back to article As South Australia blacked out, PM's office was told renewable power was not to blame

Following last year's megastorm and blackout in South Australia, Vulture South opined that the events had nothing to do with the state's use of wind power. Now, a freedom of information release reveals the government was advised to that effect before ministers started to cast blame. Left-of-centre think tank the Australia …

  1. Chet Mannly

    Out of date...

    That was the FIRST piece of advice and at the time it was made there was insufficient evidence to determine exactly what caused the blackout. There were 2 events - there was over 300MW of wind generation going off line in the space of 90 seconds and transmission towers falling. There are no timers on transmission towers so at the time that advice was provided it was not known which ebent happened first - so that advice would also have indicated there was a huge level of uncertainty around any information being provided at that time.

    It wasn't until months later that the full story emerged, and the wind turbines went offline first (although its estimated it was only by minutes). That's why all the wind farms have had their software changed so that they would not go offline again under those circumstances.

    Its academic, as ultimately either event would have caused the blackout, but saying it wasn't wind generation because a left-wing think tank made a press release based on a heavy dose of political spin on completely out of date information is pretty ordinary journalism.

    Maybe stick to IT Reg...

    1. Phil.T.Tipp

      Re: Out of date...

      Yep, sadly Old El Reg has been turned inside out editorially, where once we had daring, counter-cultural cheek and searching questions were asked of the status quo, we now suffer bizarre left-wing biases (generally the cause of entryism by SJWs or of disinterested editorial management) and the offering is weaker and more high-pitched in its virtue-signalling. Perhaps its the american influence, there is a lot of mindless political kowtowing going on. Wouldn't have occurred like this in Lewis Page's day.

  2. david 12 Silver badge

    Firstly, the interm reports are published, so people can google what the energy regulator has said, instead of reading selectively edited politically motivated spin from Richard Chirgwin.

    Secondly, the PM has been repeatedly criticised for making accurate conditional explanatory statements. The media doesn't like it. So simplifications like "renewables" are used instead of phrases like "the power system SA has created at vast expense to replace their old power system which would not have had these problems". The longer more careful language is used by mininsters discussing what changes need to be made, and what lessons learned for other states.

  3. Infury8r

    Absolutely correct

    "Renewables didn't cause South Australia's blackout"

    It was lack of generated electricity from renewables.

  4. Likkie

    They still told us fibs...

    It may well be true that this information is now out of date but at the time the PM and his deputy were criticising SAs switch to renewables and blaming it for the blackout they were doing so in contradiction to the advice at hand.

    "Just after 7:00PM on 28 September, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC) was told: “At 1618 AEST, all of South Australia suffered a blackout, most likely triggered by strong winds which have brought down transmission lines and pylons and lightning strikes”.

    That advice never changed: a 5:00 AM teleconference on 29 September heard this from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO): “the generation mix (i.e. renewable or fossil fuel) was not to blame for yesterday’s events – it was the loss of 1000 MW of power in such a short space of time as transmission lines fell over”"

    Even though what they said may now actually be true at the time, as far as they knew, they were lying to us.

  5. Paul J Turner

    Just the beginning

    I expect to see a lot more reduction of renewables and it's Donald Trump's fault (I'm going for the popular vote).

    Now that they have had a wake-up call that they can't rely on the US to keep us safe in Asia, they are probably drawing up plans for a bunch of Australian-owned and operated nuclear power stations to make plutonium (as a 'by-product', honest) to start building a decent arsenal.

    1. Paul J Turner

      Re: Just the beginning

      "a decent arsenal." = "weapons that we ourselves actually have control of."

    2. Denarius
      Unhappy

      Re: Just the beginning

      make plutonium really ? so much of that stuff taking up space already from decommissioning of last nuclear arms race. If thorium reactors were built to burn the stuff into power for when the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow, or as currently the case in Oz, too much sunshine and strong winds, it would be a great step forward in a stable baseload for grid, which is the core issue. I digress.

      Given the Oz ruling elites love of monopoly, falling back to oligopoly as last resort, I would bet more on an excuse for massive price rises in "electrical network infrastructure". You might recall how much the the last "gold plated" exercise cost electricity users in eastern states a gummint or 3 ago. That CEO and board bonuses would rise is entirely co-incidence.

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Just the beginning

        *sigh*

        Thorium isn't some magic want. You need a lot of U-232. This means breeder reactors to start. Then it takes 30 years to ramp up to being able to even use Thorium in a reactor, which needs a completely different reactor again.

        Realistically, going from "we have no Thorium program" to "burning Thorium to make power" is a 50 year project, and it involves breeding isotopes of fissionables that can be used to make badda-big-boom. That is politically difficult for most to accept, and practically difficult to safeguard and protect through the life of the project.

        Not saying it can't be done, but it isn't the sort of thing that fits within one PM's term, and doesn't occur at the stroke of one PM's pen. This is the sort of thing that is a national infrastructure program that requires broad multi-stakeholder support and a commitment by the populous to see it through over generations.

        1. Denarius

          Re: Just the beginning

          Trevor, you mean the two thorium reactors USA ran in early 1960s did not exist ? I must be mis-informed/

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: Just the beginning

            As a matter of fact, you are misinformed. From your statement I'm betting that you're referring to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). Most thorium proponents who haven't read up much do. The US ran molten salt reactors in the 1960s (a type of reactor that is the most likely candidate for Thorium use today), however, the MSRE didn't actually use thorium during the experiments.

            Now, there have been many Thorium reactors built and run over the years. A smallish Thorium reactor actually isn't that hard to build, and they don't technically have to be molten salt reactors. (That's just the sanest way to do it at any scale.) The ticket here is that you can't just shove Thorium into a reactor, wave a magic wand and poof have power.

            So here's the deal: the Thorium you can pull out of the ground on Earth is Th232. In order to get Th232 to split you need to modify it, generally into u233 via the absorption of a Neutron. In order to do that you need a neutron donor. This mean feeding the thing materials that barf neutrons.

            Back in oldentimes, that was easy. We cranked that stuff out of breeder reactors all the time. Today, we do this a lot less. What's more, while you can technically crank a Thorium reactor with just about anything that will emit neutrons, in reality only a few isotopes are ever going to be okay for civilian use. This is because, for one reason or another, they're considered really, really stupid for people to try to steal for nuclear proliferation purposes.

            The big problem we have today is that we just don't make a lot of those isotopes any more. (Consider, for example, that we're almost out of Plutonium for RTGs.) What we do make has everyone under the sun - from existing Thorium burners to researchers - clamoring for it. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, but international politics have become pretty xenophobic and awful of late, which doesn't help.

            So, if you really want to go Thorium in a big way, you're going to have to build a Thorium program. That means building non-Thorium reactors to provide your jump-start isotopes, the security apparatus around their use and transport etc. etc.

            You are also most likely to try to use Thorium in a molten salt reactor these days (for various practicality reasons), which means additional investment in facilities which clean impurities from the salts. Oh, and you have to figure out what to do with all the Neptunium.

            The other alternative is you just wait around and hope to your deity that the proposed experiments to modify a CANDU reactor to burn Thorium work and are considered generally safe. Almost everyone has CANDU reactors, so if we can just stuff Thorium in there maybe we can run a hybrid facility with one reactor that's not Thorium and the rest that are.

            It's important to note here that the big drivers behind the CANDU Thorium cycle are the Chinese. This is because they're not batshit crazy about nuclear waste like the Americans (and their empire of lacky nations) are. The Americans think piling up a bunch of highly radioactive nuclear waste (almost all of which could be refined and used to build bombs) without any long term storage facility is a really great idea an everyone should do that.

            The Chinese, on the other hand, think that's raw lunacy and said "hey, can we take this pile of highly radioactive slag and burn it?" (Answer: yes, you can do that in a Thorium reactor. They're great for that.)

            But the Chinese are rational about such things and basically the entire rest of the world (except India) isn't. The Chinese are perfectly willing to take their 300+ nuclear reactors worth of waste, drive the waste via heavily armed whatever on a shoot-first-and-take-questions-never approach to a giant Thorium facility and burn the whole thing until all that's left is a bunch of Neptunium and some decay products that have half lives so long they're not a threat.

