Posted 3 years ago
A battery for a power station trip is one thing, but as reserve for the wind doesn't blow, you are talking huge.It amazes me that people complain about the amount of government subsidy being applied to green power, but conveniently ignore the fact that back in the day, coal fired power stations were not exactly built by private enterprise!Interesting read.Biased author though, at a Melbourne University green energy advocacy thing. Also fails to mention the billions being put into it by various state and Commonwealth programs - and the forced allocation of consumers to a percentage of 'green' things.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/31/a-great-year-for-clean-energy-in-australia-ends-while-bad-news-for-coal-continuesBut that is not how the private companies want it done though so they can make big bucks shuffling around the deckchairs on the Titanic!They make a lot of money out of creating a crisis situation - the same as Enron did in California seventeen years ago. Weatherill also allowed Playford to close way too early and the result was that big blackout last spring - they tried to spin that one away but any way you look at it it was an over-reliance on a very long and complicated grid system combined with no baseload left in SA.
And that Guardian article completely fails to mention the $$$ that the VIC and SA governments had to put in to building diesel back-up plants in case the wonderful green energy fails again. Diesel not gas. Why no outrage from the greenies about that one?
The national grid works effectively enough in my opinion. It is not complicated at all especially when compared to what exists in Europe (where you can sometimes see electricity being pumped around in a circle between a few adjacent countries).
Back-up power is more likely to guard against failing base load coal generated power than if the wind suddenly drops. Battery backup is far preferable when you consider the following example:
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?
...There is more commentary now around the issue being peak power not so much base load.
As for the diesels, the greenies most like don’t get too upset since this is low capacity factor generation. So their hours of running is low given the backup nature.
Remember it’s the fossil fuel chain that has the wealth and influence here.What a complete and utter load of rubbish. Elon Musk has made his billions in part from being able to successfully harvest government subsidies for things like electric cars (each electric car made in the United States gets a direct subsidy of $12,000 from the Federal government) and the so-called future cities thing (paid for by the Californian government).
The discussion needs to consider productive vs non-productive emissions. Emissions from manufacturing is far more acceptable than powering millions of swimming pool pumps. One is worth supporting and that means the other should sacrifice.This is totally un-workable.
Yes we need to protect the vulnerable. However, don’t we have an obligation to do that anyway yet fail to for economic reasons. RazzWe HAVE failed. We ARE an economic basket case, it just hasn't become apparent yet because the real-estate and immigration bubbles are still pushing along - once those things fall over (and they will) then it will become apparent to everyone that we have long been Keatings Banana Republic. And there's no way we are protecting vulnerable people from the extremely high prices of 'green' energy - telling pensioners that they must pay $1,000+ for a quarter of winter electricity is a manifestation of this failure in my opinion.
Manufacturing has been moving anyway so don't worry about preserving what you have. Infaxt let's help them pack up. That's what you are saying.It's the working class and the poor who have suffered the most from this transition to the 'new economy'; the working class in particular because the well-paid and stable jobs in manufacturing have all but disappeared now leaving them with the horrible-pay very insecure service-industry type jobs guaranteed to lock them into poverty forever.
Gas is attempted to be used to replace coal with the Plant in WonthaggiI couldn't find any references to this project, can you provide?
opps my bad, may of been the mortlake Power Plant, Sorry saw it on the news some years ago if memory serves me correctlyOk thanks, that's 275MW x 2 peaking gas turbines.
I completely agree with you there, but will stipulate that this is a far wider issue than the subject matter at hand (perhaps this belongs in the Economy thread. Apologies to the mods for the digression).Manufacturing has been moving anyway so don't worry about preserving what you have. Infaxt let's help them pack up. That's what you are saying.It's the working class and the poor who have suffered the most from this transition to the 'new economy'; the working class in particular because the well-paid and stable jobs in manufacturing have all but disappeared now leaving them with the horrible-pay very insecure service-industry type jobs guaranteed to lock them into poverty forever.
The battery is providing in this case primary frequency control which is about stabilizing frequency immediately a deviation is detected from 50 hz. All plants connected to the grid would have seen this deviation and Gladstone still did its job of also reacting. The article recognizes this and specifically says the battery did not prevent a blackout.Thanks mate, I was beginning to think that I was the only person on these pages that actually understood the content of the article.
I don’t think the battery is intended to be a replacement for a large continuing loss of power from the grid, this is what secondary response is for where other partially loaded but slower to move load generation comes in. Unlike the guardian article which was full of inaccuracies this renew economy article seems to report the facts.
You can't be realistically concerned at what you now see as a diminishing amount of highly paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs if you acknowledge that it all started with privatisation/casualisation a few decades ago, and not just since windmills starting being built.Yeah well of course it started with Hawke and Keating - pretending to be the worker's friend while knifing them in the back - but why is it that the poorest people are the ones who are generally expected to pick up the tab for the transition to the miracle carbon-free economy through high electricity tariffs while the wealthier people get rewarded with subsidies to make solar energy at the times of day when its not needed anyway? Like trying to phase out petrol engines in the next 10-15 years by legislation as they're presently trying to do in the EU - okay if you can buy a new car but what if you can't?
Yeah well of course it started with Hawke and Keating - pretending to be the worker's friend while knifing them in the back - but why is it that the poorest people are the ones who are generally expected to pick up the tab for the transition to the miracle carbon-free economy through high electricity tariffs while the wealthier people get rewarded with subsidies to make solar energy at the times of day when its not needed anyway? Like trying to phase out petrol engines in the next 10-15 years by legislation as they're presently trying to do in the EU - okay if you can buy a new car but what if you can't?I think they are now targeting diesels over petrol, now that most cars in the EU are actually diesel because it was promoted previously more environmentally friendly and lower cost. Now the brains trust has said diesel is the root of all evil and must go.
It's impossible to view the rush to carbon-free as anything other than a scam to advantage the wealthy over the poor - like they need any more help than they already get.
I swore I wouldn't come back to this thread because it just gets up my goat!
If we look at a modern bench mark in Dubai, they are building a 4 unit 2400MW coal fired power station with about 45% efficiency using Australian black coal from NSW/Qld. Construction time for unit 1 is just under 3 years then each new unit comes on line every 12 mths or so. The plant is a PPP with a contracted price of US$42/MW. Go through much of the anit coal propaganda and you will find time frames and costs much larger.
Australia will be a world leader in the transition to a smarter and cheaper renewables based-grid, and trying to resist that change is like trying to stop the internet.
.. the amazing development of producing electricity at zero marginal cost ...
At the same time RE should only be allowed to bid into the market if it bids a guaranteed 24/7 supply or a separate peak supply, again they must bid and supply, failure to supply they should be penalised. By doing this, RE wind/solar will be forced to invest in GT, Diesel gen, battery or small scale hydro to provide a back up source and hence again provide the energy sector with security of supply and price.
For details of the Dubai coal fired power station
This includes references to the contracted power price.
- 4 turbines, first coming on line around 2020
- burning Aussie coal (mostly)
- Efficiency of ~45%
- Contracted sale price is USD$42/MWh
The consortium bid a Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) of USD 4.241 cents per kilowatt (kW), based on May 2015 coal prices
The current domestic power price for Dubai residents (note I didn't say citizens, yes there is a difference, a huge difference) is $AUD0.10/kWh (USD$80/MWh). This is what I pay.
...IMHO this "guaranteed 24/7" is something of a new requirement that's being made of RE, and I think it's happened as a consequence of RE recenlty becoming cheaper than traditional FF generation.You’ve picked up on some good points. I’m not anti-coal but I don’t see a significant future for it. RE will go from strength to strength and I understand why the fossil lobby wants to frustrate its rollout. There's nothing new here, it's self-interest as always.
But I think an equivalent argument can be made that coal - or really any for of fuel fired steam turbine - has (almost) exactly the same problem as RE. Steam Turbine generation takes up to 24 hours to reach optimal output and efficiency. It simply can't respond to changes in demand. Yet no-one is demanding that coal generators should be required to store the excess power generated overnight.
The biggest problem fuel fired steam turbine generation has (regardless of the fuel), is that (unlike RE) if no-one wants to buy your power, you are not just lumbered with just the opportunity cost of not selling your electricity - there are very *real* and substantial costs (fuel) of that production.
ATM the FF generation industry deals with this with OCGT/"peaking" gas generation, but also supported by the interstate interconnectors as well as Tassy and Snowy Hydro.
The fact is we don't need 24x7 constant generation. We need (very roughly) 60% of our power is needed during the day, 25% at night and ~15% can be scheduled for whenever it's convenient/cheap for the generator.