Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Paul is right; lighting does not use much power and heating uses heaps. Increase your thermostat by one degree and the increased electriity would have kept all lights running 24/7. In a domestic setting, by far the best thing you can do to save energy is by improving insulation; the world leaders are in northern europe - Germany, Scandinavia, etc. Part of the drive is called "passivhaus" and well worth reading about. To achieve those standards your probably need:

• R=10 insulation in ceilings,
• R=7 insulation in walls,
• R=5 insulation in floors,
• Double glazing on all windows,
• Triple glazing on those windows facing the pole,
• No air leaks.

Then you can heat a large house including domestic water for less than 15 kWh per square metre per year.

Compare that to an "average" Australian house that might have R=3 insulation in ceiling, and nothing else.

You are in Hobart; your cheapest options for heaing are:

1. Cheapest = wood heater, provided you chose an efficient model that is properly installed and maintained
2. Next Cheapest = heat pump,
3. Third cheapest; There is no third cheapest, all other options are expensive.

We installed gas heating about ten years ago, which almost made sense then, but is now very expensive.

---

I am going to install a few Infra Red panels after a trial run to prove they do what is claimed and they do. They primarily heat the mass of the building and its contents and then this heats the air as a secondary function so turning them on and expecting to get hot instantly is not going to happen. I have been watching the data coming off our solar panels and our solar is still exporting when the IR panels are operating so we are banking the heat in the building and releasing it at night by programming the thermostat to turn the panels off. Our house was insulated in the walls and ceilings which is better than most but I have said it here before Australian houses are generally leaky tents compared to those in cold climes overseas. Pelmets and well designed curtain systems will also save a lot of heat going through single pane windows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Ten years ago we mainly had NiMH and NiCd - who knows the future?

And Li-Ion batteries in tools seem to retain their charge capacity very well for about 7 or 8 years, and then they enter the death spiral and die quite quickly. Will tesla's do the same?

---

I purchased my Makita Li-Ion cordless kit 12 years ago, and Li-Ion was well and truly established by then. I think losing the charge capacity may have more to do with inbuilt obsolescence rather than the ability to perform. AFAIK, Makita batteries have a chip that says "No" after a given set of circumstances arrives (the number of recharges??). If this is true, then the marketing doesn't work on me because I only ever buy third party replacement batteries. Cheaper, and with a significantly longer lifespan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I purchased my Makita Li-Ion cordless kit 12 years ago, and Li-Ion was well and truly established by then. I think losing the charge capacity may have more to do with inbuilt obsolescence rather than the ability to perform. AFAIK, Makita batteries have a chip that says "No" after a given set of circumstances arrives (the number of recharges??). If this is true, then the marketing doesn't work on me because I only ever buy third party replacement batteries. Cheaper, and with a significantly longer lifespan.

---

Interesting, I have found aftermarket batteries to be rubbish and only use genuine. Come to think of it I can’t recall ever seeing any aftermarket batteries on the building sites.
But if you have found a good supplier and they are doing the job that is great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

Paul
Forgive my cynicism, but to me it looks like the AEMO may have been gamed by "persons yet to become known"

Attached is a snap shot from 20:40, June 14, 2022 for Tasmania.
You can clearly see the price spikes >$15,000/MWh over the past day or so.

Don't know about you, but a spot price above $15,000/MWh -- in a state that just opens a tap a bit wider to generate power -- suggests to me that some sort of gaming is occurring.
Perhaps, the Market participants have twigged that if they don't bid a price (to generate any power) over the next 5 minute period, the only price offered will apply to all the market participants.



Attachment 513051

---

Ian

Your comments are not without some substance. As we know, it is a competitive market and there are rules set down for this market, which the "players" must follow. Transgressions are, and have been, taken to court. There was one very significant event about five years ago that comes to mind. However that is not to say that the rules are satisfactory. Unfortunately the "banker" can change the rules when he feels like the game is not going his way. The players cannot do that when things are not going their way. While I have some reseravtions about the rules and the way they can be used I find myself thinking that this is what was set up in the first place.

For many years it was a battle for a generator to even break even. Many was the year we considered ourselves lucky to be getting $30/MWhr and that was certainly not viable, but we persisted, because there was no other option. Times have changed and we are now at a point where a generator can make a good return on billion dollar investment. We mainly hear about these price spikes to the max: Now around the $15,000/MWhr but little is made, in the press, of the times the price goes to -$1000/MWhr for protracted periods up to five hours on occasions. The units are throttled back to their safe minimum load, sure, but this could be a couple of hundred MWs. That certainly takes a bit hit to a profitable enterprise.

In recent times there have been a couple of significant changes in the rules. The first is that bidding is now done on a five minute segment rather than the half hour segment. The effect of this is to limit the time a price spike remains effective. A price spike now lasts normally no more than five minutes. Prior to this generators were paid that high price for at least thirty minutes. This represents a saving of five times arguably. That is fair enough, although the actual bidding process does take a little longer, but that is what it is. If the old system was still in place n todays market the average price might well be in the thousands/MWhr!

The second major change is to availability. A generator must always convey to AEMO their availability as soon as there is any change. The reason for the change must accomany that adjustment.At any power station there are two groups that come in to play: The operators and the traders. The operators are responsible for availability while the traders dictate the pricing. If, for example, there are 500MW available, the first 200MW will be available at say $30MW, the next 200MW at $80 and the last 100MW at $300. These prices can be revised by the traders at any time. I suppose your cynicism around gaming has some foundation. It is a game that has been played for many years with the "banker" having the whip hand. Now the whip is in different hands and the players havn't forgotten the hurt. It is a vicious commercial market. I lay the blame squarely at the respective state governments who sild off their assest for a quick money grab. It is like a grazier selling off his breeding herd: He still wishes to grow cattle so now he has to buy back from the market and he is at their mercy.

One aspect that we have not emphasised for a long time is that the MW value is paid according to the last player in. So, if a gas generator comes in at $500/Mwhr, everybody gets $500/MWhr even if they only bid in at $30/MWhr.

For a long time I have thought, from my humble position of zero influence, that the market rules are outmoded and largely inappropriate. The recent turn of events in particular and really for the whole of this year have highlighted the inadequacy of the competitive market structure. All the problems we have described in previous posts as the holes in the swiss cheese lining up have served to exacerbate the problem.

So back to your orginal comment regarding "gaming." If there is any such activity ocurring, it is done within the scope of the rules. You can't flog the dog for years and not expect it to bite back when it gets the chance.

Regards
Paul

A most interesting article that goes some way to explaining the "big hammer technique" but not completely.

Power companies accused of engineering crisis for profit (thenewdaily.com.au)

There is still a lot of hurt ahead of us to my mind.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

Paul
Forgive my cynicism, but to me it looks like the AEMO may have been gamed by "persons yet to become known" ...

---

I think that you have been extremely perceptive, Ian, and from a distance of 10,000 kms.

This mornings ABC News alleged that certain unnamed electricity producers including 5 government owned powerplants (also not named) were (allegedly) deliberately reducing supply to the grid and forcing up prices and creating chaos. It was "justified" by a garbled argument about (alleged) disatisfaction with long term margins in a competitive market.

Looking at those graphs, I must also wonder if there is also some other sinister force involved. eg A hedge fund manipulating and already distorted market? The latter is guess work. Remember when the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the world silver market in 1980 and forced the price from $6 to $50 per ounce.

Game on Australian Energy Market Operator suspends spot market for wholesale electricity - ABC News

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

Game on Australian Energy Market Operator suspends spot market for wholesale electricity - ABC News

---

yep. wierd times ahead.

so part of the reason for market suspension is that aemo/NER needs a certain capacity as a spare, 1500MW is the number banted about, and at one point today we had 38MW spare in the grid. soooo they have to suspend the market to actually keep a certain safety factor built into the grid by peeling back peoples contribution to the spot market.

Generators also won't get compensated for the last revenue due to the 300MW cap (its in the rules, and you're made aware of this when getting your license to generate). If you needed a bit of plant to get you back into service to meet the demand, you can apply for costs for that, or if you needed to buy some extra coal to meet the demand you can apply for those loses but not actual lost revenue.

Some things that have been agitating me that few have seemed to consider:

South Atlantic Anomaly - Wikipedia
The Collapse of an Atlantic Ocean Current Would Ripple Across The World, Says Study

There is, on top of these two interesting reads another that I read in a geology paper that found the inner working of the planet are changing and doing something odd in the south Atlantic. Apparently the magnetic field itself is changing (as it ever does, but this is "added change")

Earth’s magnetic poles not likely to flip: st | EurekAlert!


Its curious to plug these together as the three sciences don't seem to be talking to each other.

What does this all mean? No idea. But for us Aussies it means wet wet wet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by havabeer69

yep. wierd times ahead.

so part of the reason for market suspension is that aemo/NER needs a certain capacity as a spare, 1500MW is the number banted about, and at one point today we had 38MW spare in the grid. soooo they have to suspend the market to actually keep a certain safety factor built into the grid by peeling back peoples contribution to the spot market.

Generators also won't get compensated for the last revenue due to the 300MW cap (its in the rules, and you're made aware of this when getting your license to generate). If you needed a bit of plant to get you back into service to meet the demand, you can apply for costs for that, or if you needed to buy some extra coal to meet the demand you can apply for those loses but not actual lost revenue.

---

I slightly misled in an earlier post when I said the week of average prices around $600 (I think it was abou $580/MWhr)led to the cap of $300. Those average prices were contributary, but the final trigger was several hours around $9000/MWhrs with little prospect of the situation improving. I read an article just now that said this is the first time a cap has been invoked, but I recall a situation several years ago where the price hit Vol (an abbreviation for maximum volatility) for several hours and and the cap was invoked, but it was lifted almost as soon as the price volatility stabilised. Perhaps they are refering to a protracted period such as in force right now and not due to be lifted for another couple of days at least.

Once a generator is instructed to generate in these circumstances, out of pocket expenses can be claimed. Haveabeer mentioned extra coal and another example would be the burning of oil (oil support is normally only required to introduce a new mill and during the startup of a unit.) It is much more expensive than burning coal probably by a factor of up to five or six times depending on the cost of the coal. The oil is usually diesel fuel such as used in our private vehicles or trucks.

I suspect that gas generators may be able to claim fuel if the cost exceeds $300/MWhr, but not certain on that one.

The dire situation is expected to improve within the week I am told.

That 1500MW used to be 2000MW spinning reserve, but that was before the advent of the competitive market. The competitive market changed many things.

Regards
Paul

A synopsis of where we are at with the electricity market: The spot market has been shut down and this article explains some of it at least. Not too many local providers making money from the misery.

AEMO has taken over the national energy market. Here's what that means (thenewdaily.com.au)

Regards
Paul

HOWEVER
As I understand operation of the East Coast Gas market, the operator's "owners" borrowed the money to construct the LNG plants at 2% interest (or possibly an even lower rate), on-lent the funds to their Australian subsidiaries at 9% (or perhaps an even higher rate) -- meaning that the possibility of any acknowledged profit from their operations is remote, let alone the possibility that their operations might generate a "super profit".

"The future has been cancelled due to lack of interest."

- Me, 2022

Doesnt help the perception of being ripped off when we are being actually ripped off....

Prime Minister says gas generators were '''gaming''' the energy crisis and threatening supply - ABC News

While the "gaming" link in WP's post basically outlines the current situation I take issue with this statement by Albanese:

"Some generators withdrew from the market this week, after soaring power prices were capped, and were then compensated by the market operator when directed to pump power into the network."

To my mind this is not what those generators wanted. A $300 cap with expenses above cost is not what they were wanting at all. They were chasing several hundred dollars or a thousand dollars while the market was still in competitive mode. The trick would have been to keep the market high but beneath the threshhold that triggered cessation of the competitive market. It is true to say that those generators, that are the alleged culprits, misjudged that big time.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Brush

"The future has been cancelled due to lack of interest."

- Me, 2022

---

And, no need to turn the lights off cos there ain't no power !!! :D

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, so please don't go ballistic.

If the spot price of a power generator's inputs doubles or quadruples and their daytime output is crippled on a sunny day because rooftop solar has taken most of the load, what do they do? Company directors are required by law to act in the best interests of their company, not the customers', although the second follows the first. On the other hand, the government can't allow the economy to shut down due to a lack of power, so their only solution at present is to subsidise the power stations' losses. Blind Freddy could have seen the effect of solar rooftop on the daily demand curve which has weakened generators' profitability but the Ukraine situation is a Black Swan. Good engineering practice demands consideration of, and solutions to, catastrophic failure. Maybe AEMO war-gamed this current chaos, who knows?

What the feds have not done over the last twenty years is to frame energy transition policies which would provide certainty to both ends of the market. Only WA ensured there were provisions in place for LNG operators to supply their intra state needs. So NSW is planning to endanger the best agricultural land in the state to add capacity in a country which is the largest exporter of LNG in the world. Neither "the market" nor "technology" can solve the problems alone. We need the decision makers to heed the experts.

mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glider

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, so please don't go ballistic. ...

---

Another way of arguing towards the same scenario as Mick, is in terms of classical economics as originally defined by Adam Smith, and later refined by Maynard Keynes and Paul Samuelson.

For almost 100 years from c.1900 the electricity industry was regarded as a natural monopoly and, to ensure equity, that monopoly was placed firmly in the hands of government agencies. It worked quite well, but eventually fell foul of the righteous right's mantra that "... the private sector can do it better ..." and the electricity agencies were largely privatised. This would have been fine if you had even competition. Mick's friend Blind Freddy would confirm that in no part of the electricity industry is there (near) perfect competition. Mainly you have oligopolies dealing with oligopsonies, each looking for an opportunity to shaft each other, or to join forces and shaft the end consumer - poor old Muggins.

The oligopolies and oligopsonies, most players are both, include:

1. Producers of raw materials - gas and coal companies,
2. Electricity producers,
3. Electricity distributers,
4. Electricity retailers.
5. Poor old Muggins at the end of the line is the only price taker.

The gentlemen of the righteous right absolutely fail to achnowledge that government control over such an imperfect market is necessary or desirable. "The invisible hand of the market will solve everything!". The Americans have traditionally had privatised "utilities" but have usually had very tight regulatory controls to ensure no one exploited their monopolistic position. Occasionally they have relaxed their controls, usually with disasterous consequences - eg the California electricity fiasco 20 years ago.

As Blind Freddy says "... The only thing that you learn from history, is that you learn nothing from history".

With the current electricity shenanigans - as defined by the dictionary - there is absolutely nothing that Muggins can do except be shafted.

All the other players in the market have a vested interest in ensuring that truth never enters the public arena - something about "self incrimination". But I must be naive as I do not know how an innocent person or company can "self incriminate".

If we start with the premise that whatever we see in the media is someone's attempt to obfuscate or create fake news, then we will probably be somewhere near the truth. Perhaps there will be a Royal Commission in five years time.

The energy market explained by Clarke & Dawe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELaB...=ClarkeAndDawe

My wife was amused by the Clarke and Dawes skit: It seems nothing has moved on.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

The energy market explained by Clarke & Dawe

---

HA! Cracker Chris! Miss them badly.

The AEMO price cap is effective at curtailing prices. This is a snap shot from yesterday. Note that the spot price was below the cap in some states.

Attachment 513355

The central figures in bold type under RRP were indicative of what the market predicted if there was no cap in place. The RRP prior to 1750hrs is what actually happened. The figures on the map were the live prices for that five minute segment. While the cap has improved market stability, we are not out of the woods just yet.

Regards
Paul

The energy market cap is due to be lifted at 0400hrs tomorrow (23/6/2022).

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The energy market cap is due to be lifted at 0400hrs tomorrow (23/6/2022). ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

"... The only thing that you learn from history, is that you learn nothing from history".

---

:2tsup: or :((

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

:2tsup: or :((

---

Graeme

I have toassume it is because there is more generation available. For example our second unit at Millmerran is back i/s following a scheduled outage. I know this because....I am the driver :wink: .

Just as an amusing aside, one of our senior personnel gave the following account as an analogy to the energy crisis using the ubiquitous milk market:


"I thought I would address the recent media coverage surrounding “rolling blackouts” using an analogy, to make it easier to explain to your family and friends.

The milk industry in Australia consists of 3 main types of milk:

1. Cow milk
2. Soy milk
3. Almond milk

The milk demand in Australia is usually satisfied by a healthy mix of cow, soy and almond milk.

Lately, the price of milk has been increasing significantly, due to increasing input costs:

• Cows are getting more expensive…
• Soy beans are getting more expensive…
• Almonds have stayed the same price, but unfortunately there are not enough almonds to satisfy the massive demand for milk. In addition, almond production is sporadic and hence is not the perfect substitute for cow and soy milk.

Once the price of milk goes too high (above $6.74 on average), the market operator steps in and caps the price of milk at $3 to protect all us milk drinkers.
The problem is, that cows cost $4 and so do soy beans. $3 is not enough to cover the input costs of producing the milk.
Only the almond farmers can cover their costs at $3 a bottle.

So the poor cow and soy bean farmers can no longer cover their input costs, and hence decide to stop making it, placing even further pressure on the milk industry.

Now the market operator can force cow and soy bean farmers to produce milk, but only if there is a real risk of a milk shortage.
So a few phone calls later, and the market operator has summoned half of the cow farms and soy bean farms to start producing milk again, and nobody has to go without milk.

So the risk of an actual milk shortage should be very small, given the market operator performs their duties correctly and orchestrates milk production in line with their forecasted milk demand. The only risk I can see is if they get their milk demand forecast wrong, and didn’t summon enough cow and soy milk production in time.

So when the media reports on a milk shortage, just know that the market operator has the powers to force milk production, even if it is at a loss to farmers.

Hope that made sense, and feel free to follow up with any questions.

Happy milk-drinking ��"

I will leave it to you all to decide which producer is which.

Regards
Paul

Trouble being with this analogy, is that the electricity market is dominated by a handful of titanic oligopolies who are known to be Ruthless Bastards.

Consumers are also "price takers". There is no real competition to choose from.

Milk, according to my son just now (he works in IGA) has 41 suppliers and distributors in Canberra ALONE. On the shelf (their shelf) are 24 separate milk brands/products (edit: I added products, as he said the milk choices tend towards being a bit esoteric, but "milk" it still is)

When I buy power, I get to choose from Origin or ACTEW. Both are notorious price gouging usurists.

There is no choice.

Shopping around isn't a choice. There is no market.

The genie needs to be stuffed back into the bottle and electricity generators and distro must be government once again. Power is a natural monopoly. The "free market" and "market competition" mantras are a fraud.

Heavy industries in Australia’s regions could cut emissions by 80% and create a jobs bonanza, report says | Business | The Guardian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Trouble being with this analogy, is that the electricity market is dominated by a handful of titanic oligopolies who are known to be Ruthless Bastards.

Consumers are also "price takers". There is no real competition to choose from.

Milk, according to my son just now (he works in IGA) has 41 suppliers and distributors in Canberra ALONE. On the shelf (their shelf) are 24 separate milk brands/products (edit: I added products, as he said the milk choices tend towards being a bit esoteric, but "milk" it still is)

When I buy power, I get to choose from Origin or ACTEW. Both are notorious price gouging usurists.

There is no choice.

Shopping around isn't a choice. There is no market.

The genie needs to be stuffed back into the bottle and electricity generators and distro must be government once again. Power is a natural monopoly. The "free market" and "market competition" mantras are a fraud.

---

WP

I take your point, but it was supposed to be a light hearted analogy intended for those ignorant of the energy market rather than the cognoscenti that frequent this thread. Also when deregulation of the milk market occured many farmers went out of business thanks to the big retailers. Gouging can come from both directions. I am envious of your two choices for power. We have one: Take it or leave it (same with phone providers).

I concur that the electricity market should not have been privatised and have stated this myself on more than one occasion (two?), but I have certainly pointed out that it will never happen. No government has the money (they spent it as soon as they got it) and certainly no one has the inclination. There is however a big case for revising the rules. Quite how that is done and legislated I don't know.

Regards
Paul

WP

I guess that, reluctantly, I should point out that the cessation of the competitive market was squarely aimed at the wholesale market. Any skullduggery by retailers would be a separate issue. :wink:

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Trouble being with this analogy, is that the electricity market is dominated by a handful of titanic oligopolies who are known to be Ruthless Bastards.

Consumers are also "price takers". There is no real competition to choose from. ...

---

Very similar to the electricity sector.

In the dairy industry there are:

1. Fairly large number of dairy farmers who are price takers.
2. Limited number of dairy processors who dominate the market nationally,
3. Very limitted number of dominant retail chains nationally, and
4. Very large number of end consumers who are also price takers - Muggins.

The Government said that they wanted vigorous competition in the dairy industry:

1. The processors agreed and dealt vigorously with the farmers,
2. The dominent retailers agreed and dealt vigorously with Muggins, and
3. The processors and retailers then vigorously arranged sweet heart deals between themselves.