            There is no way you get a western nation to make that kind of decision. "Nuclear" is a boogyman and some group somewhere will terrify the populace into screaming their heads off. So meanwhile, we all live with giant piles of insanely radioactive material for the next several thousand years and expensive electricity whilst the Chinese build a way to dispose of nuclear waste, drive down electricity costs and, oh yeah, figure out how to turn a really small amount of naturally neutron-emitting material into something that can power humanity for the next million years.

            That's why it takes 50 years to build a proper full-scale Thorium program. (See: India.) Because the US won't give you what you need to start burning Thorium today even though they are literally sitting on metric tonnes of it that they don't have a long term facility for.

            Because politics. Because humans are morons. Because we live in the darkest possible timeline and everything is awful forever.

      2. Mark 65

        Re: Just the beginning

        Given the Oz ruling elites love of monopoly, falling back to oligopoly as last resort, I would bet more on an excuse for massive price rises in "electrical network infrastructure".

        This raises an interesting point in the case of QLD which owns both major generators and the transmission networks and takes large dividends from both. They want 50% renewables which will undermine their generators value quicker than would normally occur. I guess they think they'll make it up on the gold plating that will need to occur on the transmission side. Never mind whether the lights are on or not.

    3. techy8866

      Re: Just the beginning

      Light Water Reactors produce what is known as reactor grade plutonium. It is utterly useless for nuclear weapons and nobody has ever used reactor grade plutonium in a weapon.

      Nuclear power does not equal nuclear weapons.

      1. Paul J Turner

        Re: Just the beginning

        "Light Water Reactors produce what is known as reactor grade plutonium. It is utterly useless for nuclear weapons and nobody has ever used reactor grade plutonium in a weapon."

        Then they won't be building just Light Water Reactors, will they? Simples!

        I expect there will be suitable reactors in among the power reactors, probably on the same sites.

        Early refuelling of LWRs is a less convenient but possible option, so Weapons-Grade Plutonium CAN be produced by Light Water Reactors.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade#Weapons-grade_plutonium

        1. techy8866

          Re: Just the beginning

          "Light Water Reactors produce what is known as reactor grade plutonium. It is utterly useless for nuclear weapons and nobody has ever used reactor grade plutonium in a weapon."

          Then they won't be building just Light Water Reactors, will they? Simples!

          I expect there will be suitable reactors in among the power reactors, probably on the same sites.

          Early refuelling of LWRs is a less convenient but possible option, so Weapons-Grade Plutonium CAN be produced by Light Water Reactors.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade#Weapons-grade_plutonium"

          Completely ridiculous.

          If you want weapons grade material you go and dig up uranium and you enrich it. You don't fluff around with light water reactors. Most of the world's reactors are light water reactors. Places like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are all building light water reactors and there is not even a hint that these could possibly be used for weapons production. It's infeasible, no matter how remote the possibility.

          If you don't build a light water reactor and instead build something capable of producing weapons grade material then you are treated like Iran

  6. GrumpyKiwi

    I fully expect the "it wasn't renewables fault" line every time SA gets another power cut for many years to come.

    1. BlackKnight(markb)

      So the recent almost blackout that occured in NSW when multiple gas and coal plant failed to deliver there capacity and where they threatend to start blacking out victoria. but instead survived by risking damage to the smelting plant. Was that the fault of the coal\gas technology. or was that the fault of the policies governing power generation\supply in australia. you know the same thing SA is blaming when the base load gas plant failed to deliver the gap as it was suppose to....

  7. gal5

    Interesting responses. So no one believes the tone of the article? Why was it posted?

  8. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    Who cares? Just get on with refining renewables.

    At least, if some wind turbines fail, they don't contaminate a large region with radiation.

    And they don't cause the Arctic ice to disappear. (Looks like the Arctic will be all clear of ice during summers by about 2030. Perhaps sooner with some help from Trump.)

