So what's going to replace coal?

 

Pinned post created by dthead

Posted 2 years ago

  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
No, it could very well happen sooner than that:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-06/australian-paper-latrobe-valley-mill-to-burn-waste-for-energy/8683980

The feasibility study, equally funded by the company and state and fed governments in a rare case of collaboration, is well underway. Strictly speaking the biomass plant will raise steam for the pulp & paper mill instead of being run through turbines for electricity generation, but it will free up gas (Maryvale is the largest single industrial consumer in Victoria) or existing biomass (there is a separate proposal to convert some of the existing biomass raw product into value added products, creating hundreds of jobs) for use elsewhere.

As an aside on any normal day Maryvale generates roughly 45 to 50MW from its two existing biomass and three existing gas fired boilers, and still imports roughly 35 to 40MW. If load shedding is called for, which has only happened once this summer, 15MW is easily cut from non-critical areas of the mill.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
You really should have a read of the Blakers report (Summary) (Full Report)

I cannot actually open either link. Bad gateway.

Sorry about that.  I did test those links, and I did it again this morning - once failed as you described, once worked as it should.

Try the links at the bottom of the "article" here: http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/hydro-storage-can-secure-100-renewable-electricity

Blakers and co published a summary of his findin cargs here: https://theconversation.com/whats-the-net-cost-of-using-renewables-to-hit-australias-climate-target-nothing-88021

Again, I don't want to endorse Blakers and his report.  I think things have moved on considerably since his model was prepared, and I think it makes some big assumptions about what we need, such as a 100% dependance on the (semi-) national grid.that are
djf01
On my home PC and my mobile the links don't work, but that ANU site did so thanks.

The article is in theory aspirational and basically stated we should replicate the Wivenhoe Pumped hydro scheme from 500MW to over 20,000MW installed, but at $75/MWH its a work of fiction and unfortunately people and polies caught up in these headline grabbing statements.

Day peak loads will be taken care of by existing options, so how to resolve the baseload? Lets look at a few basics

PV Solar/wind need roughly 4 X the installed capacity over the required load to charge battery/pumped hydro for period of no wind/sun and losses.

So that means the installed cost of PV solar/wind needs to be 1/4 of the cost of $75/MWh, ie
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Coal isn't going away, and electricity generation will be a less significant contributor to GGE if you read this report in the Guardian today:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/19/emissions-increases-approved-by-regulator-may-wipe-out-260m-of-direct-action-cuts

"RepuTex found that by 2030, emissions from large industrial sites were projected to be 30% higher than in 2005, and 16% higher than when the safeguard mechanism was announced four years ago.

They are expected to grow to be the biggest source of Australia’s emissions, surpassing those from burning coal and gas for electricity.
The biggest increases allowed under the safeguard mechanism have been for coalmining operations, including Whitehaven’s Maules Creek open cut mine in New South Wales, BM Alliance’s Broadmeadow mine in Queensland and Citic Pacific’s Sino Iron project in the Pilbara. Liquefied natural gas plants such as the projects of Chevron at Gorgon and Santos at Curtis Island have opened with approved emissions limits that are not offset elsewhere."
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Coal isn't going away, and electricity generation will be a less significant contributor to GGE if you read this report in the Guardian today:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/19/emissions-increases-approved-by-regulator-may-wipe-out-260m-of-direct-action-cuts

"RepuTex found that by 2030, emissions from large industrial sites were projected to be 30% higher than in 2005, and 16% higher than when the safeguard mechanism was announced four years ago.

They are expected to grow to be the biggest source of Australia’s emissions, surpassing those from burning coal and gas for electricity.
The biggest increases allowed under the safeguard mechanism have been for coalmining operations, including Whitehaven’s Maules Creek open cut mine in New South Wales, BM Alliance’s Broadmeadow mine in Queensland and Citic Pacific’s Sino Iron project in the Pilbara. Liquefied natural gas plants such as the projects of Chevron at Gorgon and Santos at Curtis Island have opened with approved emissions limits that are not offset elsewhere."
Carnot
Interesting.

Despite the often costly complexities in moving power generation from coal to RE, moving the manufacturing sector is far more complex and infinity more costly as there is no where near the political drive or practical technical options available especially in the major sectors such as aluminium, steel, most other base metals and concrete.

Meanwhile there is big questions marks over the true CO2 lifecycle of PV solar panels and Lithium batteries.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Coal isn't going away, and electricity generation will be a less significant contributor to GGE if you read this report in the Guardian today:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/19/emissions-increases-approved-by-regulator-may-wipe-out-260m-of-direct-action-cuts

"RepuTex found that by 2030, emissions from large industrial sites were projected to be 30% higher than in 2005, and 16% higher than when the safeguard mechanism was announced four years ago.

They are expected to grow to be the biggest source of Australia’s emissions, surpassing those from burning coal and gas for electricity.
The biggest increases allowed under the safeguard mechanism have been for coalmining operations, including Whitehaven’s Maules Creek open cut mine in New South Wales, BM Alliance’s Broadmeadow mine in Queensland and Citic Pacific’s Sino Iron project in the Pilbara. Liquefied natural gas plants such as the projects of Chevron at Gorgon and Santos at Curtis Island have opened with approved emissions limits that are not offset elsewhere."
Interesting.

Despite the often costly complexities in moving power generation from coal to RE, moving the manufacturing sector is far more complex and infinity more costly as there is no where near the political drive or practical technical options available especially in the major sectors such as aluminium, steel, most other base metals and concrete.

Meanwhile there is big questions marks over the true CO2 lifecycle of PV solar panels and Lithium batteries.
RTT_Rules
This is probably a bit out of date now, but it is interesting nonetheless:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-the-day-australias-top-20-greenhouse-gas-emitters-98644/

Chevron/Gorgon's carbon capture process is having all sorts of problems:
https://thewest.com.au/business/oil-gas/carbon-hiccup-for-chevron-with-5-million-tonne-greenhouse-gas-problem-at-gorgon-lng-plant-ng-b88694565z

As for CO2 lifecycle of PV solar and lithium - that does improve as electrical generation sources turn to renewables.  Recycling of lithium has a huge question mark hanging over it though:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/10/electric-cars-big-battery-waste-problem-lithium-recycling
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

Coal isn't going away, and electricity generation will be a less significant contributor to GGE if you read this report in the Guardian today:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/19/emissions-increases-approved-by-regulator-may-wipe-out-260m-of-direct-action-cuts

"RepuTex found that by 2030, emissions from large industrial sites were projected to be 30% higher than in 2005, and 16% higher than when the safeguard mechanism was announced four years ago.

They are expected to grow to be the biggest source of Australia’s emissions, surpassing those from burning coal and gas for electricity.
The biggest increases allowed under the safeguard mechanism have been for coalmining operations, including Whitehaven’s Maules Creek open cut mine in New South Wales, BM Alliance’s Broadmeadow mine in Queensland and Citic Pacific’s Sino Iron project in the Pilbara. Liquefied natural gas plants such as the projects of Chevron at Gorgon and Santos at Curtis Island have opened with approved emissions limits that are not offset elsewhere."
Interesting.

Despite the often costly complexities in moving power generation from coal to RE, moving the manufacturing sector is far more complex and infinity more costly as there is no where near the political drive or practical technical options available especially in the major sectors such as aluminium, steel, most other base metals and concrete.

Meanwhile there is big questions marks over the true CO2 lifecycle of PV solar panels and Lithium batteries.
This is probably a bit out of date now, but it is interesting nonetheless:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-the-day-australias-top-20-greenhouse-gas-emitters-98644/

Chevron/Gorgon's carbon capture process is having all sorts of problems:
https://thewest.com.au/business/oil-gas/carbon-hiccup-for-chevron-with-5-million-tonne-greenhouse-gas-problem-at-gorgon-lng-plant-ng-b88694565z

As for CO2 lifecycle of PV solar and lithium - that does improve as electrical generation sources turn to renewables.  Recycling of lithium has a huge question mark hanging over it though:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/10/electric-cars-big-battery-waste-problem-lithium-recycling
Carnot
Inject the left over lithium into our mad conservative pollies as its a cure for paranoia I believe.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Interesting trial of 'islanding' now on stream:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-first-large-scale-solar-storage-plant-connected-to-grid-69396/
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

The article is in theory aspirational and basically stated we should replicate the Wivenhoe Pumped hydro scheme from 500MW to over 20,000MW installed, but at $75/MWH its a work of fiction and unfortunately people and polies caught up in these headline grabbing statements.

Day peak loads will be taken care of by existing options, so how to resolve the baseload? Lets look at a few basics

PV Solar/wind need roughly 4 X the installed capacity over the required load to charge battery/pumped hydro for period of no wind/sun and losses.

So that means the installed cost of PV solar/wind needs to be 1/4 of the cost of $75/MWh, ie
RTT_Rules

I don't quite know how - or even if - I should respond to this, but Blakers is most definitely not a work of fiction.  It is a considered evidence based analysis.  It might not be right, but it was based on 5 years worth of weather and AEMO data and comparison costs.


In our modelling we have optimised for a range of constraints, combinations and locations of PV, wind
and PHES. Using 2016 prices we estimate that LCOB is $26-48/MWh. In a future scenario in which the
generation cost of wind and PV are both AU$50/MWh we estimate that LCOB is $24-37/MWh. If no
modelling constraints are applied then we estimate that average LCOB is $28 and $25 per MWh
respectively using current and future wind and PV prices
.

If no modelling constraints are applied then we estimate that average LCOE for a balanced 100%
renewable electricity system is $93 and $75 per MWh respectively using current and future wind and PV
prices. This can be compared with the current wholesale market price in Australia of about $60/MWh.
Another comparator is that the estimated LCOE from a new supercritical black coal power station in
Australia is $80/MWh [31]. The current NEM contains mostly coal generators that are several decades
old and have sunk capital costs. Much of Australia’s coal power stations will reach the end of their
economic life over the next 15 years. It will be cheaper to replace these with renewable energy.

LCOB comprises three components: PHES, HVDC and spillage of excess wind and PV generation
(including pumping and transmission losses).
In most scenarios all three components are significant. One
can be traded for another with moderate effect upon total LCOB. Thus a variation in the cost of any one
of the LCOB components, or a modelling constraint imposed upon one of the components, has only a
moderate effect on LCOB after re-optimisation. This can be seen in scenarios C1.3, C1.4, F1.3 and F1.4,
where a 50% increase in the capital cost of PHES or HVDC adds $7-8 (30%) and $2-3 (10%) per MWh to
LCOB respectively.
Blakers Full Report Pg 19

LCOB is how Blakers quantifies the extra cost of dealing with RE's intermittent properties.  I don't think this is clear in the report or the summary, but this is based on the same or similar demand management regime as currently exists (ie next to SFA).  

NB: The potential of demand management (basically intermittent higher prices for end users) to address the issue without huge capex isn't included in this modelling.

Blakers also makes the point in his Conversation article - but not really in his reports - is that this cost of balancing only reaches significant levels when RE becomes more than ~85% of generation capacity.  The grid already has mechanisms to deal with intermittency of demand relative to supply.

  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
The article is in theory aspirational and basically stated we should replicate the Wivenhoe Pumped hydro scheme from 500MW to over 20,000MW installed, but at $75/MWH its a work of fiction and unfortunately people and polies caught up in these headline grabbing statements.

Day peak loads will be taken care of by existing options, so how to resolve the baseload? Lets look at a few basics

PV Solar/wind need roughly 4 X the installed capacity over the required load to charge battery/pumped hydro for period of no wind/sun and losses.

So that means the installed cost of PV solar/wind needs to be 1/4 of the cost of $75/MWh, ie

I don't quite know how - or even if - I should respond to this, but Blakers is most definitely not a work of fiction.  It is a considered evidence based analysis.  It might not be right, but it was based on 5 years worth of weather and AEMO data and comparison costs.


In our modelling we have optimised for a range of constraints, combinations and locations of PV, wind
and PHES. Using 2016 prices we estimate that LCOB is $26-48/MWh. In a future scenario in which the
generation cost of wind and PV are both AU$50/MWh we estimate that LCOB is $24-37/MWh. If no
modelling constraints are applied then we estimate that average LCOB is $28 and $25 per MWh
respectively using current and future wind and PV prices
.

If no modelling constraints are applied then we estimate that average LCOE for a balanced 100%
renewable electricity system is $93 and $75 per MWh respectively using current and future wind and PV
prices. This can be compared with the current wholesale market price in Australia of about $60/MWh.
Another comparator is that the estimated LCOE from a new supercritical black coal power station in
Australia is $80/MWh [31]. The current NEM contains mostly coal generators that are several decades
old and have sunk capital costs. Much of Australia’s coal power stations will reach the end of their
economic life over the next 15 years. It will be cheaper to replace these with renewable energy.

LCOB comprises three components: PHES, HVDC and spillage of excess wind and PV generation
(including pumping and transmission losses).
In most scenarios all three components are significant. One
can be traded for another with moderate effect upon total LCOB. Thus a variation in the cost of any one
of the LCOB components, or a modelling constraint imposed upon one of the components, has only a
moderate effect on LCOB after re-optimisation. This can be seen in scenarios C1.3, C1.4, F1.3 and F1.4,
where a 50% increase in the capital cost of PHES or HVDC adds $7-8 (30%) and $2-3 (10%) per MWh to
LCOB respectively.
LCOB is how Blakers quantifies the extra cost of dealing with RE's intermittent properties.  I don't think this is clear in the report or the summary, but this is based on the same or similar demand management regime as currently exists (ie next to SFA).  

NB: The potential of demand management (basically intermittent higher prices for end users) to address the issue without huge capex isn't included in this modelling.

Blakers also makes the point in his Conversation article - but not really in his reports - is that this cost of balancing only reaches significant levels when RE becomes more than ~85% of generation capacity.  The grid already has mechanisms to deal with intermittency of demand relative to supply.

djf01
TBMUA again.
  • NEM
  • LCOB
  • LCOE
  • PV
  • PHES
  • HVDC
  • AEMO
  • SFA = sierra foxtrot alpha which is what this post means to me
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

  • NEM  National Electricity Market
  • LCOB  Levelised cost of balancing
  • LCOE  Levelised cost of electricity
  • PV   Photo Voltaic
  • PHES   Phumped Hydro Energy Storage
  • HVDC  High Voltage Direct Current (transmission)
  • AEMO  Australian Energy Market Operator
  • SFA    which is what this post means to me  WTF?
  allan Chief Commissioner

  • NEM  National Electricity Market
  • LCOB  Levelised cost of balancing
  • LCOE  Levelised cost of electricity
  • PV   Photo Voltaic
  • PHES   Phumped Hydro Energy Storage
  • HVDC  High Voltage Direct Current (transmission)
  • AEMO  Australian Energy Market Operator
  • SFA    which is what this post means to me  WTF?
djf01
It's pointless giving a translation of abbreviations in a subsequent post - the quotation still remains senseless, because it is still full of jargon. If the quotation cannot be upgraded to plain English, don't post it: if it can be upgraded to plain English, upgrade it before you post it.

No-one gains kudos by posting material that is beyond the comprehension of the rest of us. You may as well post it in Chinese! Show us how well you undestand this material by making it readable, if necessary by attaching a translation after the quotation.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The article is in theory aspirational and basically stated we should replicate the Wivenhoe Pumped hydro scheme from 500MW to over 20,000MW installed, but at $75/MWH its a work of fiction and unfortunately people and polies caught up in these headline grabbing statements.

Day peak loads will be taken care of by existing options, so how to resolve the baseload? Lets look at a few basics

PV Solar/wind need roughly 4 X the installed capacity over the required load to charge battery/pumped hydro for period of no wind/sun and losses.

So that means the installed cost of PV solar/wind needs to be 1/4 of the cost of $75/MWh, ie

I don't quite know how - or even if - I should respond to this, but Blakers is most definitely not a work of fiction.  It is a considered evidence based analysis.  It might not be right, but it was based on 5 years worth of weather and AEMO data and comparison costs.


In our modelling we have optimised for a range of constraints, combinations and locations of PV, wind
and PHES. Using 2016 prices we estimate that LCOB is $26-48/MWh. In a future scenario in which the
generation cost of wind and PV are both AU$50/MWh we estimate that LCOB is $24-37/MWh. If no
modelling constraints are applied then we estimate that average LCOB is $28 and $25 per MWh
respectively using current and future wind and PV prices
.

If no modelling constraints are applied then we estimate that average LCOE for a balanced 100%
renewable electricity system is $93 and $75 per MWh respectively using current and future wind and PV
prices. This can be compared with the current wholesale market price in Australia of about $60/MWh.
Another comparator is that the estimated LCOE from a new supercritical black coal power station in
Australia is $80/MWh [31]. The current NEM contains mostly coal generators that are several decades
old and have sunk capital costs. Much of Australia’s coal power stations will reach the end of their
economic life over the next 15 years. It will be cheaper to replace these with renewable energy.

LCOB comprises three components: PHES, HVDC and spillage of excess wind and PV generation
(including pumping and transmission losses).
In most scenarios all three components are significant. One
can be traded for another with moderate effect upon total LCOB. Thus a variation in the cost of any one
of the LCOB components, or a modelling constraint imposed upon one of the components, has only a
moderate effect on LCOB after re-optimisation. This can be seen in scenarios C1.3, C1.4, F1.3 and F1.4,
where a 50% increase in the capital cost of PHES or HVDC adds $7-8 (30%) and $2-3 (10%) per MWh to
LCOB respectively.
LCOB is how Blakers quantifies the extra cost of dealing with RE's intermittent properties.  I don't think this is clear in the report or the summary, but this is based on the same or similar demand management regime as currently exists (ie next to SFA).  

NB: The potential of demand management (basically intermittent higher prices for end users) to address the issue without huge capex isn't included in this modelling.

Blakers also makes the point in his Conversation article - but not really in his reports - is that this cost of balancing only reaches significant levels when RE becomes more than ~85% of generation capacity.  The grid already has mechanisms to deal with intermittency of demand relative to supply.

djf01
As I mentioned previously, the link didn't open and I tried on multiple devices, so I was not able to read the detail.

Back to my point

$75/MWh average I assume is his claim. Technical side is not in questions, price however is.

While geographically separated wind and PV  does reduce the need for storage capacity somewhat, it does not eliminate the need for +90% backup. Also geographic separation is off-set by X amount due an increase in grid costs as you need a more extensive HV network.

$75/MWh, mmmm, not likely any time soon.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
I don't intend to dip into this thread again (yet here I am...). Anyway I thought I'd throw this Australian article by Alan Moran into your debate -

Australia has seen electricity prices double since 2015 and the once reliable supply is now suspect. From enjoying the world’s lowest cost electricity a decade ago, Australia now has among the most expensive.

The main cause has been subsidies and regulatory favours to renewable energy — chiefly wind — that have forced the closure of reliable coal-fired generators, particularly Northern in South Australia and Hazelwood in Victoria. Without these subsidies, costing about $5 billion a year, there would be no wind or solar. Not only are customers and taxpayers slugged with the subsidy costs but the outcome also has been to raise prices and reduce reliability.

A new Australian coal plant would produce electricity at about $50 a megawatt hour. A new wind farm can produce electricity, at best, at $110/MWh and its present subsidy is about $85/MWh. Solar is about twice the cost of wind.

Consumers who cannot get off the grid are the ones who are being forced to stump up with these ridiculous subsidies... it's a continuation of the war on the poorer half in this country under the smokescreen of a 'green' future.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
I don't intend to dip into this thread again (yet here I am...). Anyway I thought I'd throw this Australian article by Alan Moran into your debate -

Australia has seen electricity prices double since 2015 and the once reliable supply is now suspect. From enjoying the world’s lowest cost electricity a decade ago, Australia now has among the most expensive.

