This economist thinks he understands physics

[a_unique_person]

From the Australian Financial Review

Before we argue about policy fixes, Australians deserve a five-minute engineering primer. Electricity is not a policy construct. It is physics. And the physics have not changed since Michael Faraday and the steam engine.

Electricity is moving electrons. To move them at grid scale, you need a generator: a magnet spinning inside coils of wire. No spin, no electricity. Almost every power station on earth – coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, even solar thermal – is, at heart, a steam engine or water turbine driving that generator. Wind does the same with moving air.

Only solar PV is different – no moving parts, just semiconductors. All the others are mechanical beasts that deliver a priceless bonus – inertia – from multi-thousand-tonne rotors spinning at exactly 3000 revolutions per minute (50 hertz).

Wind turbines and solar panels provide almost none. Batteries provide none at all. Remove the spinning masses, and the grid becomes a nervous thoroughbred instead of a carthorse.

He is stuck in the Stone Age of electrical theory.

Modern big batteries, yes, including the ones from Tesla, can provide the stability a grid requires and even do it better than mechanical devices. They can respond instantly to problems.

Fix the electricity system in 2026 by returning to first principles

Electricity is not a policy construct. It is physics – and the physics have not changed since Michael Faraday and the steam engine.

www.afr.com

Paywalled sometimes. YMMV.

 

[Trebuchet]

You do need to charge the batteries....

 

[a_unique_person]

You do need to charge the batteries....

You need to fuel the steam generators.

 

[Puppycow]

Can't pass the paywall.

I think he's focusing on the wrong thing though. "Inertia" isn't the real issue, it's that solar power depends on the sun shining, and wind power depends on the wind blowing, whereas burning coal can be done night or day and regardless of the weather.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That's very much a separate issue. Stabilising the electricity grid with varying supply and demand is complicated and has to be planned, and has become something that has to be done with cleverer technology than just relying in the inertia of heavy turbines. The recent power cut that affected much of Spain and Portugal was caused in large part by a lack of coordination of systems which should have worked together to stabilise the distribution but some were wrongly specified, or untested and didn't work as intended, and sections isolated themselves when they shouldn't have, introducing new instabilities.

I did find a fascinating YouTube description of what happened. I'll see if I can find it...

 

[a_unique_person]

He seems to think that the electrons moved by steam engines have more oomph than electrons generated by batteries.

Not the actual current is even represented purely by electrons. It's just as much about ephemeral magnetic fields.

 

[a_unique_person]

Australia has had its own major grid fails. The newly installed big batteries have been adding vital stability and have already demonstrated their utility. They have been important just as much for their ability to add stability to the grid as they have been used for their ability to store energy created by wind and solar.