So what's going to replace coal?

 

Pinned post created by dthead

Posted 3 years ago

Sponsored advertisement

  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
Another view. https://theconversation.com/a-high-price-for-policy-failure-the-ten-year-story-of-spiralling-electricity-bills-89450
allan
Beat me to it Allan, I was about to post a link to that story from the ABC website.

The article is really interesting one which lays most of the blame for the current electricity market crisis at the feet of Federal and State governments over the past 10 years.

Remember though that it is not pure Journalism, it is written by the Gratten Institute's Energy Fellow.

BG
  allan Chief Commissioner

Yes, it's a cutabove pure journalism! His case is well argued, and consistant with the evidence. Until we have coherant and rational government policy, preferably independant of politics, we'll all continue to pay. The handing over of the system to privateers has only benefited the privateers.

We have a position, now, where the states have to lead because the feds are unable to. The same applies, of course, in the US.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Agree it's well written.

Historically the feds had little to do with power generation. The states built most of their generation needs as they needed with occasional private investment towards end on 20th century. Millmerrium being an example.

The feds invested in the snowy but that was I think about it. I'm not even sure they owned alot of transmission if any?

Then they got involved creating the eariler version on AEMO and encouraged states to sell generation assets, or rather bribed them too.

So with the states moving out of the generation game,  who filled the hole? Wasn't a problem wirh demand slowing, extra interstate transmission capacity to enable spare capacity to be used more readily and a few GTs here and there.

But it's when the coal stations started to closee due to age the real problem kicked in.

As the article says. The feds created a policy gap when the CO2 was removed and everyone has been waiting ever since for its replacement.  Turn ball again failing to step up.
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!
But no, some idiots think they known better and sending aluminum production to China and India to make it from coal there is supposed to be better.
This is the part that I find truly perplexing - as if burning it in other countries doesn't count somehow. Doesn't count because they're already polluted?

I swore I wouldn't come back to this thread because it just gets up my goat!

Happy New Year anyways -
don_dunstan
RTT, people aren't idiots for disagreeing with your stance. Don, people can have a contrary opinion, perhaps try and leave emotion out of it.

The offshoring of manufacturing and later IT, back-office, call centres etc started decades ago, long before RE was a 'thing'. Yes Don blame Hawke/Keating because it’s their fault Australia wasn’t prepared for the new world economy. Then again was Australia the only country that used the low cost economies of China, India, Brazil, Mexico and Eastern Europe to its advantage?

In a genuine argument about the decline of manufacturing you might also acknowledge factors such as tariff reductions, subsidies available overseas and the sort of economies of scale impossible here with our small population base.

In exchange for lower costs for goods and services and greater profits, Australia effectively offshored many associated aspects that would otherwise have stayed here;

- Employment
- Education and Training
- Taxation Receipts
- Support Services (direct and indirect)
- Building, Equipment and Servicing
- Consumption of utilities etc

AND
- Carbon Pollution.

Idea Now if these countries didn't need to make stuff for the rest of the world perhaps they'd pollute a bit less Idea
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

From The Australia Institute admittedly, but (http://www.tai.org.au/content/australians-prefer-demand-response-over-new-power-stations-poll)


There’s a real eagerness from Australians to make money by generating, storing and trading electricity. What is needed are smart regulations that would unleash huge benefits to the stability, efficiency of the grid, and lower prices to boot.

Also, Energy Networks final_report_april_2017.pdf


This is what the grid operators are hoping for as a best case.  

But as things stand, IMHO we're likely to see more rooftop PV (with regulatory restrictions attempting to slow this down, but more likely just to kick more urban users off the grid), more solar farms - because it's currently the cheapest form of new generation but also because it complements rather than undercuts the existing coal fleet.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
There was an interesting article in The Financial Review about the extreme cost an inefficiency of the proposed pumped storage hydro in the Snowy Mountains. Basically the extreme expense of actually building the thing is a massive problem. Malcolm has given a very conservative estimate of $4 billion but apparently the real figure once land acquisition and supporting infrastructure is taken into account is around $8-12 billion. And we already have pumped hydro storage in this country but it isn't used because its too expensive:

Pumped hydro is an inefficient storage technology. Australia already has significant pumped hydro capacity – 900 megawatts (MW) at Tumut 3 in Snowy and 500 MW at Wivenhoe in Queensland. Both are rarely used because they are inefficient...

Not only that but it will be extremely energy intensive and they will have to put approximately double the amount of energy into running it as they'll get back:

The feasibility study says that at capacity, Snowy 2.0 will only produce about 1 kilowatt hour for each 1.5 kilowatt hours needed to pump water to the top reservoir. Add to that 10 per cent for losses in transmitting electricity from generators in the Hunter and Latrobe valleys to pump the water uphill. And then add another 10 per cent for losses in transmitting the stored electricity back to the main load centres in Sydney and Melbourne where most of it will be consumed. In other words, Snowy 2.0 will use about 1.8 kilowatt hours for each kilowatt hour that it actually delivers to consumers. By comparison, a battery installed on a customer's premises or on the local grid can be expected to use about 1.1 kilowatt hour for each kilowatt hour delivered.

They would be better off building smaller solar/battery plants but I guess Malcolm wants SOMETHING big that we can remember him by (other than the rapidly expanding Commonwealth debts - $360 billion and counting).
  Carnot Minister for Railways

From The Australia Institute admittedly, but (http://www.tai.org.au/content/australians-prefer-demand-response-over-new-power-stations-poll)


There’s a real eagerness from Australians to make money by generating, storing and trading electricity. What is needed are smart regulations that would unleash huge benefits to the stability, efficiency of the grid, and lower prices to boot.

Also, Energy Networks final_report_april_2017.pdf


This is what the grid operators are hoping for as a best case.  

But as things st