Right now, at 10am, the renewables in the system here are at 70%, and the price per kWh is 9c supposedly dropping to 6c in a moment...hang on...ok, 5c. Not negative though.
Printable View
Right now, at 10am, the renewables in the system here are at 70%, and the price per kWh is 9c supposedly dropping to 6c in a moment...hang on...ok, 5c. Not negative though.
So if/when we reach the point where commercial solar generation on an average day can produce sufficient power to "run the world", should we not simply discourage the construction of additional commercial solar facilities, and encourage alternatives like wind that are not dependent on sunshine? And should we not do that directly, rather than through an indirect method such as pricing that punishes all producers rather than simply the targets?
Note that obviously we still have a storage issue that has to be addressed, but over-production of solar to the detriment of renewable investment as a whole is surely counterproductive? I don't think that rooftop solar, whether domestic or commercial (factory or shopping mall roof space) should ever be actively discouraged, because local generation and usage is always a good thing, but perhaps commercial RGC's (the commercial version of RECs, IIRC) should be rebalanced on an ongoing basis to drive the industry in a suitable direction? Or maybe this happens already?
I would have thought that by then we would just be adding on whatever generation is required of whatever highly developed type is currently used, and that "renewables investments" as such would be an historical artefact. That is, this period from say 2015 until maybe 2040 or so will be seen as The Great Energy Transformation Period. Everyone can then relax, and go back to business as usual for energy....and worry about the next crisis (water security? housing security? staggering numbers of refugees? prevalence of far-right nutjobs? invasions by another country?).
But if we're getting to negative prices, surely we are close to sufficient solar right now? I realise there are other factors at play, slow startup coal generators etc., but on the face of it, prioritising storage and non-solar renewables would seem more sensible even now. Solar is quick and cheap (relatively) to install, and domestic roof-top solar will continue to grow as long as retail prices are high. So why not encourage commercial generators to do something else? If we create a negative pricing issue we'll surely discourage investment in ALL renewables?
Again, I'll defer to the pros, but it seems to me that there will be far less commercial generation, even for solar, once we get storage sorted out and that will mean that -ve prices would be a thing of the past. I think (or at least hope) a big part of the future will be community batteries because there will always be landlords that won't put up solar panels (unless they are forced to) and there will always be roofs that can't have them (asbestos, shaded etc), and there will always be apartment blocks that don't have enough roof area to service the many floors below them.
When that is all largely in place we will be left with solving the industrial power conundrum. I don't know what proportion of power they use (compared to the type power consumption that can be provided by solar. Maybe by then (20 years?) there will be some sort of advancement in small or smaller scale Green H20 generation, perhaps where an industrial hub or town can have their own localised big sparks production.
I can see a lot of +ve disruptive tech will probably emerge. There's an incredible amount of stuff being developed in all areas of energy.
Had some minor day surgery last week, and as I was in the recovery room I read some of the hospital magazines. One included an article on unintentional effects of pricing policy re renewables. Because of the anaesthetic, my memory is not 100%.
First, I will prefix my comments by stating that my local electricity retailer, Aurora, only offers a single feed-in tariff for solar panels - currently 8.883 cents per kWh. It does not matter if the wholesale price is negative or spiking, the retail feed-in tariff is the same.
The article said that this encouraged people to maximise the total output of their solar systems rather than optimising the output when it was most required - in the breakfast and dinner peak periods - when wholesale prices were highest. Peak solar production was commonly in early afternoon when wholesale prices were low or negative.
Current rhetoric is that ideally solar panels should face due north or slightly east of north in most localities - this does maximise the average output in a 24 hour period. However, demand varies in the course of a day. It suggested that, theoretically, panels could be re-orientated so that half faced east and half faced west. This would reduce the daily output by 15-25%, depending on latitude, but it would optimise output early and late in the day when demand was higher. But current feed-in tariffs discouraged this.
