Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

... Would I be cynical in noting that one of the principals in the company is an ex Liberal Premier of NSW and the plan was facilitated by a change of legislation by the current Liberal Government in NSW.

---

Fascinating isn't it.

Coal is the only solution for a COALition government. Capitalism is the only solution the Liberals preach. Greenies are bad. Solar/wind/etc cannot ever work they preach...

Interestingly, ALL Liberals seem to instantly turn into green-loving devotees once leaving office. Their tune instantly changes "wE wErE mIsUnDeRsToOd"... After fleecing the public purse for permanent pensions.... personal investments that benefit by public legislation changes... and Coal is suddenly evil and Solar/wind/whatever becomes an existential necessity.

It seems to me that all ex-politicians should be permanently banned from investing in ANYTHING that had anything to with their former portfolios - forever.

Liberals catch a sudden case of greenie-communism on leaving office, dont they!



BTW.... I LOVE batteries, solar, wind, geo, recycling, trees..... drove back to Canberra on Friday and coming down to Lake George was the most beautiful sight of hundreds of windmills leisurely spinning in the far distance... those things must be utterly stupendous.... magnificent.

So where do we stand with reducing greenhouse emissions with our current state of play?

In summary as I understand it, we currently have a situation where we have renewables somewhat supplying / supplementing our power requirements during the day but still require coal fired stations to run at their normal capacity to take up the slack during peak loads and at night but are heavily discounting or giving away their excess power when the sun is shining
Does that in effect mean we haven’t actually reduced our energy producing carbon footprint or have I got it wrong?

Ironically, with prices going down our electricity monopolist has decided to INCREASE prices....

Electricity prices are falling. So why are Canberrans''' household power bills about to rise? - ABC News

I can see quite a bit of this corporate double-speak occurring soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

So where do we stand with reducing greenhouse emissions with our current state of play?

In summary as I understand it, we currently have a situation where we have renewables somewhat supplying / supplementing our power requirements during the day but still require coal fired stations to run at their normal capacity to take up the slack during peak loads and at night but are heavily discounting or giving away their excess power when the sun is shining
Does that in effect mean we haven’t actually reduced our energy producing carbon footprint or have I got it wrong?

---

Beardy

You are correct that for the moment solar only replaces during the sunlight hours and wind only replaces when the wind blows, but any time this is taking place carbon emissions are being reduced as it takes the place of fossil fuel generation. The issue is that it is not enough as for about three quarters of the day only fossil powered generators have the ability to supply the grid with electricity. Solar, for example and to take one renewable is fast approaching 100% of it's ability unless a viable storage technique is devised.

If you like, stage one is pretty much completed, but there is no real vision for stage two other than something needs to be done yesterday.

Regards
Paul

Regards
Paul

Paul what I am basically asking is are we burning less coal with this solar and wind energy available now or does it consume the same amount of coal just keeping it running to meet peak load periods ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Paul what I am basically asking is are we burning less coal with this solar and wind energy available now or does it consume the same amount of coal just keeping it running to meet peak load periods ?

---

Beardy

We are burning less coal. Electricity is only generated to the level of demand. The major difference is that fossil fueled generators will keep their units running at a reduced load but even that load is below what would ordinarily be considered economic. This translates to a reduced cost to the consumer , if it is passed on, as well as reduced revenue for the generator and an overall reduction in emissions. Certainly as time goes on the thermal generators will have to devise strategies to drop their minimum loads to well below levels of the past. It won't be easy for everyone. Some will pack up their bags and leave the market.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Beardy

We are burning less coal. Electricity is only generated to the level of demand. The major difference is that fossil fueled generators will keep their units running at a reduced load but even that load is below what would ordinarily be considered economic. This translates to a reduced cost to the consumer , if it is passed on, as well as reduced revenue for the generator and an overall reduction in emissions. Certainly as time goes on the thermal generators will have to devise strategies to drop their minimum loads to well below levels of the past. It won't be easy for everyone. Some will pack up their bags and leave the market.

Regards
Paul

---

Thanks for the clarification on that and good to know there is a reduction in emissions

While not exactly pertinent to the thread I found this interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZBaDle5NbU

News today is the building of a new natural gas and hydrogen (small percentage to start with) fuelled 300MW power station at Tallawarra in NSW.
Being in the industry Paul, what are your thoughts on this unit re size as it’s supposed to take up the slack after Liddell is decommissioned.
Is it large enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lappa

News today is the building of a new natural gas and hydrogen (small percentage to start with) fuelled 300MW power station at Tallawarra in NSW.
Being in the industry Paul, what are your thoughts on this unit re size as it’s supposed to take up the slack after Liddell is decommissioned.
Is it large enough?

---

Lappa

I had heard something like this was proposed and frankly I think it is laughable on at least two counts. Firstly, gas, natural or otherwise, is a fossil fuel. It produces carbon emissions. What part of greenhouse gas does the government not understand?

Secondly Liddell, where I once worked, has four 500MW units, although I don't know how many are still functioning today. I have it my mind that one may have been de-commissioned following a disaster, but certainly don't know that for certain. So even those people with a poor understanding of maths will see that 300MW is not going to replace 2000MW or even 1500MW.

Who is going to build this station and who is going to provide the finance? Is it likely that a private investor is going to put up the hand and with whose money? My understanding today is that no financial institutions in Australia are willing to finance fossil fuelled power. I am presuming Tallawarra is being touted as it is the site of a very old station and may have some infrastructure still in place. I am also cynically going to suggest that it is a crucial electoral seat, but again I will leave that to the political experts to investigate.

I have said so many times, look into the agenda behind all this statements. So little happens for the greater good and so much for individual gain.

Regards
Paul

Heres a link to an ABC article. I read it in the Daily Telegraph but I can’t link that as you need to be a subscriber.

Australia'''s first net-zero hybrid power station gets the green light - ABC News

Thanks for that link Lappa.

It looks to me as though they plan to run it on gas until a hydrogen supply is available. Hydrogen is OK provided it is produced by electricity and in turn that electricity is from renewables. If not you have gone around in a circle and lost efficiency in the process (all processes have some degree of loss).

A little further reading shows that the units at Liddell have been de-rated to 420MW each which makes 1680MW by my count and not 500MW as stated in the article:

"The project will be fast-tracked to be operational by 2023-24 in a bid to help ensure reliable electricity supplies to the grid once the Liddell coal-fired 500-megawatt plant in the Hunter Valley closes."

I do get very agitated with the mis quoting of facts that are there for everybody to see.

I also note that the plant is an open cycle project. That is inefficient and in fact it is only marginally less polluting that the best coal fired stations. The best coal fired station carbon intensity is 9 (reflects 9 tonnes of CO2 per MW/hr), while an open cycle gas plant intensity is 8 (8 tonnes of CO2 per MW/hr).

A closed cycle gas unit with an HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) situated in the exhaust gases will have an intensity of around 6 (6 tonnes of CO2 perMW/hr).

It is a pity the government cannot see it's way to channelling their extensive efforts to maintain carbon producing power into non carbon producing technology. Perhaps they should not have progressively defunded the CSIRO.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

It is a pity the government cannot see it's way to channelling their extensive efforts to maintain carbon producing power into non carbon producing technology. Perhaps they should not have progressively defunded the CSIRO.

---

Unfortunately politicians are short sighted individuals who are centred on one thing and that is staying in power and ignore the consequences of that altogether. They are a curious bunch of people as most of them have little or a very limited skill set or qualifications for the job but usually no qualification at all. One qualification they all have is how to avoid taking responsibility for anything that goes wrong from their decision making or lack of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Parks

Unfortunately politicians are short sighted individuals who are centred on one thing and that is staying in power and ignore the consequences of that altogether. They are a curious bunch of people as most of them have little or a very limited skill set or qualifications for the job but usually no qualification at all. One qualification they all have is how to avoid taking responsibility for anything that goes wrong from their decision making or lack of it.

---

Chris,

The perfect description of a muppet !!!!

Cheers,
Yvan

Well, while Bushmiller talks about power plant outputs in the mega's, we are attempting to improve the output of our 20-pannel PV system by having mini-inverters installed as we have 2 trees shading some of the panels during part of the day. Time will tell if this was a good decision!

As a general observation, I am more than miffed, being polite, to be told that our PV system creates a problem rather than solves one...

There we was, in our innocence, dreaming of making a contribution to improving the current health of our planet no less when the Tasmanian government introduced a power feed-back incentive scheme to encourage the locals to go solar, right at the time we were extending our modest abode.

This is the same government who then decided to reduce the buy-back incentive from 28c to 6c/kW. This of course went down like a lead balloon, to the extent that the original decision was reviewed so that, for current beneficiaries, the reduction was stepped from 28c to 13c to 6c over a period of time.

Sorry but I don't get it: one minute there is this attractive offer to install PV systems but now they are creating a problem...go figure!!!

The price of energy is becoming a political football with allowances being distributed to pensioners etc. Sooner or later the crunch will come when true power charges will have to be passed as the cost of such allowances becomes prohibitive.

I'm off me soap box!

Cheers,
Yvan