Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cgcc

You are doing the politician's / pundit's method of, instead of stating a position and justifying it, just throwing out rhetorical questions or observations to avoid actually having to defend a position.

The frequency and severity of extreme weather events is measurable and objectively ascertainable.

If you want to suggest extreme weather events are not in fact increasing in frequency and severity, say so and identify your source, rather than musing about the ways in which humans can make faulty conclusions.

---

I'm not really defending a position, I'm simply having a conversation and, in part, questioning blind obedience to a cause.

The difficulty with things like declaring an increasing number of extreme weather events is one of timescales, and measurement techniques and locations (and, of course, media coverage!). We have records of varying degrees of accuracy, measured using a wide array of ever-changing technologies, from an increasing number of ever developing locations for perhaps 150 years. During that time, we have gone from almost zero communication (man on a horse), to instantly knowing everything. We are using those disparate measurements and observations from a trivially small dataset to draw conclusions about a system that is immense and has a timescale of millions of years. This is not to say that those conclusions are inherently incorrect, it's just something to consider.

Tongue in cheek:

It is also the case that the predictions have followed an interesting pattern. 30odd years ago, the message was that by 2020 the earth would be like Venus (I genuinely read this, back in the 1990's). Such predictions were largely laughed at (though there were a few devout believers) and were subsequently wound back to more believable levels. The movement gained traction, and we went through the "you can't argue with the science" wars. Then we had the purge, where all non-believers were cast out, and we mocked and derided any who did not share the faith. Then the predictions once again accelerated, because nobody was allowed to "argue with the science". Which brings us to today. We have now declared a tipping point at 1.5C above preindustrial temperatures, and stated that 2023 was 1.4C above pre-industrial. Pretty close, eh? We have also declared 2023 to be the hottest in 100,000 years. So largely speaking we're screwed, and yet we're still not doing much about it! Let's be honest, planting a few trees and claiming that they'll each sequester 20odd tonnes of carbon over the next 50 years isn't making any difference today.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

What's the point of that, in this case?

---

Twofold, I guess.

Firstly I think it is wise for all of us to THINK about things. Not just climate, but everything. It is very easy to be led around, to believe what we are told without ever considering the motives of those who are telling us.

Secondly, because if what we are told is genuinely true, then why are we not trying to fix it? And I'm not talking about accounting the problem away by planting trees. If the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has caused the planet to warm to within 0.1C of the tipping point (as we are currently being told), then continuing to bucket out additional CO2 on the basis that a tree might absorb it 50 years into the future isn't going to help. Insulation keeps the heat in, and therefore it is logical to think that the current amount of CO2 will cause continued warming for several years until a new equilibrium is reached. And we only have 0.1C to play with, if the numbers are to be believed. We need to reduce the levels of CO2 right now, surely? But we're not. I find that to be concerning, and to mean either that the whole thing is a lie, or that we are literally suicidally stupid.

By the way, for anyone new to the thread, I am not a climate skeptic. I use zero grid power or water, and grow an increasing amount of my own food (now that I have time!). I do not have an EV, because there hasn't been an electric "farm" ute available in Australia and historically range was an issue for our rural location, though these days I drive minimal distances anyway. I have no doubt that my wife's next vehicle will be electric, to replace the hybrid she currently drives.

I genuinely believe we need to change our ways, but I don't automatically believe everything I read!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

AFAIK, you are a scientist in the field of Industrial Chemistry (if I'm not mistaken), and you no doubt put that knowledge to great use and effect in your farming days.

---

Surprisingly, yes. Not just the chemistry (soil balancing etc., I actually did some extra courses), but also simple analytical thinking. After being an industrial chemist, I moved into IT and ended up owning a consultancy company. Even that helped, as I found it easy (and fun) to cover my entire farm with WiFi, have GPS guidance and data logging on the tractors, surveillance of livestock, gates, water troughs, remote and automated control of pumps etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Do you not believe the opinions of 99% of the climate scientists – experts in their field – that climate change is largely man-made?

---

A tricky one! We all know (I assume) that the climate has always changed. Not only year to year, decade to decade changes, but also over long periods. We know that there have been ice ages. I watched a program a few years ago that mentioned a coastal defence castle in the UK that is miles from the current coast (it was a program about coastal walks, if I remember correctly). It is also fairly normal for humans to believe that they are responsible for everything, and that nothing can possibly happen that is not under our control. It is also undeniable that all the fossil fuel CO2 was, at some point, in the atmosphere and yet the planet didn't explode. However, with all that said, I would say that I do believe that making wholesale changes to the make-up of the atmosphere will inevitably impact the climate, and many other aspects of the planet and its environment. That seems perfectly reasonable!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Trying to correlate suddenly seeing more of the latest vehicle that one owns with suddenly seeing lots of weather events is.... a bit of a stretch.

---

It's not an attempt to correlate the two, it is simply to point out that once our attention has been drawn to something we tend to be more alert to it and notice it far more, even if we're not consciously looking for it. Later today I'm intending to spray some St John's Wort on my new property. I, and now also my daughter, can pick it out in a patch of almost_but_not_quite exactly the same colour weeds from 100m away, because I'm "attuned" to it. I have no doubt that you can do the same thing, and instantly notice things that I would either not see or not consciously recognise, because you are attuned to noticing them. It's the way humans are!

Just a few generalities that are not specific to any individual posts, but more a comment on the way we, as humans, perform.

We often have very firm beliefs on an issue whether these are right or wrong, but instinctively we latch onto anything that backs up our views. It is human nature to support anything that supports our standpoint. This is unfortunate as it severely restricts our ability to think beyond and question even what we believe in.

Perhaps we all need one of these blokes (apologies to M. Rodin):

Attachment 534535

It is very difficult to distinguish between the ratbags and the geniuses who have vision ahead of their time.

Records, as has been observed, may not always be correct and the means of attaining records has vastly changed over the course of time. This can distort our views

We don't always know everything that is going on. An example would be that the global temperature was not in fact increasing as fast as the scientists were predicting and that was both troubling and ammunition for the naysayers. Then global dimming was discovered following the Twin Towers attack. It became apparent that pollution building up on the clouds was in fact reflecting heat back into the upper atmosphere and slowing the warming effect.

There are many that none of the above or below pertains to as their only motivation is greed, which is why I say "look for the agenda."

My point is that we should continually question even our own beliefs as it is just remotely possible we are not as perfect as we think.

:(

Regards
Paul

For over 12 months, twice each week I have been driving across the city of Perth through some of the ritzier western Suburbs to a physio/gym where I lift weights which supposedly prevents me from getting my knees reconstructed. While it's a 25 minute drive each way, driving an EV means the cost of fuel is largely irrelevant and I really like the attention the Physio pays to my particular condition and as it's all sort of working..

Anyway, what I have noticed on the roads in these western suburbs is the high numbers of new, higher end, European vehicles and immaculately clean 4WDs. What I don't understand is why more of these vehicles are not EVs. If these people are buying a $100+k vehicle anyway, why not buy an EV? Most of these vehicles will be driven just a few kms a day (shops and picking up kids from sport and school) and parked at night standalone homes or fancy apartments where home charging is a doddle. My guess is these vehicles rarely if ever leave the city and if they do, they probably just go to Vineyards and holiday homes on the south west coast where they can also charge overnight and there are now adequate charging facilities in several of the larger towns. The same applies to vehicles in my local Swan River foreshore suburb where I walk my dogs every morning and observe the gaggles of new fancy European vehicles that spend a lot of time just sitting in driveways. My next door neighbours are another example - they have 3 new high end 4WDs (European, Japanese, Korean). Yes they do rent and tow a caravan a few times a year but as they largely work from home their vehicles are parked in their drive way for almost the whole day everyday. Surely two of those 3 vehicles could be EVs? When I asked my neighbour had he ever thought of getting at least one EV he said yeah, but he's not worried about fuel cost as his business pays for it all anyway.

After attending the Perth EV show last year and talking with the European EV reps I think they are part of the problem as I was really surprised to observe that even though they sell EVs, they are woefully uneducated about EVs in general (even the EVs they sell) and so simply cannot provide the customers with the level of detail and reassurance they need. The other significant thing is that many ICE dealers dislike EVs because they make a lot of money on servicing ICE vehicles and stuff all on servicing EVs. Another major factor is the media that continue to report on BS like how EVs always catch fire, how they cannot tow anything and how difficult they are to charge.

I strongly agree that EVs are not (yet) for everyone but there are folks out there that could easily afford and use them that just don't care. In the meantime I am very pleased to educate all these high end European vehicle owners by dragging them off at the lights at every available opportunity. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

.... there are folks out there that could easily afford and use them that just don't care.

---

In the eastern suburbs of Sydney we know people who have done "renovations" (basically knock down your house a build something waaaay bigger) that cost, in some cases, millions. The new houses have no solar panels and no rainwater tanks - in a city that is now proposing using treated sewage to supplement its water supply. None of them drive EV's, but many own a holiday house (that has, surprise surprise, no solar panels or rainwater tank).

The funny thing is that almost all of them "want climate action". They purport to care, and indeed are 100% behind building a windfarm out in the sticks where they can't see it. They join the relevant FaceBoast groups and so forth, but when it comes to actually doing something... not so much. Except, perhaps, cutting down the 100year old tree that is obscuring their harbour view - that counts as climate action, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Anyway, what I have noticed on the roads in these western suburbs is the high numbers of new, higher end, European vehicles and immaculately clean 4WDs. What I don't understand is why more of these vehicles are not EVs. If these people are buying a $100+k vehicle anyway, why not buy an EV? Most of these vehicles will be driven just a few kms a day (shops and picking up kids from sport and school) and parked at night standalone homes or fancy apartments where home charging is a doddle.

---

I have noticed the same thing, Bob and two of the factors involved seem to be range phobia bordering on paranoia and an obsession with fast charging.

Most EV's nowadays seem to have a theoretical range of ~500 kms. But cars used for commuting, shopping and mum's taxi will rarely do more than 100 kms per day. Few private cars (Not business ones) do more than 20,000 kms per year; with 250 working days in a year that is an average of 80 kms per day. If the car was electric then it would use less than 20% of capacity on an average day.

Most EV's have battery capacity between 60 - 100 kWh and a charging efficiency around 90% (Put 110 kWh in to get 100 out). Car connected to a standard 10 amp extension lead overnight (12 hrs) should charge 26 kWh - way above average daily usage.
(10 x 240 / 1.1 * 12 / 1000 = 26.18)

Quite a few fancy apartments deliberately limit the outlets in parking areas to 7 amps to stop them being used as workshops. Even then, one could still charge 18 kWh overnight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

I use zero grid power or water, and grow an increasing amount of my own food (now that I have time!). I do not have an EV, because there hasn't been an electric "farm" ute available

---

I never suspected that you were a prepper!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

I never suspected that you were a prepper!

---

I do have an Australian Army Perentie in my collection, and if I could buy an ex-military underground bunker in the middle of nowhere, I'd be living the dream! It'd be even better if Woolworths and Uber Eats delivered to my bunker....:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

I have noticed the same thing, Bob and two of the factors involved seem to be range phobia bordering on paranoia and an obsession with fast charging.

Most EV's nowadays seem to have a theoretical range of ~500 kms. But cars used for commuting, shopping and mum's taxi will rarely do more than 100 kms per day. Few private cars (Not business ones) do more than 20,000 kms per year; with 250 working days in a year that is an average of 80 kms per day. If the car was electric then it would use less than 20% of capacity on an average day.

Most EV's have battery capacity between 60 - 100 kWh and a charging efficiency around 90% (Put 110 kWh in to get 100 out). Car connected to a standard 10 amp extension lead overnight (12 hrs) should charge 26 kWh - way above average daily usage.
(10 x 240 / 1.1 * 12 / 1000 = 26.18)

Quite a few fancy apartments deliberately limit the outlets in parking areas to 7 amps to stop them being used as workshops. Even then, one could still charge 18 kWh overnight.

---

Graeme

I think your comments are very valid. I suspect that these same people base their view on the one or two days per year that they think they may undertake a long trip. This jolts them in to "freak out mode." Of course, there are people for whom an EV, for the moment, may be impractical. Still, at this time the only impediment for the majority of car buyers to go electric (say 60%, but probably more) should be the initial cost. The cheapest ICE cars, I think, are less than $25,000. The cheapest EV is closer to $40,000. Admittedly this could come down in the future.

I agree that range phobia is exactly that: It is a phobia. Propensity to catching on fire is another phobia and so it goes on. Where I am uncertain of the EV's value, is the second hand market. While an ICE that is ten years old does not enjoy the same efficiency or performance as when it was new, I don't think they have deteriorated to the same extent as an EV (the battery primarily) may have. The corollary to this is that an EV may depreciate more rapidly, but I am surmising here.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

in a city that is now proposing using treated sewage to supplement its water supply.

---

Lots of country towns have been quietly recycling sewerage for years.

Go to a town on a river. They will pump water upriver from the town, put it through a treatment plant that filters it, adds chlorine and fluoride and zaps it with UV, and they then reticulate it around the town. The water is later recollected via the sewerage system, goes through another treatment plant and settlement ponds, and then is discharged back into the river downstream from the town.

But upstream from the next town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Lots of country towns have been quietly recycling sewerage for years.

---

And in addition to these, ahem, less upfront processes, some fairly major projects have been undertaken worldwide. My point was that in a city faced with the need to build desalination plants and propose the use of treated sewage, these people still won't install a minimal cost rainwater tank to flush their toilets, water the plants etc.

This has, however, reminded me of the webpage of a Canberra Water Tank company I saw a while back. Canberra has (apparently) passed laws specifying water efficiency measures be installed in new developments in the ACT. This company have developed a small water tank that is easy to hide (I recall it was a tank that functioned as a seat, or similar). They have also developed a system whereby the poor Canberrans who have to abide by their own regulations can select from a matrix of other "point scoring" measures, such that they can minimise the size of tank required. I was amused at the "letter of the law, not the spirit of the law" approach, especially as I have no doubt that the restrictors on the taps and shower heads used to score those points will be poked out the minute the house is certified!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

It is also undeniable that all the fossil fuel CO2 was, at some point, in the atmosphere and yet the planet didn't explode.

---

I doubt that is strictly correct, and even if it was, it wouldn't have all been at the same time – it would have been spread over eons. In other words there is no chance that all the fossil fuel was formed at the same time.

The reason I doubt that it's strictly correct is (with my very limited retention of High School chemistry) the CO2 doesn't necessarily start as CO2, become fossil fuel through millions of use, only to be released again as CO2 – there's a whole bunch of other stuff going on to bring C and O2 together. (perhaps you or Bob could assist with that).

In 1800 the CO2 level was 283 ppm, or 0.0283% of the atmosphere. Now it is 424 ppm, or 0.0424%. That's a 49.8% increase in CO2! This is the whole point that the wilful fool Alan Jones chose to ignore. He's all up in arms about what a ridiculously small % of CO2 there is, but when you increase it by 50%, and add an enormous amount of Methane as well, you've got a problem.

This graph shows it. In 1960 it was 317 ppm, an increase of only 12% in 160 years. In the 63 years since then we've added the other 38%. That's ridiculous!
I doubt those 1960 levels would have made much of a difference to the climate actually, but when you quadruple that increase in only 63 years, it'll start making the weather spin out, apparently. I'll wager that's why we are seeing such rapid and unpredictable change. Too much CO2 too quickly.

Earth’s original atmosphere (eg 4 billion years ago ) was primarily methane, ammonia and water vapour. The methane got converted slowly to CO2 and the ammonia to nitrogen. Some of the first single cell organisms (cyano bacteria) produced a kind of photosynthesis slowly converting some of the CO2 into O2 so that around 2.4 billion years ago there was enough oxygen to rainfall to dissolved some types of rocks which helps to form many of the old iron or and even U ore bodies. The bacteria and later multicellular organic forms of primarily carbon continually settled out in the oceans forming the large organic deposits in a major way. All the while O2 levels rose enabling land animals to become bigger and for large land plants to develop. So yes CO2 was a big component of the atmosphere up until relatively recent (in geological terms) times. Don't worry about the earth - it will survive but its likely we wont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Don't worry about the earth - it will survive but its likely we wont.

---

And that is exactly the crucial aspect: The part that is conveniently, or more precisely, stupidly missed.

The dinosaurs were eradicated from the planet after 150million years on the planet, but the planet is still here: For us: For the moment. 6 million years so far and maybe not for much longer (geologically speaking) if we don't wake up. That would be more than a little ironic bearing in mind the pea sized dinosaur brain compared to our supposedly giant-sized brains. A dinosaur existence that was twenty five times longer than us!

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Don't worry about the earth - it will survive but its likely we wont.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

I have absolutely no doubt that the earth will survive. Whether humans (or our current civilization) survive is an entirely different matter, and one in which I suspect climate is only a small part.

---

Yep.

This is not to apply to sharpening threads :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Just a few generalities that are not specific to any individual posts, but more a comment on the way we, as humans, perform.

[snip]

My point is that we should continually question even our own beliefs as it is just remotely possible we are not as perfect as we think.

:(

Regards
Paul

---

It looks as though the first of the major coal fired stations has come up on the radar.

Lights to stay on if biggest 'coal clunker' powers down (msn.com)

There was mention in the article of approvals for batteries and while these batteries were large it did not state their duration ability. It mentioned both an 850MW and 700MW battery. Typically these have a 0ne to two hour capability at that level and sometimes less than their full rated power. Such batteries are a very small partial replacement for Eraring's 2880MW capability each hour and every hour. I noted that Eraring currently supplies up to a quarter of NSW's power.

However, it is a start.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

There was mention in the article of approvals for batteries and while these batteries were large it did not state their duration ability. It mentioned both an 850MW and 700MW battery. Typically these have a 0ne to two hour capability at that level and sometimes less than their full rated power. Such batteries are a very small partial replacement for Eraring's 2880MW capability each hour and every hour. I noted that Eraring currently supplies up to a quarter of NSW's power.

---

A bit more info here Waratah Super Battery | EnergyCo

Thanks Warb.

I read that as continuous 700MW for one hour and with a storage capacity of 1400MW, it may be able to do that for two hours. May be able. I also note that the nameplate capacity is more than that to (a) allow for battery degrade over time and (b) leaving a reserve in the battery so it is not completely drained, although that was not stated.


It is going in the right direction, but I leave it to others to decide if it is enough. :rolleyes:

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

It looks as though the first of the major coal fired stations has come up on the radar.

Lights to stay on if biggest 'coal clunker' powers down (msn.com)

There was mention in the article of approvals for batteries and while these batteries were large it did not state their duration ability. It mentioned both an 850MW and 700MW battery. Typically these have a 0ne to two hour capability at that level and sometimes less than their full rated power. Such batteries are a very small partial replacement for Eraring's 2880MW capability each hour and every hour. I noted that Eraring currently supplies up to a quarter of NSW's power.

However, it is a start.

Regards
Paul

---

I always chuckle when I see this line in articles

Quote:

---

After two years of bill shock, wholesale prices and retail costs are tipped to fall as renewable energy supply increases.

---

because all the renewables so far have really helped to lower bill prices :U




My hot take on the Eraring issue...
the won't shut it down... it'll get sold back to the government or the government will force the sale to another mob who will be more then happy to keep it chugging away. (someone like this who already power stations and coal mines in australia and all over the world Portfolio | Sev.en Global Investments)

I've talked to a couple of people that work at Eraring and they're spending heaps of money on the place. When they first announced the closure Origin started paying for people to do training to start looking for outside work, that is all starting to stop and they're actually hiring people. I've be VERY... VERY surprised if the place turns off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by havabeer69

I've talked to a couple of people that work at Eraring and they're spending heaps of money on the place. When they first announced the closure Origin started paying for people to do training to start looking for outside work, that is all starting to stop and they're actually hiring people. I've be VERY... VERY surprised if the place turns off.

---

HAB

Thanks for that additional information. It had seemed strange to me that the largest station in Oz, which had been upgraded from 660MW units to 720MW units would be shutting down just yet. However, much depends on their economic viability and in particular their cost of fuel about which I have no idea other than it is probably not cheap coal because of where they are located.


As far as buying Eraring out is concerned, Sev.en, which is Czech based and owned, is exclusively focused on coal fired entities in power generation and coal mining itself and would be a prime contender if the opportunity presented. I think that some government intervention in the form of guarantees may have to be in place to make it sufficiently attractive as that Czech company is a tough negotiator.

I would also add that it is difficult to envisage a quarter of NSW's power being removed from the grid at one fell swoop without it having a negative effect. Unless, that is, there was something to replace it.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

• An El Niño was forecast, but so far it is the exact opposite. BOM is yet to explain what is going on, but I'm sure they will when they can figure it out properly – and that's the whole point: their forecasts these days are pretty reliable, so there must be some new "curve ball" going on to make that forecast so ridiculously wrong. I'm awaiting the update eagerly.

---

Here'''s what'''s been pulling the strings on Australia'''s weather recently — and it'''s not just El Nino - ABC News


"The event is still underway, which means it may be contributing to the warmer-than-average temperatures that have continued into summer too, along with climate change, according to Dr Reid.
El Niño doesn't have much of an influence on rainfall during summer months, which she said made the recent rainfall over eastern Australia less surprising.
However, there have been some signs El Niño is not playing by its normal rule book this year, which Dr Reid said may have softened its overall influence."

I would be interested to know what is happening in S. America at this time as when we have an El Nino, they have a La Nina: Usually and vice versa.

I have mentioned before that weather forecasting is historical in that it is based on records of similar patterns. In other words, we look back and compare what happened under the same conditions previously. In recent times weather forecasting has improved markedly because there are more instances on which to compare. However, it relies on underlying conditions remaining reasonably constant. My guess is that the underlying conditions are changing so comparisons are no longer as predictable.

For example, last week we received 90mm of rain overnight. A day ahead of this event there was no rain forecast and in this part of the world 90mm is a big deal.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I would be interested to know what is happening in S. America at this time as when we have an El Nino, they have a La Nina: Usually and vice versa.

I have mentioned before that weather forecasting is historical in that it is based on records of similar patterns. In other words, we look back and compare what happened under the same conditions previously. In recent times weather forecasting has improved markedly because there are more instances on which to compare. However, it relies on underlying conditions remaining reasonably constant. My guess is that the underlying conditions are changing so comparisons are no longer as predictable.

For example, last week we received 90mm of rain overnight. A day ahead of this event there was no rain forecast and in this part of the world 90mm is a big deal.

Regards
Paul

---

The South American weather should be available on eg Weatherzone. What you say is not quite right. We have El Niño, they have El Niño, we have La Niña they have La Niña. It’s just they (usually) have opposite effects on rainfall in the two regions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

As far as buying Eraring out is concerned, Sev.en, which is Czech based and owned, is exclusively focused on coal fired entities in power generation and coal mining itself and would be a prime contender if the opportunity presented. I think that some government intervention in the form of guarantees may have to be in place to make it sufficiently attractive as that Czech company is a tough negotiator.
l

---

WA is lucky that it gets gas from the NW self at guaranteed prices so can continue to provide reasonable electrical power prices using gas but it has still managed to stuff up its coal power transition caused in part by the rapid uptake of home solar.

Blue Waters Power station (400MW) in Collie in WA is privately owned, and is Australia' youngest coal fired power station built in 2009. in 2010 it received approval to double its size but in 2020 its value was written down by the owners to "Zero" as it simply cannot make money without a significant Govt subsidy which the WA Govt has been doing since 2022. I think it still supplies around 12% of the South West Grid but once sufficient gas and wind power generation is up and running it will be shut down. The WA Govt also heavily subsidises the Collie Coal miner (Griffin) that supplies coal for the Bluewaters power plant. The two other njpr coal fire plants are scheduled for closure by 2029.

During last week, a major storm knocked down a bunch of HV towers running power out to Kalgoorlie and unfortunately the back up diesel generators failed - typical maintenance cock up. Given the year round searing sunshine and huge mineral royalties the Govt pulls in from around Kalgoorlie why there aren't several renewable energy farms with huge effin batteries servicing that area is beyond me. Horizon Power is in the process off installing some 50 remote Solar Community Power systems for small towns all over WA as it's increasingly cheaper than maintaining the long distance transmission infrastructures. Now they need to step it up a level to cater for larger towns. One of the major blockers to all this is lack of people power. 6 months ago it took me 4 weeks to get 3 quotes for my 7kW wall charger for my eV and once I selected the sparky it took 4 weeks for him to do the job as he was installing remote Standalone electrical power systems in the boonies. Today I believe its taking even longer to get a decent sparky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mic-d

The South American weather should be available on eg Weatherzone. What you say is not quite right. We have El Niño, they have El Niño, we have La Niña they have La Niña. It’s just they (usually) have opposite effects on rainfall in the two regions.

---

Mic

Thanks for the correction. I did read that when we are having a dry spell, the other side of the world is having a wet one, but I may have interpreted it wrong in attributing it to El Nino and La Nina. As you have said, El Nino will be on both sides of the world, but over there the effect is different and they welcome El Nino. Whereas we in Oz despair, sell our livestock, go bankrupt handfeeding and small towns run out of water while people in cities tend not to notice anything.

Regards
Paul

PS: One theory for the Mayan civilisation collapse was one of those drought events caused by a La Nina event, which for them was bad news.

There were some ugly temps and prices yesterday on the spot market. Unusual for a Sunday.

Attachment 534646

Huge demand with elevated temps were responsible for this: $16,600 is "Voll," which is the maximum.

The forecast for today is only a slightly lower maximum, although the average may be higher.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

A bit more info here Waratah Super Battery | EnergyCo

---

Remember, a coal fired power station is heavy industry, very heavy industry.

The defunct Munmorah Power Station had a capacity of 1,400 MW (Infallible Wiki) and its theoretical maximum daily output was 33,600 mWh. The proposed battery farm has a capacity of 700 mWh - about 2% of the daily output of the defunct plant. And look at the scale, the old Munmorah Power Station is in the background:

Attachment 534651 Proposed Munmorah Battery Farm

I presume that the market for this stored electricity is largely in Sydney which is about 100 kms away, with inherent transmission losses. If the battery farm is commercially viable, would it not be even more viable if located closer to its market?

This smells like a political solution ... and undisclosed mates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

I presume that the market for this stored electricity is largely in Sydney which is about 100 kms away

---

The smart move would be to use those sparks on the Central Coast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

This smells like a political solution ... and undisclosed mates.

---

Indeed. OTOH, do we have any real idea of what storage capacity might be required?

My assumption has always been that we'd have a massive oversupply of renewables, such that (very simplistically) we'd have enough solar to cover the windless days, and enough wind to cover the cloudy days. With sufficient oversupply, and excellent distribution across the country, the storage only needs to cover windless (over large areas of the country) nights, and geographically widespread windless, cloudy days.

The real difficulty here, I suspect, is that the "needs to make huge profits 24/7" motive means that nobody will ever build the massive oversupply of generation capacity, because much of the time it won' be needed and will therefore not be profitable. This is why I can't see how it will ever come to fruition, because it's not profitable to make either storage or generation capacity that is only needed sporadically under certain circumstances. But that seems to be part of the very fabric of a renewable power environment.

It's also why I'm constantly amazed that we're not pushing the "use less power" angle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Remember, a coal fired power station is heavy industry, very heavy industry.

The defunct Munmorah Power Staion had a capacity of 1,400 MW (Infallible Wiki) and its theoretical maximum daily output was 33,600 kWh. The proposed battery farm has a capacity of 700 kWh - about 2% of the daily output of the defunct plant. And look at the scale, the old Munmorah Power Staion is in the background:.

---

BTW, 1400 MW x 24 = 33,600 MWh not kWh

Its easy to get tangled up in maximums and leave out the big picture like what else is making power.

When there's nothing but a coal fired power plant making juice then that's all you have.
But
When there's other processes making power then all that's really needed is enough storage to fill in the gaps. That battery farm is also not intended to be the the end of the storage on that (or other) site but just the beginning, and in terms of space on the site there's plenty of room including going upwards still to be used.

It's foolish to immediately completely replace coal fired plants with massive storage because;
1) there's unlikely to be enough excess renewable power to fill the storage and
2) In due course there will be more of other generation options like Wind and Hydro that means the cost of installing huge amounts of storage may be wasted.

The scale in that the photo is over blown because of the photo's perspective.
This image is a better indicator of scale.

I'll bet those people living in the surrounding suburbs are very pleased the plant is shut down.

Attachment 534655

FWIW at Collie in the South West of WA a 220MW/880 MWh battery is being installed and while approval has been granted for up to 1GW/4GWh whenever this is ever achieved will depend on those things I mentioned above. Even now batteries mostly about short term generation stability rather than complete replacement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Attachment 534655

---

I should just point out that Lake Macquarie State Con Area (top right) is NOT a prison. :D
Nor is it anything to do with Clive Palmer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

Indeed.

It's also why I'm constantly amazed that we're not pushing the "use less power" angle.

---

Generally speaking, the vast majority see it as a right to use as much power as they want when they want. It is only when they can't afford it, which is for most people when the bill comes in, do they start to regulate their use. I would suggest that the Amber company's system that Fence Furniture uses could be much more widespread over the next few years (providing they still remain viable).

As far as renewable generation is concerned, solar only operates for, say, one third of the day. Wind is less easy again to nail down. I think that solar is probably double the generation of wind, but even if it isn't, I think you can start to see the problem. Until now the solar farms have only put in place their panels. Even today the amount of storage capacity, which is primarliy batteries, is miserably small. Really, any future solar or wind should be accompanied by a minimum of equal storage facilities.

It is not an easy balancing act and investors want to go with the easy money.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

It is not an easy balancing act and investors want to go with the easy money.

---

I understand. What I don't understand is how we will ever transition to renewables under those circumstances. As you say, solar is for a limited time each day, and (from experience) on a cloudy day the production is minimal. Wind might (?) be more reliable, and can work at night, but again for much of the time it is probably nowhere near 100% nameplate capacity and sometimes near zero. Then there are long periods where neither is producing any significant power. That seems to mean that we need, as I said, a massive oversupply of generation and distribution capacity - but most of it won't be doing anything for much of the time. That's simply not profitable......

Storage could cover the shortfall, but that requires sufficient storage to cover a worst-case scenario, which in turn requires a sufficiently oversized generation system to both supply the user load AND recharge the now depleted storage (quickly enough to cover further poor generation periods). So both generation and storage sit idle until required by circumstances. That's not profitable either!

So, how's it going to work? I can't see how private investment, driven by profit, will ever build enough capacity. As soon as the $ income isn't reliable, surely they'll stop investing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I would suggest that the Amber company's system that Fence Furniture uses could be much more widespread over the next few years (providing they still remain viable).

---

Well, I have an update on that, which I was going to post about earlier when you posted about yesterday's prices.

Amber sent me a text at 19:09 warning of a price spike. We had both split aircons going, and the problem was that I was in the shower getting ready for the Skype call, coupled with Amber being 39 minutes too late to warn of $1.78 /kWh for 30 mins from 18:30. Apparently that isn't a price spike worth texting about.

Then the proper spike happened at 19:00 (so the text was still late) and it was $4.73 pkWh, then a whopping $9.30 at 19:30, $2.65 and then $1.34 at 20:30.
That meant that we used 11.7 kWh yesterday where we normally use 5-9 per day, and yesterday's usage price was $14.42 for general usage. That is sick!

This is the graph so far this month:
Attachment 534659



For the first two months Amber was less overall than Origin's "We love you so much, we'll run you at a loss":
Sept 18.7% less, Oct 15.2% less
Then, as things got warmer, that changed:
Nov 8.4% more, Dec 4.5% more.

Origin's "We think you're an ignorant idiot" rates are always 22-28% more than their "We love you" rates.

To sum up, given that Origin's rates haven't gone up for six months, it's watch and see. Two months don't make a trend, and one bad day isn't a deal breaker. We'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

I understand. What I don't understand is how we will ever transition to renewables under those circumstances. As you say, solar is for a limited time each day, and (from experience) on a cloudy day the production is minimal. Wind might (?) be more reliable, and can work at night, but again for much of the time it is probably nowhere near 100% nameplate capacity and sometimes near zero. Then there are long periods where neither is producing any significant power. That seems to mean that we need, as I said, a massive oversupply of generation and distribution capacity - but most of it won't be doing anything for much of the time. That's simply not profitable......

Storage could cover the shortfall, but that requires sufficient storage to cover a worst-case scenario, which in turn requires a sufficiently oversized generation system to both supply the user load AND recharge the now depleted storage (quickly enough to cover further poor generation periods). So both generation and storage sit idle until required by circumstances. That's not profitable either!

So, how's it going to work? I can't see how private investment, driven by profit, will ever build enough capacity. As soon as the $ income isn't reliable, surely they'll stop investing?

---

Warb

Yes to all of that. As I said, transition is a balancing act which nobody has come close to getting right so far, primarily because there is no co-ordination through the various governments and certainly not from the private investors. We have to remember that at the moment the solar farms enjoy a guaranteed price of $40/MWhr. I am not sure if wind also gets this guaranteed subsidy. Without this, renewables may well have been a non-starter. In fact, the subsidy has only relatively recently been reduced.

It is not a level playing field yet.

Regards
Paul

While I was assembling that post I noticed that the price had gone negative (-34c) and then changed to -17c a few minutes ago. Apparently it will still be -38c from 19:00 to 19:30.
So I went around and turned on every light, mini-oven big oven, desk hi-fi just idling (nah, bugger it I'll play some tunes – something with heaps of bass to get the sub cracking), aircon to 25°, down to the shed, all lights on, thicknesser, dusty, all running. I am determined to claw back some of yesterday's fiasco! :D

How king ridiculous is that eh?

Footnote: From 19:00 the price was supposed to still be -ve but it changed to 53c so I had to race around and turn everything off. :B
Well that lasted for about 3 minutes and it went back to -ve again, so off I raced again. :~
I swear they must be doing this just to wear me out. That's the last I'll be doing that though – it's a dumb game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

transition is a balancing act which nobody has come close to getting right so far, primarily because there is no co-ordination through the various governments and certainly not from the private investors.

---

Yeah.
And we're minimum 10 years behind where we should be.