    1. BlackKnight(markb)

      the Grid relies on Base load power that can be turned up and down at will. currently solar and wind cant provide this. Hydro can but limited locations to build it. someone was exploring ocean\wave power generation but this isnt commerical yet.

      If the current requirement for environmental protection is lowering CO2 then Nuclear reactor provide the base load requirement and cut CO2 emssions. Nuclear power technolog has come a long way and as discussed earlier in the thread. multiple reactor can be planned to feed the "waste" from one reactor to the next.

      Australia has a Boringly stable contienent in terms of geological and weather we dont get tsunami's or severe earthquakes. were also under populated for our size, so building reactors, 30kms away from urban enviroments is easy.

      Building Nuclear reactors now would be a gaurentee drop in emissions, and provide new generates to replace our current apparently failing ones (NSW and Victoria ) but old predjudices just dont seem to die.

  9. sniperpaddy

    COAL ANYBODY?

    Any guesses that the coal lobby make nice campaign contributions ?

  10. MatsSvensson

    Clearly the Amperes from solar cant be combined with the voltages from coal.

    Better stop hooking up solar-panels, until the good people in the ministry of science can figure out what the hell is going on.

  11. BlackKnight(markb)

    it would be nice If

    The government (as a whole) got off their collective butts, actually started inovating a solution and providing energy companies with some stability so they could invest money in given infrastructure.

    SA's Second blackout occured with a gas power plant standing idle despite requests for power from it. as has been correctly pointed out, renewables need reliable base load generation. This failure was one of process and governance not technological.

    This politcal football with Australias infrastructure is getting old, Roads, Telecommunications, Power.

  12. Denarius
    Unhappy

    Missing the conflict in ideologies again

    So Oz and other western countries have multiple versions of governments over the last 20 years plus who have explained the need to sell of public assets to private sectors for efficiency, causing poorer services and much higher prices generally. In Oz at least, pressure has been placed on primary producer associations that historically have mitigated the price taking economics of primary producers for better efficiencies. This caused massive exploitation of producers, like dairy. No wonder the Ag sector is described as agrarian socialists. A very rational position if one is up against a multinational mega-corp sending out bills for 6 figures wanting money from their suppliers. In short, free market rules.

    However for energy, the market is being deliberately distorted to make energy much more expensive. I would have time to at least half listen if the OMG, we are all gonna burn real soon now mob would openly admit this, especially in parliaments that their goal is higher costs and reduced secondary industry, continuing the export of jobs to places where the power stays on at a predictable and affordable price. And yes, I have read the recent new Scientist article on 97% of climate scientists blah blah. The logical error in said article said it all.

    Lastly if Oz sank tomorrow it would have no detectable effect on Earths weather. (yeah, OK monsoon would not come so far south) I have yet to hear this in political babble that passes for discussion lately. There seems to be a delusion among the media darlings that anyone north of Port Moresby notices Oz, let alone takes any notice, except when military bases are required.

  13. Glen Turner 666

    Weather in South Australia

    Folks, it hardly matters what the energy mix was. Let's have a thought experiment where we return to operation the coal-burning power stations at Port Augusta and Leigh Creek. The six tornadoes would have still cut the large powerlines between Adelaide and those generators.

    The essential failure was the lack of awareness of South Australian weather at NEMCO. That lead to poor decisions, such as not bringing online all the gas generation actually located in Adelaide. We even had this misunderstanding from the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that this wasn't a severe weather event on par with a cyclone, which is to misunderstand the destruction a tornado can cause, although in a smaller area than a cyclone.

    The shutdown of wind power due to electrical distribution system instability was very unfortunate. But again, that software behaviour was squarely NEMCO's job to know. And they didn't. At least being software this issue is cheap to fix. Not that there was enough wind power for the state in any case, since those tornado-affected distribution lines were carrying power from many of those windmills too.

    The discussion about nuclear reactors is even more laughable. Less than a year ago South Australia had a Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle -- including nuclear power -- which reported that all forms of nuclear power are uneconomic for this state.

    What is really interesting is the very different read of this issue within South Australia -- people who actually experienced the edge of the weather event -- and elsewhere.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon