reports shows that fuel economy standards are enormously popular with Americans, and that maintaining the current standards could result in lifetime savings of $6,000 per vehicle, compared to current costs, by 2029. And that fuel economy standards implemented since 2001 have already saved $9,000 per vehicle. Now, imagine the net effect of removing all of those standards, which Duffy has directed the DOT to examine doing.
As we’ve already seen to be the case often with Trump’s allies, the DOT memo lied about its intentions. Just like EPA head Lee Zeldin, who said he wants to make the air cleaner by making it dirtier, Duffy, says he wants to make fuel costs lower by making them higher. The memo attempts to argue that your car will be cheaper if it has lower fuel economy, even though it wont, because buying more fuel will mean you spend more on fuel, not less.
Unequivocally, over here in the real world, dirtier air is actually dirtier, and higher fuel costs are actually higher.
The result of this increased fuel usage also inevitably means more reliance on foreign sources of energy. The more oil America uses, the more it will have to import from elsewhere. Other countries looking to exercise power over the US could certainly choose to raise prices as they recognize that the US has just become more reliant on them.
And, as we know from the most basic understanding of economics, adding more demand means prices will go up, not down. Reducing demand for a product in fact forces prices down, and EVs are already displacing oil demand which depresses oil prices.
Meanwhile, Biden’s higher fuel economy standards would mean that automakers need to provide a higher mix of EVs, which inherently get all of their energy to run not just domestically, but regionally as well. Most electricity generation happens regionally or locally based on what resources are available in your area, so when you charge a car, you’re typically supporting jobs at your local power plant, rather than in some overseas oil country.
But these are just attempts to follow-through on the dirty air, inflation causing promises that the republicans made during the campaign. Mr. Trump signaled he intended to raise your fuel costs (and costs of everything else) during the 2024 US Presidential campaign, when he asked oil executives for $1 billion in bribes in return for killing off more efficient vehicles.
Since he made his way back into the White House (despite that there exists a clear legal remedy stopping insurrectionists from holding office in the US), republicans have tried to follow through on this promise and more – not only trying to make your cars more expensive, but also threatening US energy dominance, sending US jobs to China and illegally attacking clean air laws.
However, whiplash changes in regulatory regimes like this are typically seen as bad for business. Above all, businesses desire regulatory certainty so they can plan products into the future, and there are few businesses with longer planning timelines than automakers.
This is why automakers want the EPA to retain Biden’s emissions rules, because they’re already planning new models for the EV transition. They went through this once before, in the chaos of 2017-2021, where they originally asked for rollbacks but then realized their mistake, and now still complain about the broken regulatory regime caused by the last time a former reality TV host squatted in the White House.
Further, if American manufacturing turns away from the EV transition, or continues to make tepid movement towards it, this will only hand more of a manufacturing lead to China, meaning more decline of American manufacturing (compared to the huge manufacturing boom seen under President Biden).
Finally, the most important problem with DOT’s final rule is that it will increase emissions, which harms your health and increases climate change. Much like the other trends we’ve seen here, this administration doesn’t know much about the basics of climate science, which is already costing America $150 billion a year in increased infrastructure costs related to damage from natural disasters.
And that’s not even counting health costs, which will be even higher. The aggregate of these damages could cost each American born today $500,000 over their lifetime.
But all of these harms will happen to real people. This isn’t reality television, where the intent is to make up drama for views. This is actual harm that’s actually going to be done to Americans, who are having a rough time as the global economy continues to grapple with the long-term disruptions resulting from a pandemic that was exacerbated by the same reality TV host, and of course the ever-present worsening climate change.
And so, Mr. Trump is now trying to follow through on his campaign promises – which, in so many ways, will only make your life costlier, more unhealthy, less stable, and less secure from foreign influence. This is what 49% of America voted for.
Want to have *actually* lower fuel costs? Then charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Podcast: Tesla in Musk/Trump divorce, EV sales in EU, Hyundai’s new electric minivan, and more
In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss Tesla being in the crosshairs of the Musk/Trump divorce, EV sales in Europe, a new Hyundai electric minivan, and more.
The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET:
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway