Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Yes, I'm talking about SOTS, and it does need a 330kV line, and there isn't one. Cost to build is likely to be prohibitive, so its uncertain whether the project will go ahead.

I know the costs of putting this stuff underground; I installed some sensing hardware on a 5km section of underground 330kV cable at the new Sydney Airport site - they decided having overhead transmission lines across the end of the new runway might not be a good idea :D. So they installed UGOHs on each side, and took the cable undergound for a short section. Cost to do that from SOTS to Loy Yang would be gajillions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Brush

they decided having overhead transmission lines across the end of the new runway might not be a good idea :D.

---

Pffffft, have none of them ever seen how effectively that sort of get up works on an aircraft carrier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

FF

They have done it twice already. Once, then again when it broke. As to another brand newie...probably not to Tassie.

---

Paul,
I'll beg to differ.
The failure [now fixed] of the existing undersea link -- plus the time it took to fix the break -- indicated that a single link to Tassie is not sufficiently reliable if Tassie is to be part of the nation's battery.

Now, as to the 2nd link's commercial viability -- perhaps there's a reason that electricity supply used to be considered a public good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Pffffft, have none of them ever seen how effectively that sort of get up works on an aircraft carrier?

---

when you only need to move the amps less than 200 metres -- from the generator to the catapult and engines -- using something like a rectangular section solid conductor is [relatively] trivial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

Paul,
I'll beg to differ.
The failure [now fixed] of the existing undersea link -- plus the time it took to fix the break -- indicated that a single link to Tassie is not sufficiently reliable if Tassie is to be part of the nation's battery.

Now, as to the 2nd link's commercial viability -- perhaps there's a reason that electricity supply used to be considered a public good.

---

Ian

The DC link was never envisaged as a battery storage for the mainland. It was installed to safeguard Tasmania's electricity supply should they go into a mega drought. As the majority of their power is generated by Hydro, they would be in deep excrement. That actually was demonstrated when the link broke. The Tasmanian electricity system had been supplying the mainland and taking advantage of favourable prices so their dams were significantly depleted. That experience may well be why their pricing structure is today so out of kilter with the rest of Australia: Once bitten, twice shy.

It is true that it is the only state where the electricity system is wholly state owned and for that reason alone it may be possible to have a second line, but I think it is more likely that Tasmania wants to keep all its potential electricity for itself.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Pffffft, have none of them ever seen how effectively that sort of get up works on an aircraft carrier?

---

FF

Those are stop arrestor lines: Not cardiac arrestor lines!

:D

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Brush

... Just one teensy problem with the short(ish) above ground connection, and landholders are already up in arms about overhead transmission lines. ...

---

They are also talking about additional transmisssion lines in Tasmania for a possible pumped hydro scheme. Farmers are livid.

The proposal would involve towers 70 metres tall and a clear zone 70 m wide under the transmission lines. If I was a farmer I would also be livid about the restrictions on the use of the land in the clear zone:

1. All trees are felled, including trees in land slip areas, windbreaks and stock and wildlife shelters.
2. No permanent crops including orchards, hopfields and tree farms.
3. No built structures including houses, sheds, barns, pumphouses, windmills, etc.
4. No pivot irrigators.

Point 4 is crucial as irrigation can transform the value of land by a factor of 5, or more. Pivot irrigators can only be installed on flat land (rare in Tasssy) or on gently undulating land. The largest PI's have arms exceeding 1 km in length and the irrigated circle may be up to 300 hectares - 750 acres.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWDnoUMRssk

That gently undulating land suitable for pivot irrigators is also usually the favoured route for a transmission line. Conflict is inevitable. The farmers are building their legal fighting fund. I expect that the legal battle will be bloody and long. Transmission lines impact on three things that farmers consider holy:

• Their bank accounts,
• Their land, and
• Their freedom of choice.

This is a google earth photo of prime farmland used for cropping and beef cattle near Cressy, just south of Launceston. Photo is about 25 kms wide; every visible circle or part-circle is a pivot irrigator - the larger ones are about 1 km across.

Attachment 531996

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

They are also talking about additional transmisssion lines in Tasmania for a possible pumped hydro scheme. Farmers are livid.

The proposal would involve towers 70 metres tall and a clear zone 70 m wide under the transmission lines. If I was a farmer I would also be livid about the restrictions on the use of the land in the clear zone:

1. All trees are felled, including trees in land slip areas, windbreaks and stock and wildlife shelters.
2. No permanent crops including orchards, hopfields and tree farms.
3. No built structures including houses, sheds, barns, pumphouses, windmills, etc.
4. No pivot irrigators.

---

Greame
These issues [about the location of transmission lines] were current in NSW in the 1980s -- which, as I recall, was the last time major transmission were constructed in NSW.

As I recall the issues then (the 1980s) were whether the overhead lines should pass across farmland or through national parks. From what I recall, the "solution" was to go through farmland rather than national park land
the farmers wanted the lines placed through national park land, whilst environmentalists wanted the overhead lines placed through farmland.



Speaking as a civil engineer, who used to do that sort of strategic planning for freeways and the like, the issue is trivial.

at the early stage of planning -- where the planning for most of these lines is currently at -- you just draw an indicative line and tell people that the easement will be 70m wide and the towers 70 metre high and that all the vegetation underneath the line clear felled.

after community consultation the easement for the overhead line can easily be zig-zagged to avoid coppices of trees, to align with property boundaries, to avoid irrigation circles, etc
If I have the optics correct, what the farmers are really after is an ongoing payment for the use of their land -- much like what wind farm operators pay them -- unlike the one-off payment offered for overhead transmission lines.


The real sticking point is who would be responsible for making the ongoing payments to property owners for the thousand kms of existing transmission lines which a change in payment policy would presumably trigger a liability to make back payments -- were those transmission lines sold as part of the eastern state's electricity privatization?

Regardless, triggering liability for ongoing usage payments would represent a material change to the original conditions of sale (if the HV lines were sold) meaning that State Governments would be liable in either case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

If I have the optics correct, what the farmers are really after is an ongoing payment for the use of their land -- much like what wind farm operators pay them -- unlike the one-off payment offered for overhead transmission lines.

---

There was a 120km long 330kV powerline built across the Central West of NSW, Wellington to Wollar about 15 years ago. I remember the process very well, as it went quite close to my farm. At the time it seemed to be that there were (from memory) 5 possible routes proposed, 4 of which were clearly never going to happen for various reasons. There were then "community consultation meetings" at various times, none of which seemed like anything other than paying lip service to a nominal requirement to have them. Then the route that was obviously going to be chosen was chosen (nobody was surprised!) and the line built. I have no idea of what compensation arrangements were made as my farm wasn't directly impacted, but I (and most others) came away with the overriding impression that the decisions of where and what to build were made long before the project was announced, and that everything that subsequently happened was simply following requirements and had no impact on the result.

There are many issues for farmers with powerlines, wind farms and various other things that involve "third party access" to land. The ability to use your land as you see fit (irrigation, crop selection etc.) is a big one, but there are many others. The people who maintain these systems rarely consider their actions and will happily drive through a field of crop to visit a tower (often several times, using different routes!). They will also fail to understand that driving through a patch of weeds on one poorly managed farm is likely to distribute weed seeds through the next 5 "clean" paddocks they traverse.

Having been in this position myself (ironically the weeds were spread by the road maintenance crew of the very same council that have, and use, the power to enter your land and inspect for "noxious weeds") I know that this is a very real issue. As I'm now retired from farming, I have no particular axe to grind and no knowledge of the compensation payments, but the intrusion created by powerlines, wind turbines etc. is ongoing, so I can see logic to requesting that the compensation be the same.

