Back in November 2018, I flagged a propensity (by us all) to reach for some Magic Wand (or Silver Bullet) as the answer to the tricky problems inherent in this energy transition as Villain no 6 in this energy transition. We’ve not been immune to this challenge (and for all those times we have slipped, we apologize).
Back then I noted how some latch onto “baseload” as the magic cure-all (give me a dollar for every mention of that in the upcoming election campaign – particularly “fair dinkum baseload” – and we’d have enough cash for a very extravagant Christmas party this year), but there’s also a similar tendency for others to think “battery storage” is a cure-all (a dollar for mentions there and I’d be richer than Elon Musk).
(A) Magical assumptions about Demand Response
In conjunction with these lengthier thoughts about the AEMC’s current deliberations about three different rule changes relating to suggested methods to achieve a more active and responsive demand side in the supply/demand balance, I recall a number of times in the past where Demand Response seems to have been assumed as the cure-all to paper over gaps in the supply/demand challenge in forward-looking models.
As time permits in future, I hope to list specific examples that I see in here…
(B) Remembering the purpose of an Energy User
For now, I’d like to just reiterate that the prime objective of the Energy User in the electricity grid is not to “keep the lights on”, but rather to focus on the result of whatever useful work they want the electricity to do in the first place.
Unfortunately all us energy geeks seem to slip into a trap occasionally of forgetting that…