The 'renewable' energy thread -

 
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
So, what was the retail price in South Australia prior to Northern closing?
DirtyBallast
Yeah you're right, someone is making a lot of money for providing a worse service. Every single wind turbine in South Australia was (2016) getting a direct payment from grid consumers (via RET) of $500,000 per turbine p/a regardless of whether it produced a single kw/h or not. How could fossil fuels compete against such a huge free kick?

Sponsored advertisement

  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
A comparison of the international prices for energy across the globe mid last year:



Notice how the 'green' energy superpowers are routinely the most expensive (with the exception of Japan post-Fukushima).
  billybaxter Chief Commissioner

Location: Bosnia Park, Fairfield
The Wikipedia article on renewable energy production shows a dozen countries that get more than 90% of their energy from renewable sources. None are in the top half of your list. I think you're basing your argument on Germany, and maybe Spain.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
The Wikipedia article on renewable energy production shows a dozen countries that get more than 90% of their energy from renewable sources. None are in the top half of your list. I think you're basing your argument on Germany, and maybe Spain.
billybaxter
It isn't a comprehensive list; it doesn't cover every single nation.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
For us to be able to actually make serious money from the surplus that is provided by wind-power we have to be able to pump it into another state AND be able to do it at times that they're not experiencing their own surge of wind energy rendering the extra power redundant.

That's where Steve Marshall's new HV line to NSW kinda makes some sense because its more likely that NSW will have a different weather pattern at the time to us. And we've been spending big money here in SA subsidising home solar batteries and it still hasn't made any meaningful ingress into providing our peak evening loads.

Again, the retail price of power is determined by all sorts of contingencies not the least of which 'network improvements' or building lines to network unreliable power sources together is a huge part of the typical bill here in SA.

We need one big, serious nuclear reactor, molten salt is the safest technology of all and a hundred percent safe shown all over the world. We can pump serious baseload to the eastern seaboard through our interstate HV lines and keep the lights on in VIC and NSW when their failing power networks are trying to move to solar.
EVERYONE is saying that on the left in this country. Everyone from the batsh*t crazy Greens in the Senate to loony independents like Zali Steggle and (more dangerously) the Victorian government and New South Wales governments too. Everyone is saying coal will go and it will go soon.
Nup, you have no evidence whatsoever that the infrastructure will be there to prevent blackouts in peak times when there's common events like 'wind droughts' or prolonged overcast weather.

We had a wind drought right here in SA today after a promising start of the turbines chugging away all morning... next thing we were becalmed by a bit more high pressure and we had to suck in those dirty brown electrons AND fire up our 'peaking' gas (to more than two thirds of our needs). Lights out everyone, can't have any dirty brown coal in our consumption mix!

Fossil fuels ain't going anywhere.

You're as crazy as the people you deride as crazy if you think they are.
don_dunstan
- Yes, export power from SA is usually at a major discount compared to import because SA has no significant storage options and the HV line is often maxed out driving down the price. If you like I can show you times when the low price for export was purely driven by HV limits. Geographtic distribution of wind does help as does the ability to absorb this excess via Snowy 2.0.  

- Glad to see you acknowledge the infrastructure requirements. Yes its extra cost, but provided the RE price is low enough then its justified. I've said in this forum in the past it wasn't then, but times are changing.

- When there is 250 MW in home battery storage capacity and at least 500 MW of grid storage then you will see a change.

- My view is that three mid sized nuclear reactors are required, About 3500 MW each. One in Southern where the coal power stations are. One in Western NSW and one in NW Vic. SA would have a enrichment, rod manufacturing and disposal plant. WA could probably have a single nuclear turbine or two smaller ones.

- This combined with the peaking gas, hydro/pumped hydro, wind and PV and growth of EV will not only make Aust low CO2 but also ween us off large amounts of imported oil, something I rate higher than CO2 issue.

- The idiots are saying coal will go soon, the realists are saying we will still have some coal power stations running in the 2040s. Price and technology will ultimately lead the way. The Greens and ALP had their experiment in the first part of the decade trying to out run technology and it didn't work. The leftist idiots don't want to hear this but the CO2 reduction per MW has been greatest under LNP with the whole sale price dropping, not rising.

- You have no evidence to say it won't.

- You sucked on brown electrons because thats the way the grid is set up today with the infrastructure available today. In 5 years time it will be dark blue electrons, pale blue electrons and with more yellow and green.

- Argh, Don finishing with an insult. And he wonders why he is the main cause for threads being closed.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
The Wikipedia article on renewable energy production shows a dozen countries that get more than 90% of their energy from renewable sources. None are in the top half of your list. I think you're basing your argument on Germany, and maybe Spain.
I am happy if you just look at France alone 80% nuclear or thereabouts, 78gCO2/kWh vs SA at 224gCO2/kWh all at lower prices with no need to wait for emerging tech.

If SA built a 2GW NPP in 2000, even in 2007, we could have had relevant state federal governments spending LESS than they’ve had to output in subsidy to wind/solar, we wouldn’t have needed to buy diesel gen, we wouldn’t have needed to buy batteries. We could have maybe 7 years so far with our CO2 intensity for bulk electrons being about 1/3 of what is today, instead it’s going to take us at least 10 years to get to that at our current progress, not to mention the still to be paid costs and subsidies.

SA again, today, importing energy - we could have several TWh of chemical storage right now, but we’ve not had enough ‘renewable’ input this week to charge any percentage of it.

Wind, solar and batteries are poor choices.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
RTT, you missed a location, I would say the current ‘preferred’ location for a NPP is Gladstone QLD. Build it right over the top of the current coal plant, nearly all the HV conveyancing infrastructure is already there, and it’s a big coal plant gone.

Similarly, for SA, I’d likely put a plant at Pirie, we’re probably going to have to lose the smelter, but there’s fairly decent HV infrastructure there and it’s close to water. Technically (okay it’s ‘historic’ these days) they also have uranium treatment facilities there - no real reason something more modern couldn’t go there too.

Victoria and NSW I have not contemplated that closely - which is to say Victoria in particular I try avoid, and the last few times I have been to NSW I have been too busy to take a look at their options.
  Upven Junior Train Controller

RTT, you missed a location, I would say the current ‘preferred’ location for a NPP is Gladstone QLD. Build it right over the top of the current coal plant, nearly all the HV conveyancing infrastructure is already there, and it’s a big coal plant gone.

Similarly, for SA, I’d likely put a plant at Pirie, we’re probably going to have to lose the smelter, but there’s fairly decent HV infrastructure there and it’s close to water. Technically (okay it’s ‘historic’ these days) they also have uranium treatment facilities there - no real reason something more modern couldn’t go there too.

Victoria and NSW I have not contemplated that closely - which is to say Victoria in particular I try avoid, and the last few times I have been to NSW I have been too busy to take a look at their options.
Aaron
They'll say it'll kill a frog or something and it'll get dragged through the courts for years in Victoria. I remember they once theorised building a NPP on French Island, but that'd never happen on an island of NIMBYs in a state of NIMBYs.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Sadly, NIMBYs are not unique to Victoria, if they were, it’d make it a lot better for the rest of the nation.

In SA, we have people vehemently opposing a low level nuclear waste site, next to none of them live in the local area - the population of the area is not even 1000 people. Ironically, the person who owns the land (ie it is quite literally their backyard) is fully supportive of the planned site.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
RTT, you missed a location, I would say the current ‘preferred’ location for a NPP is Gladstone QLD. Build it right over the top of the current coal plant, nearly all the HV conveyancing infrastructure is already there, and it’s a big coal plant gone.

Similarly, for SA, I’d likely put a plant at Pirie, we’re probably going to have to lose the smelter, but there’s fairly decent HV infrastructure there and it’s close to water. Technically (okay it’s ‘historic’ these days) they also have uranium treatment facilities there - no real reason something more modern couldn’t go there too.

Victoria and NSW I have not contemplated that closely - which is to say Victoria in particular I try avoid, and the last few times I have been to NSW I have been too busy to take a look at their options.
Aaron
Yes, I thought about that and you know I more than most knows how much power is used in Gladstone.

If the smelter was to stay, yes. If the smelter is not able to operate beyond 2035, then no. The current coal plants will be operating to 2035 and beyond apart from Callide B, C, Stanwell and Gladstone will outlive the smelter. No smelter and 75% of the electrical load of CQ closes. There is surplus power ~70MW provided by some local industry including the alumina refinery.

NW Vic is to be on the SA - Vic Intertie which could also be connected to the proposed SA - NSW inter-tie and keeps it far enough away from the major population centres of Mel and Adelaide.

SA, does it need one on its own? maybe but its why I said NW Vic to feed into SA. With wind and solar and growing battery I would say its marginal.

Western NSW Lithgow - Dubbo area where the NSW - Qld intertie is being built tapping in existing HV lines from Lithgow to Sydney but would need 3  increased capacity.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
The Wikipedia article on renewable energy production shows a dozen countries that get more than 90% of their energy from renewable sources. None are in the top half of your list. I think you're basing your argument on Germany, and maybe Spain.
I am happy if you just look at France alone 80% nuclear or thereabouts, 78gCO2/kWh vs SA at 224gCO2/kWh all at lower prices with no need to wait for emerging tech.

If SA built a 2GW NPP in 2000, even in 2007, we could have had relevant state federal governments spending LESS than they’ve had to output in subsidy to wind/solar, we wouldn’t have needed to buy diesel gen, we wouldn’t have needed to buy batteries. We could have maybe 7 years so far with our CO2 intensity for bulk electrons being about 1/3 of what is today, instead it’s going to take us at least 10 years to get to that at our current progress, not to mention the still to be paid costs and subsidies.

SA again, today, importing energy - we could have several TWh of chemical storage right now, but we’ve not had enough ‘renewable’ input this week to charge any percentage of it.

Wind, solar and batteries are poor choices.
Aaron
Not sure where your data comes from? - 200g CO2/kWh is actually pretty good compared to where they were and much better than NSW/VIC/QLD. Disagree that France has lower pool prices (if thats what you meant). Data I have - Year to date France is 59 Eur/MWh (92 AUD/MWh), SA year to date is 41AUD/MWh.

France has depreciated Nukes for the most part and are priced accordingly. A new one will not be at the current values.

I think nukes are too big and lumpy for the SA network. Load demand is too variable if it was sized just for the local network. Even Northern in my opinion was also a little too big at 260MWe per unit. Also - Northern Power Station, which for some reason used a poor water steam cycle technology choice (which they paid more for) - its operatiing envelope was kind of nuke like. Inability to ramp fast and run at lower stable load efficiently is partly what killed Northern other than just the outright economics made no sense, cost of production was 5-10 times the Latrobe valley plants.

cheers
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
oooooppss  snigger snigger
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
so no bite, Arctic  just made a mess of ya, and nothing...
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
...

I think nukes are too big and lumpy for the SA network. Load demand is too variable if it was sized just for the local network. Even Northern in my opinion was also a little too big at 260MWe per unit. Also - Northern Power Station, which for some reason used a poor water steam cycle technology choice (which they paid more for) - its operatiing envelope was kind of nuke like. Inability to ramp fast and run at lower stable load efficiently is partly what killed Northern other than just the outright economics made no sense, cost of production was 5-10 times the Latrobe valley plants.

cheers
arctic
We're geting our big new HV interconnector to NSW in the next 12 months so if we had (in theory) a large scale nuclear plant we'd have two interconnectors to be able to sell power to NSW and VIC through.

Something has to be done to get our business-killing power prices down - still the highest power prices in Australia by far (especially when compared to coal-rich Queensland). The only solution I've seen so far is Labor's ridiculously ill-thought out scheme to use excess solar and wind power to generate 'green hydrogen', something that hasn't been done on any significant scale anywhere else on the planet - and yet they think it'll be our savior.

The estimated cost of production for each mw/h from that plant is about four times the cost of generation by coal - yet another step backwards for South Australia and a snip at $600,000,000.
  Carnot Minister for Railways
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Bargain Basement prices in Saudi Arabia for solar power: https://reneweconomy.com.au/saudi-solar-plant-locks-in-new-record-low-price-for-power-1-04c-kwh/
Carnot
Yeah but it was making power at a time that nobody wanted it - that's why it was less than a cent per kw/h. We've actually been in the negatives at times here in SA for wholesale power but the reason its negative is that everyone else is trying to dump their 'renewable' energy at a time when its not needed.

Renewables are not a market-driven thing, they make power only when conditions are favorable.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Bargain Basement prices in Saudi Arabia for solar power: https://reneweconomy.com.au/saudi-solar-plant-locks-in-new-record-low-price-for-power-1-04c-kwh/
Yeah but it was making power at a time that nobody wanted it - that's why it was less than a cent per kw/h. We've actually been in the negatives at times here in SA for wholesale power but the reason its negative is that everyone else is trying to dump their 'renewable' energy at a time when its not needed.

Renewables are not a market-driven thing, they make power only when conditions are favorable.
don_dunstan
As usual Don you have no idea what you are talking about.

KSA is in the middle east, read hot with every building including outhouse AC'ed. As the sun rises, more heat, but also more solar.

KSA like UAE also has issues with limitations in gas supply and operate with a gas cap and burn crude oil in their gas turbines to generate this extra day peaking power. As the country is supplied by a fleet a gas turbines with regen + peaking gas turbines, the solar input is very easy to manage. The GCC states are also all connected by interties so they can share power as needed as well.

And finally, our Gas turbines at work generating 5GW for the smelter loose efficiency as the day warms up, Power station advises 5-10MW per 1 degree rise in ambient temps.

The reason the price is so low is because its a long-term bankable contract, basically "cost plus".
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Bargain Basement prices in Saudi Arabia for solar power: https://reneweconomy.com.au/saudi-solar-plant-locks-in-new-record-low-price-for-power-1-04c-kwh/
Yeah but it was making power at a time that nobody wanted it - that's why it was less than a cent per kw/h. We've actually been in the negatives at times here in SA for wholesale power but the reason its negative is that everyone else is trying to dump their 'renewable' energy at a time when its not needed.

Renewables are not a market-driven thing, they make power only when conditions are favorable.
As usual Don you have no idea what you are talking about.

KSA is in the middle east, read hot with every building including outhouse AC'ed. As the sun rises, more heat, but also more solar.

KSA like UAE also has issues with limitations in gas supply and operate with a gas cap and burn crude oil in their gas turbines to generate this extra day peaking power. As the country is supplied by a fleet a gas turbines with regen + peaking gas turbines, the solar input is very easy to manage. The GCC states are also all connected by interties so they can share power as needed as well.

And finally, our Gas turbines at work generating 5GW for the smelter loose efficiency as the day warms up, Power station advises 5-10MW per 1 degree rise in ambient temps.

The reason the price is so low is because its a long-term bankable contract, basically "cost plus".
RTT_Rules
So solar as a source is one cent all the time - including 2 in the morning? Also you don't make clear if that's a commercial or a retail price.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
...

I think nukes are too big and lumpy for the SA network. Load demand is too variable if it was sized just for the local network. Even Northern in my opinion was also a little too big at 260MWe per unit. Also - Northern Power Station, which for some reason used a poor water steam cycle technology choice (which they paid more for) - its operatiing envelope was kind of nuke like. Inability to ramp fast and run at lower stable load efficiently is partly what killed Northern other than just the outright economics made no sense, cost of production was 5-10 times the Latrobe valley plants.

cheers
We're geting our big new HV interconnector to NSW in the next 12 months so if we had (in theory) a large scale nuclear plant we'd have two interconnectors to be able to sell power to NSW and VIC through.

Something has to be done to get our business-killing power prices down - still the highest power prices in Australia by far (especially when compared to coal-rich Queensland). The only solution I've seen so far is Labor's ridiculously ill-thought out scheme to use excess solar and wind power to generate 'green hydrogen', something that hasn't been done on any significant scale anywhere else on the planet - and yet they think it'll be our savior.

The estimated cost of production for each mw/h from that plant is about four times the cost of generation by coal - yet another step backwards for South Australia and a snip at $600,000,000.
don_dunstan
SA load is too small and lumpy for a decent side base load nuclear. No point building a nuclear in SA when most of the power would be exported. May as well build it closer to the load in Melbourne and Sydney.

Wind and PV solar are cheaper than new coal as generated, but agree providing 24/7 power from wind and solar is more costly but improving as costs continue to fall, this is well documented and not worth arguing. The youngest coal power station in Australia is around 14 years old, with an average age around 20 years, so well aged and depreciated. If you were to build a new one today the cost of generation is around A$ 60 - 90 / MW, depending on a labour, coal price, transmission etc.  This is more than SA's whole sale price today.

And you still have the same issue as a large scale nuclear plant, SA's load is as Artic says, too "lumpy" and too small. SA varies from 950 MW to 3300 MW load. Nothing will be cheap suppling this. The HV inter-tie into NSW Snowy hydro is the most sensible solution available to solve this issue and really disconnected from RE, its just a pity it wasn't done decades ago.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
...