News article this morning discussing spot price sparks for the consumer market. I was interested as I have recently switched to Amber (spot price). AT first I didn't think they would mention them by name, but they do. (probably because they might be the only retailer selling spot price to consumers).

Households playing the wholesale power market potentially slashing bills — but not without risk - ABC News

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian

... after community consultation the easement for the overhead line can easily be zig-zagged to avoid coppices of trees, to align with property boundaries, to avoid irrigation circles, etc

---

I have yet to see a high voltage transmission that zig-zags for any reason.

Quote:

---

If I have the optics correct, what the farmers are really after is an ongoing payment for the use of their land -- much like what wind farm operators pay them -- unlike the one-off payment offered for overhead transmission lines.

---

They really just want to continue farming their land without productivity restrictions and free of the issues raised by Warbs.

This may be of interest for solar and wind opportunities:

Australia needs much more solar and wind power, but where are the best sites? We mapped them all - Pearls and Irritations (johnmenadue.com)

One thing, in particular, I did take was the relative cost of underground transmission lines at a factor of six times that of overhead wires.

Regards
Paul

I've been following this thread with great interest from day one, this is my first contribution, I hope it is of interest.
The attached map is of a part of the Pilbara mining region. The red Dampier to Tom Price powerline, built in the mid '70s, shows a dog-leg to the East in the vicinity of Millstream-Chichester Nation Park where it went around the then Millstream cattle station. The owners at the time wanted too much compensation, and it was cheaper to go around them.
https://www.riotinto.com/-/media/Content/Documents/Operations/Pilbara/Utilities/RT-Pilbara-ENSR-area-map.pdf

Cheers,
Geoff.

There was a little doubt cast over the construction of undersea cabling in previous posts. I, too, am a little sceptical on this issue, but this was a story regarding the transmission of power from Darwin to Indonesia via, you've guessed it, an undersea cable. And, here's the irony, the cable could be manufactured in Tasmania.

A 200 metre tower could be part of SunCable proposal for $2 billion manufacturing plant in Tasmania | Watch (msn.com)

I was a little confused that earth moving machines were depicted and men shoveling dirt, but the project may only receive approval in 2025. Was there a little bit of visual license happening here as such activities may be premature?

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

There was a little doubt cast over the construction of undersea cabling in previous posts. I, too, am a little sceptical on this issue, but this was a story regarding the transmission of power from Darwin to Indonesia via, you've guessed it, an undersea cable. And, here's the irony, the cable could be manufactured in Tasmania.

A 200 metre tower could be part of SunCable proposal for $2 billion manufacturing plant in Tasmania | Watch (msn.com)

I was a little confused that earth moving machines were depicted and men shoveling dirt, but the project may only receive approval in 2025. Was there a little bit of visual license happening here as such activities may be premature?

---

It was my understanding that the company behind the project -- Sun Cable -- went into voluntary administration in January after a falling out between billionaires Andrew "Twiggy" Forest and Mike Cannon-Brooks.
If I recall correctly "Twiggy" Forest wanted to use the project to produce green hydrogen, while Mike Cannon-Brooks wanted Sun Cable to supply electricity to Singapore.

Cannon-Brooks acquired the company's shell and his stated aim is to continue with the Singapore undersea DC link. I'm not sure of the viability of the overall project as the NT is about an hour ahead of Singapore, and presumably the peak Singapore electricity demand will be after the sun has set in the NT. To my mind a 20GW solar farm in India would make more sense in terms of supplying electricity after the sun sets in the NT than a 20GW one in the NT that will "shut down" before the demand peak in Singapore.

In terms of where the subsea cable might be constructed, Cannon-Brooks would prefer to use renewable energy -- a tick for Tasmania, but Norway is also almost 100% renewable too. And perhaps Norway is a more central location, raw material wise, for the manufacture of the undersea cable.
Remember that in world terms, Australia is a high wage cost country, and Tasmania might be described as beyond the ass end of the earth.

Time will tell.