It suggested that feed-in tariffs should, somehow, be linked to wholesale spot prices. In most cases this would require upgrading of meters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
This is high-lighting how antiquated the whole system is – you could say it's not FIT for purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Maximising the attitude of panels for feeding as much as possible back to the grid is a ridiculous notion brimming with short-term thinking. A few years ago the FITs were much higher than now. Changing the attitude of the panels to get the most out of them for the house in question won't be all that cheap an operation, but having panels facing E, N & W is where it's at. Actually, probably facing NE, N, NW would be the most appropriate for ¾ of the year.
another day,
another new battery tech
I guess techincally this ones old (70's), but a company wants to mass churn it out
NASA Battery Tech to Deliver for the Grid - IEEE Spectrum
haveabeerQuote:
Originally Posted by havabeer69
Interesting, but not yet tested on a large scale in the real world (only in outer space :rolleyes: ). In a way it is a bit like the SMRs, around which there is much hype as if they already exist: Except they have not been produced yet in the commercial world. Also, on the H2 batteries, I did not see much indication of cost. Cost, as we know, is something that just cannot be ignored.
I certainly subscribe to the argument that Lithium-ion battery storage by itself will be insufficient. It will serve as a stop gap until something else takes over.
Regards
Paul
I sometimes find myself wondering who writes these articles, and where their allegiances lie. The power industry, obviously, would much rather keep the supply of power entirely under their own control (and therefore profit) and are usually very negative about roof-top PV, as exemplified by their bid a while back to punish roof-top solar owners with an additional daily fee (supply charge). This, they said, was to recover the costs of running the grid from people who didn't pay the "poles and wires" part of each kWh they self-consumed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
The "maximum daily generation" alignment of panels is no longer relevant, and that advice is very outdated. At present the FiT is very low, 6c to 8c, compared to the (in NSW) 60c rate when much of the "maximise daily production" advice was relevant. These days most PV installers suggest E and W facing for morning and evening production.
The reality, of course, is that for most people the alignment will very simply be "which way the roof faces". Also, of course, since the 60c FiT days the price of PV has reduced (though seems now to be creeping up again) so the approach is often to install as much as possible (or can be afforded) wherever the roof points!
The other issue is that the power industry is pushing up prices at an alarming rate - my last increase was approaching 50%. At that point, the FiT is almost irrelevant - people are installing PV to avoid the bills, so linking the FiT to the spot price is largely pointless. The industry is in an interesting situation, like all businesses it is trying to increase profits, but by increasing prices it is actively encouraging people to install PV which in turn reduces the market for power. This is not just domestic usage, many businesses with available roof space are doing the same thing. As storage technology becomes cheaper, if the power companies keep increasing their prices I am sure more and more people will end up with sufficient PV+storage to leave the grid completely. The power companies need to realise this and adjust their thinking to suit. Perhaps their approach to profit should be driven by efficiency and customer service, rather than bloat, poor service and price hikes!
It is also the case that the future is quite unpredictable. For example, PV produces most power at solar noon, when traditionally "everyone is at work". But since Covid we have encouraged people to work from home (this may now be changing, but for the sake of argument let's run with it!), so now a great many people who would previously have been at work will now be at home perhaps 3 days a week. There's a fair chance that this translates to a huge rise is home air conditioning usage during the day. So large chunks of that overproduction of solar power could well be soaked up. Prior to Covid, just 3 years ago, that "working from home" boom wouldn't have entered into the equation! The same changes apply to EV's - we can encourage the installation of car park charging systems such that when EV's become the norm they can soak up the excess PV during the day rather than being charged at home overnight. We can modify our world and lifestyles to make the best use of available resources, but that requires thought and cooperation!
I vaguely remember source as UNSW but .... (Anaesthetic) and I was in a medical facility so magazine was probably 10 years old!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Not down here. CSIRO still suggest due North as starting point. Rannnnng three installers and one said NNE and two said 020 degrees - essentailly the same thing. One mentioned the easterly offset was due to afternoon shading from Mt Wellington. None mentioned east-west alignment.Quote:
... The "maximum daily generation" alignment of panels is no longer relevant, and that advice is very outdated. At present the FiT is very low, 6c to 8c, compared to the (in NSW) 60c rate when much of the "maximise daily production" advice was relevant. These days most PV installers suggest E and W facing for morning and evening production. ...
True; this seems dominant except where it is modified by planning rules. I live in a heritage listed suburb and we are barred from installing solar panels on street facing roofs - side and rear roofs are fine. NBN connection boxes cannot be on front of buildings either.Quote:
... The reality, of course, is that for most people the alignment will very simply be "which way the roof faces".
Again, not down here. The big user of domestic energy is heating - 70% of houses have heat pumps - and houses need heated when the sun isn't shining. Mid-winter, it gets dark at 5 pm.Quote:
... At that point, the FiT is almost irrelevant - people are installing PV to avoid the bills, so linking the FiT to the spot price is largely pointless.
And the daily peak demand periods for electricity are morning and evening, not mid afternoon when solar production is at its peak.
Like horse racing!Quote:
... It is also the case that the future is quite unpredictable. ...
I see the basic problem as an instability in the supply - sun and wind are not fully predictable - coal stations cannot be ramped up quickly - batteries are not yet cost effective (in most circumstances) - and solar does not work at night.
We need some lunar panels.
Entirely correct, although changing rapidly. I started the process of installing more panels on my new house, and wanted to include a battery. I went through the process of working out whether a battery was a sensible investment or a nice-to-have, and decided it was simply a luxury. However, that changed significantly with our last energy price hike. I haven't done the math in detail, nor included such things as the return on investment had I bought shares instead of a battery, but on the basis of our current pricing I suspect the payback time for my 25kW PV system including 20kWh of batteries is now below 15 years. Prior to the price hikes (nearly 50%!) I had guesstimated it as >25years, and 15 years is potentially within the lifetime of the battery. A few more price hikes and it might look like I knew what I was doing!Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Apart from the FiT being trivial in comparison to the retail price of power, the other reason why I commented on it being largely irrelevant is because of export limiting. I realise this doesn't apply across the board, but for those affected there is zero point in aligning panels for maximum daily production, when for most of the day the panels will be restricted by the export limit. Under those conditions, even for maximum daily export (rather than unachieved potential production) the east/west split is better.
Edit:Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
The information below is not correct, though it is stated as being the case on several supplier websites. The real information is a few posts further down the thread.
I've spent some time looking at this, and it's not a "free" replacement, it's a set $ discount. For replacing an electric heater I'm told it's a $1200 rebate (or $350 to replace a gas heater). This is added to the STC's and any other schemes that apply. The result is that you can indeed have an electric storage system replaced with a heat pump for next to nothing (I've seen $33 quoted), but only if you don't care what brand of heat pump you get! The heat pump systems involved in the $33 deal carry a RRP (according to the supplier/installer of around $3200. The Sanden system is waayy more than that! The end result is that a Sanden system, even after the ESS and STC's, will cost you a bit above $5.5k. However, that's still $1200 cheaper than the dealer down the street who isn't approved for the ESS, so thanks!
I'm just waiting on a quote from a local(ish) installer on a Sanden unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
But something doesn't appear to be right with those figures. If the $3200 unit (presumably an EcoGenica 215 litre) is $33, then how come the Sanden is only $1200 cheaper and not $3167 cheaper? I'm aware that the STC rebate on the Sanden 250 litre is the same as the 350 litre, and that's because the heat pump is the same.
We have gas central heating here which is hell expensive in winter ($600 for the coldest 3 months), and I would love to replace that, but I haven't seen any info on replacing heaters, only air conditioners. This page lists what can be replaced but I can find no further mention of replacing windows and doors, and draught proofing.
I'm actually still trying to work it out! I have one quote that includes $924 of ESC's and $864 of STC's, to give a price of $5590 for a 250L unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I have a second quote, which isn't broken down into items, for a 315L tank, including a WiFi module, wall mount and additional cost for installing the compressor remotely (AKA drilling three holes through the wall!), for $5679.
I assume the 315L tank costs more than the 250L version (but no idea how much), the WiFi module costs $300, I'd assume the "remote mounting" fee would be $150 (because isn't that the standard "money for nothing" price?) and the wall bracket probably another $100 or so. So the second quote is discounted from the first, but not, I suspect, by $1200.
Edit:
I think the discount is indeed a combination of the STC's (federal) and the ESC's (NSW state), therefore I suspect that the $924 of ESC's and the $864 of STC's are the total rebate available. It may be that some water heaters qualify for slightly more or less, based on their output. I now suspect that the references I have found to a $1200 rebate are simply marketing or math or both, but do not actually represent a rebate in addition to the STC's and ESC's. I can only suspect that the calculation that results in an "RRP" $3200 water heater costing only $33 to install is more likely based on the "RRP" being entirely hypothetical, and in fact it's just a cheap unit! It has also, more than likely, been designed to maximise the rebates in order to be a cheaper option for the customer whilst still being profitable. There is also the possibility, and I've seen this many times with other products, that all of the websites offering these $33 installs are in fact owned by a single entity operating under many names!
The main problem here is that as you (I think) said right at the beginning, the government websites explaining this are entirely useless. They have a great many words that glorify their actions, and explain why they are doing this, but don't actually clearly state WHAT they are doing!
My overall conclusion is that if I want the Sanden unit, it's going to cost me $$$!
Edit:
The NSW scheme does indeed provide "ESC's", based on the technology being replaced, and also the location (metro, rural etc.). The value of the ESC's, just like the STC's, can change. The fixed $1200 does not exist, it is an incorrect statement by a few (same company but different names?) installers, who are either ill-informed, deliberately misguiding customers, or (benefit of the doubt) have simply calculated the rebate for their particular offering, then rounded it to an easy number and then quoted it as "the rebate from NSW".
The outcome, I believe, is that the $33 system is inherently just a far cheaper system than the Sanden. It gets the same/similar $ discount (based on like for like sizing, location etc.), but has a much (much) lower price tag before any discount is applied.
Best and final.. Hopefully!
I had a long conversation with a dealer about the rebates etc. for heat pump water systems. Federally there are STC's available, based on various criteria (size, location etc.). In NSW there are ESC's available, based on much the same criteria but also what technology is being replaced (and the caveat that the old heater MUST be taken away or otherwise made incapable of working - it's a "replacement" not an addition). Those are the available discounts in NSW. Depending on the fine details, they come out at somewhere around $1800ish. The value of both STC's and ESC's can change.
The $33 heat pump is the combination of the discounts above and a really really cheap heat pump system, many are rebadged versions of the same thing. Allegedly they are quite noisy, and the warranty is only three years.
This sand battery could be interesting:
The world's first sand-powered battery (msn.com)
Although touted as a commercial installation, it seems a little on the small side to me. If they can keep it hot in Finland, I don't think we would have much trouble here.
Regards
Paul
I couldn't see any info at all in that link Paul, apart from the pic, so I went looking.
How a sand battery could transform clean energy - BBC World Service - YouTube
(except he thinks they should be heated up from cheap power at night, rather than solar power, which is a bit odd)
And from the BBC:
How the world's first sand battery stores green power - BBC News - YouTube
(saying they use green energy)
And old mate Matt Ferrell for a deeper dive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ZrM-IZlTE
Try clicking on the pic. I think it will take you through the slides.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Regards
Paul
Not wishing to be seen as unduly biased (actually everyone of us is biased) I thought I would include this "spin" on just how good the nukes are:
15 interesting facts you didn’t know about nuclear energy (msn.com)
Interesting. for example, as how forgetful they can be when they say there have only been two major accidents: Did they forget Three Mile Island ? It was on their own shores.
I would be interested to know who actually sponsored this article and indeed forum members own thoughts.
Regards
Paul
"if you follow the instructions to the letter, it merely explodes. Get anything wrong, and you're really in trouble" - Clive James
Clearly Three Mile Island doesn't count as a "major incident", and I seem to remember something going seriously awry at Windscale in the UK many years ago?
"I once absent-mindedly ordered Three Mile Island dressing in a restaurant and, with great presence of mind, they bought out Thousand Island dressing and a bottle of chilli sauce" - Terry Pratchett
Mr Brush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Brush
Clearly that is the implication as it was not deemed a catastrophe. However, it was in a heavily populated area and this is the sobering thought I took from this incident, which we now know as "minor."
"Cleanup at TMI-2 started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, with a total cost of about $1 billion (equivalent to $2 billion in 2022)."
and this
"TMI-1 was restarted in 1985, then retired in 2019 due to operating losses. Its decommissioning is expected to be complete in 2079 at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion"
Regards
Paul
PS: Call me skeptical, if you wish, but it could just be why nobody wants one in their backyard.
Very expensive to build, and exceedingly expensive to decommission. The future decommissioning costs would likely be multiples of those figures.
I don't see how large scale nuclear can ever compete with adding storage (battery/hydro) to renewable generation. There may still be a place for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), but the technology has been "coming soon" for quite a while now.
The countries building miniature nuclear reactors - BBC Future
While it is not a secret, it seems to be a little-known fact that there is a nuclear reactor in Lucas Heights, Sydney. It is not for production of electric power but has been there since 1958 producing medical isotopes and being used for research purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Brush
Back in the late 1970's or early 80's, (a long time ago so I'm not sure of the year) a lot of military personnel in the Sydney area, particularly Transport drivers, were put on emergency standby in case they were needed to evacuate selected people (Read VIP's - politicians etc) fron a location in Sydney.