I think nukes are too big and lumpy for the SA network. Load demand is too variable if it was sized just for the local network. Even Northern in my opinion was also a little too big at 260MWe per unit. Also - Northern Power Station, which for some reason used a poor water steam cycle technology choice (which they paid more for) - its operatiing envelope was kind of nuke like. Inability to ramp fast and run at lower stable load efficiently is partly what killed Northern other than just the outright economics made no sense, cost of production was 5-10 times the Latrobe valley plants.

cheers
We're geting our big new HV interconnector to NSW in the next 12 months so if we had (in theory) a large scale nuclear plant we'd have two interconnectors to be able to sell power to NSW and VIC through.

Something has to be done to get our business-killing power prices down - still the highest power prices in Australia by far (especially when compared to coal-rich Queensland). The only solution I've seen so far is Labor's ridiculously ill-thought out scheme to use excess solar and wind power to generate 'green hydrogen', something that hasn't been done on any significant scale anywhere else on the planet - and yet they think it'll be our savior.

The estimated cost of production for each mw/h from that plant is about four times the cost of generation by coal - yet another step backwards for South Australia and a snip at $600,000,000.
SA load is too small and lumpy for a decent side base load nuclear. No point building a nuclear in SA when most of the power would be exported. May as well build it closer to the load in Melbourne and Sydney.

Wind and PV solar are cheaper than new coal as generated, but agree providing 24/7 power from wind and solar is more costly but improving as costs continue to fall, this is well documented and not worth arguing. The youngest coal power station in Australia is around 14 years old, with an average age around 20 years, so well aged and depreciated. If you were to build a new one today the cost of generation is around A$ 60 - 90 / MW, depending on a labour, coal price, transmission etc.  This is more than SA's whole sale price today.

And you still have the same issue as a large scale nuclear plant, SA's load is as Artic says, too "lumpy" and too small. SA varies from 950 MW to 3300 MW load. Nothing will be cheap suppling this. The HV inter-tie into NSW Snowy hydro is the most sensible solution available to solve this issue and really disconnected from RE, its just a pity it wasn't done decades ago.
RTT_Rules
If NSW and VIC have supply problems then we will too - there's no redundancy if the wind drought (for example) is nation-wide.

Consumers are the ones who ultimately pay when there's a gouge - who pays when it spikes to fourteen grand a MW/h? End users ultimately do. Gouges will get worse as supply gets even more unreliable - we had to pay the ultimate price for green-tinged mis-management of our grid here in SA in the dying days of the last Labor government when they had to install 280 MW of 'contingency' diesel power plants spread around the state at great expense - the ultimate admission of a policy failure. And yet that diesel capacity gets turned on with monotonous regularity, only a few months ago running at full capacity to prevent a blackout here in SA.

You were singing the praises of a potential nuclear power plant for South Australia on the previous page saying how great it would be, now someone else comes along and you've bought what he said lock, stock and 'lumpy'?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
If NSW and VIC have supply problems then we will too - there's no redundancy if the wind drought (for example) is nation-wide.

Consumers are the ones who ultimately pay when there's a gouge - who pays when it spikes to fourteen grand a MW/h? End users ultimately do. Gouges will get worse as supply gets even more unreliable - we had to pay the ultimate price for green-tinged mis-management of our grid here in SA in the dying days of the last Labor government when they had to install 280 MW of 'contingency' diesel power plants spread around the state at great expense - the ultimate admission of a policy failure. And yet that diesel capacity gets turned on with monotonous regularity, only a few months ago running at full capacity to prevent a blackout here in SA.

You were singing the praises of a potential nuclear power plant for South Australia on the previous page saying how great it would be, now someone else comes along and you've bought what he said lock, stock and 'lumpy'?
don_dunstan
Be careful not to solve 2040's vision with 2020 technology or even older not accepting where are actually at today, which you are doing.

Its true that SA and Vic in particularly jumped into the deep end with RE and without the regulatory safe guards in place, but we have moved on a fair bit from those F-up days and you can see this in the wholesale prices which are now so cheap that pumped hydro demand has almost dried up.

If we look at the lead up to 2030

Hydro currently provides 7% of all output, but it cycles with demand and will achieve around 25 - 35% of peaking needs post SH 2.0 and BL 2.0.

Wind will be either off-setting or recharging hydro running the grid for around 30 - 40% of the time, but would overlap some with solar. But yes doubling wind generation capacity doesn't help much at very low levels.

Increasing existing solar output by 4 x will basically make the NEM not dependent on other sources of power for 6 - 8h per day.

Base coal will be still around, down from its current 74% of supply to below 50%

Peaking and baseload gas will be around for decades to come.

Despite what others think, chemical battery storage by 2030 will likely exceed 15 - 30 GWh by then. This on the basis that we are approaching 500 MWh in the next year or so and expected to gross 3 - 4 GWh by 2024 using bother grid and domestic.

Even if you got 100% wind/solar with access to hydro/battery, you still will need back up peaking turbine to provide insurance against the issues which you have indicated.

To give an example, as you know aluminium uses alot of power, but we have minimal tolerance to no power for more than 3h. Hence our power stations (5GW) are over sized and we have 48h of diesel in permanent storage against gas line failure. If we do that to protect our production of $6Bpa, then it why wouldn't the grid have this? It has it in part now, Baker Inlet Phase 1 provided 210 MW of peaking capacity, Phase 2 pushes that to 420 MW.  As mentioned above battery storage will over the coming years likely exceed 2GWh in Sth Aust.


"And yet that diesel capacity gets turned on with monotonous regularity, only a few months ago running at full capacity to prevent a blackout here in SA."

Regrading this comment, both big deal and complete bull $hit.

2020 it provided 0.05% 6.7 GWh of demand, which is 30 hs at maximum output AND Don that was lowest since 2015. For the Tonker Truck sized Sth Aust power grid, what else do you think you need? You want to replace cheap low capital cost peaking diesel/gas reciprocating generation (which is 28% cheaper to run than the old gas boiler system they replaced) that goes from 0 - 100% in 5min for 0.05% or 30h of the year? What you rather, have 210 MW of high cost coal generation sitting there gathering dust that needs to be started 1d ahead before its needed?

What do you think other Grid operators have on stand by for their 30h of highest peaking demand a year? Qld makes use of alot more larger diesel/gas reciprocating power generation than SA, my Dad provided the gas compressors for some.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Be careful not to solve 2040's vision with 2020 technology or even older not accepting where are actually at today, which you are doing.
RTT_Rules
Snowy pumped hydro storage will never be built - whee will the money come from, tapped out power consumers? 30% of Australia's eastern grid redundancy will be dependent on it - LOL, really?

You pin your hopes on developments in battery and other storage that simply will not be invented (capacity that big will either be uneconomical or defy the laws of physics - take your pick), on systems that will not be developed due to extraordinary cost and incredibly toxic output that will require some sort of storage (or high temperature incineration).

Coal or nuclear, one or the other. Or extended periods of instability, unreliability etc. and almost the highest power prices in the world making us (on top of all the other business-hobbling taxes) the worst place in the world to do business. Diesel generation is a sign of abject policy failure, no other excuse for having to install hundreds of megawatts of 'backup' generation except to protect us from decades of stupid, ill-thought out bullsh*t policy that's left us completely vulnerable to power outages. Ridiculous.

Hundreds of billions sunk into this complete rubbish energy supply system, not to mention the billions grid users were forced to pay for connecting these unreliable power sources to the grid - and for what? South Australia is running on gas 70% tonight and is importing another 200 mw/h from Victoria on top of that. And you seriously think "carbon neutral just around the corner"? Please, I have a bridge to sell you...
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Be careful not to solve 2040's vision with 2020 technology or even older not accepting where are actually at today, which you are doing.
Snowy pumped hydro storage will never be built - whee will the money come from, tapped out power consumers? 30% of Australia's eastern grid redundancy will be dependent on it - LOL, really?

You pin your hopes on developments in battery and other storage that simply will not be invented (capacity that big will either be uneconomical or defy the laws of physics - take your pick), on systems that will not be developed due to extraordinary cost and incredibly toxic output that will require some sort of storage (or high temperature incineration).

Coal or nuclear, one or the other. Or extended periods of instability, unreliability etc. and almost the highest power prices in the world making us (on top of all the other business-hobbling taxes) the worst place in the world to do business. Diesel generation is a sign of abject policy failure, no other excuse for having to install hundreds of megawatts of 'backup' generation except to protect us from decades of stupid, ill-thought out bullsh*t policy that's left us completely vulnerable to power outages. Ridiculous.

Hundreds of billions sunk into this complete rubbish energy supply system, not to mention the billions grid users were forced to pay for connecting these unreliable power sources to the grid - and for what? South Australia is running on gas 70% tonight and is importing another 200 mw/h from Victoria on top of that. And you seriously think "carbon neutral just around the corner"? Please, I have a bridge to sell you...
don_dunstan

Snowy 2.0 construction has started.
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/progress/

It is funded by combination of inputs the include general revenue and income from future power sales.

