Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

It seems that concept of nett zero is lost on too many people who should know better (in the decision making world). Referring to this part:
"Aemo found the optimal future grid would run nearly entirely on renewable energy, with a range of technologies – including batteries, pumped hydro, demand response and fast-start gas plants – filling gaps around it."

---

I feel that the biggest problem with the concept of net zero is that it is entirely a paper-based calculation. Paying a third party to plant a tree, and offsetting a hypothetical amount of carbon captured over the life of said tree in no way makes the atmosphere any better in the short to medium term. Even if that tree actually gets planted, actually survives, and then has its carbon content used for building or in some other way is "captured" in perpetuity, that entire process will take tens of years, and the chances are that its carbon will, at some point, once again be released into the atmosphere. If the tree dies, never gets planted, or burns in a bushfire, then absolutely nothing was gained, even in the short term. I would guess that the same applies to most other calculations in the "net" zero figure.

Accountants spend years learning to work their way around rules..........

Agreed. It would be better to measure outputs of CO2 etc that contribute to global heating, and concentrate on reducing those emissions.

As we move deeper into summer, I suppose it was inevitable that the electricity market would become stretched. yesterday and today, for example, are what we call "Red Days" in our workplace. These are designated that way when there is clear potential for commercial market to go ballistic.

In the southern states a 40° day was quite common yesterday even in coastal areas. This invariably means the Air Cons are going to be cranked up. The recommendation is to pitch the temperature somewhere between 24° and 26° being an economic point and still relatively comfortable.

As always, the evening peak carries the most likelihood of demand attempting to outstrip supply as the heat of the day is still with us.

Regards
Paul

PS: Ironically perhaps, in downtown Millmerran yesterday, we only reached 36°. :D The only problem with that was it didn't go below 26° overnight :( .

Regards
Paul

Yes Paul, it was a "red" late afternoon and early evening on Amber Electricity yesterday...well the forecasts rates were red (above 50c per kWh) for about 3 hours 17:30 to 20:30, but it turned out they were all in the yellow/amber zone of 35-49c. Still pretty expensive but a far cry from the $2.24 or something that was predicted for one period.

I keep the stats on my daily sparks usage these days, and that has given me cause to also keep weather stats too, and I chart them together. Here we are halfway through December, and this month is 5.2° hotter than the 65 year average from 1957-2022.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I keep the stats on my daily sparks usage these days, and that has given me cause to also keep weather stats too, and I chart them together. Here we are halfway through December, and this month is 5.2° hotter than the 65 year average from 1957-2022.

---

FF

That's a little (euphemism) concerning, but I am pleased you have quoted the average rather than an individual spike. A trend such as that is thought provoking if nothing else.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

A trend such as that is thought provoking if nothing else.

---

Yes, the 65y average is 23.8° and this mtd ave is 29°. If that keeps up (and it looks like it is from the forecast) then it would be a 22% increase over the 65y ave. That's huge!

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I'm always a touch sceptical of these temperature numbers. When I was trained as a scientist (industrial chemist) many years ago, we were taught that for measurements to be meaningfully compared they must be like for like. 65 years ago, most temperature readings were taken by the local postmaster, probably using a max-min mercury thermometer, or something equally "old fashioned". These days they are taken by far more advanced systems, sometimes even satellites. 65 years ago, most local post offices were in small towns, and even the ones in cities had far more green space than they do now. A study by one of the Sydney universities suggested that the ambient temperature of Sydney would be lowered by (from memory) around 3C if all the buildings had light coloured roofs. Do we allow for these changes when we compare the readings?

My original scientific training would tell me that comparing a manually read greenfield reading with an electronic reading from the middle of 12,000 square kilometres of concrete is questionable at best.

I would also note that the historical records have been edited over time. Some of the high readings have been removed, the reason given is that "their accuracy is questionable" (one example I read some time ago stated that the postmaster had "probably misread the reading"). When I first started commercial irrigation, I downloaded all the data I could find at that time for the area I was farming to calculate my required worst case irrigation rates. A few years later I discovered that much of that data is no longer available. For example there are still (last time I looked) rainfall records dating back to the late 1800's, but mysteriously the temperature records now start in the 1960's.

I am NOT a "climate denier" - it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the climate changes constantly - archaeology proves conclusively that areas have changed massively over both short and long timescales. It also seems very likely that man's actions have had an impact on everything around us, including the atmosphere and therefore probably the climate. I am 100% behind the removal of fossil fuels, and many other of our more questionable activities. However, I do think we need to be careful when looking at some of these figures, as "science" sometimes seems to lose track of reality in the desperate need to prove something is happening.

A WA EV aficionado has bought the first Hyundai "Mighty" EV light truck in Australia and together with another driver are about to drive it round Australia.

Both drivers are seasoned "round Australia drivers". One driver has done the big loop 4 times and holds the current EV record for doing it in 10 days.

MIGHTY Electric Truck | Hyundai Electrified Commercial Australia
Range claimed is 200 km with a full load (7 tons) at 100 kph.
Not cheap - about twice the price of a similar diesel variant.
5year 200k km vehicle warranty, 400k km battery warranty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I'm always a touch sceptical of these temperature numbers. When I was trained as a scientist (industrial chemist) many years ago, we were taught that for measurements to be meaningfully compared they must be like for like. 65 years ago, most temperature readings were taken by the local postmaster, probably using a max-min mercury thermometer, or something equally "old fashioned". These days they are taken by far more advanced systems, sometimes even satellites. 65 years ago, most local post offices were in small towns, and even the ones in cities had far more green space than they do now. A study by one of the Sydney universities suggested that the ambient temperature of Sydney would be lowered by (from memory) around 3C if all the buildings had light coloured roofs. Do we allow for these changes when we compare the readings?.

---

Yes they factor all that in - in spades. The issue is far less about current day readings and more about the reliability of the old readings. Stevenson Screens were invented in the 1880 but not in widespread use especially in remote locations for many years after that. Screens were not always well maintained and spurious results were often found to be associated with damaged or incorrectly installed screens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I'm always a touch sceptical of these temperature numbers. ... 65 years ago, most temperature readings were taken by the local postmaster, probably using a max-min mercury thermometer, or something equally "old fashioned".

---

Yes but that doesn't mean that all the years' records were necessarily as unreliable as they may have been in 1957 or so. That unreliability effect gets diluted as the years of better temp taking methods were implemented.

Furthermore, it could well be that that is the very reason why the long term records available are only back to 1957, given that records were kept for a long while before that. In other words, I suspect that the BOM has already tried to factor out records that may have been dodgy. Katoomba isn't a remote location, and in fact it is part of Greater Sydney these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

However, I do think we need to be careful when looking at some of these figures, as "science" sometimes seems to lose track of reality in the desperate need to prove something is happening.

---

Jeez, I'm just saying that the first half of this month has been much hotter than the 65 year ave, which is the only info available, and I'll add that anecdotally, it is certainly considerably hotter than the last few years. What do I base that on? Well, I'm pretty sensitive to heat which is why I moved up here from Sydney 13 years ago. All of those summers bar one have been exceptionally pleasant by comparison. In 2010 we even had the firebox going all day Xmas & Boxing day! After the horror summer of 2019 (everywhere, including here) we installed 2x A/C units. They hardly got used used in the 3 summers after, but they have had fairly extensive use this season.

I'll do what I can to get the averages from whatever years are available in the last 2-3 decades, when temp taking should be a bit more reliable. I am always interested in seeing if there are statistical trends.

I'm starting to think that my experience with science and scientists is very different from that of other people! I was trained as a chemist a long time ago, and that training included various scientific and research principles, such as "use all your effort to try to disprove the concept before claiming it's real". I then went into the commercial sector, where a completely different approach was taken. The commercial approach was basically to design an experiment specifically to show the concept is real, and largely (if at all possible) to ignore any results contrary to what you want. There's a great deal of money floating around, and many companies will write that off against tax by paying for research that just might, perhaps, give a result. The longer you can string them along, the more you get paid! Along the way I also met with scientists, commercial and otherwise, who were emotionally attached to a concept and would make outrageous claims based on very questionable results, and who were apparently completely unable to see why others didn't believe them.

So now we are looking at a world where headlines are everything. A world where "you can't argue with the science" and climate change deniers are ostracised. If you want sponsorship for your research, you relate it in some way to climate change. The best way to get ahead is to do something that other people will like, and which will get you headlines, because science is a business. If the sponsor of a scientist's research would prefer to see a certain result, will that scientist really have the guts to report the opposite, and if they do will the result ever get published? Under these conditions, are we really to believe that all science is 100% unbiased and truthful? Are we to believe that everything that is in the media is an accurate representation of the actual results? Is a journalist better off repeating the actual results, or pulling the most shocking numbers and quoting them out of context? Are the viewers more likely to get worked up about a "meh" statement or an "aaarrggghhh" one?

Is mankind screwing up the planet? Undoubtedly. Do we need to fix it? Absolutely. Do all the scientists, businessmen, journalists, activists and politicians involved (on either side) in process of analysing the problem and coming up with a solution have the moral backbone to tell the truth and do what is best for the planet, regardless of profit or loss, election results, loss or gain of power or prestige, results that disagree with the zeitgeist or personal beliefs etc. etc.? If we believe that they do, then we can go ahead and wholeheartedly believe everything we read, although of course we need to pick a source because they're often at odds!

My experience of scientists (and people in general) is that it's rare to find one that will bite the hand that feeds it!

[Note: I also have met many very good scientists who are dedicated to producing excellent science with an honest and accurate outcome. However, these people have rarely been in "front and centre" high publicity fields and are therefore less exposed to the lure of the almighty dollar.]

It's also interesting how age affects my own interaction with the weather (I'm not sure that interaction is the right word, but I can't think of one better). I know that over the last 20-odd years, on my farm I worked through drought, floods, freezing temperatures and periods where it was 38C+ every day for a week or more. Very rarely did we stop work, though we did sometimes build shade structures to work under. Now, in my retirement and having moved to a somewhat cooler area, I find myself running for aircon when it approaches 30C, or drops below 10C or so. Intellectually I know that I've worked through far worse, but it doesn't feel like it!!

My daughter says I'm a cranky old man. I think she may be right!

During the 1990's through to 2015 I was a member of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). The main IUPAC Commission I worked on (CIAAW) is one of the oldest scientific commissions (since 1899) in modern science and back in the 1930's included the very famous Madam Curie as a member. While there were a (very) few "difficult", "lazy", and "self serving ie they had an agenda" individual members, most were an absolute pleasure to work with and the difficult ones were just voted out or left cos they quickly worked out they were expected to work. The main subgroup I worked on reviewed data and conclusions from published papers but we always triple/quadruple checked calculations etc and when in doubt always made sure we took conservative stances on major decisions and they are able to say that based on the current state of knowledge at the time CIAAW didn't have to retract any major results due to mistakes. Sure, when new information became available changes were made (lots of them) but that's the way science work.

You can check the CIAAW members list here
Historical Members | Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights
I'm the 4th "Robert' on that page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Sure, when new information became available changes were made (lots of them) but that's the way science work.

---

That was the way I was trained, and I fully agree with the sentiment. Sadly, at the present time, when "you can't argue with the science" seems actually to mean "if you disagree you'll be ridiculed and your career ended" and the media are interested solely in a good headline, I'm no longer 100% convinced that the climate information I see reported in the media is truthful, unbiased and accurate in both science and reporting. There's a great deal of pressure to be on the bandwagon, and absolutely no reward in not doing so.

As an example, the other week there was, briefly, a flutter in the media about a new study that had suggested that some climate event, and I don't recall exactly what (perhaps a "tipping point"?) was only five or ten years away. In this case, whether or not the science was accurate is less relevant than the fact that the study actually gave a range of (from memory) between five and well over a hundred years, with the most likely time being somewhere in the middle. The media, however, choose to quote the shortest possible time frame as "when scientists say it will happen".

There are a couple of very grave problems that we face: stupidity, and the need to grab a headline. Often they go hand in hand.