Because of my position in Defence at the time, I also became aware that there had been an "incident" at the Lucas Heights reactor that coincided with this. Join the dots ... :rolleyes:
DougQuote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
Nominally the Lucas Heights reactor is 5MW, but as you said, it does not produce electricity. When it was first commissioned, my understanding is that there was very little housing around, but nowadays it is in the middle of suburbia and a constant source of complaint from the residents.
I suspect that most "incidents" are covered up to prevent the populace freaking out. Only the big ones that cannot be covered up become general knowledge. The safety people would point to the triangle of incidents.
Regards
Paul
Sorry Doug, that conjures up an image of Homer Simpson with a glowing green rod stuck to the back of his shirt........D'OH !
Well this would have happened around a decade before the Simpsons were a thing. Maybe the creators of the Simpsons based Homer's character on some unfortunate clumsy misfit who worked at Lucas Heights. I guess we will never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Brush
They have had their share of minor bungles in recent years, not just the earlier (and possibly more serious) incident you were referring to:-
Lucas Heights nuclear medical facility should be replaced owing to safety concerns – report | Sydney | The Guardian
Paul: I assume that that is a quote from a government agency. When did any government agency bring in a project on time and under budget? Frequently both get blown, sometimes spectacularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
And there were also some incidents (plural) where they actually lost nuclear bombs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Helpfully, the infallible Wikipedia has published a fairly comprehensive list of nuclear incidents - it is a little longer than I expected.
List of military nuclear accidents - Wikipedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Doug
Just extracted from Wikipedia, which I linked earlier. I did omit the references, but they can be found here in the original 3 Mile Island article.
Pffft. I don't see any problem at all because it'll be someone else's problem. :BQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Brush
A couple of points about the Lucas Heights reactor.
Between the years 1993 to 2009 I lived within about 4km of it, in Menai, which was at the time the closest suburbia. Since then the housing has crept closer to it from the north, and east which is now about 1km away. It's not in the middle of surburbia, but more or less adjacent to it. The east can't get any closer because of the valley and Woronora River.
See the map here: Google Maps
The locals never expressed any concerns that I heard of – It just wasn't a discussion point. They were FAR more concerned about the 2nd airport being built at Holsworthy, but hadn't stopped to look at a map to learn that Menai was equidistant from Mascot International and the proposed Holsworthy site, notwithstanding a plethora of UXBs to overcome. Too many of these people had got the vapours about the proposed airport I said "Is the current noise from planes directly overhead a problem for you."
"Well, no, it's good, actually"
"In that case you are looking at exactly the same distance away to Holsworthy, and the noise will be, at most....the same as now."
The second point to make is that the Lucas Heights reactor has saved however many lives of cancer patients.
Nuclear power for Australia is just another brain fart from Lord Voldemort, and we wouldn't even be discussing it if he had any proper, decent ideas. I suspect that we'll have solved renewable energy storage not too long after the first Nuke power station could be built for whatever staggering amount of money. It's a fool's errand.
From the newsfeeds I picked up on this:
'Third-world country’: Renewable energy does ‘not work’ (msn.com)
It seems that Mr. Canavan does not think renewables are working. Well, there are a couple of aspect to which I would point. Look at these recent average wholesale figures for QLD. I have chosen QLD only because our traders provide these statistics and I don't have to go looking for them. The trends are similar, although not exactly the same, for most of the other states with the exception of Tasmania, which, as we have discussed previously, appears to have it's own set of rules for a completely different world. :shrug:
Attachment 531285
Attachment 531286
Attachment 531287
Even back in September
Attachment 531288
To put these prices into context, it was identified in the late nineties, when our station at Millmerran was being conceived, that the entry point for a new player in the market was $35 per MW/hr. That was close to 25 years ago. Now in 2023 we are in Spring, which is typically a low demand period, and prices are back to those of twenty five years ago!
Yes, at times during Winter prices were high but the average is still quite reasonable to my mind. The reason for the low prices, however, is indisputably the emergence of renewables. A large company has the option to organise contracts and any company worth it's salt would be doing exactly that to even out the peaks and troughs. So, either Boral is not up to the changes in the marketplace and needs to get with modern developments (there are companies that specialise in advising ways to minimise power consumption) or Mr. Canavan is profoundly mis-informed. These two statements are my euphemisms and you should substitute whatever vernacular, in your opinion, best suits the situation.
Regards
Paul
You are talking about wholesale prices. I doubt that Boral (quoted in the article as having to stop production due to energy costs) have the ability to buy at wholesale prices. Nor do I, nor any "consumers". The result is that we, the consumers, are indeed paying massive prices for power. My peak rate is now 55c/kWh. If I was still trying to run an irrigation farm, I'd be struggling with a price that high.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Another way to look at it is that the average rate on the first line of the first of your attachments is $39/MWh, or $0.039kWh. So someone, from that data, has bought a kWh of electricity for 3.9c and sold it to me for 55c. Most businesses operate at around a 30% profit margin, which means that unit of power should have cost me around 5c. When, at least on paper, the profit margin appears to be over 1300%, doesn't that look like a broken system? Even if you take out the ridiculously high "poles and wires" charge for (from what I can see) 20 people to eat sandwiches whilst one person does some work, the price the consumer is paying is crazy.
Placing the blame on renewables is certainly a questionable call, but from the consumers viewpoint there's definitely something wrong, and power IS massively expensive.
WarbQuote:
Originally Posted by Warb
The thrust of my reasoning is that renewables are not causing a price hike. I am pointing out that the figures at the wholesale level do not reflect an issue: On the contrary, they have leveled out and are at a point where the generators are becoming concerned that they can make a reasonable business at that level.
I believe larger companies, like the retailers themselves, can indeed deal direct or at the very least have access to preferential rates. As to the average consumer, well, I agree he is not in such a good place. Much depends on your location. There is not so much choice at all in small regional locations compared to the big cities where you can tout around for the best price.
The contention was that Matt Canavan stated categorically that renewables were not working. There are aspects that are troubling, to me at least, and they revolve around the ability or rather the lack of ability to store the energy. For the moment, as we have discussed here on this thread, storage is woeful. However, clearly they are working.
Regards
Paul
Indeed, and I really wasn't arguing with any of it. Large companies can certainly get preferential rates, although nowhere even close to the wholesale prices (unless things have changed in the last few years!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
The difficulty is that a politician (any politician) can very easily say "prices are crazy" because for the vast majority of people (AKA voters), they are. Having established that he or she "understands" the impact this is having on the voter, he or she can spin that sentiment in any way they choose. Where they take it depends on their own bias, funding, pressure groups (industry or otherwise) etc., and how far they think they can lead people before they are questioned.
I have no knowledge of the person in question (I'm assuming they're a politician, but it's just an assumption!), but the basis of their argument, to the average person who sees constant reference to renewables, notices wind farms popping up everywhere (assuming they ever leave the city!) and then receives an enormous electricity bill, would possibly seem valid.
I may have mentioned before that our son is living in Norway. He sent these pictures of a power station (Hydro) that is right behind the house to which he has just moved:
Attachment 531290
A little on the specification
Attachment 531291
and for those of you who's Norwegian is a little rusty. :rolleyes:
Attachment 531292
Simon described it as sexy, but I would say cute. Admittedly 1.6MW is not huge, but whatever rows your boat. It would appear that a hydro facility next door is a lot more attractive than a Nuke. :D
Regards
Paul
He is a senator from Queensland, a far right member of the LNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
I think Paul is right, Warb. The margin between wholesale and retail electricity prices has widened substantially in the last 18 months.
I would love to have a little hydro scheme like that next door, but we do not have the requisite river or creek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
And 1.6 MW or 1,600 kW is rather more electricity than I use. The wire connecting my house to the street is 80 amp, capable of carrying 19 kW, but I am sure we never run it hot.
EDIT: Typos corrected.
My point exactly - the "man in the street" is seeing prices skyrocket, he has no knowledge of why, or the wholesale price, he just sees his bill getting (much) bigger. It's a lever for any politician to use to "prove" whatever he or she wants to "prove", in this case, that "renewables aren't working".Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
The interesting point is that "renewables" obviously do work, but we have rather botched the transition (no storage!) and our current system (50% retail price increases) is clearly broken. The problem is not renewables, but rather how we are implementing them, and the need in our society for exponential profit growth. When the power market is saturated (usage will increase only with new houses, especially as consumers move to lower energy devices) how do you increase profit? Increase the prices. Which is where we are now, apparently!