Not sure where you get 30% from

Battery technology is happening now and decreasing in cost and improving with technology R&D.

Australia's power prices are no where near the highest in the world and dropping, yes they F'ed up 8 years ago and took some time to repair the damage.

Agree some of the bolted on stupidity was and to a limited degree trying to defy the laws of physics, but there is now a lot more commonsense being applied.

2021 will have some of the lowest wholesale cost of power in 15 years, retail prices are also forecast to decline 5 - 8% YOY for next 3 years as part of this correction.

You are concerned about toxic waste, but then mention coal and nuclear in the same sentence.  I'm not against either but neither have a reputation for not producing toxic and/or hazardous waste.

Diesel generation has been used for years long before wind as energy source for extreme peaks and commonly used globally, its cheap to install and have sitting their for long periods of time on standby and can go from 0 to hero within 5min. Its also fuel flexible, ie gas, diesel or oil. We have been through this before, I'm not sure why you are in denial.

EDIT: It might be worth your time reading about the number of peaking gas/diesel power stations built in the late 90's and 2000's up to 2010 across the NEM, all long before the big rush into Solar PV and wind turbines and all built during an era where coal power stations were still being built. So why build diesel/gas peaking stations during an era of still building coal?

$100's Billions spent? Seriously? As you have completely lost the plot, I'll stop here.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Snowy 2.0 construction has started.
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/progress/

It is funded by combination of inputs the include general revenue and income from future power sales.
RTT_Rules
Yet another enormous cost burden (probably over $10,000,000,000 by the time it's finished) to add to add to the poor long suffering grid users and (what's left of) our businesses forced to pay whatever prices the regulator sets - but then again taxpayers and grid users are easy targets for these hare-brained scheme promoters aren't they.

High power prices kill jobs, drive away investment and makes us less competitive with countries like China who pay less than a quarter of the standard kw/h charge that we do here in South Australia. Why would anyone in their right mind want to try and run a business in this state with basic things like electricity and gas almost the most expensive in the world? No wonder we've go the highest unemployment in the nation here.

Why are you (and others here) still going into bat for this job-killing, productivity-hobbling policy is beyond me.
Australia's power prices are no where near the highest in the world and dropping...
RTT_Rules
This is either ignorance or blatant dishonesty: Power Technology Magazine:

The energy numbers look great on paper for the lucky country, but you’d be hard pressed to convince many Australian families and businesses that their electricity supply, and what they pay for it, has anything to do with good fortune. Australians – particularly those who live in the eastern states of South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, which together make up the National Electricity Market (NEM) and account for 86% of the country’s population – pay some of the highest residential electricity bills in the world.

South Australia tops the list with just under A$0.50 per kWh, with New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria also represented in the world’s top 10 highest electricity prices. As a comparison point, the European Union average is just over A$0.30 per kWh, while US consumers, benefiting from a glut of cheap gas, pay between A$0.10 and A$0.20. A report published in June by the Grattan Institute found that wholesale electricity prices increased by 130% in the NEM between 2015 and 2017.

Again, why do you write these things without even doing the most basic of searches to find out whether or not there's any factual basis to it? And you wonder why I seldom bother to read things that you've wrote -
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
$100's Billions spent? Seriously? As you have completely lost the plot, I'll stop here.
RTT_Rules

It would easily be hundreds of billions over the last twenty years - public and private money.

Renewable Energy Target (RET) was initiated by the Howard government in 2001 and has been expanded by nearly every government since then - now 20 years old RET has collected a whopping $60,000,000,000 from grid users since its inception.

This is just ONE direct government subsidy to 'green' energy - just one. It doesn't include:
  • Direct capital grants to build wind farms or solar farms
  • State government schemes like the Rann government feed-in tariff scheme here in South Australia to force grid users to pay domestic solar producers 4 times the standard kw/h for electricity in the middle of the day (not at peak times).
  • "Network charges" which now constitute 25-30% of every power user's bill - being jacked sky high by the need to connect unreliable sources of power to the grid so the grid can itself become less stable and more expensive to consumers.

All these things (including heavily subsidised private sector investment) would easily add up to hundreds of billions. But by all means, if you can prove that government and private sector money being given to green schemes is NOT in the hundreds of billions then feel free to tell us why.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, RTT_Rules, speedemon08

Display from: