Alternative energy?

[Smurf1976]

Alternative energy...
Me, trying to give up the smokes.

"Smoking is old fashioned, obsolete and no longer required"

That's actually a quote from an electric heating advertisement from the 1990's by the way, referring to smoke from wood fires that is.

 

[frugal.rock]

Another option,
Bio gas/ digestors.
Lawnies and tree fellers probably happy to supply for free.
Dunno, lots of options really.
Apparently hemp burns very hot, as does Black Wattle. The tanner's use to love it, the black bark for tanning agent and the timber grain is tight and dense and burns up to 4x longer than other hardwood. A proper chainsaw killer...

 

[Smurf1976]

I asked the following question in the oil analysis thread. But thought I would ask it here (without creating a new thread) Basically with Oil Price being very low for maybe quite some time, what impact does it have on alternative energy companies in the supply / development business?

Assuming you're thinking in terms of Australian companies (?) one point to consider is this.

We have to build something or we'll be sitting in the dark.

That's by no means an overstatement of the situation for it's simply the reality that we're heavily dependent on plant that's now past its design life and time's running out. There's plenty on both "sides" of the debate all to aware of that reality. Plenty on the environmental side of the debate who've come to see the problem not as how to close coal but that it might close involuntarily before we've got a replacement. Plenty of engineers fretting about the same scenario.

Sunday 7th June 2020 at 13:33 and we have another incident with a major power station in NSW falling in a heap. All running OK then down we go, the whole station straight to zero and that's where it still is right now. I'm not aware of exactly what's happened but overall it's not really surprising since 1970's machinery's getting a bit tired and worn out these days so things will go wrong yes. The lights stayed on because load was taken up but other plant as far away as Adelaide and in Queensland.

Overall the situation varies between states but some serious building of new generating plant, using whatever technology and resources, is going to be required in some ares if Australia is to remain a developed country.

In NSW over 60% of total electricity supply on an annual basis is coming from facilities that'll be shut by the middle of next decade so there's plenty needing to be built indeed the first of the closures is only 2 years away.

Vic, SA and Qld also have significant reliance on plant that's coming to the end of its of technical lifespan. Part of the NT too, although the small scale there makes replacement somewhat more straightforward up there.

WA's in much better shape. Not without issues, but they've got plenty of modern plant overall.

Tas no real drama, just keep maintaining it all and it'll keep going, building things is more about supplying increased load (industry, electric cars, interstate) than any actual problem with what's already there.

As for what all that means with renewables, well I'll keep out of politics beyond noting that the answer to the question is to significant extent a political one. From a technical perspective it could be done with renewables no worries but then it could also be done with fossil fuels or if someone's keen nuclear.

So it's a political and economic question - but if nothing gets done then ultimately existing plant won't run forever no matter how much yelling and screaming anyone in a suit wants to do.

 

[jbocker]

Assuming you're thinking in terms of Australian companies (?) one point to consider is this.

We have to build something or we'll be sitting in the dark.

That's by no means an overstatement of the situation for it's simply the reality that we're heavily dependent on plant that's now past its design life and time's running out. There's plenty on both "sides" of the debate all to aware of that reality. Plenty on the environmental side of the debate who've come to see the problem not as how to close coal but that it might close involuntarily before we've got a replacement. Plenty of engineers fretting about the same scenario.

Sunday 7th June 2020 at 13:33 and we have another incident with a major power station in NSW falling in a heap. All running OK then down we go, the whole station straight to zero and that's where it still is right now. I'm not aware of exactly what's happened but overall it's not really surprising since 1970's machinery's getting a bit tired and worn out these days so things will go wrong yes. The lights stayed on because load was taken up but other plant as far away as Adelaide and in Queensland.

Overall the situation varies between states but some serious building of new generating plant, using whatever technology and resources, is going to be required in some ares if Australia is to remain a developed country.

In NSW over 60% of total electricity supply on an annual basis is coming from facilities that'll be shut by the middle of next decade so there's plenty needing to be built indeed the first of the closures is only 2 years away.

Vic, SA and Qld also have significant reliance on plant that's coming to the end of its of technical lifespan. Part of the NT too, although the small scale there makes replacement somewhat more straightforward up there.

WA's in much better shape. Not without issues, but they've got plenty of modern plant overall.

Tas no real drama, just keep maintaining it all and it'll keep going, building things is more about supplying increased load (industry, electric cars, interstate) than any actual problem with what's already there.

As for what all that means with renewables, well I'll keep out of politics beyond noting that the answer to the question is to significant extent a political one. From a technical perspective it could be done with renewables no worries but then it could also be done with fossil fuels or if someone's keen nuclear.

So it's a political and economic question - but if nothing gets done then ultimately existing plant won't run forever no matter how much yelling and screaming anyone in a suit wants to do.

I would think it is an ideal time for building infrastructure.
Firstly a HUGE hole to doze all the political BS into and then some micro medical engineering to replace some undersized bollocks on a politician of note.
It would seem that the prevailing policy is keep dodging the bullet and let someone in future take a bite at it.
I am sure either party would be welcomed to at least attempt to be innovative and make a renewable on a grand scale. Do this along with some smaller back up new traditional generators to ensure the baseload. Smurf do you think that there is anything happening in that realm?

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf do you think that there is anything happening in that realm?

Plenty of engineers have some well thought out plans. Different approaches from different people but ideas certainly.

AEMO has crunched a lot of numbers and come up with a lot of scenarios but their hands are tied in doing anything since they don't own any of the generation or network assets, they're only the market operator.

At the corporate level AGL (ASX: AGL), Origin Energy (ASX: ORG), Hydro Tasmania (Tasmanian state government owned) and Snowy Hydro (Australian government owned) have all put forward ideas and specific proposals approaching the problem from a national or at least multiple states perspective as have others.

Where the problems arise is with the lack of any real direction at the government level.

Despite their government ownership Snowy and Hydro Tas are ultimately run as for-profit businesses and that goes a lot further than you might expect. There's a board, CEO, they run private sector style accounting, employees are not covered by any PS conditions of employment or pay rates, they pay tax and are expected to make a profit and so on. AGL and Origin are of course investor owned companies and run to make a profit for shareholders.

So they all have the same basic issue that they can't go and spend $ billions without there being a sound business case behind that decision. Investors in AGL or Origin have no obligation to ensure the nation has adequate power and the Tasmanian state government obviously has no obligation to ensure the lights stay on in Victoria. They'll invest only if it stacks up as an investment and the problem there comes down to one word - RISK.

So long as there's political squabbling over it, nobody's going to risk blowing their money on one approach only to find that government's now going in the opposite direction. We are, after all, talking about very long term investments here spanning 30 - 100 years and that's a key point, this all extends over decades hence the desire for certainty.