The main cause has been subsidies and regulatory favours to renewable energy — chiefly wind — that have forced the closure of reliable coal-fired generators, particularly Northern in South Australia and Hazelwood in Victoria. Without these subsidies, costing about $5 billion a year, there would be no wind or solar. Not only are customers and taxpayers slugged with the subsidy costs but the outcome also has been to raise prices and reduce reliability.

A new Australian coal plant would produce electricity at about $50 a megawatt hour. A new wind farm can produce electricity, at best, at $110/MWh and its present subsidy is about $85/MWh. Solar is about twice the cost of wind.

Consumers who cannot get off the grid are the ones who are being forced to stump up with these ridiculous subsidies... it's a continuation of the war on the poorer half in this country under the smokescreen of a 'green' future.
don_dunstan
Welcome back Don, again!

The article http://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-first-large-scale-solar-storage-plant-connected-to-grid-69396/
was interesting but for those who read it will notice how much "others" money was required to make the project get off the ground, I think it was 1/3 subsidy. AGL and another company owned by Saudi's are going replace around 5% of Liddel with around $500m subsidy on solar.

The trouble with wind and solar, is that people see the installed cost per MW is lower than coal. No one talks about the supply cost (not sure of technical term), but that's the cost of supplying power when the users want it, not when its windy or sunny, which for wind/PV requires battery/pumped hydro/Gas Turbine back up for when the wind or sun doesn't shine. How much is the PM's Snowy 2.0 project going to cost per MW? and its just pumped hydro, it doesn't actually add any new generation so it cannot on its own replace coal.  

If it costs $50MWh for coal, so be it, but at least the lights stay on 24/7/365. A modern coal fired power station will have significant reduction in emissions over what happens now, especially in Vic.

Roll out wind/PV solar all you like and I'll even lease the land, but the subsidies need to stop to before we dig ourselves into a energy black hole. Meanwhile some of the rest of the world is buying our coal, gas and uranium to build power stations to feed industry stolen from us because the "lucky country" is no longer so energised.
  rxclass Junior Train Controller

Location: On the manual turntable at Marino turning an exquisite Rx class steam locomotive.
I don't intend to dip into this thread again (yet here I am...). Anyway I thought I'd throw this Australian article by Alan Moran into your debate -

Australia has seen electricity prices double since 2015 and the once reliable supply is now suspect. From enjoying the world’s lowest cost electricity a decade ago, Australia now has among the most expensive.

The main cause has been subsidies and regulatory favours to renewable energy — chiefly wind — that have forced the closure of reliable coal-fired generators, particularly Northern in South Australia and Hazelwood in Victoria. Without these subsidies, costing about $5 billion a year, there would be no wind or solar. Not only are customers and taxpayers slugged with the subsidy costs but the outcome also has been to raise prices and reduce reliability.

A new Australian coal plant would produce electricity at about $50 a megawatt hour. A new wind farm can produce electricity, at best, at $110/MWh and its present subsidy is about $85/MWh. Solar is about twice the cost of wind.

Consumers who cannot get off the grid are the ones who are being forced to stump up with these ridiculous subsidies... it's a continuation of the war on the poorer half in this country under the smokescreen of a 'green' future.
don_dunstan
G'day all,

We are caravanning at present, and have just visited a good friend in country Victoria. She is a 73 yo widow and had solar panels installed on her home approx. 10-12 years ago. They were down to 35% efficient so she arranged to have them serviced/clean. He got them up to approx 55% efficient and told her she needs to replace them. She complained that no one told her that they have a life of approx 10-12 years. As an age pensioner she cannot afford to replace them as there is no replacement subsidy.

What a con job.

Regards.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
G'day all,

We are caravanning at present, and have just visited a good friend in country Victoria. She is a 73 yo widow and had solar panels installed on her home approx. 10-12 years ago. They were down to 35% efficient so she arranged to have them serviced/clean. He got them up to approx 55% efficient and told her she needs to replace them. She complained that no one told her that they have a life of approx 10-12 years. As an age pensioner she cannot afford to replace them as there is no replacement subsidy.

What a con job.

Regards.
rxclass
Cheaper panels will deteriorate even faster but 10-12 years is an average lifespan for good quality panels; she will continue to get energy out of them but performance will continue to decline. I was reading recently that lithium batteries are impossible to recycle and become quite a toxic waste hazard once they're life expired... another joyful fact Elon Musk doesn't advertise.
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
G'day all,

We are caravanning at present, and have just visited a good friend in country Victoria. She is a 73 yo widow and had solar panels installed on her home approx. 10-12 years ago. They were down to 35% efficient so she arranged to have them serviced/clean. He got them up to approx 55% efficient and told her she needs to replace them. She complained that no one told her that they have a life of approx 10-12 years. As an age pensioner she cannot afford to replace them as there is no replacement subsidy.

What a con job.

Regards.
Cheaper panels will deteriorate even faster but 10-12 years is an average lifespan for good quality panels; she will continue to get energy out of them but performance will continue to decline. I was reading recently that lithium batteries are impossible to recycle and become quite a toxic waste hazard once they're life expired... another joyful fact Elon Musk doesn't advertise.
don_dunstan
Lithium is recyclable but it's just easier (read 5 times cheaper) to dig out new lithium from the ground for the moment.

https://waste-management-world.com/a/1-the-lithium-battery-recycling-challenge
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
rxclass, no one told her the panels would need to be replaced after 10-12 years? I bet no one told her they’d last longer than that either. There would have been documentation provided with her system, I bet they just didn’t read it.

PV panels are not an unlimited lifetime product.

The news will get worse for her too - her inverter is probably not far from letting the pixies out as well. Dried heat transfer compound, capacitors that have near dried out due to temperature, some semiconductors all just waiting to turn their toes up.

If she’s waited 10-12 years to have her panels cleaned, she should think herself lucky they have lived so well this long.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
I don't intend to dip into this thread again (yet here I am...). Anyway I thought I'd throw this Australian article by Alan Moran into your debate -

Australia has seen electricity prices double since 2015 and the once reliable supply is now suspect. From enjoying the world’s lowest cost electricity a decade ago, Australia now has among the most expensive.

The main cause has been subsidies and regulatory favours to renewable energy — chiefly wind — that have forced the closure of reliable coal-fired generators, particularly Northern in South Australia and Hazelwood in Victoria. Without these subsidies, costing about $5 billion a year, there would be no wind or solar. Not only are customers and taxpayers slugged with the subsidy costs but the outcome also has been to raise prices and reduce reliability.

A new Australian coal plant would produce electricity at about $50 a megawatt hour. A new wind farm can produce electricity, at best, at $110/MWh and its present subsidy is about $85/MWh. Solar is about twice the cost of wind.

Consumers who cannot get off the grid are the ones who are being forced to stump up with these ridiculous subsidies... it's a continuation of the war on the poorer half in this country under the smokescreen of a 'green' future.
don_dunstan
Codswallop.

Conservatives hang their hat on the fact that partial subsidies to renewables exist, but never mention that the base load coal generators constructed years ago and in existence today were 100% subsidised at the time....

Hazelwood was knackered and ready to blow up, wit nameplate capacity impossible to reach. Just like Liddell now....

Moran does not mention the construction cost of a new coal generator, merely the running cost of it.... I have already posted a link that suggests that utility companies overseas are installing renewables + storage because it is cheaper than the running costs of existing coal generators....go figure.

Further, although renewables without storage may be regarded as intermittent, at least the electricity that they produce is largely predictable. Mapped against the fact that this summer, coal fired generators have tripped a total of 41 times (check for yourself on AREMI) and each and every occasion was totally unpredictable, it is totally ridiculous to bury one's head in the sand any longer.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
G'day all,

We are caravanning at present, and have just visited a good friend in country Victoria. She is a 73 yo widow and had solar panels installed on her home approx. 10-12 years ago. They were down to 35% efficient so she arranged to have them serviced/clean. He got them up to approx 55% efficient and told her she needs to replace them. She complained that no one told her that they have a life of approx 10-12 years. As an age pensioner she cannot afford to replace them as there is no replacement subsidy.

