# Electricity: price and reliability of supply



## ghotib (18 November 2011)

Many people are concerned that pricing carbon will necessarily increase the price of electricity. Others say that the cost of additional and replacement infrastructure will have a much bigger impact. Here's another take on the whole subject: http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/why-solar-parity-scares-big-utilities/



> Thursday January 29, 2009, was a big money day for Victoria’s brown coal generators.
> 
> After a night of uncomfortably warm temperatures, and a dawn reading of 32 °C, Victoria’s residents turned to their air-con and pedestal fans in near record numbers. By 9am, demand had spiked so high that electricity prices had soared to $10,000 a megawatt hour as utilities switched on every last generator they could find to meet demand. These wholesale prices are normally between $35-$50/MWh.
> 
> ...




This Sunday I'm going to a workshop which is seen as a first step towards establishing renewable power generation for the Southern Highlands region in NSW. Other areas have already set up community co-ops that own their regional scale solar or wind generators. Even without considering the CO2 effects of burning fossil fuel, the benefits of owning generators that are driven by fuels that no one can own (or charge for) are obvious and the costs, which are overwhelmingly in set up, are steadily declining. Exciting times.


----------



## basilio (19 November 2011)

That is a fascinating insight into the economies of power generation. *The idea that in one 8  hour period the power companies pocketed a quarter of their annual revenue*. Just doesn't seem right. I'm assuming that we as consumers ended up paying fro this windfall profit.

The idea of community owned renewable power supplies looks very attractive. Almost certainly a steady financial return.  Good value in terms of economies of scale. Non polluting. Certainly worth a look.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (19 November 2011)

Although I generally support the public ownership of utilities, in Australia it is a disaster.

Our states have a woefully inefficient and downright ****ty tax system. Now that property is in a downturn and they are getting scrap all stamp duty, they are forcing their energy producers to ramp up prices to collect higher dividends, to add to state budget's revenue.

This sets a precedent for the private producers to raise by just as much, because hell why not.

This country


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 November 2011)

A few points I'll state...

1. Some companies (I'd better not name which ones...) go as far as dumping steam (so as to crash their own output) in order to send prices (and CO2 emissions) through the roof when market conditions are suitable. It's more profitable for them to generate 150MW at $9,500 per MWh than to generate 500MW at $30. 

2. Other generating companies have business models which involve sitting back, waiting for others to play the games and then profiting from the situation.

The old state-run electricity authorities may not have been overly efficient in their use of labour, but they were far, far more technically efficient at actually generating electricity. Going back to that model would cut CO2 emissions, and electricity prices, far more than we're ever going to achieve by putting solar panels on roofs etc. The other major change post-deregulation is that new construction has shifted away from a small number of large, efficient plants toward a greater number of small, less efficient plants.

The electricity market is a constructed market where a market does not naturally exist. It has driven some efficiency gains in terms of reducing investment in capacity and reducing labour. On the other side, it has directed investment toward less efficient capacity, and operates existing power stations less efficiently than the old utilities ran the exact same plants.

The only prediction I'm willing to make is that there's a crisis ahead at some point within the next 10 years affecting most likely Vic but also possibly SA and/or NSW. Either the retailers jack up unit rates hugely in order to offset declining net consumption and this ends in a political crisis (or the industry actually does go broke) or alternatively the generation system spectacularly fails and the lights really do go out. Both are distinct possibilities looking ahead and it's really a question of which one happens first.

For the other states, Qld is somewhat better at least on the generation side. NT it's still pretty much an old style utility with the same inherent risks (huge dependence on individual power stations due to the small scale of the industry) that it always had. 

In Tas the generation system remains pretty much bullet proof in the short term but is of course always at the mercy of the weather in the long term. A bigger issue is likely to be Aurora and the ridiculous cost of retail electricity for households and small business. That plus the fact that Aurora isn't exactly popular these days which isn't helping either. At some point I think we'll see Transend take over the distribution system and the Hydro get back into the small consumer retail business (and I'm sure they won't need to spend $60 million on a computer to send the bills out like Aurora did...).


----------



## sptrawler (19 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> The old state-run electricity authorities may not have been overly efficient in their use of labour, but they were far, far more technically efficient at actually generating electricity. Going back to that model would cut CO2 emissions, and electricity prices, far more than we're ever going to achieve by putting solar panels on roofs etc. The other major change post-deregulation is that new construction has shifted away from a small number of large, efficient plants toward a greater number of small, less efficient plants.
> 
> The electricity market is a constructed market where a market does not naturally exist. It has driven some efficiency gains in terms of reducing investment in capacity and reducing labour. On the other side, it has directed investment toward less efficient capacity, and operates existing power stations less efficiently than the old utilities ran the exact same plants.
> 
> ...




Pretty well spot on smurf. 
In W.A they seem to be taking a more holistic approach, well for the time being.
The government is encouraging new generators by increasing prices, while ensuring their own portfolio is able to cover a crisis situation.
Well that's how it appears.:eek


----------



## Tisme (28 October 2016)

Where the money goes


----------



## SirRumpole (28 October 2016)

Tisme said:


> Where the money goes
> 
> View attachment 68603




Get rid of the retail (I presume this is bloodsucking hangers-on in the private sector) and save 22%.


----------



## Tink (4 November 2016)

> Close to 1,000 workers will lose their jobs following the announcement of the closure of the Hazelwood power station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley.
> 
> The brown coal fired plant currently generates 22 percent of the state’s electricity and around four per cent of demand across the national electricity market.
> 
> ...





----------------------------------------------------------

Engie to sell Loy Yang B, St Baker wants Hazelwood

http://www.afr.com/news/engie-to-sell-loy-yang-b-st-baker-wants-hazelwood-20161103-gshbng


----------



## Tisme (4 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Get rid of the retail (I presume this is bloodsucking hangers-on in the private sector) and save 22%.




I reckon its more than that %. 

There would also be an enormous % waste merely for the new Australian preoccupation for risk aversion and the ar5e covering paperwork that cocoons it. Then there's "Labor's Fault" penalty and the "Union's Fault" levy balanced out by the negative salaries the pressed shirts get for being great negotiators with govt and unions on behalf of the consumers.


----------



## tech/a (4 November 2016)

*Question.*

Why isn't there a continued and maintained push toward
Solar power for home and business with incentive to feed
into the grid?

Wouldn't this go a long way in say 10 yrs to help
solve supply and pollution issues?


----------



## CanOz (4 November 2016)

tech/a said:


> *Question.*
> 
> Why isn't there a continued and maintained push toward
> Solar power for home and business with incentive to feed
> ...




Tech, i think part of the problem with that scenario is, among other things, how will the maintenance of the grid be paid for as more people move to solar? I guess one way would be to levy all home owners with solar a fee to pay for the grid maintenance....however, to be honest i can't see that working unless the grid stays in public hands. If you are connected to the grid then your going to pay for it....regardless of energy use. They can't just keep raising energy costs to cover the cost of the grid, as its unfair to those with out solar or self sustaining energy. The US is also facing similar problems and in Arizona the energy suppliers are fighting elections over this.

Its a real conundrum, how can we transition to greener sources without running down the grid that distributes the power?

Smurf? Calling our resident traveling energy specialist.....


----------



## SirRumpole (4 November 2016)

tech/a said:


> *Question.*
> 
> Why isn't there a continued and maintained push toward
> Solar power for home and business with incentive to feed
> ...




Because the coal industry and the current Federal government are in bed together via political donations and the Libs look after their mates.

The Hazlewood situation shows what you get when you hand over essential infrastructure to private enterprise. Some stuffed shirt in Paris just made a decision to take generating capacity and jobs out of our network and the economy. The Liberal party just shrugs it's shoulders and says "that's life, get used to it".


----------



## CanOz (4 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Because the coal industry and the current Federal government are in bed together via political donations and the Libs look after their mates.
> 
> The Hazlewood situation shows what you get when you hand over essential infrastructure to private enterprise. Some stuffed shirt in Paris just made a decision to take generating capacity and jobs out of our network and the economy. The Liberal party just shrugs it's shoulders and says "that's life, get used to it".




I agree that unfortunately there is a tremendous amount of fossil fuel politics here. I do agree with shutting down dirty coal fired plants if they are longer efficient. It takes political will power to make break through changes such as investing public money into a sustainable clean energy future infrastructure. Who has this?

On shutting down dirty and inefficient plants, my mate in Harbin runs a the North Eastern region of a French company that has put thousands out of work and shut dozens of old in inefficient heating plants and built one large state of the art coal fired, scrubbed, heating plant that supplies millions of households in Harbin and a couple of other cities. The air is cleaner from that one plant than all those dozens of other little plants. ITs still coal though....There are new, more highly skilled positions in that new plant....they took half my team when they started up...

Sir Rumphole, it is very frustrating to see Australia wasting its glorious sunshine opportunity the way it is...The Liberal government i fear will not see a future through the haze of external influences....similar to the US.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 November 2016)

CanOz said:


> I agree that unfortunately there is a tremendous amount of fossil fuel politics here. I do agree with shutting down dirty coal fired plants if they are longer efficient. It takes political will power to make break through changes such as investing public money into a sustainable clean energy future infrastructure. Who has this?
> 
> On shutting down dirty and inefficient plants, my mate in Harbin runs a the North Eastern region of a French company that has put thousands out of work and shut dozens of old in inefficient heating plants and built one large state of the art coal fired, scrubbed, heating plant that supplies millions of households in Harbin and a couple of other cities. The air is cleaner from that one plant than all those dozens of other little plants. ITs still coal though....There are new, more highly skilled positions in that new plant....they took half my team when they started up...
> 
> Sir Rumphole, it is very frustrating to see Australia wasting its glorious sunshine opportunity the way it is...The Liberal government i fear will not see a future through the haze of external influences....similar to the US.




I also agree with shutting down inefficient coal plants, but there has to be a replacement strategy. The French company that owned this plant doesn't have a replacement strategy, and neither does any government State or Federal. 

I reckon that if this plant was still in government hands they could say "we will shut Hazelwood down when we have built a new gas fired plant to replace it (or whatever the best replacement option is)" , rather than looking like stunned mullets when the decision is made for them by someone overseas.


----------



## CanOz (4 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I also agree with shutting down inefficient coal plants, but there has to be a replacement strategy. The French company that owned this plant doesn't have a replacement strategy, and neither does any government State or Federal.
> 
> I reckon that if this plant was still in government hands they could say "we will shut Hazelwood down when we have built a new gas fired plant to replace it (or whatever the best replacement option is)" , rather than looking like stunned mullets when the decision is made for them by someone overseas.




Absolutely, if the station was going to dent supply that much...but from what is only available in the news it doesn't sound like that is the case? I'm sure you wouldn't be advocating building a plant to just replace the jobs?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 November 2016)

CanOz said:


> Absolutely, if the station was going to dent supply that much...but from what is only available in the news it doesn't sound like that is the case? I'm sure you wouldn't be advocating building a plant to just replace the jobs?




No of course I'm not advocating building plants just for the jobs. If Hazlewood can be done without, say because of increased rooftop solar then that's fine. The point I'm making is that foreign owners of generating capacity have no interest in the entire network, their decisions are made for themselves rather than the national interest.

ie there has to be a national strategy, private enterprise should not have the power to remove generating assets from the grid.


----------



## CanOz (4 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> No of course I'm not advocating building plants just for the jobs. If Hazlewood can be done without, say because of increased rooftop solar then that's fine. The point I'm making is that foreign owners of generating capacity have no interest in the entire network, their decisions are made for themselves rather than the national interest.
> 
> ie there has to be a national strategy, private enterprise should not have the power to remove generating assets from the grid.




Ok, so if the plant was owned by the state, and decided to mothball it, you'd be ok with that if it was part of a wider strategy...?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 November 2016)

CanOz said:


> Ok, so if the plant was owned by the state, and decided to mothball it, you'd be ok with that if it was part of a wider strategy...?




Yes indeed. 

All power stations have a life and need to be replaced and someone has to decide when that happens and what it's replaced with. That can only be a National Energy Authority that makes the decision based on current and future requirements of the national energy market.


----------



## CanOz (4 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes indeed.
> 
> All power stations have a life and need to be replaced and someone has to decide when that happens and what it's replaced with. That can only be a National Energy Authority that makes the decision based on current and future requirements of the national energy market.




I agree that on some occasions, the state can run utilities efficiently....i can't think of any off hand, but i'm sure they must be out there. Maybe Norway or something?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 November 2016)

CanOz said:


> I agree that on some occasions, the state can run utilities efficiently....i can't think of any off hand, but i'm sure they must be out there. Maybe Norway or something?




The Snowy Mountains scheme was run efficiently by the State for many years.


----------



## CanOz (4 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The Snowy Mountains scheme was run efficiently by the State for many years.





Well theres .... one


----------



## SirRumpole (4 November 2016)

CanOz said:


> Well theres .... one




How do you know other suppliers weren't run efficiently by the State ? They were sold for ideological reasons not because they were under performing.


----------



## CanOz (4 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> How do you know other suppliers weren't run efficiently by the State ? They were sold for ideological reasons not because they were under performing.




The state (and i have seen some poorly run state businesses and very few outstanding ones) does not have a history of being able to run companies....this realization should not need a ton of facts to back it up...its just common sense. You need some kind of spirit to run a business successfully and efficiently. Common people with no common goal don't usually make good business managers Sir, they have no spirit to keep them engaged. Have you owned or ran a business before? I'm sure you can relate to what i'm saying if you have.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 November 2016)

CanOz said:


> The state (and i have some some poorly run state businesses and very few outstanding ones) does not have a history of being able to run companies....this realization should not need a ton of facts to back it up...its just common sense. You need some kind of spirit to run a business successfully and efficiently. Common people with no common goal don't usually make good business managers Sir, they have no spirit to keep them engaged. Have you owned or ran a business before? I'm sure you can relate to what i'm saying if you have.




There is a difference between running a business and providing a public service. Electricity is an essential service and so should not be regarded as a business. Hospitals aren't run for profit, neither is the police force or the courts. 

If some outsourcing makes these cheaper to run , fine, but the underlying ownership should remain with the taxpayer.


----------



## CanOz (4 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> There is a difference between running a business and providing a public service. Electricity is an essential service and so should not be regarded as a business. Hospitals aren't run for profit, neither is the police force or the courts.
> 
> If some outsourcing makes these cheaper to run , fine, but the underlying ownership should remain with the taxpayer.




Have you ever owned or run a business?

Utilities need maintenance, they need human resources at proper levels getting properly hired at the right pay and evaluated to performance standards....they need capital upgrades...all sorts of things that mean they are in effect, a business. You can't socialize a power plant. It needs to be run effectively and efficiently. hospitals don't run that efficiently by the way, there are lots of empty beds at times when they're needed....empty operation theatres that people arre on waiting lists for....its takes a darn good administrator to run a great public hospital....again, there are not too many around, unfortunately.


----------



## orr (4 November 2016)

CanOz said:


> The state (and i have seen some poorly run state businesses and very few outstanding ones) does not have a history of being able to run companies....this realization should not need a ton of facts to back it up...its just common sense. You need some kind of spirit to run a business successfully and efficiently. Common people with no common goal don't usually make good business managers Sir, they have no spirit to keep them engaged. Have you owned or ran a business before? I'm sure you can relate to what i'm saying if you have.




Have you read Laura Tingles recent 'Quarterly Essay' 'Political Amnesia'...

We Once had a public service that built anything of any significance in this country and there has been an ideological war fought against these institutions.


----------



## CanOz (4 November 2016)

orr said:


> Have you read Laura Tingles recent 'Quarterly Essay' 'Political Amnesia'...
> 
> We Once had a public service that built anything of any significance in this country and there has been an ideological war fought against these institutions.




No i haven't Orr, would you care to give me a book review?


----------



## orr (4 November 2016)

CanOz said:


> No i haven't Orr, would you care to give me a book review?




are you up for some _book learn'n_?

https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2015/11/political-amnesia/extract

Available by ordering a back copy from www.quarterlyessay.com

It'll cost you less than $20... or go to your local public library.

Ever heard of a little outfit once called the 'Public Works Dept' ?


----------



## CanOz (4 November 2016)

orr said:


> are you up for some _book learn'n_?
> 
> https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2015/11/political-amnesia/extract
> 
> ...




Nah, whas dat?


----------



## noco (4 November 2016)

During the recent power crises in SA and it's reliance on the Victorian coal fired base load power station, how will SA now stand with the closure in March 2017 of the Victorian coal fired Power station?

Looks like Vic. has pulled the plug on SA and I might add the Greens are rejoicing about the loss of jobs.

Now Victoria is about to spend millions on psychiatry counseling and retraining those who will lose their jobs......OMG.


----------



## noco (5 November 2016)

noco said:


> During the recent power crises in SA and it's reliance on the Victorian coal fired base load power station, how will SA now stand with the closure in March 2017 of the Victorian coal fired Power station?
> 
> Looks like Vic. has pulled the plug on SA and I might add the Greens are rejoicing about the loss of jobs.
> 
> Now Victoria is about to spend millions on psychiatry counseling and retraining those who will lose their jobs......OMG.




Is it true, the sacked workers at the Hazelwood coal fired power station will receive on average $330,000 redundancy  pay......Unbelievable.........And on top of that they will be offered retraining and psychiatry counseling.

I think the business owners in SA will need psychiatry counseling more so if they keep running out of base load power.

What a mob of crocks these politicians are in the SA and Vic 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/33100092/valley-awaits-hazelwood-support-detail/#page1


----------



## SirRumpole (5 November 2016)

noco said:


> Is it true, the sacked workers at the Hazelwood coal fired power station will receive on average $330,000 redundancy  pay......Unbelievable.........And on top of that they will be offered retraining and psychiatry counseling.
> 
> I think the business owners in SA will need psychiatry counseling more so if they keep running out of base load power.
> 
> ...




:topic

What the laid off workers get hasn't got anything to do with the price or reliability of electricity.


----------



## noco (5 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> :topic
> 
> What the laid off workers get hasn't got anything to do with the price or reliability of electricity.




Yes your are so right but what a debacle for SA if there is no reliable base load power to back up from Vic. and that was my main theme....Who would want to run an industrial business without a reliable source of power.....But of course many on this forum who have never been self employed or owned their own business would not have a clue.

I owned 4 business and managed one for many years.......One in particular was in manufacturing requiring  reliable electricity 24/7......Had I been without power for 2 weeks as some in SA, I would have gone down the gurgler.....I had 10 employees at that time and all would have lost their jobs.....But the unions and the socialist left wingers would not have given a dam....

So yes....Price and reliability of supply is so important and thank the hell we did not have all this renewable energy saga back in those days......Who would want to invest in SA?...No thanks.


----------



## noco (6 November 2016)

With the imminent closure of Hazelwood coal fired power station, The Victorian Treasurer admits the price of electricity will rise....What a dumb lot these Labor people are.



https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/33081780/hazelwood-closure-would-hit-power-bills/#page1


----------



## basilio (6 November 2016)

*Why was the SEC formed in Victoria in 1921? *

Because until then Victoria had a plethora of private energy companies with different technical specifications, overlapping supply areas and an inability to guarantee regular supply.

The SEC was established to develop a unified power system for the whole state versus a fractured, for profit system of just the most valuable areas. And it worked.

http://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/articles/3519
https://wongm.com/2011/07/melbourne-municipal-electricity-undertakings/


----------



## SirRumpole (6 November 2016)

noco said:


> With the imminent closure of Hazelwood coal fired power station, The Victorian Treasurer admits the price of electricity will rise....What a dumb lot these Labor people are.
> 
> 
> 
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/33081780/hazelwood-closure-would-hit-power-bills/#page1




The dumb lot are the people who sold off the station in the first place.

That was in 1996, and the Premier at that time was Jeff Kennett.


----------



## Tink (6 November 2016)

There are fears Portland's Alcoa plant may be next on the chopping block following the decision to shut down Hazelwood.

Former Premier and Member for Portland, Denis Napthine, said he was fearing the worst.

"I think there are some big questions being asked, unfortunately," 

He said any decision to close the plant would have huge ramifications.

He estimated around 5500 people would leave the area if it shut.

"It's vital, not just for local jobs, but vital to the economy of this state," Mr Napthine said.
-------------------------------------

_The future of energy generation and storage_
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29842&page=34&p=922377&viewfull=1#post922377

------------------------------------

“Germany’s economy minister says his country will not be phasing out brown coal before 2040, as the government looks to ways to ensure minimisation of job losses in coal regions”.
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2016/11/gabriel-says-coal-to-remain-relevant.html


----------



## noco (6 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The dumb lot are the people who sold off the station in the first place.
> 
> That was in 1996, and the Premier at that time was Jeff Kennett.




OK, if it was sold off to private enterprise, how come the dumb Labor Government is forcing the shut down?

Maybe it is not viable any more due to the heavy subsidy of too much unreliable renewable energy.

It will not be surprising in the least if major business by pass SA in the future or perhaps we will see many forced closures or some moving off shore.

As Tink just posted, Alcoa maybe next on the chopping block.....Just the beginning.

Why does the Green/Labor left wing socialist coalition always appear to be the ones creating jobs when they do the opposite.......The building of subs in SA will be a disaster.

Dumb and dumber.


----------



## Tisme (6 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The dumb lot are the people who sold off the station in the first place.
> 
> That was in 1996, and the Premier at that time was Jeff Kennett.




Like Malcolm Fraser. Jeffery has become more Labor than Labor once he realised what he had done and the peturbations that still haunt Vic from the aftershocks. 

There seems to a moment of crazy in most leaders who take power who are, infact, unfit to hold office. Almost a zealous desire of "look at me" ahead of public service.


----------



## lindsayf (6 November 2016)

noco said:


> Is it true, the sacked workers at the Hazelwood coal fired power station will receive on average $330,000 redundancy  pay......Unbelievable.........And on top of that they will be offered retraining and psychiatry counseling.
> 
> I think the business owners in SA will need psychiatry counseling more so if they keep running out of base load power.
> 
> ...




What is "psychiatry counselling".?
Link?


----------



## noco (6 November 2016)

lindsayf said:


> What is "psychiatry counselling".?
> Link?




The Victorian Government has put money aside to counsel those workers who maybe psychologically affected by the closure of the coal mine and the power station.......I doubt if they would be affected if they all receive $330,000 redundancy pay......I would imagine those workers would be laughing all the way to the bank. 

 :topic


----------



## Tisme (7 November 2016)

noco said:


> The Victorian Government has put money aside to counsel those workers who maybe psychologically affected by the closure of the coal mine and the power station.......I doubt if they would be affected if they all receive $330,000 redundancy pay......I would imagine those workers would be laughing all the way to the bank.
> 
> :topic




How much is the LIBERAL federal govt kicking in?

National Textiles anyone?


----------



## noco (7 November 2016)

Tisme said:


> How much is the LIBERAL federal govt kicking in?
> 
> National Textiles anyone?




Why does the Liberal Federal Government have to kick in?......Kick in for what?

In my mind it is a dumb decision by the Victorian Government to shut down a power station that is producing some 25% of their needs.

Time will tell as to whether the decision will have a dramatic affect on SA.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 November 2016)

noco said:


> Why does the Liberal Federal Government have to kick in?......Kick in for what?
> 
> In my mind it is a dumb decision by the Victorian Government to shut down a power station that is producing some 25% of their needs.
> 
> Time will tell as to whether the decision will have a dramatic affect on SA.




You don't get it do you ?

It wasn't the Victorian government that decided to shut it down it was the owners of the station Engie, a French based company.

Try to understand the basics of this. The Kennett government sold off Hazelwood in 1996  and therefore relinquished any government control over when it will be shut down, but of course your "blame Labor for everything" circuit cut in and shut down your reasoning capacity.


----------



## noco (7 November 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You don't get it do you ?
> 
> It wasn't the Victorian government that decided to shut it down it was the owners of the station Engie, a French based company.
> 
> Try to understand the basics of this. The Kennett government sold off Hazelwood in 1996  and therefore relinquished any government control over when it will be shut down, but of course your "blame Labor for everything" circuit cut in and shut down your reasoning capacity.




So why didn't the Victorian Government buy it back?

The blame lays purely at the feet of the SA and the Victorian Governments for going over board on the unreliable and inefficient renewable  energy which has been highly subsidized....It was the death knoll of the Hazelwood power station.......do *YOU* now get it or are turning a blind eye to it all?

Without reliable base load power both SA and Vic are heading for a disaster.


----------



## Tisme (7 November 2016)

noco said:


> Why does the Liberal Federal Government have to kick in?......Kick in for what?
> 
> In my mind it is a dumb decision by the Victorian Government to shut down a power station that is producing some 25% of their needs.
> 
> Time will tell as to whether the decision will have a dramatic affect on SA.




I didn't suggest they had to, just that are are going to....... whereis the fabian mole in that outfit?

Insofar as essential public utilities in private hands = stupid, (that's not to endorse the hands in pockets public servants who are paid to maintain plant and equipment, but require many hands to do light work).

The SA problem after clearing the line faults, was that there wasn't any inertial power that could cope with the startup current and the hundreds of generators they could have used were tied up in red tape.

Was a time when heavy industry factories had their own power stations.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 November 2016)

I'm on holiday at the moment so won't say much now but suffice to say there's more to the story with Hazelwood than is generally being said in the media etc.

In short, some of the chooks have come home to roost it seems and there's more on the way.

More in a week or so.


----------



## basilio (7 November 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm on holiday at the moment so won't say much now but suffice to say there's more to the story with Hazelwood than is generally being said in the media etc.
> 
> In short, some of the chooks have come home to roost it seems and there's more on the way.
> 
> More in a week or so.




I suspect the chooks that are coming home are the tens of thousands of ex employees who were exposed to asbestos at the power stations and are now dying in their hundreds. This has been overlooked/forgotten but it is certainly on record.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s251859.htm
http://gards.org/asbestos-links/


----------



## Tisme (7 November 2016)

basilio said:


> I suspect the chooks that are coming home are the tens of thousands of ex employees who were exposed to asbestos at the power stations and are now dying in their hundreds. This has been overlooked/forgotten but it is certainly on record.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s251859.htm
> http://gards.org/asbestos-links/




Black lung is making it back into the news too.


----------



## noco (8 November 2016)

Is it any wonder the Hazelwood power station owned by  Engie was not viable to operate...The Victorian Government made sure of that by tripling the royalties on coal costing Engie an extra $20 million.


https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/33132671/hazelwood-herbert-up-in-vic-parliament/#page1

*Hazelwood will close in March 2017 after the French owners Engie said it was "no longer economic to operate" it.

Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the state government had tripled coal royalties, costing Engie $20 million.*


----------



## noco (27 December 2016)

This renewable energy saga is madness and getting completely out of hand and costly and what is it doing to the Climate?....Absolutely nothing.......It is certainly causing a lot headaches for consumers and business.....Larger business is now having to install diesel generators as a back up and then producing more CO2 than coal fired power stations.

The use of renewable energy has to be curtailed.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...e/news-story/a9a4c64686f022cd524499ca9ced178f

*Alcoa: Warmist pollies spend to fix what they broke*






*December 21, 2016 7:19am 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Victoria's Andrews Government drives the giant Hazelwood coal-fired power station out of business with its insane global warming policies. With power prices now soaring, it is offering $200 million to keep open a smelter which can't survive the logical consequences of its folly.

Madness on stilts:


Federal Industry Minister Greg Hunt and his Victorian counterpart, Wade Noonan, were due to meet overnight with the aluminium company’s chief executive in New York to lay out a package of government support to help the smelter recover from a power outage that shut its potlines three weeks ago.


The proposal is believed to include $200m from the Andrews government, a possible $30m from the federal government and the continued offer of low-interest loans from the CEFC.


But what makes this so insane is that all this taxing and spending and pain is actually for nothing. It makes no difference to the climate.

*
Alan Moran counts the cost:
*

Electricity from renewable energy costs three times as much to produce as electricity from coal and gas. For this year, the AEMC estimates the cost of existing federal and state renewable energy programs for the average household’s electricity bills at $191 in Queensland (7 per cent of the bill), $109 in NSW, $91 in Victoria and $155 in South Australia.


But these are only the direct costs. The indirect costs, in addition to renewable energy’s innate unreliability, are greater.


In the first place, this is because electricity market rules mean wind and solar will always run when they are able to do so. This forces other suppliers into stop-start operations, which coal and gas baseload power stations cannot easily accommodate. Those stations are being forced to close and each such closure ramps up the wholesale electricity price.


The AEMC estimates that next year the closure of Hazelwood in Victoria will cause a cost increase of $200 for each household in the state, with lesser cost increases in other jurisdictions.


Second, wind generators require increased network spending. The electricity market operator has put a $2.2bn cost on new transmission lines to link Victoria’s proposed wind generators to the grid. This stems from the wind generators wanting to locate in areas where there is weak transmission capacity.*





Comments


----------



## explod (29 December 2016)

Your last post noco indicates that the umpires are from the same team. All just rubbish to maintain the oil coal and current power providers status quo.

Alternate wind /solar is working in many places overseas at the moment at almost the same cost.  Battery life is said to be doubling this year and a new form of panel is coming onto the market in the form like roofing ion and will be no dearer than roofing ion.  Another is in a roll and can work lying flat on roadways.  

Time to get out of your chair noco as times, driven by public desire are a changing.


----------



## noco (29 December 2016)

explod said:


> Your last post noco indicates that the umpires are from the same team. All just rubbish to maintain the oil coal and current power providers status quo.




I guess you are entitled to your opinion....Time will tell.


----------



## Tisme (30 December 2016)

noco said:


> Larger business is now having to install diesel generators as a back up and then producing more CO2 than coal fired power stations.




 I remember the steam locos getting the boot because of the inefficiency of coal compared to diesel. I was also under the impression the same still applied to coal Vs diesel generation .... do you have anything to prove different?

UK is closing its coal fired plants by 2025, Canada 2030, Austria 2025, Belgium is almost there, in France seven  of the 11 coal fireds were shutdown last year leaving 4 and EDF/Engel are shutting them as maintenance costs bite into profit. China consumes more coal than the rest of the world, but has a cap and trade coming in next year.

What's the go with coal and Mercury, Thorium, Radium and Radon?


----------



## luutzu (30 December 2016)

Tisme said:


> I remember the steam locos getting the boot because of the inefficiency of coal compared to diesel. I was also under the impression the same still applied to coal Vs diesel generation .... do you have anything to prove different?
> 
> UK is closing its coal fired plants by 2025, Canada 2030, Austria 2025, Belgium is almost there, in France seven  of the 11 coal fireds were shutdown last year leaving 4 and EDF/Engel are shutting them as maintenance costs bite into profit. China consumes more coal than the rest of the world, but has a cap and trade coming in next year.
> 
> What's the go with coal and Mercury, Thorium, Radium and Radon?





Mercury, Thorium... all natural stuff McGee. Coal powered stations simply spread all them organic goodness.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 December 2016)

Coal versus diesel:

Efficiency as a technical measurement, that is energy in versus electricity out, is roughly the same for both coal-fired steam turbines and diesel engines. Which wins in any given situation depends on the climate, operating regime and so on since there's not much between them.

CO2 emissions aren't much different either. Diesel is a bit lower CO2 at the power station but that's largely offset by the energy use and other environmental impacts of oil extraction, refining and transport versus the far shorter transport distance and no refining needed with coal.

The big difference is in the use of natural resources. Abundant coal with minimal other potential "easy" uses versus comparatively much scarcer oil with literally thousands of other uses.

Personally I'd take coal over oil any day if those are the two options. Resource use and wanting to leave some oil in the ground for future generations is one reason. Everything  else related to oil is the other - the West's use of the stuff is doing everything from funding dictators and  human rights abusers through to the impact of spills on water. Such issues are comparatively minor with coal.

CO2 is much the same and other air emissions are basically one nasty versus another too. Coal has advantages over oil in other ways however.


----------



## noco (30 December 2016)

Tisme said:


> I remember the steam locos getting the boot because of the inefficiency of coal compared to diesel. I was also under the impression the same still applied to coal Vs diesel generation .... do you have anything to prove different?
> 
> UK is closing its coal fired plants by 2025, Canada 2030, Austria 2025, Belgium is almost there, in France seven  of the 11 coal fireds were shutdown last year leaving 4 and EDF/Engel are shutting them as maintenance costs bite into profit. China consumes more coal than the rest of the world, but has a cap and trade coming in next year.
> 
> What's the go with coal and Mercury, Thorium, Radium and Radon?




Stream trains needed a lot more start up time to get steam up to the required pressure to operate.....It was a two man operation and coal had to be manually feed into the fire box.......Steam trains also had to stop at various points along the track to fill up with water as you are well aware you need water to make steam....The same thing applied to steam rollers on road construction.
On the other hand when diesel was used in diesel electric trains they were much easier to operate by one man.
The UK and Canada maybe closing certain out of date coal fired power station but both countries also have nuclear power plants.....The Uk has something like 28 nuclear plants in operation today.....France has some 70 nuclear power plants......But what about China?.....They are commissioning a new coal fired power station each week...I read recently where China manufacture something like 80% of the World's solar panels but only use about 5% themselves.


----------



## noco (31 December 2016)

noco said:


> Stream trains needed a lot more start up time to get steam up to the required pressure to operate.....It was a two man operation and coal had to be manually feed into the fire box.......Steam trains also had to stop at various points along the track to fill up with water as you are well aware you need water to make steam....The same thing applied to steam rollers on road construction.
> On the other hand when diesel was used in diesel electric trains they were much easier to operate by one man.
> The UK and Canada maybe closing certain out of date coal fired power station but both countries also have nuclear power plants.....The Uk has something like 28 nuclear plants in operation today.....France has some 70 nuclear power plants......But what about China?.....They are commissioning a new coal fired power station each week...I read recently where China manufacture something like 80% of the World's solar panels but only use about 5% themselves.




Those figures quoted were some 5 years ago and have changed slightly since then but China is still commissioning one new coal fired power plant each week.

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/20...wer-plants-china-carbon-bubble-waiting-burst/


----------



## Tisme (31 December 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> Efficiency as a technical measurement, that is energy in versus electricity out, is roughly the same for both coal-fired steam turbines and diesel engines. Which wins in any given situation depends on the climate, operating regime and so on since there's not much between them.





I remember engineering diesel gas turbines into high rise and at that stage they were 130% efficient over the conventional, while natural gas turbine was 110% over conventional. I'm guessing you are comparing conventional combustion engines to coal/steam turbines?





			
				Noco said:
			
		

> Stream trains needed a lot more start up time to get steam up to the required pressure to operate.....It was a two man operation and coal had to be manually feed into the fire box.......Steam trains also had to stop at various points along the track to fill up with water as you are well aware you need water to make steam....The same thing applied to steam rollers on road construction.
> On the other hand when diesel was used in diesel electric trains they were much easier to operate by one man.




Well I hear what you are saying, but having played with steam systems I think the core argument I would make is that steam versus diesel electric in the power and it's dependent variable; torque, is very much the real reasons behind the demise. Sure you can refer to those other factors like manpower, shear size, pollution, consumables, even peak power, but in terms of thrust and wheel/rail engagement those necessarily big wheels on a steamer are not going to give a whole lot of traction and thrust. The steam piston itself is not a constant force machine, the pressure depleting over the stroke and the higher the reciprocating speed the less chamber clearance so a drop off in efficiency as the revs build, and a corresponding big drop in drawbar power. Put an equal power diesel electric and steamer on an incline and the constant torque electric traction motors will eat the steamer in speed because the peak torque on a steamer is at really low long stroke revs, while even a two stroke diesel will sing along and comparatively high revs in it's high efficiency band.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 December 2016)

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing you are comparing conventional combustion engines to coal/steam turbines?




I'm assuming typical "as done in practice" equipment.

So that's looking at sub-critical through to ultra supercritical coal versus internal combustion and open cycle gas turbines fired using diesel.

Obviously there's a difference between a 40 year old OCGT versus a  brand new USC coal plant but comparing similar eras and approaches (cost versus technical aspects etc) there's not a lot of difference.

If you get 150 diesel generators (internal combustion) and put them into base load operation then the efficiency averages about 35% in practice on an HHV and sent out basis. Been there, tried that in Tas last Autumn.

That's pretty close to the real world efficiency of coal fired plant in service in Australia and indeed most countries except those where it's either all new (China most obviously) or they're broke and running antiques.

The only real outliers would be things like a liquid fuelled CCGT or a massive scale diesel IC engine, both of which can achieve efficiency over 50% quite easily. There aren't many actually doing that for power generation however so that's not the technical approach I've assumed to be used.


----------



## Tisme (31 December 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm assuming typical "as done in practice" equipment.
> 
> So that's looking at sub-critical through to ultra supercritical coal versus internal combustion and open cycle gas turbines fired using diesel.
> 
> ...




So they don't use gas turbine diesels in the field? No CCGTs?


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 December 2016)

Tisme said:


> So they don't use gas turbine diesels in the field? No CCGTs?



Plenty of OCGT's firing with diesel, kero or other flammable liquids (a few have even done it with fuel oil although you need some pretty decent filters for the fuel to avoid problems hence most stick to refined fuels and avoid residuals).

For CCGT it can be done but there are issues with any non-gas fuel and its potential to soot up the HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) such that the majority of CCGT plants either fire gas only or use a bypass stack, which turns them into an OCGT with no heat recovery and a one third loss of efficiency, if they do need to fire liquid fuel in an emergency situation.

As with all this stuff there are exceptions, liquid fuelled CCGT has certainly been done, but it's not without risks and technical hassles hence only a few have gone down that track (and then only because firing with gas or building a coal / nuclear / hydro plant wasn't a feasible alternative).

Here in Tas we've got 4 OCGT's (with 7 actual gas turbines since 3 of them are twin turbine units) and all are set up to fire either gas or diesel as needed. But for the CCGT it's gas only, no backup via diesel fuel, for the reasons I've mentioned.

Elsewhere in Australia CCGT generally is gas only. OCGT may or may not be dual fuel depending on how worried about reliability the owners are. Some OCGT is liquid fuel only, some is gas only, some is set up for both.


----------



## Tisme (6 August 2017)

So Fizzer has summoned the energy retailers to Canberra to sort out why we have the highest of bills in the world LOL

Of course Malcolm has a track record of sorting things out ...doesn't he, it's just that I can't think of anything that comes to mind at the moment.

<keating>  "was a bit like a big red bunger on cracker night"







</keating>


----------



## Tisme (6 August 2017)

https://media.giphy.com/media/3ohzgSc09zmHqDX4k0/giphy.gif


----------



## SirRumpole (6 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> https://media.giphy.com/media/3ohzgSc09zmHqDX4k0/giphy.gif




Tell it to the retards in the LNP.


----------



## crackajack (6 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Tell it to the retards in the LNP.



All the pollies in this country a f cukin retards only interested in lining their own sticking rich pockets.


----------



## crackajack (6 August 2017)

I like the latest add for the NBN you have to change over lol fascists.


----------



## crackajack (6 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> I like the latest add for the NBN you have to change over lol fascists.



Australia was once a great country about 50 years ago, now its just another money grabbing venture for the rich.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Tell it to the retards in the LNP.




I apologise to those with an intellectual disability. It's not their fault. The politicians are just greedy ideologically obsessed myopic idiots.


----------



## Tisme (6 August 2017)

crackajack said:


> Australia was once a great country about 50 years ago, now its just another money grabbing venture for the rich.





"Young Country Nation Building" swapped for "Every man for himself"


----------



## SirRumpole (6 August 2017)

Just another excuse for power companies to put up fixed charges as consumers get more efficient in reducing their usage charges ?

*Solar panels innovation gives round-the-clock power without pricey battery storage*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-06/big-data-devices-get-more-free-energy-from-sun/8774584


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> https://media.giphy.com/media/3ohzgSc09zmHqDX4k0/giphy.gif




Smurf politely points out that Qld had the second lowest price increase of the NEM states this year.

Tasmania had the lowest price rise of any NEM state, indeed prices for some customer classes have actually been reduced (and that's a real, actual price reduction in nominal terms).

In this whole saga SA and Vic are the leaders, NSW comes next, Qld is trailing behind and Tas went along with it just enough to avoid being smacked too hard by the feds and then went back the other way when nobody who matters was looking.

There was a bit of desperation from the other states via the feds a couple of years ago to the the whole privatisation thing pushed through here in Tas and also Qld. Anyone with a shred of industry knowledge knew we were heading for trouble and it's more than a tad embarrassing for the pro-privatisation crowd that the states who went down that track most aggressively and rapidly are the ones with the biggest problems now.

I'm not ideologically opposed to private ownership though as I've said many times. Get AGL, Engie, Origin, Alinta and others all in the same room and get them to work co-operatively and the problems are fixable. It's the nonsense of all working against each other, maximising profit through maximising revenue rather than minimising cost, which is messing it all up in every way - economic, engineering and environment are all suffering. It's all based on an economic theory which works fine where you have a storable and/or differentiated product but which fails when applied to different parts of an integrated system which necessarily work together. 

We've got a couple of private wind farm developments going ahead down here in Tas and they're being developed on that sort of model. https://www.hydro.com.au/about-us/news/2017-06/progress-granville-harbour-wind-farm-proposal


----------



## CanOz (6 August 2017)

Australia has its own unique set of challenges in order to really reach a world class energy management scenario....but given the opportunity, at present with renewable energy resources....why can't we be the leader?


----------



## SirRumpole (6 August 2017)

CanOz said:


> Australia has its own unique set of challenges in order to really reach a world class energy management scenario....but given the opportunity, at present with renewable energy resources....why can't we be the leader?




Because politicians leave it to business to invest in a small market in a very large country. Big risks for business which they don't want to take unless they get government guarantees, and some politicians are so ideologically obsessed with market philosophy that they don't see that sometimes socialist ideas like a State owned energy system is the best solution for our circumstances.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 August 2017)

CanOz said:


> Australia has its own unique set of challenges in order to really reach a world class energy management scenario....but given the opportunity, at present with renewable energy resources....why can't we be the leader?



We were leaders historically.

Plenty of world firsts achieved in Tas and in the Snowy scheme which have stood the test of time.

NT was an early adopter of combined cycle plant long before it became fashionable. They had it up and running in Darwin back in 1986.

WA gained international attention for the speed at which they moved away from heavy reliance on oil to minimal reliance following the 1970's oil shocks. They'd actually done it whilst others were still pondering how to go about it. And nobody could dispute the incredible flexibility they achieved at Kwinana, the second largest power station ever built in WA and at one point the largest, with the ability to run 3 fuels all at once if the need arose.

Queensland and NSW had the most fuel efficient fleet of coal-fired generation in the world.

Victoria was pretty much the global expert at using truly crap coal indeed someone in the US did actually build a Loy Yang clone since nobody else had a better design.

SA weren't so known for engineering but achieved something close to a miracle at keeping costs down despite having every possible natural factor against them. Crap coal in the middle of nowhere, extreme temperature variations, no hydro resources and a state that's sparsely populated apart from Adelaide itself but they still did it cheaper than most and blackouts weren't common back then either.

So we were leaders on the technical side and also the third cheapest in the OECD too. If we'd continued with that "find a way or make one" approach then we'd have done just fine with the transition to alternative sources of energy indeed most state authorities were already giving that some very serious thought back in the 1980's.

The SECV put a grid-connect solar system on a private house over 30 years ago for evaluation.

Vic, Tas, SA, WA were all looking for sites for wind farms back then to and had wind resource monitoring programs in place.

There's a lot of talk about pumped hydro today but few realise that even SA had some decent plans for how to do it 35 years ago as did other states.

The only reason it was all thrown away was ideology.....

Today what used to exist in terms of organisations, planning and internal engineering capability is completely gone in SA, Vic and NSW. It's a shadow of what it once was in Qld and WA whilst it's largely intact in the NT and Tas.

No surprises to find out that SA, Vic and NSW are seeing huge price rises, there are lesser rises in Qld and WA, and no problem in NT or Tas. That's not a coincidence.


----------



## Logique (24 January 2018)

This is where we're headed folks.  The world must be laughing at us.  Aussie businesses are already feeling the pinch, and that means jobs.
Original graph in: joannenova.com.au


----------



## sptrawler (24 January 2018)

This is the problem when a Country is driven by complacent people, with too much time and money available to them, they find a way to stuff it up.
It won't be long before everyone goes, "where the hell did our standard of living go".


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Logique said:


> This is where we're headed folks.  The world must be laughing at us.  Aussie businesses are already feeling the pinch, and that means jobs.
> Original graph in: joannenova.com.au
> View attachment 85859




Some allowance should be made for population density and economy of scale, but there is no doubt that we have gone backwards in recent years due to bad political decisions.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

USA is the second cheapest on that list, yet it is mostly privately owned infrastructure, so that goes against the argument all our troubles are simply because of private investment


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> USA is the second cheapest on that list, yet it is mostly privately owned infrastructure, so that goes against the argument all our troubles are simply because of private investment




Same land area, 10x the customers, not a valid comparison.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Same land area, 10x the customers, not a valid comparison.




Why, it has a less dense population than some others on the list. 

and some states in the USA still have cheap electricity even though the states are low density.

For example Nebraska has half the population of Sydney, but electricity is cheaper.

(not saying density isn't an issue, but there are low density areas that have lower prices than us.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 January 2018)

There's no inherent problem with ownership being either public or private.

What's making it expensive is an inefficient market structure and the ideologically-driven forcing of some very unnatural outcomes.

The latest idea is multiple companies competing for metering. Let's just say I haven't heard anyone even pretend that's going to save consumers money - hell no it isn't. So there's another cost that consumers will be paying. And that's without mentioning that consumers are being stuffed around by these companies who can't get the work done anyway - that's a direct cost to the consumer when it's preventing them from installing solar or changing tariff.

The biggest mistake anyone can make in trying to work out what the "problem" is would be to start with an assumption that the aim is to minimise costs to consumers. That was the objective 25+ years ago but it isn't today.

So far as renewables are concerned, it's a huge wasted opportunity in my view. We've spent the money but on the wrong things - now we're reliant on a fleet of aging power stations and are paying huge prices.


----------



## Logique (24 January 2018)

Australia is going over an energy cliff. That's fine for Malcolm and The Loyal Deputy, _they_ can pay their household bills from their indexed parliamentary pensions. As for Josh, of dear, the poor love..

Coal-fired or nuclear-powered generation plants should be underway .. as of yesterday.

Elon Musk's battery in SA = 1% of the state's capacity.


----------



## Logique (24 January 2018)

_'The biggest mistake anyone can make in trying to work out what the "problem" is would be to start with an assumption that the aim is to *minimise costs to consumers*. That was the objective 25+ years ago but it isn't today.' _: Smurf

You will excuse me if I respectfully disagree with this statement Smurf!


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Logique said:


> _'The biggest mistake anyone can make in trying to work out what the "problem" is would be to start with an assumption that the aim is to *minimise costs to consumers*. That was the objective 25+ years ago but it isn't today.' _: Smurf
> 
> You will excuse me if I respectfully disagree with this statement Smurf!




Smurf is quite right . The objective today is to let private enterprise make heaps of dough at the expense of consumers, in return for political donations or jobs on boards.

Totally corrupt.


----------



## explod (24 January 2018)

Smurf is spot on,  most of you are living in the past. 

A number of countries are nearly 100% solar and wind.   Very many near 50% England is one and they do not have the sun we have. 

A friend at Bendigo is attached to the grid only to supply power from his solar panels.  Till now was getting $7000 a year back (i believe govnuts are reducing this rebate %) .   He runs his house on a separate set of panels.  And he does not have windpower.  It will not take long for others to follow.


----------



## sptrawler (24 January 2018)

explod said:


> A friend at Bendigo is attached to the grid only to supply power from his solar panels.  Till now was getting $7000 a year back (i believe govnuts are reducing this rebate %) .   He runs his house on a separate set of panels.  And he does not have windpower.  It will not take long for others to follow.




I don't know how it works in Victoria, but in W.A your friend wouldn't have been able to do it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-...ariffs-force-solar-users-to-batteries/7957386


----------



## sptrawler (24 January 2018)

explod said:


> A number of countries are nearly 100% solar and wind.   Very many near 50% England is one and they do not have the sun we have.




A bit misleading plod, which countries are 100% solar and wind?

Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay obtain essentially all of their electricity from renewable sources (Albania and Paraguay 100% from hydroelectricity, Iceland 72% hydro and 28% geothermal). Norway obtains nearly all of its electricity from renewable sources (97 percent from hydropower).


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 January 2018)

I should clarify my comment by saying that what I mean is that the focus of politics, government as such and the industry itself is not directed at lowering prices.

Politics and government is primarily focused on creating markets for the sake of it. In some cases it makes sense, in others it just creates an illusion of competition and adds costs but governments are ideologically committed to the concept and are pursuing it no matter what.

Just about every company involved, both privately owned and those owned by governments, is all too aware of the embedded inefficiencies but couldn’t change it even if they wanted to since doing so would be strongly at odds with government policy and to some extent the law.

The companies aren’t making as much as you probably think. Some profits certainly but there are huge costs embedded which are soaking up the money.

So my point is that it’s all driven by various ideologies, price minimisation not being one of them.


----------



## sptrawler (24 January 2018)

When the State Governments ran the grid as a monopoly and as an essential service , they decided the price on a social basis, they cross subsidised many facets of the business.
Now it is priced on a business model, which doesn't have much sympathy for the social outcome.
Now shareholders and profits, are much further up the food chain, than the users.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Smurf is quite right . The objective today is to let private enterprise make heaps of dough at the expense of consumers, in return for political donations or jobs on boards.
> 
> Totally corrupt.




It's only corrupt if we believe that politicians work for the plebs. Since they don't, they're only doing their job.

Guess who made the likes of Kerry Packer and Murdoch their billions? Good policies that flogs off state assets for next to nothing. That's one. Two is taxpayer funded business ventures where losses are passed to the plebs but profits goes to the job creators.


----------



## Tisme (25 January 2018)

explod said:


> Smurf is spot on,  most of you are living in the past.
> 
> A number of countries are nearly 100% solar and wind.   Very many near 50% England is one and they do not have the sun we have.
> 
> A friend at Bendigo is attached to the grid only to supply power from his solar panels.  Till now was getting $7000 a year back (i believe govnuts are reducing this rebate %) .   He runs his house on a separate set of panels.  And he does not have windpower.  It will not take long for others to follow.




Luckily I'm on the state guaranteed rebate system so that is the way I'm heading, except I will keep a feed in connect to the grid. Being on the water I get fairly continuous winds too, so I'm building a DC wind generator with inverter as well.


----------



## explod (25 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I don't know how it works in Victoria, but in W.A your friend wouldn't have been able to do it.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-...ariffs-force-solar-users-to-batteries/7957386



His two set ups are independent of each other.  Have mentioned here before of a family at Little River,  10 acre block near Geelong went off the grid about six years ago and yes had to go through a considerable court battle.  Rarely uses his diesel back up apparently. 

My point is that current costs have a people talking about it.  Like horse to car,  its going to happen.


----------



## explod (25 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> A bit misleading plod, which countries are 100% solar and wind?
> 
> Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay obtain essentially all of their electricity from renewable sources (Albania and Paraguay 100% from hydroelectricity, Iceland 72% hydro and 28% geothermal). Norway obtains nearly all of its electricity from renewable sources (97 percent from hydropower).



Yes,  you'd be more accurate but getting closer all the time.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 January 2018)

Right now there are diesel generators (diesel engines that is) running flat out in SA supplying the grid. Specifically those at Angaston and Lonsdale / Port Stanvac.

Meanwhile there's significant spare capacity at Torrens Island power station and also at Hallett (both of which are gas-fired). There's also spare gas and a bit of hydro generation in Vic and spare capacity on the lines between Vic and SA.

That makes no sense whatsoever if the aim is to minimise costs, minimise emissions or simply use pure commonsense but it makes absolute sense if the aim is to push prices up and make money.

So no, the market as it stands does not produce an efficient outcome. Makes money though.


----------



## sptrawler (28 January 2018)

Smurph, it looks as though the manure has hit the fan in Victoria, i don't think people realise it is going to get progressively worse.

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...-about-to-get-very-muggy-20180127-h0pbxn.html


----------



## Tisme (2 February 2018)

"110 m long 5.5 m high 6.5 m wide. Approx 650 tonne."


"1 generator. 6 trucks and a shitload of awesome 
	

		
			
		

		
	






	

		
			
		

		
	
. Best spot to watch it coming up mattingley hill, all the trucks just going full noise shuffling down gears as they slowed down to keep all 650T hauling up the hill."


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 February 2018)

That’s the alternator from unit 1 at Loy Yang A on it’s way to be repaired following a major incident last year.

There’s a temporary spare they got from wherever in place of it at the moment.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 February 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That’s the alternator from unit 1 at Loy Yang A on it’s way to be repaired following a major incident last year.
> 
> There’s a temporary spare they got from wherever in place of it at the moment.




Interesting that they can't repair it on site.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting that they can't repair it on site.



It comes down to what individual companies do (Loy Yang A is owned by AGL). In this case they've sent it to Germany. I can only assume that means AGL don't have the capabilities themselves (noting that this is a major failure not just routine maintenance).

In the past such repairs have been done in Australia indeed a similar job was done circa year 2000 just a short walk away at Loy Yang B. That plant is separately owned and the work was done with the assistance of a contractor (Hitachi from memory).

For the various owners of generation it varies considerably in terms of what their capabilities are. Ranges from having heavy engineering / manufacturing capability "in house" through to total reliance on contractors for everything beyond basic day to day operations.

How willing they are to work with rival generating companies can also be a factor. Eg company A might well have the capability to do something but will they make that available to rival generating company X? And would X be willing to engage a rival to do the work anyway? Some will, some won't.

Photo: Wilmot power station (Tas) partially dismantled for maintenance. This is a vertical axis machine - so the turbine and water is down below the alternator that's in the photo with the shaft being vertical.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 February 2018)

Something I should have added is that whilst AGL don't seem to have the ability to do the repair themselves, they've done brilliantly so far as having spares on hand is concerned.

Pretty much nobody keeps a complete spare stator on hand at a power station but for whatever reason AGL decided to do so and that approach has turned out to have been a good move although faults of that nature are pretty rare.

So whilst it's headed to Germany to be fixed it could certainly be said that AGL were well prepared in this instance.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 February 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Something I should have added is that whilst AGL don't seem to have the ability to do the repair themselves, they've done brilliantly so far as having spares on hand is concerned.
> 
> Pretty much nobody keeps a complete spare stator on hand at a power station but for whatever reason AGL decided to do so and that approach has turned out to have been a good move although faults of that nature are pretty rare.
> 
> So whilst it's headed to Germany to be fixed it could certainly be said that AGL were well prepared in this instance.




Is exporting these things for repairs a recent practise or has it been going on for a while ?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 February 2018)

An exciting development.

It's that man Musk again.

*Elon Musk's Tesla and SA Labor reach deal to give solar panels and batteries to 50,000 homes*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ve-solar-panels-batteries-to-sa-homes/9394352


----------



## CanOz (4 February 2018)

Awaiting the smurfs commentary...


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 February 2018)

Two major things just happened in terms of announcements:

1. In Tasmania the Liberal party has for practical purposes rejected the notion that a free market is the way to go. Yes you read correctly. Bear in mind in that context that Tasmania is about to have a state election.

In an ideological sense the Liberal policy is a "go it alone" approach on the basis that the competitive National Electricity Market is producing prices that are too high and which a state owned monopoly could very easily beat.

In a practical sense that means nothing physically changes but administratively Tasmania would exempt itself from the market so far as supply within the state is concerned. So still a participant in the National Electricity Market in a physical sense but "building a wall" in order to prevent Victorian prices flowing through to Tasmanian consumers. That's an administrative arrangement not a physical one and is essentially a rejection of the notion that there ought to be a free market.

This could get interesting and I say that more from a political perspective than an electrical one. I never thought I'd see the Liberals advocating the merits of state run monopolies over free markets but it just happened.

2. Then there's SA's plan with batteries on homes. That's a Labor plan bearing in mind that SA is also having an election.

Like most I'm a tad confused as to exactly where the money's coming from and how it all adds up so I'll reserve comment until I have the facts there. One thing's very clear though - the SA government has effectively found a way to get someone else to compete against not only generators and retailers but to be a partial competitor against the networks as well (since that's exactly what having a battery represents - lower volumes sent over the network). The "monopoly" nature of the networks doesn't look like as much of a monopoly as it did a few days ago.

So whilst I'm a bit unsure exactly where the $ are going, overall SA seems to be going down the track of government doing whatever it takes to bring new (priavely owned) entrants to the market in order to increase supply and push down prices. They're also very visibly going down a "high tech" track with it all.

Overall the Tas and SA approaches are very different but along with Qld's they have something in common. All are exerting a degree of control over the National Electricity Market due to perceived unacceptable outcomes involving price and reliability. That leaves NSW and Vic as the only places with a "free" market as such.

The (mostly privately owned) participants in the National Electricity Market are effectively "on notice" that the states will not accept market outcomes which involve high prices or lack of reliability. Looking forward, I do wonder how keen some of them will be to remain involved with this industry? Gut feel tells me that there's going to be some who want out.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> Gut feel tells me that there's going to be some who want out.




Of course if governments re-enter the market and in effect supply subsidised power then it makes it less attractive for profit making concerns, but maybe it's an opportunity for State or Federal governments to buy back some cheap assets, if they are still worth buying that is.

Yes we should see this in the light of elections. NSW hasn't said anything because they still have two years to run, but I hope that they eventually see sense.


----------



## Logique (6 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> An exciting development.
> It's that man Musk again.
> *Elon Musk's Tesla and SA Labor reach deal to give solar panels and batteries to 50,000 homes*
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ve-solar-panels-batteries-to-sa-homes/9394352



50k homes X $15k each?  $750Mill?  Elon is a generous man.


----------



## sptrawler (6 February 2018)

Logique said:


> 50k homes X $15k each?  $750Mill?  Elon is a generous man.




It sounds as though he gets $30million up front to start the roll out, then the system is supposed to become self supporting by giving up the excess generation to be on sold.
Sounds like magic to me, but it will get the batteries installed, then they just have to address the supply charge.
It will be interesting to see how much it finally costs the taxpayer, but S.A has to do something, they have put themselves between a rock and a hard place.
Next I suppose they will be hoping for home owners, to get a dose of FOMO, then offer them a sweetheart deal to buy solar/ battery installations.
Not a bad idea really, saves the Government having to install more reserve capacity and pay for replacement/upkeep as it ages.
Eventually I suppose they will introduce it into the building codes, same as thermal efficiency, oh well here we go user pays.lol


----------



## rederob (11 April 2019)

Back on topic, Labor's pledge, should they come into office, is to go back to the NEG.
Presently there is no actual energy policy in place for electricity, but instead a plan to reduce the price to consumers.  To underpin this the Coalition was to implement the Retailer Reliability Obligation.  The Energy Security Board sought submissions on the proposal, so I have linked one here.

Elsewhere over recent days there has been talk on which threads in the General Chat area contribute value to a stock market forum.  Many could do with better contributions that suggest a link back to effects on market behaviour.  Some won't get close.  While I chose to link to only one specific contributor - AGL - you can see here that electricity supply and costs significantly affect many of our bigger players in the stock market, and that they are keen improve what was being proposed.


----------