Economics 101: Competitive markets do not work where there are oligopolies or oligopsonies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Heavy industries in Australia’s regions could cut emissions by 80% and create a jobs bonanza, report says | Business | The Guardian

---

I've always wondered where these "job bonanza's" come from with regards to renewables.

a good portion of them need minimal input from humans and can only assume the might come from the manufacturing/installing and thats it. the new gas plant at kurri kurri in NSW put out a statement that the need 13 permanent staff to run the joint. not exactly a job bonanza unless you want to fly in and fly out all over regoinal parts of the country trying to chase work.

not to say we don't need renewables but long term I can't see where these 1000's of jobs are meant to come from

Yeah; these “hundreds of thousands of jobs” are only during the construction stages and I believe they would have been all added up together as if all the projects are under construction simultaneously. In reality a massive proportion of that workforce will consist of the same core contractors moving from job to job. Once the plants are operational the full time site-based operations crew will be somewhat sparse… although there likely will be regular contractor engagement for their planned maintenance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by havabeer69

I've always wondered where these "job bonanza's" come from with regards to renewables.

a good portion of them need minimal input from humans and can only assume the might come from the manufacturing/installing and thats it. the new gas plant at kurri kurri in NSW put out a statement that the need 13 permanent staff to run the joint. not exactly a job bonanza unless you want to fly in and fly out all over regoinal parts of the country trying to chase work.

not to say we don't need renewables but long term I can't see where these 1000's of jobs are meant to come from

---

haveabeer

That is exactly right. Mostly, a solar farm or wind turbine farm may require up to a hundred personel during construction and about a handful, mainly for maintenance and a little repair work once commisioned. Mostly people from shutdown stations will need to find work elsewhere. Unfortunately, that will often require shifting location.

Just as an aside, Millmerran Power Station is forecast to be one of the last to shut down around 2051. Having said that, I suspect it will be a little earlier, but almost certainly one of the last. Anybody wanting to see their careers out in the fossil fired industry should consider the backwoods of Queensland. :)

The reason for Millmerran's longevity is the cheap supply of fuel (sited on a wholly owned mine which, supplies only the station), modern technology in that it is a supercritical boiler, strategically placed in the grid to balance power and fairly efficient (Second most economic in the industry) all of which contribute to making it economically viable right up until the last moment. I once replied during a employee/manager interview to the question "How do you feel about working at Millmerran?" "If I have to work at a fossil-fuelled, dirty, carbon-emitting power station, Millmerran is the one I would chose."

It wasn't quite the reply the manager had been programmed to expect, but at least nowadays he follows the lawyer's maxim of never asking a question to which you don't know the answer.

Regards
Paul

Just like the title of the thread... we'd better make sure we arent getting into THIS particular pickle: South Africa'''s Eskom implements worst power cuts in over two years | Reuters

Here is a bit more enthusiasm for the future:

A better heat engine | MIT Technology Review
Thermophotovoltaic efficiency of 40% | Nature

Quote:

---

Engineers at MIT and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have designed a heat engine with no moving parts. It converts heat to electricity with over 40% efficiency -- making it more efficient than steam turbines, the industrial standard. MIT Technology Review reports:The invention is a thermophotovoltaic (TPV) cell, similar to a solar panel's photovoltaic cells, that passively captures high-energy photons from a white-hot heat source. It can generate electricity from sources that reach 1,900 to 2,400C -- too hot for turbines, with their moving parts. The previous record efficiency for a TPV cell was 32%, but the team improved this performance by using materials that are able to convert higher-temperature, higher-energy photons. The researchers plan to incorporate the TPV cells into a grid-scale thermal battery. The system would absorb excess energy from renewable sources such as the sun and store that energy in heavily insulated banks of hot graphite. Cells would convert the heat into electricity and dispatch it to a power grid when needed.

The researchers have now successfully demonstrated the main parts of the system in small-scale experiments; the experimental TPV cells are about a centimeter square. They are working to integrate the parts to demonstrate a fully operational system. From there, they hope to scale up the system to replace fossil-fuel plants on the power grid. Coauthor Asegun Henry, a professor of mechanical engineering, envisions TPV cells about 10,000 feet square and operating in climate-controlled warehouses to draw power from huge banks of stored solar energy.

---

Wow!! 19 pages of discussion. People getting a real charge out of this

Attachment 514048 https://mobile.twitter.com/goldingcartoons

Attachment 514049 https://mobile.twitter.com/goldingcartoons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

I think that you have been extremely perceptive, Ian, and from a distance of 10,000 kms.

---

I'm no longer on the other side of the very big lake.

I'm actually back in Oz for a few months.


Perhaps it's time I changed my signature block