What a con job.

Regards.
Cheaper panels will deteriorate even faster but 10-12 years is an average lifespan for good quality panels; she will continue to get energy out of them but performance will continue to decline. I was reading recently that lithium batteries are impossible to recycle and become quite a toxic waste hazard once they're life expired... another joyful fact Elon Musk doesn't advertise.
don_dunstan
Sounds like RX's friends were conned alright, probably by Irish backpackers. Even average PV panels have a performance guarantee something like 80% after 25 years, so anything less would be the exception rather than the norm. Your gross exaggeration about average panels wearing out after 10-12 years is just that.

I am also against the short-termism thinking of people falling all over themselves to install lithium storage solutions. Having said that I think that the Tesla 'big battery' is a worthwhile pilot for the benefits it brings to stabilise the grid when a coal fired generator trips out, instantaneously correcting Hz, but it ain't gonna last forever.

As an alternative to lithium I will repost a link once again that demonstrates that alternative, and in my opinion superior, technologies exist out there. Although geared towards the remote/off grid sector they do provide products for residential storage and would be well suited to large scale storage. Note that they are an Australian company:
https://redflow.com/
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
If she’s waited 10-12 years to have her panels cleaned, she should think herself lucky they have lived so well this long.
Aaron
Wot, it hasn't rained for that long???
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Hazelwood was knackered and ready to blow up, wit nameplate capacity impossible to reach. Just like Liddell now....
DirtyBallast
But all that suggests to me is that the state should have intervened to ensure consistency of supply - but that would have involved building a modern coal-fired plant and for some reason that's even worse than nuclear now-days, despite the fact that it made us an industry, advanced, prosperous nation (once upon a time). An advanced industrial nation that could produce things and wouldn't run out of petrol in less than two months of war.

Where is the benefit to the average Aussie apart from some nebulous unbelievable clap-trap about anthropomorphic climate change?

Again, I just don't believe the promise of the 'solution'. My contention is that its poor people unable to leave the grid who suffer and I've yet to see a convincing argument that they don't - unless you have those heavily subsidised mini-power plants attached to your house then you're a victim of the rush to de-industrialise Australia - it's actually dragging you further into poverty as well as depriving Australians of jobs that go off-shore. Horrible, stupid, short-sighted policy.

EDIT: 10-12 years is a really long time for solar panels in industrial use, from what I've read that's an average age. If you can cite otherwise I'd to see it.
  allan Chief Commissioner



Where is the benefit to the average Aussie apart from some nebulous unbelievable clap-trap about anthropomorphic climate change?

don_dunstan
That's your credibibility down the sewer.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Hazelwood was knackered and ready to blow up, wit nameplate capacity impossible to reach. Just like Liddell now....
But all that suggests to me is that the state should have intervened to ensure consistency of supply - but that would have involved building a modern coal-fired plant and for some reason that's even worse than nuclear now-days, despite the fact that it made us an industry, advanced, prosperous nation (once upon a time).
don_dunstan
But there IS consistency of supply....from renewables!!!! (tomorrow I will detail the 41, make that 42, individual trips of coal fired generators this summer).

Despite at best 1400MW being removed from the grid after Hazelwood closed, around 11 months ago, there has been no supply led blackouts (despite the best efforts of doomsayers suggesting otherwise) afflicting Victoria this summer.

It beggars belief that some people want the government (i.e. all of us) to pay for a new coal fired power station when it is simply not needed. If you're scared of getting left behind and you have an innate opposition to renewables, at least you should buy some AGL shares now to cash in on their blatant profiteering from their existing operations in spite of their promise that they will exponentially increase profits in the future by...switching away from coal.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
EDIT: 10-12 years is a really long time for solar panels in industrial use, from what I've read that's an average age. If you can cite otherwise I'd to see it.
don_dunstan
It doesn't matter if they are fitted on a house or a warehouse or a school or a hospital or a factory, they are the same panels. For your sake, please do not expose your ignorance further.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.